Maryland Injury and Disability Law : Washington DC Metro Injury & Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Greenberg & Bederman : Accidents, Falls, Medical Malpractice : Maryland, DC, Virginia

DC Social Security Hearing Office Computer System Shut Down

The DC Social Security hearing office came to a grinding halt on Wednesday and, sad to say, it is still not up and running. Yes, it’s true. The computer system at the DC hearing office (ODAR) is down and almost nothing is getting done. Without the computer they cannot check the status of cases, they can’t look at the electronic files, they simply can’t do anything that requires using the computer system. On a practical basis this means that the hearing office is almost completely shut down.

This is really unacceptable. And it’s yet another roadblock in the path of clearing out the backlog of cases. This makes me long for the days of doing everything by hand.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Social Security Children’s Benefits

Some of our clients call us because they need some help with their children who are disabled. I noticed a pattern in the questions, and decided to post a small blog of frequently asked questions as they relate to children’s social security disability benefits.

What type of benefits are available for disabled children?

                Some children who are either born with or develop medical conditions may be eligible for Social Security Disability benefits.

We already know that people who have worked can usually be eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), or if not, possibly Supplemental Security Income (SSI). So, what type of benefits could a disabled child be eligible for?

 

Disabled children may apply for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. It is the same program used for adults who either never have worked, or have not worked in a long time. A child under 18 can qualify for SSI if he/she meets Social Security’s definition of disability for children, AND, if his/her income and resources fall within the eligibility limits. The federally permitted SSI amount paid monthly is $674.00 for 2009, but it may vary depending on where you live. The amount of the SSI payment is different from one state to another because some states add to the SSI payment. Your local Social Security Office can tell you more about your state’s total SSI payment. Click here to see the local office SSI calculation.

 

 

 

 

To learn more about our social security lawyers please read about Dory Sutker, or Suja Varghese.

 

 

When is the earliest date that SSI can be paid?

 

The earliest date that SSI can be paid is the date that the application was filed, however, if the child’s impairment or combination of impairments didn’t reach the severity level as determined by Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations, the claim may be granted well after the date of the application.

What happens if the SSI claim is paid from a date other than the application date?

 

If the SSI claim is paid from a date other than the application date, you may appeal the time period that hasn’t been awarded, but if you do so, the review will be “de novo”, which means that the entire claim can be reversed and you will be forced to pay SSA back for the money they have already paid, if any.

If your child is receiving medical treatment for a condition that is not expected to resolve in twelve (12) months, we encourage you to apply for benefits immediately.

For example, a woman contacted us about her eight year old child, who had been receiving treatment for a combination of physical and mental conditions. The mother described the problems she had had with her son's behavior, both in school and at home, and it sounded rather severe. These problems had persisted despite appropriate medical treatment. So after a few years of dealing with her son's impairments, she finally decided to file for benefits.

Wouldn't you know it, the medical records describing her son's symptoms showed that although he had experienced problems that SSA would find disabling and grant benefits for, the medical records of the current time period --- from the date of the application --- showed that his symptoms had become more manageable, for whatever reason.

Ultimately, his claim was denied.

If you have a child who has been diagnosed with medical condition(s) that limit or prevent them from behaving either physically or mentally like other children of their age, you may want to consider discussing with their treating physician whether these symptoms will last for the next twelve months. If the physician says yes, then you should file a claim for SSI on your child's behalf. If your child's symptoms getting better while the claim is pending, then you can decide to withdraw the application.

As always, we atGreenberg & Bederman are available to answer an questions you may have regarding this or any other Social Security or personal injury question, including medical malpractice issues involving nursing home abuse or neglect, and accident injury cases.  If you want to learn more about social security law, please read our social security disability FAQ page.  If you want to learn more about our social security disability lawyers, please read about Suja Varghese, or Dory Sutker.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ever wonder how much you’ll receive in retirement benefits from Social Security? Now you can find out the answer. Recently, the Social Security Administration (SSA) added the retirement estimator to its website. The estimator is a planning tool that permits you to get a personalized estimate of your potential Social Security retirement benefit.

It is tied to your actual earnings record so you do not need to enter years of earning information. Your reported earnings are automatically accessed.

The Social Security Administration maintains that the site is secure. According to the Social Security Administration, the estimator does not reveal any personal information such as your address, earnings, or other information. The estimates are only provided online. And, for security reasons, there are time limits for viewing each page. After 25 minutes without any activity, you are given a warning.

The estimator is not for everyone. It is intended for use by those you are not receiving benefits (including medicare) on their own social security record and have enough credits to qualify for benefits. If you are subject to an offset based upon a pension, it is not for you.

One benefit of the estimator is that you can compare different retirement options by entering different dates of retirement or expected earnings. But, keep in mind that estimates are just estimates. The estimator is not adjusted for inflation and it bases its estimate on projected earnings.

To access the retirement estimator go to www.ssa.gov and click on retirement.

To learn more about social security disability law issues please click social security law. To learn about our social security disability lawyer in Maryland, please click social security disability lawyer maryland, and read our firm bios on Dory Sutker or Suja Varghese.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Social Security Administration Insurance


Here is an argument I hear over and over again from clients:“I paid into Social Security for years and I only want to get back the money I put into the system. Why do they make it so difficult for me to get back my own money?”

In reality, when you file a social security disability claim, you are not trying to just get your own money back. Nor would you want just that. Generally speaking, the money a person may have paid into social security over the years would not last very long if that was all a person could receive from the agency.

Let’s look at this a little closer. Most people are aware that employees must pay a tax or contribution usually referred to as FICA. This stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. For employees* in 2008 the tax rate (or contribution) is 6.2%** of income up to $102,000. So, the maximum amount a person pays into the system in a year is $6,324. Thus, if you had annual earnings of $102,000 or more in 2008, under the above argument you could only receive $6,324 a year. This translate to a monthly benefit of $ 527.00. This is way below the actual amount a higher earner would receive for his/her monthly benefits.

So, for social security disability purposes, think of your payment of the social security tax like a premium for insurance benefits. When you make a claim on a insurance policy, you expect the insurer to investigate the claim. Accordingly, you should expect SSA to investigate your application.

* The tax rate for self employed individuals is different.
** This does not include the Medicare tax.
Sources: www.ssa.gov; www.nosscr.com

To learn more about social security disability issues, please click here or to read about our social security disability lawyers in Maryland, please visit our website at G&B website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

RE: Docket Number SSA-2007-0044

Upon review of the proposed regulations for hearings and appeals, we have several concerns. While we applaud SSA’s desire to expedite the agency’s processing times, we are fearful that the steps implemented in order to accelerate the process will come at the sacrifice of fair and accurate decision making.

1) The proposed changes to the regulations transform the program from an informal, non- adversarial one into a complex, legalistic, formal one. This transformation comes with many pitfalls along the way. For example, there are more time limitations in the process. Failure to comply with the strict time limitations can result in dismissal. The unrepresented claimant is especially vulnerable.

The new requirement that the request for hearing include a statement that lists the "medically determinable impairments" is unduly restrictive. Does this limit the impairments that can be considered by the ALJ? Claimants should not be limited only to those impairments listed at the time of their appeal.

The new proposal eliminates the criteria in the current regulations which direct when the ALJ is required to change the time/and or place of hearing. It also severely limits the good cause factors for rescheduling and gives nearly total discretion to the ALJ. Without these guidelines, there will be cases dismissed inappropriately and many claimants will have little, if any, recourse.



2) New restrictions on the submission of evidence violate the Social Security Act and are fundamentally unfair.

The proposal requires that all evidence must be filed five (5) business days before the hearing date or it is considered "late" and is subject to new rules. Similar proposals were advanced years ago but were abandoned for a variety of reasons. SSA itself previously discarded such a proposal because it appeared to close the record in contravention of the statute. Congress reviewed the issue and concluded that limitations on the introduction of evidence overlook the reality that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain evidence in a timely fashion, and that, in some instances these limitations may conflict with the statute.

In addition, the proposed changes conflict with the ALJ’s obligation to fully and fairly develop the record. It is well established in case law that an ALJ has a duty to develop the record. This duty is heightened in cases where the claimant is unrepresented. This duty would be negated by the time limits for submitting evidence. These changes will result in ALJs making decisions based upon an incomplete record.


While we support the submission of evidence as early in the process as possible, to the extent that important and relevant evidence becomes available at a later point in the process, the claimant should not be precluded from submitting it, since this is not an adversarial process but a "truth-seeking" one. There are many practical reasons why the record should not be closed before the hearing. For example, in many instances, claimants seek representation after the hearing has been scheduled. In many of these cases, there is simply insufficient time to obtain the records. Even if the full 75 days notice is available, that is not always sufficient. Medical providers are frequently uncooperative in providing the records in an expeditious fashion. Some ALJs refuse to issue subpoenas and even in cases where the ALJ agrees to issue the subpoena, they do not have the power to enforce same.

Finally, this new proposal would precipitate more court filings. Under 42 U.S.C. §405(g) a federal court may remand a case and require SSA to consider additional evidence if (1) it is new and material; and (2) there is good cause for the failure to submit it earlier. The proposed requirement for submission of evidence is more restrictive than the Act, and would create conflict. Claimants will be forced to file appeals to federal courts in order to have SSA consider evidence that was improperly excluded. The district court judge will be asked to decide whether the ALJ or Review Board was wrong to refuse to consider evidence. As a result, the new time limits will create unnecessary litigation and will cause an increase in federal court filings.

3) The proposal regarding administrative review significantly limits the claimant’s right to review erroneous ALJ decisions.

The proposed change is inconsistent with the Social Security Act and raises some troublesome legal issues. For example, what if the court reverses and specifically states in its remand order that the agency consider new evidence? Does the proposed change attempt to limit the court’s power by restricting the scope of review it can order for remand proceedings?

Moreover, this proposal is ambiguous and can be interpreted as establishing time limited benefits. On remand, the ALJ would not be allowed to consider an increase in severity of the original impairment or the development of a new impairment. At best, the proposal means that a claimant, on remand, will be limited to establishing disability no later that the date of the first ALJ decision. But, at worst, the proposal could be interpreted to mean that the claimant could be found disabled for a period, ending no later than the date of the original ALJ decision. Under either scenario, the claimant would be forced to file a new application for any change in his/her condition that occurs after the date of the original ALJ decision. Both interpretations will have an adverse impact on claimants and the fallout from this includes, inter alia, loss of access to health care benefits and loss of protection from the medical improvement standard.


4) Forcing claimants to file multiple applications is not fair or efficient. By closing the record to new evidence and limiting the period that can be considered to determine eligibility, claimants would be forced to file multiple applications. This, in turn, raises other concerns. Claimants may jeopardize eligibility by reapplying. There are consequences to reapplying in lieu of appealing. Congress recognized this years ago. One can’t help but wonder why SSA would force a claimant to file an additional application when the claim for disability could be resolved by making a decision based upon a complete record.

5) The new restrictions on re-opening prior applications are unfair. Under current law, reopening for good cause may occur within two years (SSI) or four years (Title II) on the initial determination if there is "new and material evidence". Reopening is discretionary and cannot be required but it can be used to correct unjust determinations. The proposed regulations eliminate ALJ discretion to reopen a previous decision where new and material evidence demonstrates that the claimant was disabled at an earlier time. The rationale for this is that claimants should not be able to circumvent the new time limits for submitting evidence after the record is closed. This proposal is unfair for claimants in many situations. It is especially unfair for claimants who were unrepresented and whose cases were poorly developed. It is also particularly unfair for mentally challenged claimants whose limitations prevent or interfere with their ability to cooperate with the development. There are many instances in which this proposal could lead to an injustice which could not be corrected. In cases where insured status has expired, the individual could be left without recourse.

6) The proposed standard of review before the Review Board is too vague. The proposal includes a new "harmless error" rule and states that the Review Board will only act on "significant errors of law". There is no further clarification.

The above comments touch upon some of our concerns. Again, we are grateful that SSA is looking for solutions which will expedite the administrative process. While a more expeditious process is desired, the principles of fairness and justice cannot be compromised. We implore you to reconsider these proposals and work toward creating a new proposal that will accelerate the process without sacrificing due process and fundamental fairness.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

VTY,

To learn more about social security disability issues, please visit social security disability law.  To learn more about our social security disability lawyers, please click on social security disability lawyers maryland, and read our firm bios on DOry Sutker or Suja Varghese.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks