Posts Tagged With: social security disability

Fugitive Attorney Eric Conn Faces Life Imprisonment In Social Security Benefits Fraud Case

Posted on October 18, 2017 by Judge London Steverson

Employee allegedly helped fugitive lawyer Eric Conn plot his escape for a year

Disgraced former disability lawyer Eric C. Conn plotted his escape for a year before absconding from home detention weeks before he was to be sentenced in a massive fraud case, according to a federal indictment unsealed Monday October 16, 2017.

The indictment levels new charges against Conn and Curtis Lee Wyatt, who worked for Conn at his law office in Stanville and allegedly tested security at the U.S. border with Mexico on Conn’s behalf.

The indictment charges the two with conspiring on Conn’s escape from June 2016 — just two months after Conn was first indicted — to June 2017. Conn was scheduled to be sentenced on July 14 in his federal criminal case, but absconded on June 2.

The indictment charged that Wyatt, of Raccoon in Pike County, took a number of steps to help Conn escape, including opening a bank account in Wyatt’s name that Conn used to transfer money out of the country.

Wyatt also allegedly bought a 2002 Dodge Ram pickup truck from an unnamed seller in Somerset in May for $3,425, then delivered it to Conn in Lexington on June 1 for him to use in the escape. Wyatt had the truck registered under the name Disability Services LLC.

Conn was on home detention while awaiting sentencing, but had permission from the federal probation office to be in Lexington June 1 and 2 to meet with his attorney and prosecutors, according to court records.

Conn cut the electronic monitor from his ankle the evening of June 2 and took off. He put the monitor inside a pouch with a metallic lining designed to suppress electronic signals and threw it out beside Interstate 75 near the Newtown Pike exit.

Conn allegedly ordered the bag and had it shipped to Wyatt, who later gave it to Conn in Lexington.

In the weeks leading up to the escape, Conn also had Wyatt use pedestrian entrances to Mexico at Nogales, Ariz., and Columbus, N.M., in order to test security procedures for people crossing into Mexico from the U.S., the indictment said.

The FBI found the truck in New Mexico.

In addition to conspiracy, the indictment charges Wyatt with helping Conn escape, conspiring in Conn’s failure to appear, abetting Conn’s failure to appear and with lying to the FBI.

Wyatt allegedly told the FBI he took the Dodge truck to Lexington for reasons unrelated to Conn.

The indictment also added charges of escape and failure to appear against Conn. The charges are punishable by up to five years in prison each.

The indictment did not say that Conn actually crossed the border into Mexico, and the FBI has not commented on Conn’s suspected whereabouts.

The indictment was returned more than a month ago, but was sealed until Monday.

Wyatt’s attorney, Thomas Lyons, said Monday that he did not think Wyatt has been arrested, but rather will receive a summons to make an initial court appearance this week.

The indictment also mentions an un-indicted co-conspirator. That can refer to someone who is cooperating with authorities in a case.

There is little information about the unnamed co-conspirator in the indictment. It said Wyatt took Conn’s Toyota Highlander back to Pikeville after giving Conn the pickup truck and that he gave the unnamed person the keys.

The alleged co-conspirator then sent Conn a text message that said: “The car thing is a done thing. I need to so something with what was sent back to me from the car. I don’t have any place to put it.”

The indictment did not explain what the message meant.

Lyons said he did not know the identify of that person.

Wyatt described himself as “kind of the fill-in person” at Conn’s law office when he was interviewed in 2012 by an investigator looking into whether Conn made illegal campaign contributions in a state Supreme Court race.

Wyatt said he started working for Conn in 2011. Among other duties, Wyatt said he usually handled firing employees for Conn. He said he had fired 40 to 50 people in a year, according to the investigator’s report.

Wyatt also allegedly played a role in trying to discredit an employee at the Social Security Administration who had tried to bring attention to potential improprieties by Conn and Administrative Law Judge David B. Daugherty, an ALJ at SSA who rubber-stamped disability claims for Conn.

Conn came up with a scheme to have his employees follow the woman, Sarah Carver, to try to discredit her by catching her not working from home on days when she was supposed to, according to sworn statements from other former Conn employees to U.S. Senate investigators.

Two longtime Conn employees said Wyatt secretly videotaped Carver going into the Social Security office in Huntington, W.V., but held up a newspaper from another day to make it appear she was fudging on her work-from-home time.

Former Conn employees also said Conn had Wyatt smash computer hard drives with hammers and then burn them after Conn became concerned about scrutiny of his relationship with Judge Daugherty.

Conn represented thousands of Eastern Kentucky residents in successful claims for federal disability benefits through the Social Security Administration, but pleaded guilty in March to stealing from the government and to bribing a Social Security judge.

Conn admitted putting false evidence of clients’ physical or mental disabilities in their claims, paying doctors to sign forms with little scrutiny, and giving more than $600,000 cash to Judge Daugherty.

Daugherty pleaded guilty in the case, and a psychologist from Pikeville, Dr. Bradley Adkins, was convicted of signing forms for Conn that included false information.

Another former Social Security Administrative Law Judge, Charlie Paul Andrus, pleaded guilty to being part of the scheme to discredit Carver.

More than a dozen charges against Conn in the original 2016 indictment remain in place. Attorney Eric Conn could be sentenced to life in prison if caught and convicted.

(For Herald-Leader, By Bill Estep, Oct 10, 2017)

Categories: socialNsecurity | Tags: Administrative law judge, Judge London Steverson, Social Security Administration, social security disability, Social Security disability benefits | Leave a comment

Thousands Of Americans Afraid To Appear At Social Security Hearings

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Judge London Steverson

Attorneys worry 1,000 or more Social Security beneficiaries will lose checks when re-evaluated.

Attorneys representing hundreds of people fighting to keep their Social Security federal disability benefits worry those benefits may disappear for most of them if they do not have a lawyer.

Each year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) orders thousands of people to attend Re-Evaluation hearings to determine whether they should continue receiving disability checks.

Many of those people are former clients of Attorney Eric C. Conn.

In 2011 a story appeared in the Wall Street Journal concerning the high rate in which SSA Judges approved Social Security disability cases.

Allegations of fraud came under investigation by a U.S. Senate committee. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was the Chairman of The Senate Committee. The Committee’s Report found widespread fraud and a veritable “disability claim factory” allegedly run by Attorney Eric C. Conn out of his small office in Stanville, Kentucky, a region of the country where 10 to 15 percent of the population receives disability payments.

The report documents how Attorney Conn allegedly worked together with Social Security Administrative Law Judge David Daugherty (ALJ) and a team of favored doctors with checkered pasts, including suspended licenses in other states, who rubber stamped approval of disability claims. In most cases, the claims had been prepared in advance with nearly identical language by staffers in Conn’s law office.

The report found that over the past six years, Attorney Conn allegedly paid five doctors almost $2 million to provide favorable disability opinions for his claimants.

In 2010, the last year for which records are available, Judge Daugherty approved 1375 disability cases prepared by Attorney Conn’s office and denied only 4 of them – an approval rate that other administrative law judges have described as nearly impossible.

Judge Daugherty, 78 years old, processed more cases than all but three judges in the U.S. He had a wry view of his less-generous peers. “Some of these judges act like it’s their own damn money we’re giving away,” ALJ Daugherty told a fellow Huntington SSA ALJ, Algernon Tinsley, who worked in the same office, Mr. Tinsley recalled.

The report found, “Judge Daugherty telephoned the Conn law firm each month and identified a list of Mr. Conn’s disability claimants to whom the judge planned to award benefits. Judge Daugherty also indicated, for each listed claimant, whether he needed a “physical” or “mental” opinion from a medical professional indicating the claimant was disabled.”

The report says that when Senate staffers and the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General began an investigation based on tips from whistle blowers in the Social Security Hearing Office, Attorney Conn and Judge Daugherty began communicating with disposable, pre-paid cell phones. It also alleges they contracted with a local shredding company to destroy 13 tons of documents.

Attorney Conn also allegedly destroyed all the computer hard drives in his office, a la Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

In 2011, the SSA placed Daugherty on administrative leave. He retired shortly after that.

In October 2013 a West Virginia Police Report said Judge Daugherty was found unconscious in his car in a Barboursville, WVa. church parking lot.

The report said the police found a garden hose running from the car’s exhaust into the passenger side of the vehicle.

Judge Daugherty was taken to a hospital and later released.

Conn has not been charged with a crime. He is suspected by congressional investigators of using fraudulent information to win the benefits. Attorney Conn’s legal fate remains in the hands of the Obama Justice Department.

A prevailing concern is that disability recipients who do not hire an attorney to represent them at their re-determination hearings will lose their benefits.

Unrepresented Claimants should not go through one of these complicated re-determination hearings without a lawyer. People appearing before SSA Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) can get a free lawyer on a contingent fee basis. The attorney does not get paid unless the client wins the case. That amounts to a free lawyer.

Many disability recipients do not hire legal representation for their hearings. They stand a good chance of losing their benefits.

Even some who were represented at Re-Determination Hearings are still anxious to hear results.

“Not knowing … that’s been the worst thing is not knowing and trying to prepare in case you do lose your benefits,” one beneficiary said.

One attorney who specializes in representing Social Security Claimants has said in recent weeks several people have told him they’ve thought about killing themselves if they lose their benefits.

“The suicide chatter is way up,” the Attorney said. “It was especially bad around Christmas. Unfortunately people have got this unfortunate response that suicide is somehow a rational response to losing their benefits”, the attorney said.

These are desperate times for many people in America who were once considered among the Middle Class. They have seen their living standards decline and are struggling to make ends meet. Many were laid off in the last eight years and have not been able to find new jobs. They are not counted in the Unemployment Statistics because they have dropped out of the labor pool. Many are between the ages of 50 and 65 and do not yet qualify for Social Security Retirement Benefits. They have not even reached the age when they would be eligible to apply for early retirement. For many Baby Boomers that is around age 62.

Categories: socialNsecurity | Tags: ALJ David Daugherty, attorney Eric Conn, Social Security Administration, Social Security Benefits, social security disability | Leave a comment

How To Win Your Social Security Disability Claim? Simple, Find The Right Judge.

Posted on March 9, 2015 by Judge London Steverson

Disability Claim Denied? Find the Right Judge

Nine percent of the judges who hear appeals grant benefits 90% of the time, costing taxpayers tens of billions.

To all parties involved in a trial, the slam of a gavel should indicate that justice has been served. Unfortunately, this is often not the case with Social Security Disability (SSDI and SSI) appeals. A system designed to serve society’s vulnerable has morphed into a benefit bonanza that costs taxpayers billions of dollars more than it should. The disability trust fund will become insolvent in 2016, and Congress would be wise to begin much needed reform.

A disability applicant whose claim is rejected during the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) first two stages ( before State Disability Determination Services) can appeal the decision to administrative-law judges (ALJ). These judges must impartially balance the claims of the applicant against the interests of taxpayers.

Over the past decade judicial impartiality has declined significantly, as many administrative-law judges uncritically approve most claims. In 2008 judges on average approved about 70% of claims before them, according to the Social Security Administration. Nine percent of judges approved more than 90% of benefit requests that landed on their desks.

Do nine out of every 10 applicants appealing denied claims need societal support? There are reasons for skepticism. The data show that judges who are generous in granting benefits are consistently generous over time—which is suspicious, since each year they should hear a random set of new cases. The more discerning judges—those who award benefits less than 90% of the time—are more unpredictable from year to year.

(Photo: Getty Images/Illustration Works)

If the judges with award rates topping 90% are removed from the data, the rate of denial increases by 2%-3% annually. That amounts to 98,000 claims from 2005-11. Assuming an average lifetime award of $250,000, taxpayers would have saved $23 billion over those six years had the worst judges left the bench. If we lower the threshold to exclude judges with award rates north of 85%, these savings increase to $41 billion.

Former Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, who took office in 2007, made much-needed changes. Incompetent incumbents saw their influence diluted by new judges drawn from fresh candidate lists. Judicial decisions are now randomly reviewed to ensure that the court remains impartial and fair to taxpayers. Judges were limited to hearing 1,000 cases a year (the figure has since been lowered to 700), and individuals are allowed only one disability application at a time.

Mr. Astrue’s reforms have produced good results. In 2011 judges with award rates exceeding 90% heard a mere 4% of all cases, a 63.6% decline from 2008. But Mr. Astrue’s term expired in 2013, and these changes can easily be undone, either intentionally by future administrators, or unintentionally as bad habits slip back into the system.

His program to increase accountability and judicial turnover should be made permanent. Congress should also institute 15-year term limits for judges, who currently enjoy lifetime tenure, to ensure that fresh legal minds are joining the stale judicial aristocracy. A term of a decade and a half is long enough to insulate judges and prevent undue political influence.

The system faces a huge backlog, made worse by claimants who play adjudication roulette, filing and then withdrawing appeals in hopes of drawing a generous judge. Congress can limit this gamesmanship by allowing only one application per claimant in a three-year period. Because judges must marshal more documentation for a denial than an approval, they have an incentive to grant benefits to keep the system chugging along. The agency can fix this by further limiting the number of cases each judge must decide to 500 from 700.

The system is further complicated because even if a claimant has legal counsel, the judge must advocate on the claimant’s behalf. This dual role should be ended. Most claimants—85%—now have third-party representation. These professionals should be held responsible for getting supporting materials into court expeditiously and completely so the record can be closed in a timely manner.

Even under better legal rules, judges will still face rigid and outdated guidelines for granting benefits. The framework they must follow—known as the Medical Vocational Grid (known as The Listings)—is formulaic to the point of senselessness. For instance, the bar to benefits approval is lower for someone who doesn’t speak English, on the theory that it is difficult to find a job without the language. But that English rule is also applied to claimants from Puerto Rico, where the language of business is Spanish.

These guidelines (in The Listings) also do not give due consideration to actual labor market experience, dictating a looser approval standard for someone with only a high-school degree, even if the person has succeeded in the labor force for decades.

The framework (of The Listings) was developed in the late 1950s, for the previous generation’s workforce, and hasn’t been updated since 1978. Decades ago workers ages 50 or 55 might have been considered retiring, but this is no longer generally the case. Novel job-training programs also make it easier than ever for workers to move into new fields and make up for low levels of education, and new disability criteria would account for these changes.

These solutions would begin to deliver meaningful reform to Social Security disability awards. They can restore dignity and efficacy to a troubled system.

(BY Mark J. Warshawsky And Ross A. Marchand, March 8, 2015)

(Mr. Warshawsky is a visiting scholar at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University and a former member of the Social Security Advisory Board from 2006 to 2012. Mr. Marchand is a first-year economics graduate student at George Mason University.)

Categories: socialNsecurity | Tags: Commissioner Michael Astrue, Commissioner Mike Astrue, congress, Social Security, Social Security Administration, social security disability, socialNecurity, State Disability Determination Services | Leave a comment

Social Security Disability Firm Binder & Binder Files for Bankruptcy

Posted on December 21, 2014 by Judge London Steverson

Social Security Disability Firm Binder & Binder Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

The Law Firm, Binder & Binder, a Long Island-based national Social Security Disability law firm had to reduce institutional debt after payments from the federal government slowed. The firm is dependent upon government-paid fees earned from shepherding Social Security Disability claimants through the system.

The firm is now facing a shrinking number of people seeking benefits and tougher scrutiny from the Social Security Administration (SSA) Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) who decide cases.

Binder& Binder has about 58,000 active cases or its 966 employees, many of whom aren’t lawyers. (In 2004, Congress made it easier for non-lawyers para-legals to represent applicants for Social Security disability benefits.)

In projections filed in court papers, Binder estimates its employee head count will drop to less than 400 over the next two years.

Charles Binder began representing applicants for Social Security Disability Benefits with his brother, Larry, in the 1970s. In 2010, Binder & Binder scooped up $88 million in fees representing applicants for Social Security Disability Benefits (SSI/SSDI). It was the largest firm of its kind, thriving amid an aging workforce, high unemployment and less oversight than in the current environment.

On Thursday night, the firm filed for bankruptcy protection.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The firm listed assets and liabilities each between $10 million and $50 million in a bankruptcy petition filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, N.Y.

Those debts include $23 million in secured debt to lenders U.S. Bank and Capital One Bank and $16.7 million in unsecured debt to Stellus Capital Management, a spinoff of investment firm D.E. Shaw & Co., court filings show.

U.S. Bank and Capital One Bank are prepared to lend up to $26 million in bankruptcy financing, filings show, subject to court approval.

The firm is dependent upon government-paid fees earned from shepherding Social Security disability claimants through the system.

The firm is now facing a shrinking number of people seeking benefits and tougher scrutiny from the Social Security Administration (SSA) Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) who decide cases.

In projections filed in court papers, Binder estimates its employee head count will drop to less than 400 over the next two years.

U.S. Bank National Association and Capital One have agreed to provide debtor-in-possession financing of up to $26 million, the filings showed.

The case is in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York, Case No: 14-23728.

The move will allow the firm to reduce institutional debt after payments from the federal government slowed, hurting cash flow, said Kenneth Rosen, an attorney with Lowenstein Sandler representing Binder & Binder. The company listed both assets and liabilities of between $10 million and $50 million, according to court papers filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

“We have filed papers to pay our employees in the ordinary course. We don’t want the employees to feel anything; they will not. We don’t want the clients to feel anything; they will not,” Mr. Rosen said. “The last thing we would want is there to be any interruption. It’s business as usual.”

U.S. Bank and Capital One made a $23 million secured loan to the company. The financing will allow for operations to continue without interruption, Mr. Rosen said.

The law firm, with about 57,000 clients, has approximately 900 employees in 13 states, including New York, where it has offices in Manhattan, the Bronx, Long Island City and Hauppauge, L.I.

The company’s largest unsecured creditor was Houston-based Stellus Capital Management, which had loaned the company $16.7 million. Google and Manhattan-based Integrated Media Solutions were also among the firm’s largest creditors, with $800,000 and $2.7 million owed for services, respectively.

Manhattan management consultant Development Specialists will provide a chief restructuring officer to manage the bankruptcy and improve operating performance, according to the filing.

Binder & Binder was founded in 1975 by brothers Harry and Charles Binder. Charles would appear in TV commercials, saying in the ads “You have enough to worry about.”

(By Jonathan LaMantia ,December 19, 2014)

When reached for comment, while vacationing in Hungary Judge London Steverson, USALJ (Retired)

formerly of the Downey, California, Social Security Office Of Hearing And Appeals had this to say: “Wow! What a surprise.

I really like Manny Serpa, Esq. He usually represented Binder&Binder in cases that came before me. His cases were usually well prepared and he did a good job of presenting the merits of the claimant’s case. And he won most of his cases. In 1990 the attorney would get an average fee of about $750 for winning a case, but they had to chase the client to get paid, because SSA did not withhold money and pay the attorney directly. Well, in 2009 when I retired the minimum fee was $2 thousand to $3 thousand per case, and the Government would hold back the money and pay the attorneys. Of course, some law firms would collect up to $28 thousand dollars in attorneys fees for a case with large amounts of past due benefits. It was a high volume business with rapid turnover. Even a para-legal could make $1 million dollars a year if he got enough referrals. I never did agree with the idea that para-legals should get paid at the same rate as lawyers, since para-legals do not have a law school education and are not members of the Bar. But, no one listened to me.

http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757

I just can’t believe that a law firm specializing in Social Security benefits would ever go bankrupt. It’s the easiest legal job in the world. The cases are all tried before a judge sitting alone without a jury and the other side is not represented. The lawyers are nothing more than baby-sitters for the claimants, and the judges ask all the questions at the Hearing. It is like losing an uncontested divorce; it never happens. That is why it is so astounding to hear that Binder&Binder is going bankrupt. There must be some other reason; possibly some kind of gross mismanagement, or some one might have been siphoning funds under the table. I’m not saying that that is a possibility, but this whole thing does not sound quite right to me. As we used to say in the Coast Guard “it will all come out in the wash”. I wish old Manny Serpa well.”

What Binder & Binder’s Bankruptcy Means for Your Disability Law Practice

(Nathan Chapman, President of The Marketing Center, sees opportunity for your practice in 2015 from Binder & Binder’s bankruptcy)

If you’re a Social Security Disability attorney, you don’t need anyone to tell you 2014 has been challenging.

On the other hand, if you think you had a bad year, at least you don’t owe $40 million.

According to news reports at the end of last week, national disability advocacy firm Binder and Binder “is preparing for a possible Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing… as it faces roughly $40 million of debt and shrinking demand for its services amid tightening government scrutiny of claims.”

Gee, it wasn’t so long ago The Wall Street Journal reported, “The $88 million the Binder firm collected in 2010 was more than triple the $26 million it got in 2006, according to data obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request.”

We can trust that H.I.G. Private Equity, which bought a stake in Binder & Binder in 2010, knows some good lawyers and accountants. So, I don’t want to write today about the Goliaths. What’s it all mean for the Davids of the Social Security Disability profession?

What We Heard in 2014…

I like to joke that at our specialized marketing agency for disability attorneys, we talk to more disability lawyers than anyone in America other than Barbara Silverstone. So what did we hear in 2014? Well, a lot of pain and concern – starting with repercussions from the October 2013 federal government shutdown. That resulted in claimant files that didn’t get processed, hearings that didn’t get scheduled, benefits that didn’t get awarded and, yes, legal fees that didn’t get paid.

And then there were the horror stories of ALJs being coached and even punished when they awarded benefits too often. We all cried, “Where is the similar coaching for the judges who deny too many?”

I know of some Social Security attorneys who went into early retirement in 2014. Others laid off staff. The Davids were getting hit by some pretty large slingshot rocks.

Yet, not every conversation with a disability attorney in 2014 was one of pain. While some attorneys may have gotten out, others called us to get in: Yes, there are still attorneys wanting to enter the disability arena, or if already there, to ramp up their practices.

Most significantly, I remember one particular conversation with a disability attorney that was a message of hope. I repeated it often to others. While commiserating about the problems of this era, this attorney said to me: “The attorneys who are having the hardest times are the ones who have been doing the same thing the same way for so long, they are unable or unwilling to change. Those are the ones most in trouble.”

Resolve to Evolve in 2015…

“…Unable or unwilling to change.” Those words linger in the air as we cross over into a new year.

At the Las Vegas NOSSCR Conference this year, we presented a clients-only Internet-themed presentation entitled, “Evolve or Die.” (Watch for it as a webinar early next year.)

Here are some ways that your disability law firm can consider changing:

Diversification. We think you should consider diversifying your client base. In 2014, we created new television and/or Internet marketing campaigns for LTD cases, Veterans Disability, Workers’ Compensation, Bankruptcy, Special Education, Employment Law and even Personal Injury for attorneys who also represent Social Security claimants.
Improve your Website Conversion. Much is written how SEO can help a Social Security Disability lawyer rank higher in search engine results for increased traffic. We recommend equal study, testing and improvements to help your law firm’s website convert a greater percentage of the traffic into actual leads.
Paid Search. When handled by pros and reinforced with branding efforts, a Paid Search campaign be more cost efficient via better conversion than buying leads that have no branding element to them.
Better Branding. If you agree that not all attorneys are alike, shouldn’t they not look alike? In 2014, The Marketing Center handled more logo and brand refreshes than any other year in our history.
Initial Applications. It’s more important than ever that your marketing messages urge claimants to call when they need to apply, not just after being denied. Then, resolve to get efficient in handling those applications.
Believe in yourself. American history shows that in periods of economic panic and market contractions, there are always some who use the retreat by others as an opportunity to grow their brand while competition, in this case Binder & Binder, is less active. Fortunately, at The Marketing Center, we’ve had those conversations in 2014 as well.

For 2015, The Marketing Center’s clients have booked a greater amount of marketing exposure than the year we leave behind. We see that as a positive sign for all – one of hope, optimism and confidence.

Here’s hoping YOU have a prosperous new year. Of course, let us know if you’d like some help with that.

Categories: socialNsecurity | Tags: Binder & Binder, Confessions of a Social Security Judge, Judge London Steverson, Social Security Administration, social security disability, Social Security disability benefits, socialNsecurity | Leave a comment

Social Security Administration Pays Lip Service To Disabled Veterans

Posted on March 28, 2014 by Judge London Steverson

Social Security launches new expedited disability process for veterans

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, today announced the launch of a new disability process to expedite disability claims filed by veterans with a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation rating of 100% Permanent & Total (P&T). Under the new process, Social Security will treat these veterans’ applications as high priority and issue expedited decisions, similar to the way the agency currently handles disability claims from Wounded Warriors.

“We have reached another milestone for those who have sacrificed so much for our country and this process ensures they will get the benefits they need quickly,” said Acting Commissioner Colvin. “While we can never fully repay them for their sacrifices, we can be sure we provide them with the quality of service that they deserve. This initiative is truly a lifeline for those who need it most.”

“No one wants to put America’s veterans through a bureaucratic runaround,” said Maryland Congressman John Sarbanes, a leading proponent for increasing assistance to veterans. “As the baby boomer generation ages and more veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan need care, this common sense change will help reduce backlogs and cut through unnecessary red tape so that our most disabled veterans receive the benefits they’ve earned.”

In order to receive the expedited service, veterans must tell Social Security they have a VA disability compensation rating of 100% P&T and show proof of their disability rating with their VA Notification Letter.

The VA rating only expedites Social Security disability claims processing and does not guarantee an approval for Social Security disability benefits. These veterans must still meet the strict eligibility requirements for a disability allowance.

The Acting Commissioner is doing nothing more than giving lip service to disabled veterans in this announcement. This is an empty promise. It is a carrot on a stick. It is a distinction without a difference. This is just a lot of hot air. This will not reduce backlogs and cut through unnecessary red tape. It will have little or no influence on the 1500 Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judges, many of whom are not veterans and have no sympathy for the disabled veterans. In almost 20 years as a SSA ALJ I never heard more than one or two express anything more than contempt for the military and veterans. When Viet Nam disabled veterans came in for disability hearings they were not given any compassionate consideration. There are a lot of draft dodgers from the 1960s in the ALJ corps. A lot more women are coming into the ALJ corps; many are anti-military.

The requirements for getting benefits have not changed. In order to receive the expedited service, veterans must tell Social Security they have a VA disability compensation rating of 100% P&T and show proof of their disability rating with their VA Notification Letter. It is very difficult for a veteran to get a 100% Permanent and Total Rating. The Acting Commissioner was honest enough to say that “The VA rating only expedites Social Security disability claims processing and does not guarantee an approval for Social Security disability benefits. These veterans must still meet the strict eligibility requirements for a disability allowance.”

Putting the best face possible on this, what the Acting Commissioner has done is promise to provide the the wounded warriors with the quality of service that they deserve. BUT, they should have been getting that all along. That would have been the professional thing to do. So, I ask you, what has changed?

www.socialsecurity.gov/pgm/disability-pt.htm

For information about this service, please visit www.socialsecurity.gov/pgm/disability-pt.htm.

For more about Social Security’s handling of Wounded Warrior’s disability claims, please visit

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/woundedwarriors.www.socialsecurity.gov/woundedwarriors.

Categories: Social Security Benefits | Tags: Administrative law judge, ALJ, Social Security, Social Security Administration, social security disability, Social Security disability benefits, Social Security Disability Insurance, socialNsecurity, SSDI | Leave a comment

SSA Judges In NYC Found Guilty Of Bias. 4,000 Disability Claimants Offered New Hearings

Posted on January 30, 2014 by Judge London Steverson

New hearings for SS claimants who received unfavorable decisions by ALJs.

A court has approved a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit involving Social Security Disability claimants in the State of New York. The agreement will provide claimants with new hearings.

January 24, 2014 – A settlement agreement has been reached and approved by the court in a class action lawsuit involving Social Security Disability claimants in the State of New York. Among the different types of relief stipulated in the agreement, claimants are to receive fresh hearings in front of new Administrative Law Judges, or ALJs.

(The specifics of the lawsuit)

In 2011, various Social Security Disability applicants who sought disability benefits received unfavorable or partially favorable judgements by one of five ALJs from the Queens, New York Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (SSA/ODAR).

The claimants argued that the rulings were biased.

In April 2011, they filed a lawsuit against the Social Security Administration. The case was later filed as a class action and expanded to include approximately 4,000 total Social Security Disability claimants.

Attorneys for both sides worked toward a resolution throughout the various months thereafter. (Settlement approved)

A settlement agreement was officially approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The approval came after written comments provided to the court as well as information obtained from the settlement hearings, among other evidence, were reviewed.

The Settlement Agreement includes individual, retrospective and prospective relief for claimants, new training and mentoring for ALJs, and a new Social Security Ruling, or SSR.

(New hearings for class members)

In more specific terms, the Settlement Agreement stipulates that all eligible claimants, those who received unfavorable or partially favorable decisions from one of the named ALJ, defendant judges during the period stipulated in the complaint, will receive new hearings. The Social Security Administration indicates plans to send out notices to each claimant by the end of next month. Eligible claimants are provided 60 days to request a new hearing once their notices are received.

(Other settlement stipulations)

The Settlement also stipulates that an automatic review will be conducted by the SSA’s Appeals Council (A/C)for any new claimants who receive unfavorable decisions (those that commenced October 2013 and for 30 months thereafter) by any one of the five ALJs named in the recent lawsuit. If the A/C determines any unfavorable decisions are legally insufficient, the claimant will automatically receive a fresh hearing in front of a new ALJ.

Under the agreement, the SSA will also provide additional training and mentorship to all ALJs to help them improve the ways they handle and conduct Social Security Disability hearings in the future. Additionally, the settlement stipulates a new Social Security Ruling that details new procedures on how to address allegations of “unfair ALJ hearings, ALJ bias, and ALJ misconduct.”

( Article provided by The Klein Law Group, P.C., at www.thekleinlawgroup.com)

NYC Social Security Disability Attorneys.

The Klein Law Group, P.C., fights for the rights of those who have been hurt at work or are unable to qualify for disability pay.

Practicing solely in New York state, with lawyers are highly knowledgeable in the area of New York workers’ compensation law, as well as the complex workings of the federal Social Security Administration.

The Klein Law Group, P.C., can confidently take your case at any stage, from initial application through final appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Board. In the rare event that you do not receive benefits, you pay no attorney’s fees.

The Klein Law Group, P.C., offers free consultations to discuss your rights and review your case. Contact us to arrange a consultation with one of our experienced New York workers’ comp attorneys.

Our international staff speaks Polish, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese) and Russian.

Categories: Social Security Judges | Tags: Administrative law judge, class action lawsuit, Disability, Social Security, Social Security Administration, social security disability, Social Security Disability Insurance, socialNsecurity, United States district court | 4 Comments

More Disability Claimants Forced To File In Federal Court

Posted on December 1, 2013 by Judge London Steverson

Social Security Disability Approvals Decline

Attorney John Bednarz thought he had a clear-cut case to win Social Security disability benefits (SSID) for his client.

The 39-year-old man had Huntington’s disease, a debilitating and often fatal disorder that caused tremors in his hands, left him off-balance and suffering from frequent bouts of confusion.

An employee at the Social Security Administration (SSA), State Disability Determination Service (DDS) didn’t see it that way, however, and denied the initial claim twice. Mr. Bednarz appealed the case to an administrative law judge (ALJ), who upheld the Agency’s decision.

Ultimately his client prevailed after Mr. Bednarz filed an appeal in Federal District Court. It was a long struggle that took far more time than it should have, he said.

“This case is one that really got me,” Mr. Bednarz said. “He had a degenerative neurological impairment. He had involuntary movement in his right hand and symptoms of dementia. â€¦ A diagnosis like this is essentially a death sentence.”

His client is not alone in his struggle.

Administrative law judges (ALJ) who hear cases for the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) have become more selective in the cases they approve, data show, forcing an increasing number of claimants to file suit in federal court.

In the Wilkes-Barre ODAR, the percentage of cases approved has steadily declined the past three years, mirroring a nationwide trend.

Appeals spike.

In fiscal 2010, the office granted 64 percent of the cases. That dropped to 54 percent in 2011, 48 percent in 2012 and 47 percent in 2013, according to data compiled by Social Security. Statewide, 42 percent of cases were approved at the administrative law judge level in 2013.

The increase in denials has led to a huge spike in appeals filed in federal court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, a review of the court docket shows. As of Nov. 22, 204 appeals were filed, compared to 117 in all of 2012, a 74 percent increase. That compares to 90 appeals in 2011 and 113 in 2010.

Officials with SSA say the higher denial rate is partly attributable to an increase in filings due to the poor economy, which historically leads more people with marginal disabilities to seek benefits.

Several attorneys who represent claimants agree economic factors may have played a role. But they’re concerned the system has become increasingly stacked against claimants due, in part, to the SSA’s propensity to hire judges who formerly worked for Social Security. There is also concern judges are being subjected to outside pressure that may make them more prone to deny cases.

“I’m not saying everyone is perfectly honest and that there is not fraud, but we see a lot of cases being denied that appear legitimate,” said Steven Rollins, a Harrisburg attorney who specializes in disability claims. “You have more of a shift of judges who have become more in tune to affirm a denial and are less willing to grant cases.”

Unable to engage.

In 2013, the Social Security Disability system paid 8.9 million workers an average monthly benefit of $1,129 at a total cost of $10 billion, according to the agency. To qualify, claimants must prove they are unable to engage “any substantial gainful activity” due to a mental or physical impairment which has lasted 12 months, is expected last 12 months or will result in death.

The initial determination is made by the State DDS based solely on a review of medical records, attorneys said. Roughly 25 to 35 percent of claimants are approved at that level, Mr. Rollins said. If denied, the case goes before an ALJ – an attorney hired through Social Security to conduct an independent review. The judge can hold a hearing that includes testimony from the claimant and physicians.

The are currently 1,500 ALJs in the nation. In Pennsylvania, judges preside in Wilkes-Barre, Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

If the ALJ denies the claim, it goes to the Appeals Council within Social Security. The final step is federal court. A judge will review the entire record and has the power to award benefits or return the case to the ALJ for further review.

Few data.

There are no national statics on the percentage of cases remanded. A review of the federal court docket in the Middle District of Pennsylvania shows that of the 90 appeals filed in 2011, the last year for which full data are available, 56 were either affirmed, dismissed or withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Most of the cases filed in 2012 and 2013 remain pending.

Mark Hinkle, a spokesman for SSA, said there is always a debate over whether the agency approves or disapproves too many cases. The agency does not seek to influence ALJs, who have complete independence.

“Our judges have qualified decisional independence to enhance public confidence in the fairness of our process, to protect people applying for disability, and to ensure that they issue decisions free from pressure to reach a particular result,” he said in an email.

As for the overall decline in approval rates, Mr. Hinkle said the agency believes several factors have played a role.

“We have seen an increase in the number of disability cases based on the aging of the baby boom generation and the economy, and when this occurs it is expected that the approval rate will decrease when the number of applications increase,” Mr. Hinkle said.

Jonathan Stein, an attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, said he believes the decrease in ALJ approvals is partly tied to a change in the make up of judges hired to review the cases.

Under pressure to speed up review of cases, the SSA hired an additional 500 ALJs within the past three years. Mr. Stein said. A large percentage of those attorneys previously worked for SSA, Mr. Stein said.

ALJs are supposed to issue rulings based solely on the evidence. Mr. Stein said he can’t help but question whether their experience with the agency may influence how they view cases.

“When you are a judge you must be independent. You follow SSA rules and have to make independent decisions,” he said. “The reality is, when you spent most of your life in the system, it will shape your views.”

Charles Hall, an attorney from North Carolina who writes a blog about Social Security issues, said there is also concern that the changing political climate toward entitlement programs and media stories that have focused on judges who have high approval ratings may be unduly influencing judges.

Sick or bums?

“There is a great deal of public sympathy for people who are sick or disabled. On the other side here are people who say (recipients) are lazy bums who ought to get back to work,” Mr. Hall said. “Judges are human beings. The same things that affect the rest of us affects them.”

Mr. Hall said SSAy may have unintentionally influencedALJs by publicly posting data on the percentage of cases they approve. If a judge’s rulings are out of whack with others within his or her region, that could play on their minds, he said.

The data, which are available on SSA’s website, show approval rates vary significantly among judges. In Pennsylvania, Judge Craig De Bernardis in Wilkes-Barre and Judge Christopher Bridges in Harrisburg had some of the highest approval rates between 2010 and 2013, data show. Judge De Bernardis approved 97 percent of his cases in 2010 and 96 percent in 2011, the two years he served. Judge Bridges’ approval rating varied from 90 to 96 percent between 2010 and 2013.

Highest rate

The highest approval rating in the Wilkes-Barre office in 2013 belonged to Judge Eugene Brady, who approved 56 percent of cases. On the other end of the spectrum are Judge Michelle Wolfe, who approved 34 percent of the cases, and Judge Therese Hardiman, who approved 38 percent of her cases.

Several judges in Wilkes-Barre also saw significant drops in their approval percentages since 2010. The most notable change is Judge Hardiman. In 2010, she approved 73 percent of the cases she heard. That dropped to just 38 percent in 2013.

Mr. Rollins said he’s also concerned news media stories that focused on abuses within the system and judges who award a high percentage of cases may influence decisions.

He noted coverage of a recent Senate investigation that raised questions of whether a West Virginia judge had colluded with an attorney to approve an inordinate number of the attorney’s cases.

The investigation, led by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, revealed Judge David Daugherty, who no longer hears cases, approved 1,375 of cases filed by attorney Eric Conn, denying only four.

“Judges are not immune to publicity,” Mr. Rollins said. “I suspect if I’m in their position, I’m looking over my shoulder if others are being investigated and I’m seeing stories about too many allowances.”

While they have concerns about the system, Mr. Rollins stressed he believes the majority of judges try to be fair. The cases they review are rarely clear cut, he said, and require analysis of hundreds of pages of medical records.

“I think, by and large, they do the right thing,” Mr. Rollins said.

Mr. Bednarz, the attorney for the Wilkes-Barre man with Huntington’s disease, said he also feels most judges do the best they can. He fears legitimate cases are being lost, however, because many claimants don’t have attorneys to represent them.

Attorneys are only paid in disability cases if they obtain benefits for their client. Because the cases are so difficult, attorneys have become increasingly selective about which cases they will take, he said. That means some marginal cases that may have merit fall by the wayside.

“It is much more difficult than it has ever been being a social security practitioner,” he said.

(Morgan-Besecker, T.; Times Tribune, Scranton,PA, Dec 1, 2013)

Categories: Social Security Cases | Tags: Administrative law judge, ALJ, Mark Hinkle, Social Security, Social Security Administration, social security disability, Social Security Disability Insurance, socialNsecurity, SSA | 1 Comment

Social Security Judges Under Fire

Posted on June 13, 2011 by Judge London Steverson

Social Security Judges are under fire from Congress which recently discovered how much they are paying out in benefits. In a recent series of articles in the Wall Street Journal and other media, judges are being focused on for approving every disability case that comes before them. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576347790598676096.html; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576319163605918524.html; http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51934862-78/disability-security-social-judges.html.csp; http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/592475/wall_street_journal_tries_to_smear_west_virginia_judge_over_social_security_rulings?page=entire; http://www.huntingtonnews.net/4769; ). Some in Congress are wondering why we need to pay a judge $167,000.00 a year to rubber-stamp every case that comes before him. A lawyer at the GS-9 level making $40,000.00 a year or less could do the same and save millions of dollars a year. The Law of Averages says that even a trained chimpanzee would be right about half the time, and he would work for peanuts.
Americans seeking Social Security disability benefits will often appeal to one of 1,500 administrative law judges (ALJ) who help administer the program. In the first half of 2011, 27 ALJs awarded social security benefits 95% of the time because of pressure from Commissioner M. Astrue. Nationwide over 100 ALJs are approving 9 out of every 10 cases that come before them. The cases they fail to approve are likely to be approved by the Appeals Council, which works for the Commissioner. Senate and House Committees are investigating the issue. Approving all cases without even reviewing the file is called “paying down the backlog”. Judges are under pressure to move cases quickly in order to clear a backlog of 730,000 pending cases. The pressure comes directly from the Commissioner of Social Security. This is one of the things that I discuss in detail in the book “socialNsecurity”, available at http://judgelondonsteverson.com; and I put it in proper perspective. Having spent about 20 years observing the competing forces that produce a judge who reverses 100% of his cases, while another reverses less than 10%, I have a better handle on this issue than a reporter who writes a sensational article. Much of my insight and explanation of the competing forces is spelled out in my book “socialNsecurity, Confessions of a Social Security Judge”. Anyone looking for more historical and recent statistics on this subject along with an explanation of how the system works can find easy readable information in my book.

Categories: Social Security Benefits | Tags: approval, congress, funding, judges, social security disability, wall street journal | Leave a comment