Ready Your Fee Agreements—Fee Cap Increase Takes Effect 11/30/2024 (Copy)

In case you haven’t heard, the fee agreement cap is set to increase to $9,200 on November 30, 2024. In preparation for this change (and in anticipation of the annual increases that will begin starting with the 2026 COLA announcement), we recommend reviewing your current Fee Agreements to ensure that they contain proper escalator language. It is our expectation that SSA will update their fee agreement form, SSA-1693, and the electronic version of the SSA-1693, on December 1, 2024, so if you use SSA’s fee agreement form, be sure to switch to the new version after the fee cap increase takes effect.

While there are not specific requirements for how to word escalator clauses, it is NOSSCR’s recommendation that you remove any dollar figure on future fee agreements, replacing it with language that signifies where the maximum dollar amount can be found. Here’s one such example:

If SSA favorably decides my claim(s) and the determination or decision results in past-due (retroactive) benefits, I agree to pay my representative(s) a fee that does not exceed the lesser of 25 percent of my past-due benefits or the maximum dollar amount allowed under the Social Security Act Section 206(a)(2), or such higher amount set by the Commissioner of Social Security based on the maximum dollar amount in effect as of the date of my favorable determination or decision. The current maximum fee amount can be found on Social Security’s webpage under Representing SSA Claimants – Fee Agreements.

We anticipate that field office and payment center staff will be instructed to review POMS GN 03920.006 prior to paying representative fees in order to determine the proper cap on the date of the decision. Removing the dollar amount should reduce the confusion and reduce improperly paid fee amounts (but stay tuned for next month’s Forum when we dust off our advice on what to do if you’re paid under the wrong cap!).

Relatedly, we hope you saw our announcement from earlier this week that Deputy Chief ALJ Dillon just confirmed to NOSSCR that the new authority for ALJ approval on fee petitions will be $15,000, effective December 9, 2024. This is an increase in the maximum amount an ALJ can approve on a fee petition without the need to escalate the matter to the Regional Office and should help expedite the fee petition process, allowing you to access your hard-earned fees far more expeditiously.

NOSSCR Sues La Grada Online for Spreading False Social Security News (Copy)

Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director

NOSSCR has filed a lawsuit against Kapital Media Productions S.L., the Spanish company behind the website La Grada Online, alleging that the website published false and misleading articles about Social Security benefits. The lawsuit, filed on October 18, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, claims that these articles caused 140,000 unnecessary calls to SSA in one day, resulting in significant harm to NOSSCR members and the Social Security Administration (SSA).

In the lawsuit, NOSSCR asserts that its members, including over 200 in Illinois alone, frequently interact with SSA, often multiple times daily, via phone and other means. They rely heavily on SSA’s national teleservice system to manage benefit claims and payments.

Kapital Media Productions S.L., based in Terrassa, Spain, specializes in television programming, broadcasting, and internet activities. It operates La Grada, a sports news platform primarily focused on RCD Espanyol, a Barcelona-based football (soccer) club. La Grada Online, however, purports to be a source of American news, including sports and financial updates and features links to sensationalized topics like Social Security updates.

Understanding ‘Pay-Per-Click’ Advertising

The lawsuit touches upon the concept of “pay-per-click” (PPC) advertising, a common online advertising model. In PPC, advertisers pay a fee each time one of their ads is clicked. Websites that host these ads earn revenue based on the number of clicks they generate. This model incentivizes websites to attract as many clicks as possible, sometimes leading to misleading or sensationalized content. NOSSCR argues that Kapital exploited this model by publishing false information about Social Security benefits to drive traffic to its website and increase its advertising revenue.

The Complaint

The complaint centers on several articles published by La Grada Online. One article, published on May 31, 2024, falsely claimed a $600 extra payment would be issued to Social Security beneficiaries over 62 in June due to a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). SSA confirmed no such payment existed. On June 3, 2024, SSA Commissioner Martin O’Malley reported a surge of 140,000 calls to SSA’s 800 number, attributing the increase to this “bogus news story.” SSA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) subsequently issued a statement debunking the false claim and reiterating that COLA increases occur in January, not June.

Another article, published on August 9, 2024, falsely announced a “Social Security Benefit Boost” and “Extra Payment” for retirees on August 30. While the article later admitted this was not an extra payment but an advance, no such boost or payment occurred. According to NOSSCR, these articles led to increased call volumes to SSA, causing significant delays and cost to NOSSCR members in terms of time and money.

NOSSCR alleges that Kapital intentionally included false and misleading information in its articles to drive website traffic and increase advertising revenue. This practice, often called “clickbait,” aims to attract readers with sensationalized headlines, regardless of accuracy. The lawsuit highlights a Forbes article that identified La Grada as a “content farm” that uses such tactics to maximize ad revenue.

Legal Claims and Attorneys Involved

NOSSCR’s complaint asserts three main claims:

• Civil RICO: NOSSCR alleges that Kapital engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including wire fraud, by disseminating false information through its website.

• Lanham Act Violation: NOSSCR claims that Kapital made false or misleading statements in commercial advertisements, causing injury to NOSSCR and its members.

• Illinois Fraud: NOSSCR alleges that Kapital knowingly made false statements with the intent to induce reliance, resulting in damages to NOSSCR members in Illinois.

The attorneys representing NOSSCR in this case are David D. Camp, NOSSCR CEO; Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director; and Meredith Marcus, NOSSCR Board Member at Osterhout Berger Daley.

This lawsuit raises important questions about the responsibility of online news sources to publish accurate information and the impact of misleading content on vulnerable populations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the online news industry and the fight against misinformation.

Dispatches from Camp: Updates from the CEO (Copy)

David Camp, NOSSCR CEO

October was an active month for NOSSCR, featuring our Next Generation Retreat in Portland, NOSSCR alum (and honorary member) Rebecca Vallas’ first Ball Awards as CEO of NASI, and our Southeast Regional Conference in Raleigh.

Meanwhile, our advocacy efforts intensified on several topics—while we all await an election outcome in November. In my last column I highlighted the many wins so far in 2024. They bear repeating: a fee agreement cap increase (effective in a month!), annual COLA adjustments to the fee agreement cap (effective 2026), 15 to 5 PRW, initial and reconsideration claim data in ERE, entities recognized for fee payments, hearing format flexibility retained, aged SSI fees released, SSI underpayment review moved to $15,000, electronic signatures policy, signature removals, vocational evidence policy improvement (questionable and obsolete occupations), Conn victims relief, Ticket to Work policy elevation to the Commissioner, Ticket to Work marketing improvements, collateral estoppel, overpayment waiver policy ($2,000 admin waiver), overpayment collection policy (10% default for SSDI, 60 months), SSI installment payment policy (documents not required to avoid installments), SSI expansion of the public assistance household to include SNAP (and avoid ISM), SSI exclusion of food from ISM, and SSI expansion of the rental subsidy policy.

Highlights of our ongoing efforts include several topics of day-to-day importance to our members—and to your bottom line.

Fee Petition ALJ Authority Cap Increase

Behind the scenes, we have been advocating for a second version of the cap increase—the maximum authority for a fee petition that can be approved by an ALJ without needing to escalate the matter to the Regional Office. In practical reality, this limit imposes a cap on the amounts requested in most fee petitions. On Friday in Raleigh during our Southeast Regional Conference, Deputy Chief ALJ Dillon confirmed what we’ve been advocating for—an increase of that limit to $15,000, set to take effect December 9, 2024.

Medical records

We have devised a multi-prong attack on the medical records problem—both as to costs and as to the need to obtain them in an antiquated single-request-with-release format. We have developed a legal opinion (aided by our longtime law firm in DC) that the costs imposed by record copying services such as CIOX/Datavant are “record blocking” and should be addressed as such under existing HHS regulations. We’re working to obtain Social Security’s cooperation in this effort, which ultimately will be a request that NOSSCR and Social Security join their interests and ask HHS to address the problem, which we have termed the “Disability Tax.” Claimants who are able to log into a portal and obtain their records often do not face costs. However, those claimants who are more impaired—particularly due to mental or neurological problems—are frequently unable to access these portals, resulting in burdensome costs to claimants that limit their access to representation and thwart Social Security’s claims process. Increasing costs for those with certain limiting disabilities is unacceptable. You may have seen my recent op-ed on the topic in Pennsylvania, written with NOSSCR member Jen Burdick, or my article from earlier this week. More is to come as our “Disability Tax” public campaign efforts increase in the coming months. On another prong, we are working to on ways to gain access to the digital medical records exchanges. Finally, we are working collaboratively with Social Security and those who handle the digital records for healthcare institutions to expand the number of participants in Social Security’s HIT MER program.

We recently achieved a noteworthy policy victory on HIT MER—expansion to the hearings level with clear guidance on how and when we may ask an OHO to use HIT MER to update the file quickly and without cost. Details can be found here Representative’s Guide for Requesting Health Information Technology Medical Evidence of Record (HIT MER) and you should maintain a link to this directory of providers: HIT MER Database.

Digital Access to Social Security Claim Data

Watch for the launch of a second portal to see information about your cases! We expect “AARPS” to be released in November. The login will be different (login.gov or ID.me) and AARPS will provide access to a complete list of current appointments along with your fee payment history. This will be our first time gaining digital access to payment center data. As you saw from our success in getting some data from the DDS stages into ERE, we expect that limited early information will lead to extensive access later. NOSSCR has been working collaboratively with Social Security on AARPS and pressed for launch of the portal more than a year before planned. Eventually, AARPS will be the sole portal for representatives—so we encourage you to familiarize yourself with it now and establish security protocols for how you will handle using the new login methods. You can count on NOSSCR to be your primary advocates for issues with the new portal, including problems we’ve already identified for certain individuals attempting to use login.gov.

Commissioner O’Malley

As we detailed in our recent NOSSCR PAC Washington Update, we are all aware that Commissioner O’Malley’s current term expires in January. NOSSCR remains in constant communication with the Commissioner and his team (along with all components), and we are doing what we can to support his continued service.

As always, it is a privilege to serve as your professional association’s CEO. Thank you for your membership.

President’s Corner (Copy)

Rick Fleming, NOSSCR President

NOSSCR’s fall season 2024 is off to a great start! September began with FOSSCR meeting in San Antonio, TX. Later that month we were excited to see such a great turnout at the NextGen retreat in Portland, OR. Then, as we moved into October, the Southeast Regional Conference was held in Raleigh, NC. Each of these events provided members with the opportunity to learn and network in a smaller, more intimate setting. We thank the speakers, the attendees, and the sponsors for making each of these events a smashing success. 

Next up are the Eight Circuit Conference in Fayetteville, AR from November 7-8 and the Virtual Conference December 10-11. In 2024, NOSSCR has worked to provide members with high quality educational content via in-person and virtual options. As always, if there is a topic or issue you feel we need to address in a conference or as a stand-alone webinar, please let us know at nosscr@nosscr.org.  

As we look forward to 2025, I am pleased to announce that we are returning to two national conferences. The spring 2025 event will be April 23-26 in Washington, DC at the Grand Hyatt. Please mark your calendars!  Later, in the fall of 2025 we will be in San Diego, CA.

I also want to remind you about NOSSCR’s on-demand courses. If you find out at the last minute that you are missing an ethics credit or a couple of general credits, I invite you to take a look at our online content taught by leaders in the field. 

And finally, as we enter the holiday season, remember to peruse the NOSSCR store for some gift ideas!

LAST CALL—Submit Your Proposals to Speak at our Spring Conference! (Copy)

We’ve extended the deadline for proposal submission for ONE MORE WEEK—until November 8, 2024. Now is the time! We’d love to feature a diverse body of speakers at our spring conference—maybe you’ve never presented before, or maybe you’re an old pro—either way, we welcome your proposal! Perhaps you feel like you have a good idea, but it’s not fully fleshed out yet—that’s ok! The proposal just needs to be a short paragraph explaining your intended topic—the full presentation and materials are not yet due—there will be time after the selection process to fully research and practice your presentation. So go ahead and send us those good ideas! Chances are, if you’ve thought of a topic that you’d like to learn more about, your colleagues have too. So submit a proposal and start researching!

This year’s conference will be held in Washington D.C., April 23-26, 2025, and will feature unique opportunities to join NOSSCR on the Hill. Don’t miss this exciting chance to join us as a featured speaker!

Piemonte’s Perspective (Copy)

George Piemonte, NOSSCR 11th Circuit Board Representative

No doubt we all have had an ALJ include in the hypothetical question “Assume the claimant can interact appropriately with supervisors occasionally.” Or some similar variation.

What’s wrong with this? According to SSR 83-10, occasional means up to 1/3 of the day. What about the rest of the day? “Can occasionally” implicitly means “cannot usually” or “cannot for 2/3” of the day. As I previously discussed, common sense needs to be brought into the hearing room. Common sense dictates that in the real world, a worker must respond appropriately to supervisors 100% of the time.

So, how do you deal with this in a hearing? Here is a list of some questions to ask the VE:

• All jobs require some supervision (and training), don’t they?
• All new workers must be told by a supervisor what to do, right?
• All new workers must be corrected when they do the job incorrectly, right?
• Most <insert job(s) identified by VE> are not allowed to respond inappropriately to supervisors 2/3 of the time, are they? Why not?
• Workers would be fired if they responded to supervisor corrections by running out of the room and crying, wouldn’t they? Argued about the correction? Told the supervisor, “I can’t deal with you/this right now”?

If the ALJ says “only superficial contact with supervisors,” ask the following:

• All jobs require some supervision (and training), don’t they?
• All new workers must be told by a supervisor what to do, right?
• It is not superficial to explain exactly what must be done, is it?
• All new workers must be corrected when they do the job incorrectly, right?
• It is not superficial to correct the worker when they do the job wrong, is it?

These questions show that a claimant limited to occasional supervisor interaction is disabled.

This is a guest column. The views expressed in this column are the views of the author alone, and do not represent the views of NOSSCR, NOSSCR’s leadership, or NOSSCR’s staff.

Just Ask Jennifer: HIT MER (Copy)

Jennifer Cronenberg, NOSSCR Senior Counsel and Director of Legal Information

We are pleased to offer the attached HIT MER Search Request form for your use when requesting that OHO run a HIT MER search for records. It is our hope that this optional form will allow you to streamline and expedite your HIT MER search request submissions.  

Please be reminded that the instructions for asking OHO to run a HIT MER Search Request can be found on this webpage: https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/rep_info.html. The instructions are titled “Representative’s Guide for Requesting Heath Information Technology Medical Evidence of Record (HIT MER).” If you encounter OHO personnel who are unfamiliar with this request, we recommend pointing them to this portion of SSA’s website and then escalating the request within OHO as necessary.  

As the instructions indicate, there must be an updated SSA-827 on the ERE when asking OHO to run these HIT MER Search requests. Please be sure to upload a new SSA-827 once the case reaches the hearing level and ensure that the SSA-827 is not older than 9 months when requesting that OHO run a HIT MER Search Request.  

If the records are VA (Veterans Administration) or DoD (Department of Defense) records, the SSA-827 must be “electronic.” OHO has offered the following guidance on what they mean by an “electronic SSA-827”:  

When requesting HIT records from the VHA or DOD, we must use a current (less than 12 months old) electronic SSA-827 or an SSA-e827 that was submitted at the hearings level.  We cannot use a pen and ink signed version of the SSA-827 to request HIT records from the VHA or DOD.  For all other HIT providers, we can use a pen and ink signed version of the SSA-827 to request records, as long as it was submitted at the hearings level and is less than 9 months old.  

In order to add a current SSA-e827 to the file at the hearings level, an OHO staff member must speak to the claimant over the phone and follow the process outlined in HALLEX I-2-5-14, Obtaining Medical Evidence From a Medical Source.  If there is not a current SSA-e827 in the file, prior to submitting a request to search for VHA or DOD records, representatives should call the hearing office with the claimant on the line so staff can complete the electronic authorization process with the claimant over the phone. It would also be helpful if the representative provided the claimant with a copy of the SSA-827 or a link to the SSA-827 prior to calling the hearing office.  If the representative is uncertain whether there is a current SSA-e827 in the file, they should check with the hearing office. 

When uploading these HIT MER Search Requests to the ERE, OHO has advised that you should submit your HIT MER search requests to the ERE under the document type, “Correspondence Regarding Efforts to Obtain Evidence.” NOSSCR has requested that OHO add an additional tag specifically for HIT MER Search Requests, but for now, their guidance is that we utilize the “Correspondence Regarding Efforts to Obtain Evidence” tag.  

Please also be reminded that HIT MER Search Requests should be submitted to the ERE at least 15 days prior to the hearing date. While OHO adjusts to this new protocol, we recommend follow-up calls to OHO to ensure receipt and proper processing of these HIT MER Search Requests.  

Register Now for Our Dec. 10-11 Virtual Conference! (Copy)

We can’t wait to share two days of jam-packed continuing education sessions with you in December—all from the comfort of your home or office!

Registration is NOW OPEN for our December 10 and 11 Virtual Conference. Register today to secure your spot!

Our sessions will include a panel on fees, a session on how automation can help your practice, a look at the importance of work history reports, a primer on the importance of ERISA files for your disability case, and many more!

And of course, don’t miss the chance to hear directly from SSA Senior Staff about the latest activities at the agency.

Check out the schedule below—all times Eastern—and register today!

Interested in being one of our Virtual Conference Sponsors? We’d love to have you! Visit our site or contact us at nosscr@nosscr.org to learn more.

Success in the Southeast! (Copy)

NOSSCR members just wrapped up two incredible days of learning and networking in North Carolina’s vibrant capital city. The Southeast Regional Conference (October 24-25) was the perfect setting to dive deep into continuing education, connect with colleagues, and get those burning questions answered. On Thursday we had a surprise visit from Jacki Russell, NC DDS Director and past-President of the National Council of Disability Determination Directors. You may remember that Ms. Russell also testified at the Social Security subcommittee hearing in October 2023 with NOSSCR CEO David Camp. On Thursday afternoon at a Happy Hour sponsored by the Federal Appeals Firm, members gathered for meaningful conversations in a relaxed setting.

On Friday, we were joined by Deputy Chief ALJ Christopher Dillon, who broke the news to NOSSCR about the upcoming raise to the fee petition approval cap. We also learned that OHO is moving towards a process to streamline hearing scheduling for representatives by launching a new portal in the first quarter of 2025. Check out Judge Dillon’s slides below for more details!

We are grateful for the support of our Friends of NOSSCR, Hall & Rouse, and Robertson Wendt Disability.

If you missed this event, don’t forget to join us in a few weeks in Fayetteville, Arkansas, for the Eighth Circuit conference or from the comfort of your home or office at our December Virtual Conference!

Recent Cases of Interest (Copy)

Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director

This month I’m providing a snapshot of several recent District and Circuit court cases of interest. Below I’ve included short summaries of each case, and in the downloadable document at the bottom of the list you’ll find more detailed explanations.

1. In Kenneth T. v. O’Malley, 2024 WL 4367248, No. 1:23-cv-437 (M.D. N.Car., Sept. 30, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the Commissioner’s denial of SSI benefits, finding the ALJ improperly discounted the claimant’s subjective complaints and “cherry-picked” evidence by relying on outdated opinions.

2. In Yasmin V. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp. 3d — (D.R.I., May 24, 2024), due to unconscionable delays, the District Court remanded the case with an order to award DIB benefits from the alleged onset date.

3. In Harriott v. Commissioner, 2024 WL 4448812 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 9, 2024), the District Court vacated the Appeals Council’s dismissal of a request for review and remanded for a determination of timeliness, finding the Council’s factual finding regarding the appeal submission date unsupported by substantial evidence.

4. In Littrell v. O’Malley, No. 24-1923 (8th Cir. Oct. 4, 2024), the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the partial denial of SSI benefits, finding the ALJ insufficiently evaluated the claimant’s subjective pain complaints and, consequently, the RFC and hypothetical posed to the vocational expert were flawed.

5. In Stephanie T. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —- , 2024 WL 3083460 (D.R.I. June 21, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of SSI benefits, finding the ALJ’s determination regarding fibromyalgia as not a medically determinable impairment was not supported by substantial evidence and misapplied the law.

6. In Manning v. O’Malley, 712 F.Supp.3d 894 (S.D. Tex. 2024), the District Court granted summary judgment, vacated the Commissioner’s denial of SSI, and remanded, finding the ALJ failed to comply with regulations requiring articulation of supportability and consistency when relying on medical opinions in determining the claimant’s RFC, particularly regarding the impact of her cystic fibrosis treatment regimen.

7. In N.S. v. Commissioner of Social Security, — F.Supp.3d —- , 2024 WL 3548772 (M.D. Ga. July 23, 2024), the District Court granted the claimant’s motion for attorney fees under the EAJA after a successful appeal, finding the requested fees reasonable despite the Commissioner’s objections regarding excessive hours and vague billing entries.

8. In Katrina M. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —- , 2024 WL 4298806 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of SSI and DIB benefits, finding the ALJ erred by failing to assess the claimant’s non-severe mental impairments in formulating the RFC.

9. In Rubin v. O’Malley, — F.4th —- (2d Cir. 2024), the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the denial of DIB benefits, finding the ALJ misinterpreted medical and lay evidence, failing to appreciate the support for the treating psychiatrist’s opinion and requiring further consideration of existing evidence and a consultative examination.

10. In Ebony B. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —- (D.D.C. 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of SSI benefits, finding several errors in the ALJ’s RFC formulation and drug abuse or alcoholism analysis, including a lack of explanation for omitting the off-task limitation in the final RFC and mischaracterization of the claimant’s substance use.

11. In Rodney Edward G. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —- (2024), 2024 WL 3654017 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of SSDI and SSI benefits, finding the ALJ erred in evaluating the opinion of the claimant’s treating psychiatrist and therapist, failing to consider its consistency and supportability.

12. In Shirley H. v. Kijakazi, 710 F.Supp.3d 458 (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of disability insurance benefits, finding the ALJ erred by failing to explain the omission of mental limitations from the RFC, despite identifying mild limitations due to depression.

13. In Fink v. Kijakazi, 710 F.Supp.3d 641 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 8, 2024), the District Court affirmed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income in part, finding the claimant forfeited her challenge to the vocational expert’s job number estimates but also finding the VE’s testimony, combined with her explanation, provided sufficient evidence.

14. In Prosa v. Commissioner of Social Security, — F.Supp.3d —- (2024), 2024 WL 4205285 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2024), the District Court granted judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings, finding the ALJ’s RFC determination unsupported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the restriction on kneeling, as the ALJ failed to explain the departure from persuasive medical opinions recommending no kneeling.

15. In Phillips v. O’Malley, 2024 WL 4274859 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 24, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of disability insurance benefits, finding the ALJ’s decision that substance abuse was a contributing factor material to the claimant’s disability was not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ inconsistently evaluated medical opinion evidence.

Agency Responsiveness to Representatives’ Questions (Copy)

Jennifer Cronenberg, Senior Counsel and Director of Legal Information

We are extremely pleased that the addition of the IC/RC report on the ERE has reduced the need to call SSA, allowing our members to focus resources in other crucial areas as you fight for the benefits that your clients deserve. Nevertheless, there will be times when a call to the agency is warranted, and the agency should be meaningfully fielding your calls. Recently, we have gotten a few reports of some DDS and Field Office sites who are refusing to answer representatives’ calls, instead pointing to the information that is available online. This is unacceptable and we have reported these instances to senior staff within the agency. Here is the agency’s official response:

SSA and Commissioner O’Malley recognize the importance of mutual, collaborative communication with appointed representatives and advocacy groups for the greater benefit of those members of the public applying for disability benefits. We have made great strides in offering more transparent access to claim information stored in SSA systems including recent enhancements to Appointed Representative Services (ARS) at the pending initial and reconsideration level. We are continuing to work with state and local DDS and Field Office sites to ensure staff provide quality customer service to all inquiring parties, including appointed representatives.

We understand NOSSCR’s concerns over situations where the customer service may not have met expectations. We are working with regional and state DDS administrators to ensure all parties are aware of the continued need to be responsive to appointed representative inquiries, even with recent change to the ARS.

If any of you continue to experience difficulty in obtaining the information that you need from SSA or DDS, please reach out to me (jennifer.cronenberg@nosscr.org) and provide the following details so that I can report these instances to my contact within the agency:

•          Date and time of the situation
•          Office involved (which DDS/FO)
•          Appointed representative’s office involved (listed representative’s name and RepID number)
•          Description of the inquiry (e.g., claims status check, appointment verification, etc.)
•          Description of interaction with DDS/FO
•          Name of examiner or DDS staff (if possible)
•          Any additional pertinent details

Legislative Spotlight (Copy)

Betsy Rosecan, NOSSCR Government Relations Director

On December 19, 2023, Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) introduced H.R. 6858, the Social Security Overpayment Relief Act. The bill has five cosponsors: one Republican and four Democrats. H.R. 6858 was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means where it awaits further action. A companion bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate.

If enacted, this legislation would limit the lookback period for Social Security overpayments to ten years. NOSSCR supports the Social Security Overpayment Relief Act.

Bill Details:

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Social Security Overpayment Relief Act”.

SEC. 2. Limitation on recovery of overpayments.

(a) Title II limitation.—Section 204 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(h) In any case in which more than the correct amount of payment has been made, there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery by the United States from, any person of an overpayment that occurred 10 or more years prior to the date on which the Commissioner finds that more than the correct amount of payment has been made to such person.”.

(b) Title XVI limitation.—Section 1631(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(9) In any case in which more than the correct amount of payment has been made, there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery by the United States from, any person of an overpayment that occurred 10 or more years prior to the date on which the Commissioner finds that more than the correct amount of payment has been made to such person.”.

NOSSCR’s Mentorship Program Opens TOMORROW (Copy)

Ready to connect and grow? Applications for the NOSSCR’s Mentorship Program will be opening on November 1! Whether you’re seeking guidance or eager to share your expertise, this is your chance to make a difference. For more information about the mentorship program, visit our site here. Stay tuned for more information tomorrow on how to sign-up for this year’s program!

ACUS Releases Model Rules of Representative Conduct (Copy)

The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), home to former NOSSCR staff member Lea Robbins, has released their Model Rules of Representative Conduct. ACUS periodically convenes working groups of public- and private-sector experts to develop model rules that federal agencies can use develop or amend their own procedures. NOSSCR is proud to have contributed as a member of the Working Group for these Model Rules.

The project documents can be viewed here and the final document can be viewed and downloaded below.

NOSSCR to Host Supreme Court Admission Ceremony for Members (Copy)

We are pleased to announce that NOSSCR is organizing a group admission to the United States Supreme Court Bar on June 18, 2025.

This ceremony is an opportunity for NOSSCR members to be formally admitted to practice before the highest court in the land alongside their colleagues. Please note that admission is limited to 50 NOSSCR members.

We will publish the application with our unique QR code soon. After that, we will begin accepting applications. Please monitor your email and the NOSSCR website for announcements and additional information.

PAC Contributor List (Copy)

THANK YOU TO OUR NOSSCR PAC CONTRIBUTORS

As of October 2024

Health News of Note (Copy)

• The National Academy of Science and Medicine published “A Long COVID Definition: A Chronic, Systemic Disease State with Profound Consequences.”
  • Recently the Department of Health and Human Services responded with an open letter complimenting the publication, noting that “this definition establishes shared language that enables all individuals, including those living with Long COVID, healthcare providers, public health professionals, researchers, healthcare executives, and policy makers to speak with a shared understanding of this debilitating, chronic condition.”

• This month, the Office of Retirement and Disability Policy within SSA released the following publications “designed to support individuals with sickle cell disease and their caregivers”:
  • Sickle Cell Disease and the Social Security Disability Evaluation Process for Adults: This guide provides detailed information, examples, and tips to help navigate the disability application and evaluation process for adults with sickle cell disease.   
  • Sickle Cell Disease and the Social Security Disability Evaluation Process for Children: This guide provides detailed information, examples, and tips to help navigate the disability application and evaluation process for children with sickle cell disease.  
  • Sickle Cell Disease: A Guide for Health Professionals on Providing Medical Evidence for Social Security Disability Claims: This resource offers health professionals insights into the Social Security disability evaluation process and the types of medical evidence required for individuals with sickle cell disease.   

Daily Dose of Data from SSA (Copy)

• OASDI Beneficiaries by State and County, 2023 — an annual publication providing statistics on the Social Security population at the local level. It contains tables on benefit type (retirement, survivors, and disability) and beneficiary category (retired and disabled workers, wives and husbands, widow(er)s, and children).

• SSI Recipients by State and County, 2023 — an annual statistical report on the Supplemental Security Income program that provides tables on program recipients, federal payments, and federally administered state supplementation.

• Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2023 — an annual report providing program and demographic information and statistics about the people who receive Social Security disability benefits—disabled workers, disabled widow(er)s, and disabled adult children.

• SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2023 — an annual report describing the SSI program and who receives benefits. It also provides statistics on recipient characteristics, disability and work incentives, applications, awards, and denials.

• Long-range financial estimates for various options to change the Social Security program (including changes to retirement age, payroll taxes, taxation of benefits, etc.), as proposed by members of Congress and other policy makers, have been updated using the intermediate assumptions of the 2024 OASDI Trustees Report.

• Presentation slides from Karen Rose and Kyle Burkhalter of the Office of the Chief Actuary from an October 1, 2024 presentation titled “Internal Rates of Return and Money’s Worth Ratios: Differential Mortality and Disability Incidence.”

• Answers to Questions for the Record have been appended to the June 13 Testimony to the House Budget Committee.

• Presentation slides from Chief Actuary Steve Goss from an October 16, 2024 presentation titled “Social Security Actuarial Status: The 2024 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the OASI and DI Trust Funds — Where We Are, How We Got Here, and Potential Changes.”

• Recurring Actuarial Note #7: Money’s Worth Ratios Under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical Workers — the 2024 edition of this note introduces adjustments for observed differences in mortality and disability incidence by career earnings levels of workers.

• Presentation slides from Chief Actuary Steve Goss and Deputy Chief Actuary Karen Glenn titled “Updates on the Financial Status of Social Security and Proposals.”

• Presentation slides from Actuary K. Mark Bye titled “Insights into Emerging U.S. Population Mortality Issues.”

Useful Resources (Copy)