Dispatches from Camp: Updates from the CEO

David Camp, NOSSCR CEO

Protecting our Profession on Capitol Hill

Regardless of political party or positions on other issues, all of us are concerned that the new Congress and political landscape should know the importance of Social Security generally and our vital work specifically. We understand that many of NOSSCR’s members are concerned that a change in party control over both the Senate and Presidency—resulting in a “trifecta”—could result in significant changes for claimants, SSA itself, and our status as appointed representatives. We hear you.

NOSSCR is already well positioned to protect our profession on Capitol Hill. We’ve spent the last several years building relationships on both sides of the aisle—leveraging our credibility, extensive knowledge of Social Security, and our PAC. We have close connections with many of the new leaders on key committees and with their staff. Our dedicated team engages with lawmakers in both parties, tracking key legislative ideas and ensuring your voice is heard where it matters. We’re committed to safeguarding the policies that allow you to represent your clients.

However, we recognize this challenging time calls for a strategy refresh. We’re stepping back into leadership roles in older coalitions and building new structures. We advocate alongside dozens of other robust groups—and that work has already started. NOSSCR will take a new look at legislative ideas—not merely for whether we agree with the text of a bill, but for whether the bill helps us maintain a united community of disability advocates.

We’ll keep you updated. We may need to give you some blunt updates as to the prospects for legislation—because we expect the razor-thin House majority will produce an even less effective body. Oversight functions, however, could be more active. As you saw from our involvement and testimony before Ways and Means in 2023 and 2024, NOSSCR already helps Congress review SSA’s activity.

You can expect some major announcements from NOSSCR in the coming days and weeks. We intend to expand our team—not with lobbyists that sell dreams, but rather with a practical and professional approach that will keep you from falling prey to misinformation. NOSSCR will continue to aggressively pursue our mission “to advocate for improvements in Social Security disability programs and to ensure that individuals with disabilities applying for and receiving Social Security Disability and SSI benefits have access to highly qualified representation and receive fair decisions.” We’ve been doing this since 1979.

President’s Corner

Paul Burkhalter, NOSSCR President

In the fall of 1993, as a young attorney fresh out of NYU School of Law, I attended my first NOSSCR conference. I had graduated into a tough job market and spent a year at the Office of General Counsel for the Social Security Administration. Defending ALJ decisions that denied disability benefits in federal court was not the fulfilling legal work I had envisioned. At the same time, I had grown skeptical of the quality of claimant representation. Seeking a more meaningful path, I joined a firm representing claimants and soon found myself in San Francisco for my first NOSSCR conference.

I hardly knew what I was doing when I walked into a session led by Charlie Bender and Matt Greenbaum—but that moment changed everything. Their passion and expertise transformed my understanding of Social Security advocacy. They brought to life the concept of being a zealous advocate for the disabled, emphasizing the courage it takes to challenge the powers that hold our clients’ fates in their hands. They made me see that representing people with disabilities is every bit as demanding, skillful, and important as litigating for a major law firm or prosecuting in federal court.

Although Social Security disability law is often described as “non-adversarial,” we know that reality can be quite different. Some days, it feels like a battle—cross-examining unqualified experts, strategically using subpoenas to build a case, securing expert opinions, and listening to testimony that is heartbreaking yet essential to our clients’ fight for justice.

My hope is that NOSSCR continues to inspire new attorneys while reigniting the passion of those who have been in the field for years. Our work matters. Winning benefits for a client means they can pay their rent, keep their utilities on, and put food on the table. These are life-changing outcomes.

What has always set NOSSCR apart is its unwavering commitment to what is best for our clients. It has also embraced a “big tent” philosophy—advocating for solo practitioners, small firms, non-attorney representatives, legal service attorneys, and larger firms alike. That inclusive mission is why I joined NOSSCR and why I have served in leadership.

At a time when other groups seem more focused on monetizing our profession than protecting the interests of solo practitioners, small firms, legal service organizations, and non-attorney representatives, I urge each of you to stay engaged with NOSSCR. I remain committed to fighting for this vision.

Over the past year, I have been especially proud of NOSSCR, CEO David Camp, and our dedicated staff. Together, we have helped secure key policy changes, including revising the rules on past relevant work, increasing the attorney fee cap (allowing us to serve more clients), and challenging the shaky foundations of vocational expert testimony. These efforts—both public and behind the scenes—strengthen the Social Security disability community and improve outcomes for the people we serve.

I appreciate your support and dedication to NOSSCR’s mission. Together, we will continue making a difference.

Register Now! NOSSCR’s 2025 Spring National Conference in Washington, D.C.!

Join us April 23-26, 2025, at the Grand Hyatt Washington for an event packed with invaluable opportunities to enhance your skills, expand your professional network, and advocate for meaningful change.

Here’s what you can look forward to:

Expand Your Expertise
Participate in a wide range of continuing education sessions, covering the latest developments in Social Security disability law, policy, and practice. Gain insights and strategies to better serve your clients and advance your practice.

Network with Peers
Connect with fellow advocates from across the country. Share best practices, discuss challenges, and build relationships that will last beyond the conference.

Advocate on Capitol Hill
Be part of a full day dedicated to advocacy on Capitol Hill. Join NOSSCR in making your voice heard on critical issues that impact the Social Security disability community.

Virtual Attendance Option Available
Can’t make it to D.C.? We’ve got you covered with a fully virtual option. Participate in sessions and earn continuing education credits from the comfort of your home or office.

Important Note:
In-person attendance is capped at 750 participants due to venue capacity. Secure your spot early to ensure you can join us in Washington, D.C. Once we reach capacity, only virtual registration will be available.

Conference Details:

• Dates: April 23-26, 2025
• Location: Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H Street NW, Washington, D.C.

Don’t miss this unique opportunity to learn, connect, and advocate. Register today and be part of a conference that empowers and inspires!

Tax Information for Representatives

Jennifer Cronenberg, NOSSCR Senior Counsel and Director of Legal Information

Well friends, it’s time again for the SSA-IRS alphanumeric soup that brings us all joyless tears once a year. The good news is, with our months’ long adjustment to the new entities rules, we are all now extremely familiar with the relevant “16-9 forms” (as SSA calls them) that impact our taxes. Nevertheless, here’s a refresher:

SSA-1694 – Request for Business Entity Taxpayer Information – this form should be completed by every firm or organization who employs appointed representatives that may be paid more than $600 by Social Security for their representation in association with a firm or organization. It allows SSA to obtain the name, employer identification number (EIN), banking information, and address of the business entity so that the representatives can then be properly associated with the firm or organization. It also allows the entity to establish a Point of Contact (POC) so that fee assignment to the entity is possible. If you’re running a Social Security firm or organization, you should have one of these on file and up to date with SSA at all times.

SSA-1695 – obsolete since 2020, this form previously associated the individual representative with the firm – this is now accomplished via Section 5 Part B of the SSA-1696.

SSA-1696 – Claimant’s Appointment of a Representative – this form attaches you to your claimant’s case and indicates if you intend to collect a fee. If you are a salaried (or contract) employee of a firm or organization, and are either affiliating with or assigning fees to an entity, proper completion of Section 5 Parts B and C is essential. This form must be filed in every case.

SSA-1699 – Registration for Appointed Representative Services and Direct Payment – this form should be completed by all representatives who wish to be listed by name on a SSA-1696. This form should be updated any time the individual representative’s information or firm association (or information) changes. If you perform contract work for multiple firms simultaneously and are paid by the firm instead of by Social Security, your 1699 should include multiple Section Vs to reflect this (Section V: Your Information When You Are Working for a Firm or Organization). This form is a one-time filing unless your information or firm association or contact information changes.

IRS 1099-MISC – This is the form you should receive if you were an appointed representative that was paid more than $600 by Social Security AND were properly associated to a firm or entity as an employee at the time of those payments. These payments should appear in Box 10 and are NOT reported as income to you.

IRS 1099-NEC – If you receive this form as an individual, any monies that are reported in Box 1 are considered “nonemployee compensation” and have been reported to the IRS as income to you. If you receive this form as a firm or entity, the form should show the total direct fee payments made to employees affiliated with your firm, which is taxable income for the firm or entity.

SSA offers this handy PowerPoint that provides additional information on the tax form process for appointed representatives. POMS GN 03913.050 outlines the details for proper registration of business entities, and POMS GN 03913.010 outlines how to properly update representative registration.

How the process should work:

Each January, SSA issues a Form 1099-MISC to each representative who received aggregate fee payments of $600 or more by direct payment in the previous year. If that representative is affiliated with an entity, the fee payments may be deemed income to the firm.

The Form 1099-MISC sent to the individual representative will include fees paid in his or her name in the previous calendar year reported in box 10 (Gross proceeds paid to an attorney, previously box 14). These amounts are not reported to the IRS as personal income to the individual representative.

Since 2021, if the firm is properly registered (i.e., it has submitted a Form SSA-1694), SSA will issue a Form 1099-NEC to the firm, as identified by the firm’s taxpayer identification number (i.e., Employer Identification Number (EIN)). The firm’s Form 1099-NEC includes the total direct fee payments made to employees affiliated with the firm in the previous year, but only for those cases in which the employees properly filed Form SSA-1696, “Claimant’s Appointment of Representative,” specifically Section 5 on the old 1696, Section 5 Part B on the new 1696. This amount is reported in box 1 of the Form 1099-NEC (Nonemployee compensation) and the IRS considers this taxable income to the firm. 

Since January 1, 2015, SSA does not provide the Fee Detail Summary along with the 1099 form. Representatives and firms should maintain an accounting system to account for these fees. You can also utilize the new AARPS portal to review your earnings and double check your accounting.

Representatives who work as sole proprietors, or who work for business entities that have not registered with SSA by submitting a Form SSA-1694, will receive a Form 1099-NEC, with income reported in box 1 (Nonemployee compensation). Prior to January 2021, SSA reported these earnings in box 7 on the previous version of the IRS 1099-MISC.

Troubleshooting errors:

Erroneous reporting may occur if the representative has not properly completed Section 5 of Form SSA-1696 (or Section 5 Part B of the new Form SSA-1696). Section 5 of Form SSA-1696 requires the individual representative to include both his or her Rep ID and the firm’s EIN in order to connect the representative to the firm on each case. 

Tax errors primarily occur due to a lack of firm registration (i.e., Form SSA-1694) or proper linking between the individual representative and firm affiliation (i.e., Form SSA-1699 – Section V). This is why it is very important for each firm to register with SSA via the Form SSA-1694, and for employees of the firm to indicate affiliation with the firm through the Form SSA-1699. Individual representatives and firms should also resubmit/update these forms whenever their information changes.

What about user fees?

When reviewing your Form 1099-MISC or Form 1099-NEC information, remember that the user fees are included on these forms. The IRS considers the gross amount as the amount that should be reported on the Form 1099-MISC and Form 1099-NEC. The representatives and firms should then report the gross amounts in their income tax returns (e.g., Sch C for sole proprietor; Form 1065 for partnerships, etc.) with the user fee assessments reflected as a deductible business expense (similar to commissions, fees, etc.). The regulatory authority for reporting the gross amount is in section 1.6041-1(f) of the Internal Revenue Code regulations.

Why is the representative’s SSN on the Form 1099-MISC or Form 1099-NEC?

Slide 25 of SSA’s PowerPoint explains that “[t]he Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires that [SSA] use your Social Security number to identify you. Your Social Security number will always appear on the Form 1099-MISC. If you are a sole proprietor and have an Employer Identification Number (EIN), your Social Security number will appear in the Recipient’s Identification Number box, and your EIN will appear in the Account Number box. If you do not have an EIN, only your SSN will appear. If you work for a firm or organization, your Social Security number will appear in the Recipient’s Identification Number block, and the EIN for the firm will appear in the Account Number box.”

What can you do if your forms are wrong?

If an individual representative receives a Form 1099-NEC with amounts reported that should be income to the firm and not to the individual representative, the individual representative is considered a nominee recipient. The individual representative should file a new Form 1099-NEC and Form 1096 “Annual Summary and Transmittal of U.S. Information Returns” with the IRS. The individual representative should also provide the new Form 1099-NEC to the firm. On the new Form 1099-NEC, the individual representative should be indicated as the “payer” and the firm as the “recipient.” On the new Form 1096, the individual representative should be indicated as the “filer.” 

The IRS has published the instructions above for Nominee/Middleman returns in the General Instructions for Certain Information Returns – Section A – Who Must File for the Form 1099-MISC (pg. 3). Although the IRS provides specific instructions for completing the different types of 1099 forms and Form 1096 on its website, we suggest working with an accountant. 

What can you do to avoid potential reporting issues?

According to SSA’s Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance, Quality, and Management, one preventive measure representatives can take to avoid possible reporting mistakes is to verify their affiliations and their firms’ registration with the RCC at 1-877-626-6363. NOSSCR has been told that the RCC is able to review and confirm whether a representative is properly registered and affiliated with his/her firm and whether the representative’s firm is properly registered with SSA. However, the RCC cannot make any corrections or updates to this information; if any changes are required, an updated SSA-1699 or SSA-1694 must be submitted. 

If you have additional questions, SSA has instructed representatives to contact the RCC or the IRS at 1-866-455-7438. Additional information is also available online and via SSA’s PowerPoint presentation. Please also refer to POMS GN 03913.050 and POMS GN 03913.010 for added clarity.  

What about the new entity process?

As mentioned at the outset, with all our talk of the “16-9” forms this past year, I am hopeful that most of you know, 1) that your individual 1699s are up to date with SSA; 2) that you are properly affiliated with your firms or organizations in Section V(s) of your 1699; 3) that your firm is properly registered with their own 1694; and 4) that your 1696s are properly linking you back to the firm (via Section 5, Part B). Simply having these forms in place is a huge step in the right direction of reducing the common tax headaches that plague our business. That said, as we are only a few months into the “assignment” portion of the new rules, we don’t yet know how smoothly the processing of that additional step will go in the IRS-SSA tax tango. If you see anything new or unusual pop up during this tax season (or next), please reach out to me at jennifer.cronenberg@nosscr.org.

Legislative Spotlight

Betsy Rosecan, NOSSCR Government Relations Director

On January 13, 2025, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced S. 73, a bill to amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to provide that the Supplemental Security Income benefits of adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities shall not be reduced by reason of marriage. The bill has one cosponsor, Sen. Chris VanHollen (D-MD). Companion legislation has not yet been introduced in the House of Representatives.

S. 73 seeks to end the “penalty” for SSI recipients who marry. Currently, when assessing eligibility for SSI, the “money and property” of a recipient’s spouse are included in the formula. In some cases, this means that payments are reduced or fully eliminated. This legislation would exclude a spouse’s income and resources when determining an SSI beneficiary’s eligibility. NOSSCR supports this legislation.

The full text of the bill is not yet available, but a information on S. 73 can be found here.

Piemonte’s Perspective

George Piemonte, NOSSCR 11th Circuit Board Representative

ALJs will use a common hypothetical question limitation: “Assume the claimant needs a low-production work setting” (or non-production pace, etc.). Here are the problems with this:

• All jobs require that something be produced or some service be provided.
• All jobs have some production requirement. For example, a hotel housekeeper must clean a certain number of rooms during their shift, and a cashier must check out a line of customers as quickly as possible.
• Have any of you hired someone (other than your child) with no expectation that they will do any actual work?
• We are almost always dealing with unskilled work, which means the claimant has no advantage over any random person on the street, so the employer has no economic motivation to keep a lower-producing worker.

So, how do you deal with “needs a low-production work setting” (or non-production pace, etc.)? You can ask the VE the following questions:

• Isn’t it true that work means providing services for pay?
• A job that does not require producing anything isn’t work, is it?
• All jobs have some productivity requirements, don’t they? Who sets them?
• If an employee can’t meet those set productivity requirements, they will be fired, won’t they?
• If an employer can hire someone off the street who can meet the productivity requirements, that’s what they will do to stay in business, right?
• A business that usually allowed a sub-average pace would fail, wouldn’t it?
• Isn’t retaining workers with sub-average productivity sheltered work?

The critical point is why an employer would keep someone who cannot meet their requirements when they can hire someone who can off the street.

If the VE fails or refuses to admit the obvious, get a rebuttal opinion and make your record. I know SSR 24-3p says no post-hearing evidence, but put on the record that the VE’s testimony is unreliable and request the record be held open for a rebuttal opinion. If the ALJ says no, get it and submit it anyway. There is a good chance the court would not take kindly to the ALJ not allowing you to fully develop the record.

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.

Language for Incorrectly Applied Fee Cap

Jennifer Cronenberg, NOSSCR Senior Counsel and Director of Legal Information

Now that the increased fee cap is in full effect, NOSSCR is dusting off and updating our recommended language for use if (and when) the agency incorrectly applies the old cap. Feel free to use this language or adjust it to suit your purposes (also provided in a downloadable Word document at the bottom).

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Commissioner increased the fee cap from $7,200 to $9,200 for fee agreements approved on or after November 30, 2024 (See 89 Fed. Reg. 40523 (May 10, 2024)). Your award calculation erroneously applied the old cap of $7,200, and we ask for an immediate correction in accord with POMS GN 03940.041A.  

The controlling date for applying the increased fee cap is the date of the approved decision (not the date on a signed agreement)—and this claim was approved on or after November 30, 2024. Regardless of the number listed on the fee agreement document, a representative is entitled to the increased $9,200 cap if the fee agreement contains “escalator” language, allowing for an increase in the maximum fee (See POMS GN 03920.006A).

Our fee agreement in the above named claim included the proper escalator language allowing for the $9,200 cap, and yet your calculation incorrectly provides for the old $7,200 cap. Please note that POMS GN 03940.041A requires that when SSA applies an incorrect fee cap and the representative or claimant informs SSA of the mistake, SSA must correct the error without further delay.

Because the lower fee cap was incorrectly applied, please immediately rectify this error following the procedures in POMS GN 03940.041B.1. Thank you.   

Best regards, 

Additional language and accompanying citations you can use:

• The statutory authority for the fee cap increase can be found at 89 Fed. Reg. 40523 (May 10, 2024):
  • “Beginning November 30, 2024, decision makers may approve a fee agreement up to the new dollar limit if the fee agreement meets the statutory conditions for approval, no exceptions to the fee agreement process exist, and the favorable determination or decision is issued on or after this date.”
  • See also POMS GN 03920.006A:
    • “The parties to a fee agreement (i.e., the claimant and representative(s)) may include language to permit an adjustment of the agreed fee to the maximum statutory fee limit in effect as of the day of our favorable determination or decision.”
  • And POMS GN 03940.003B.3:
    • “We accept language in a fee agreement that permits an adjustment for the statutory fee limit in effect as of the day we approve the fee agreement.”

• Neither the date the fee agreement was signed nor the date the fee agreement was submitted is controlling for purposes of the increased fee cap:
  • See NOTE 1 in HALLEX I-1-2-12A.3, “The increased limit is effective as of the day of our favorable determination or decision, not on the date the fee agreement was signed or filed.”

• The increased fee cap applies to all fee agreements containing language that permits an adjustment to the maximum fee limit in effect as of the date of the favorable decision (an “escalator” clause):
  • POMS GN 03940.003B.3, “The fee requested in the fee agreement cannot exceed the lesser of 25 percent of the past-due benefits or the fee limit set by the Commissioner under the authority provided by section of the Act 206(a)(2)(A)(ii) (II).”

• While the current limit is $9,200, citing an example of the prior $7,200 cap in the fee agreement does not invalidate the escalator clause’s applicability and does not cap the maximum payment to $7,200 when such language is present:
  • POMS GN 03920.006C, “[SSA] will recognize an otherwise valid fee agreement that contains language to allow an increase in the maximum statutory fee agreed to by the parties (i.e., the claimant and representative(s)). If the fee cap increases on or before the date of a favorable determination or decision, [SSA] will consider the new fee cap when authorizing the fee.”

• And here’s another sample paragraph you can use to plug-in your case details:
  • The [payment center or field office] failed to authorize, withhold, and pay the applicable increased fee cap in this case, which was favorably decided on [X date], even though the fee agreement contained an escalator clause permitting an adjustment to the maximum fee limit in effect as of the date of the favorable decision. According to POMS GN 03940.041A, “When SSA applies an incorrect fee cap and the representative or claimant advises SSA of the mistake, SSA will correct the error.”  

While we haven’t yet heard too many reports regarding erroneous payments with the latest increase, please keep this language handy to use should these improper payments arise (which they likely will). As always, if an SSA employee refuses to fix the error even after you notify them of the error, please escalate to a supervisor within that office. If that fails, please report the incident to the Regional Communications Director. If that does not solve the problem, please let us know at jennifer.cronenberg@nosscr.org.

David Camp Nominated to the National Academy of Social Insurance

NOSSCR is incredibly proud to announce that our CEO, David Camp, has been nominated for membership in the prestigious National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI). This nomination is a testament to David’s expertise in Social Security disability policy.

The National Academy of Social Insurance is a renowned organization composed of the nation’s leading experts on social insurance policy. For nearly 40 years, it has been instrumental in shaping policy discussions and advancing the understanding of critical programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance.

David’s nomination reflects his significant contributions to improving the disability adjudication process and ensuring that claimants receive fair and timely decisions. His insights and experience will be invaluable to the Academy’s efforts to strengthen Social Security.

We are confident that David’s membership in the Academy will enhance his ability to contribute to the crucial discussions surrounding social insurance in the United States. This is a well-deserved honor, and we congratulate David on this significant achievement!

Making a Difference: NOSSCR’s Hill Day

Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director

In April, NOSSCR is sponsoring Hill Day—a unique opportunity for us as advocates to influence the policies that shape our clients’ lives. This event offers a chance to share our expertise and insight with the lawmakers and staff who make decisions impacting SSA and its claimants.

Let’s be honest: the idea of lobbying might feel intimidating. I don’t scare easily—after all, I’ve stood in courtrooms and administrative hearings, defending my clients’ rights under pressure. Yet, the thought of walking into a congressional office felt overwhelming. I’m politically active, but the Capitol Office Complex is unfamiliar territory.

The truth is, it doesn’t have to be this way. During a trip to Washington, D.C., last November, I decided to give it a try. I reached out to Betsy Rosecan, NOSSCR’s Government Relations Director, and was immediately reassured. Betsy provided me with a concise one-page “cheat sheet” that outlined key talking points and made the process feel approachable. She also offered guidance and encouragement that made all the difference.

The Steps to a Successful Congressional Visit

A Congressional visit is simpler than you might think, especially with NOSSCR’s support. Here’s how it works:

1. Identify Your Legislators: Start by finding your two Senators and your Representative. It’s easy to look them up online or contact NOSSCR for assistance.
2. Schedule Appointments: Meetings are typically with staff members who specialize in Social Security issues. These professionals are knowledgeable and often open to hearing from constituents. Be sure to emphasize that you are a constituent advocating on behalf of real people—not a paid lobbyist.
3. Prepare Your Message: NOSSCR provides a one-page sheet highlighting key issues, such as:
   1. SSA’s budget challenges and their impact on operations.
   1. Delays in initial and reconsideration determinations.
   1. Processing and payment backlogs for approved claims and fees.
   1. Positive changes under Commissioner O’Malley.
4. Keep It Brief: Congressional staffers are busy, and meetings are typically 15–20 minutes long. Stick to the main points and share personal stories about how SSA’s challenges affect your clients and practice.
5. Follow Up: After your visit, send a thank-you note and offer to be a resource if they have future questions about Social Security issues.

Why Your Voice Matters

As attorneys and advocates for disability claimants, we bring firsthand knowledge of SSA’s strengths and shortcomings. Hill Day gives us the chance to amplify that knowledge and ensure that Congress understands the impact of their decisions on the claimants we represent.

The truth is, you don’t have to be a seasoned lobbyist to make a difference. Your expertise and your stories are powerful tools. With NOSSCR’s resources and support, you’ll be prepared to speak confidently about the issues that matter most to your clients and your practice.

So, this April, let’s show up. Let’s make our voices heard. Let’s make a difference. Hill Day is your opportunity to bring your advocacy from the hearing room to the halls of Congress. Together, we can help shape the future of Social Security.

To sign-up for our April Hill Day, first register for our DC conference then follow the instructions in your confirmation email.

For more information preparing for Hill Day, please review our Hill Day FAQ below. If you are unable to attend in April and want to discuss setting up your own Capitol Hill visit with NOSSCR’s support, please contact Betsy Rosecan at betsy.rosecan@nosscr.org. We look forward to seeing you in Washington!

Speaker Proposals Now Open! San Diego Sept. 2025!

The National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives is seeking dynamic and engaging speakers for our Fall National Conference, set to take place in San Diego, CA from September 8-12, 2025! This is your opportunity to share your expertise with hundreds of attorneys and advocates who represent Social Security disability claimants.

We are interested in proposals on a wide range of topics related to Social Security disability law and practice, including:

• Recent developments in Social Security disability law
• Effective advocacy strategies
• Representing claimants with mental impairments
• The role of medical evidence in Social Security disability claims
• Vocational issues in Social Security disability claims
• Law office management, including utilizing technology
• Ethical considerations in Social Security disability practice

We are particularly interested in proposals that offer practical advice and insights that attendees can use in their everyday practice.

Submission Guidelines

Interested speakers should submit a proposal that includes the following:

• Title of presentation
• Brief description of presentation (no more than 250 words)
• Speaker biography (no more than 100 words)
• Headshot
• Contact information

Deadline for Submissions

The deadline for submitting proposals is February 28, 2025.

Deadline for Materials

Presentation Materials will be due May 2, 2025.

Benefits of Speaking

Speakers will receive a $500 discount on registration to the conference (limited to two speakers per session, only one discount per person), as well as recognition in the conference program and on the NOSSCR website.

How to Submit

Please follow this link and submit your proposal electronically through our website.

We look forward to receiving your proposals!

Recent Cases of Interest

Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director

Once again, 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 more detailed explanations are available in the downloadable document at the bottom of the list.

Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 24-11233, 2025 WL 263388 (11th Cir. Jan. 22, 2025): Amanda Smith appealed the district court’s reduction of attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The court found the reduction was arbitrary and remanded for further proceedings.

Karen O. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 731 F. Supp. 3d 926 (S.D. Ohio 2024): Karen O. contested the denial of her disability insurance benefits. The court addressed issues related to attorney fees, including the reasonableness of the contingency fee and the reduction of the fee award by a hypothetical EAJA award. The court granted the motion for attorney fees in part, subject to modification. This case appears twice in the document, indicating it is a duplicate.       

Duran v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d — (D. Mass. 2024): Miguelina Duran challenged the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the Appeals Council erred by not considering new vocational evidence. The court found the Council’s failure to consider the new evidence constituted an egregious error and remanded the case for further proceedings.     

Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 732 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2024): Carlos Garcia sought judicial review of the denial of his disability benefits. The court found that the ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the treating physician’s opinion and remanded the case for payment of benefits.     

M.M. v. O’Malley, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2024): M.M. challenged the denial of his disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly consider his insomnia and subjective symptom testimony. The court found that the ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting M.M.’s symptom testimony and remanded the case for reconsideration of his residual functional capacity.   

Perez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, — F. App’x — (11th Cir. 2024): Maribel Perez appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that there was an apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT. The court found an apparent conflict and remanded the case for further proceedings.   

Wilson v. O’Malley, — F. App’x — (4th Cir. 2024): Megan Wilson appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ improperly relied on objective findings to discredit her subjective testimony. The court vacated the decision and remanded the case for consideration in light of new precedent.  

Karissa B. v. O’Malley, 733 F. Supp. 3d 57 (D.R.I. 2024): Karissa B. challenged the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the number of jobs available to her was not significant. The court agreed, finding that 10,100 jobs nationwide was not a significant number, and awarded benefits.   

Anna C. v. O’Malley, 734 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Or. 2024): Anna C. sought review of the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to consider her non-severe mental impairments. The court found errors in the ALJ’s analysis and remanded the case for further proceedings.   

Stephen D. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 734 F. Supp. 3d 729 (S.D. Ohio 2024): Stephen D. challenged the denial of his disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ erred in using “occasional interaction” instead of “superficial interaction” in his RFC. The court found no error and affirmed the decision. This case appears twice in the document, indicating it is a duplicate.      

Linger v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 22-2192, 2025 WL 40548 (4th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025): Matthew Dana Linger appealed the denial of his disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusions and gave too little weight to certain medical opinions. The court agreed, finding that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded the case with instructions to grant disability benefits.

Walsh v. Colvin, No. 23-3184, 2025 WL 40559 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025): Deborah Walsh appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of her treating physician and other medical evidence. The court found that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the denial of benefits.

Hammond v. O’Malley, 735 F. Supp. 3d 567 (E.D. Pa. 2024): Doris Hammond challenged the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to consider her PTSD and the opinion of her treating psychiatrist. The court found that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Yasmin V. v. O’Malley, 735 F. Supp. 3d 118 (D.R.I. 2024): Yasmin V. sought review of the denial of her disability benefits. The court found that the delays in her case were unconscionable and ordered the Commissioner to grant disability benefits without further remand.

Reeves v. Colvin, No. 24-1977, 2025 WL 87236 (8th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025): Jamila Reeves appealed the dismissal of her civil action for review of the denial of social security benefits as untimely. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Reeves failed to file within the 60-day deadline and was not entitled to equitable tolling.

Stambuk v. Colvin, No. 23-2561, 2025 WL 88845 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025): Laurie A. Stambuk appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ improperly rejected medical opinions and her testimony. The court found that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and reversed the denial of benefits.

Nahhas v. Commissioner of Social Security, — F.Supp.3d — (D. Mass. 2024): Iman I. Nahhas challenged the denial of her disability benefits, seeking a rehearing on remand. The court exercised its discretion to allow a rehearing, finding that the claimant should have the opportunity to present additional evidence.

Kertz v. Colvin, — F.4th — (8th Cir. 2025): Jason Kertz appealed the district court’s decision on attorney’s fees following a favorable disability benefits decision. The court affirmed the district court’s reduction of the fee award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Bersie v. Colvin, No. 23-4377, 2025 WL 219116 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025): Tammie Jo Bersie appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing errors in the ALJ’s determination of her past work and credibility assessment. The court affirmed the denial, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision.

Fidel R.P. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d — (N.D. Cal. 2024): Fidel R.P. sought review of the denial of his disability benefits, arguing errors in the ALJ’s evaluation of medical evidence and symptom testimony. The court found the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded for further proceedings.

Nevin v. Colvin, — F.4th — (9th Cir. 2025): Beth Ann Nevin appealed the partial denial of her disability benefits, challenging the ALJ’s reopening of her second application. The court found the ALJ erred in reopening the application and remanded for the award of benefits.

Stephanie T. v. O’Malley, 738 F. Supp. 3d 156 (D.R.I. 2024): Stephanie T. challenged the denial of her SSI benefits, arguing that the ALJ erred in finding her fibromyalgia was not a medically determinable impairment. The court found the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded for further proceedings.

2025 Rudolph Patterson Scholarship Nomination Window Open

NOSSCR is pleased to announce a new format for the prestigious Rudolph Patterson Scholarship. This year, we’re providing access to valuable continuing legal education for Social Security disability advocates across the country.

What’s New?

The 2025 Rudolph Patterson Scholarship will provide at least five (5) individuals with an all-access pass to NOSSCR’s live virtual continuing education (CE) webinars for one full year. This incredible opportunity allows recipients to stay at the forefront of Social Security disability law and advocacy, enhancing their knowledge and skills to better serve their clients.

Scholarship Benefits:

• Unlimited access: Attend all of NOSSCR’s live virtual CLE webinars throughout the year, covering a wide range of critical topics and have access to video replays.
• Stay up-to-date: Learn from leading experts in the field on the latest case law, regulations, and advocacy strategies.
• Enhance your expertise: Gain valuable insights and practical knowledge to strengthen your representation of Social Security disability claimants.

Eligibility:

• Passion for Social Security disability law: Demonstrate a strong interest in advocating for the rights of individuals with disabilities.
• Commitment to professional development: Show a dedication to continuing your education and enhancing your advocacy skills.
• Financial need: Preference may be given to applicants who demonstrate financial need.

Nomination Process:

• To nominate yourself or someone else, email nosscr@nosscr.org with a brief description of the need and a brief profile of the legal services or other program. Please feel free to include any other information you believe to be helpful.

Deadline:

• Please submit all nominations no later than February 28, 2025. Any nominations received after that date will not be considered.

Selection Process:

• The NOSSCR Awards and Scholarships Committee will review all applications and select the scholarship recipients.
• The recipients will be announced on the NOSSCR website and social media channels.

Don’t miss this chance to advance your career or the career of a colleague in Social Security disability advocacy!

Tax Resources for Claimants

The IRS provides the following information on their website regarding taxes and Social Security benefits. Please share this information with your clients:

Social Security benefits include monthly retirement, survivor and disability benefits. They don’t include supplemental security income (SSI) payments, which aren’t taxable. The net amount of Social Security benefits that you receive from the Social Security Administration is reported in Box 5 of Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement, and you report that amount on line 6a of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return or Form 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors. The taxable portion of the benefits that’s included in your income and used to calculate your income tax liability depends on the total amount of your income and benefits for the taxable year. You report the taxable portion of your Social Security benefits on line 6b of Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR.

Your benefits may be taxable if the total of (1) one-half of your benefits, plus (2) all of your other income, including tax-exempt interest, is greater than the base amount for your filing status.

The base amount for your filing status is:

• $25,000 if you’re single, head of household, or qualifying surviving spouse,
• $25,000 if you’re married filing separately and lived apart from your spouse for the entire year,
• $32,000 if you’re married filing jointly,
• $0 if you’re married filing separately and lived with your spouse at any time during the tax year.

If you’re married and file a joint return, you and your spouse must combine your incomes and Social Security benefits when figuring the taxable portion of your benefits. Even if your spouse didn’t receive any benefits, you must add your spouse’s income to yours when figuring on a joint return if any of your benefits are taxable.

Generally, you can figure the taxable amount of the benefits in Are my Social Security or railroad retirement tier I benefits taxable?, on a worksheet in the Instructions for Form 1040 (and Form 1040-SR) or in Publication 915, Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits. However, if you made contributions to a traditional Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA) for 2024 and you or your spouse were covered by a retirement plan at work or through self-employment, use the special worksheets in in Appendix B of Publication 590-A, Contributions to Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs), to see if any of your Social Security benefits are taxable and to figure your IRA deduction.

If you did not receive your SSA-1099 from Social Security, also called a Social Security Benefit Statement, you can request one online with a my Social Security account. Replacement SSA-1099s are available beginning February 1 for the previous year. You can also contact Social Security directly if you cannot request it online or if your SSA-1099 needs a correction.

The IRS also provides an Interactive Tax Assistance Tool on their website, as well as offering “free tax return preparation for qualifying taxpayers.” SSA provides additional Information for Tax Preparers on their site should your clients have additional questions.

Call for Nominations: NOSSCR Awards

NOSSCR is seeking nominations for the following prestigious awards:

• Eileen P. Sweeney Distinguished Service Award: This award recognizes an individual who has made outstanding contributions to the field of Social Security disability advocacy through their dedication, leadership, and commitment to serving the needs of claimants.
• Nancy G. Shor Leadership Award: This award honors an emerging leader in the field of Social Security disability advocacy who has demonstrated exceptional potential and a passion for advancing the rights and interests of claimants.

Eligibility:

• Eileen P. Sweeney Distinguished Service Award: Nominees must have a demonstrated history of exceptional service to the organization and the disability community.
• Nancy G. Shor Leadership Award: Nominees must have demonstrated exceptional leadership and a commitment to advancing the rights and interests of claimants.

Nomination Process:

• Submit a nomination: The nomination form can be found on the NOSSCR website at https://nosscr.org/awards-and-scholarships/.
• Nominations are accepted on a rolling basis.

Selection Process:

• Committee review: The Awards and Scholarships Committee will review all nominations.
• Awards may not be given at each conference or each year.

Don’t Miss Out! Mark Your Calendars for Upcoming NOSSCR Events!

Want to stay ahead in the world of Social Security disability law? NOSSCR has a packed schedule of both in-person and virtual events to keep you informed and connected.

Virtual Opportunities at Your Fingertips, All Year Long

Are you looking for professional growth in 2025? NOSSCR offers a variety of virtual events throughout the year focused on sharpening your advocacy skills and building your network, including:

• Webinars: Stay up-to-date on the latest legal developments, practice management strategies, and more from the comfort of your home or office through our live and on-demand continuing education webinars.
  • On February 3, Debora Wagner and Ray Cebula will present “Love Stinks,” a presentation focused on marriage penalties offered at no cost to nonprofit members.
• Virtual Circuit Meetings: Connect with colleagues and NOSSCR leaders in your region to discuss regional issues and trends.
  • If you’re in the Fourth, DC, Fifth, Ninth, or Eleventh Circuits, your Circuit meeting will be in February. Don’t forget to register!
• NextGen Virtual Coffee Breaks: These informal online gatherings are great for newer practitioners to network and share experiences.

Check the NOSSCR events calendar for a complete list of upcoming virtual events and registration details. Subscribe to our calendar to make sure you don’t miss out!

Don’t forget these other exciting events:

• Spring into Action in D.C.: Our Spring 2025 National Conference is just around the corner! Join us in Washington, D.C., from April 23-26, 2025, at the Grand Hyatt Washington. This is your chance to:
  • Deepen your knowledge: Attend cutting-edge continuing education sessions presented by leaders in Social Security disability law and policy.
  • Network with colleagues: Connect with fellow advocates from across the country, share best practices, and build lasting relationships.
  • Make your voice heard: Participate in a powerful advocacy day on Capitol Hill, addressing critical issues impacting the Social Security disability community.
  • Registration is now open! Visit the NOSSCR website for details and to secure your spot, in-person or virtually.

• NOSSCR Supreme Court Group Admission: Limited to 50 attendees, this exclusive event on June 18, 2025, offers a unique opportunity to be admitted to the Supreme Court bar with your NOSSCR colleagues. The application will be available on our website in early January. Check out the detailed instructions here.

We hope to see you at an upcoming event!

2025 SSI Deeming Chart

NOSSCR is pleased to share the SSI Deeming Chart for 2025. We hope that this reference tool will be useful in your practice.

Big thanks, as always, to NOSSCR member Michael Wener for keeping this chart updated and allowing us to share it with all of you.

New Survey Report Looks at Social Security’s Future

Our friends at the National Academy of Social Insurance, in association with AARP, NIRS, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have released a new Survey Report entitled “Social Security at 90: A Bipartisan Roadmap for the Program’s Future.”

From NASI’s Press Release:

Washington, DC — Today, the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released new survey findings on Americans’ views on Social Security.

Unlike most public opinion research on Social Security, which asks about each policy option individually, the survey, conducted in partnership with Greenwald Research, features a unique trade-off analysis that allows it to capture the full picture of Americans’ views on how lawmakers should address the program’s long-term financing gap.

Key findings include:

• Americans are united in support of Social Security. Across party lines, generations, income, and education, Americans value Social Security and see it as the cornerstone of retirement security. Just four percent of Americans say it will not be important to their income in retirement.
• Rather than closing Social Security’s financing gap through benefit reductions, Americans strongly prefer bringing more revenue into the system. Eighty-five percent say we should ensure benefits are not reduced, even if it means raising taxes on some or all Americans. The most strongly preferred of all options tested is eliminating the cap on payroll tax contributions for those earning more than $400,000 per year. Additionally, Americans across all groups, including a majority of Republicans, say they are willing to pay more themselves by gradually increasing the payroll tax rate to strengthen the program’s finances.
• Americans are broadly opposed to benefit reductions. Given a broad set of options to address Social Security’s financing gap, respondents reject benefit reductions such as further increases to the retirement age or switching to a slower cost-of-living adjustment.
• Americans want to strengthen Social Security benefits. They support several targeted improvements including adding a caregiver credit for workers who take time out of the workforce to care for young children and a “bridge benefit” to protect from the early claiming reduction of those in physically demanding jobs who may be unable to continue working up to full retirement age.
• Americans need and value Social Security’s disability benefits. Ninety percent of Americans say that they will need Social Security’s disability benefits if they become disabled and unable to support themselves through work, and only four percent support cutting disability benefits. The survey also finds strong bipartisan support for updating outdated rules in Supplemental Security Income, including its $2,000 asset limit.

“At a time when our country is deeply divided, Social Security remains a powerful unifying force,” said Rebecca Vallas, Chief Executive Officer of the National Academy of Social Insurance. “This survey shows there is strong bipartisan agreement on how the American people want to secure the program’s future, and we urge policymakers to listen.”

“It is rare in today’s political climate to see people unite around anything,” said AARP Chief Public Policy Officer Deb Whitman, “but virtually all Americans want their Social Security benefits to be preserved and are willing to do what it takes to ensure the program continues to provide meaningful support for future generations.”

“Social Security is the foundation of retirement security in the United States. This report clearly indicates both the important role that Social Security plays as a source of retirement income for older Americans as well as the priority the American people place on resolving the financing gap so that benefits are not cut indiscriminately,” said Tyler Bond, Research Director at the National Institute on Retirement Security. “This research continues a long history of finding strong support for Social Security among the public.”

“These survey results show that Americans value Social Security and their private sector retirement benefits because they were unwilling to cut those benefits to finance Social Security,” said Chantel Sheaks, Vice President of Retirement Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Americans think of these together, and policymakers should as well.”

You can read and download the full report below or at NASI’s website.

PAC Contributor List

THANK YOU TO OUR NOSSCR PAC CONTRIBUTORS

As of January 2025

Daily Dose of Data from SSA

• SSDI Claims Disallowed from FY2019 to FY2023

• Earnings and Employment Data for Workers Covered Under Social Security and Medicare, by State and County, 2022, an annual report providing employment and earnings statistics by sex and age for people in employment covered under Social Security and Medicare.

• Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2024, a monthly snapshot of statistics on Social Security beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income recipients.

• SSI Monthly Statistics, December 2024, these monthly tables provide statistics for federally administered payments and awards under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

• Estimates of the Financial Effects on Social Security of potential legislation to improve the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds, requested by Representative Steny Hoyer and Wendell Primus, a memo from the Office of the Chief Actuary, January 3, 2025.

• Mortality by Career-Average Earnings Level, a presentation by Tiffany Bosley of the Office of the Chief Actuary at the American Academy of Actuaries’ Social Security Committee meeting, January 14, 2025.

• International Update, January 2025, A monthly publication covering recent developments in foreign private and public pensions, social security, and retirement. In this issue: Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico.

Useful Resources