New York Social Security Disability Lawyer Blog

Our firm's Social Security clients are served mostly by three hearing offices: White Plains (NY), Albany (NY), and Newark (NJ). According to the NOSSCR Social Security Forum, December 2009, the average processing time for the White Plains office is 430 days (63rd out of 143 nationwide), Albany is 466 days (88/143) and Newark is 488 days (100/143).

In the last year and a half all of these offices have added new judges. When that happened I was hopeful it would mean a shortened wait for hearings. Thus far that has not proven to be the case, except for limited examples. But what I find totally inexplicable is the shuffling of cases between the offices.

Many of our Albany cases have been transferred to Newark for hearing. Not only does that mean the claimants cannot get an in-person hearing (unless they wish to wait even longer), but they are being transferred to an office that has a longer processing time! WHY? Who does it help?

The Albany claimants are sent to a slower office; the Newark office now has even more files; and the Newark hearings for Albany claimants delay the local New Jersey claimants. We see the same thing happening in White Plains, where they are also handling hearings from Albany as well as other hearing offices.

The same number of judges are holding roughly the same number of hearings, the local claimants are obviously waiting longer than they would have were there no file transfers, and the cases transferred do not get the benefit of in-person hearings. Not only that, but when we called Newark recently to inquire about the status of a transferred case the person on the other end told us, "this is a transferred case. Those are delayed." WHY? Who does it help?

I will be sending a letter to the Regional Chief Judge regarding this. There may be some grand plan at work here, but as far as I can see, all it can do is cook the numbers. Even then, who does it help?

Whatever reason they can possibly give us, it does not help claimants waiting for hearings get them any sooner, which is the ostensible goal.

Lew Insler

In the past few days I read about two people who pled guilty to fraud charges for making false statements to the Social Security Administration.

The actions of both of the individuals charged with the frauds is despicable and deserving of punishment.

Unfortunately, all too often, I get calls from former clients and prospective clients who tell me about how they were contacted by investigators with the Social Security Administration's Office of Inspector General Office ("OIG"). More often than not, these people are innocent of any frauds, and are simply the victims of vengeful spouses (and former spouses) or acquaintances who mistakenly believe that a fraud is being perpetuated. The conventional wisdom is that a person being investigated by OIG is indeed guilty of some fraud and, as such, attorneys stay away from those cases. In fact, the reality is that in many cases, the investigators simply want to get to the bottom of the issue. I have had numerous cases like this, where the investigators confirmed the absence of fraud and my clients' benefits were continued.

At the same time, it does happen that otherwise good people have given in to the temptation of continuing to collect Disability benefits while working or otherwise no longer eligible. In my experience, the Social Security Administration rarely initiates fraud proceedings to punish the wrongdoer and, in fact, frequently handles the resultant 'overpayment' with surprising sensitivity for the disabled claimant and works with the wrongdoers to recover the money improperly received.

While it's a difficult situation to decide who should just pay back benefits versus who should pay back money and be punished, the two newsmakers below most certainly deserve to suffer punitive consequences for their actions.

Gabe Hermann

The links to the articles I read are below:

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1603473.html

http://www.jacksoncountychronicle.com/articles/2010/01/20/thisjustin/07ss.txt

While I may be a new addition to the law firm of Insler & Hermann, I am no stranger to the practice area of Social Security Disability. In fact, I started my career in this practice area while working with Gabe Hermann in 1997. Like him, I have been representing disability claimants since then without interruption.

I've been fortunate enough to remain in contact with Gabe ever since then, and have followed his career as he joined Lew Insler years ago. He has always been the consummate professional and a wealth of information. On a chance encounter last year, I was fortunate to appear for a hearing in the Bronx at the same time he was. This set into motion a series of events which led to a meeting with his business partner, Lew Insler. Lew struck me as someone passionate about the law and compassionate about his clients.

Since joining the firm last month, I quickly learned that Lew and Gabe carry this approach into how they practice law and represent their clients. Attention to detail and a personal attitude distinguish them from many other practitioners in this area of law, and I'm glad to bring the same qualities to their practice.

At a recent lunch, Lew addressed the staff on the positive feedback we continue to receive from our clients. "The reason for our success: each and every one of you really cares," he told us, expressing his gratitude to the entire staff, from the paralegals and secretaries to the bookkeeper. In the weeks since I've begun working here, I have seen this dedication firsthand, and it makes me proud to be a part of this firm.

I'm extremely excited to become an active part of the law firm of Insler & Hermann and encourage people to email me directly at bma@nymetrodisability.com with any questions or ideas for future blog topics. I look forward to hearing from you.

Brian Anson

By now you have probably heard about the tragic shooting in a Las Vegas courthouse on Monday. Police believe the gunman's motive was anger over the dismissal of his Social Security benefits claim.

The problem with any news article is that the further away you are from it the less truth it contains. Yet the kernel of truth in this case is that Social Security Disability and SSI clients have had the rug pulled out from under their lives. Many people are on the edge to begin with, and they take the delays in the system personally. Some people react violently. What "the system" must take from this act is that these delays rob people of their dignity, and that to end violence the claimants must get speedy justice.

We are currently representing a claimant whose case is also at Federal Court. The problem is that the Magistrate Judge to whom it is assigned has sat on it and done nothing for three years!! While our client is not about to resort to violence, there is little that can be done to force a Federal Court Judge, an Administrative Law Judge or the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration to render a decision. While there are time limits on filing claims and appeals, there are no time limits on when decisions must be made.

I am scheduled to speak with our client and his family shortly to consider our course of action. We had previously discussed getting the press involved and this may be the perfect time to do so! Otherwise, our only legal alternative is to move for a writ of mandamus: asking the Court to order the Magistrate Judge to perform her duty and render a decision in this case. Maybe seeing what happened in Las Vegas will make he do something! It's not what I would have wanted as the wakeup call, but a wakeup call is definitely needed.

Lew Insler

I was recently approached by a prospective client who told me that when she appeared for a Social Security Disability hearing with her prior representative, from a firm of non-attorney representatives, it was clear that he knew nothing about her case and, worse, didn't seem to know how what to say or do at the hearing.

I always take these kinds of stories with a grain of salt, because I actually do believe that most Social Security Disability representatives do know what to do at a hearing. However, the fact that this representative didn't seem to have any familiarity with the case does concern me.

As an attorney, I have an ethical obligation to represent my clients vigorously and effectively at all stages of their Disability claims. At the risk of losing my license to practice law, I am required by New York State to take continuing legal education courses---which I do, attending Social Security Disability conferences once or twice a year. Among my obligations as an attorney I must also take courses in Legal Ethics, which I do both at these conferences and also through other bar organizations. Participating in these programs is crucial in order to ensure that I am attuned to changes in the law and procedures, and that I am up to speed on the latest techniques to be used at hearings.

I am pleased to report that recently the state of New Jersey also adopted new rules requiring continuing legal education for its attorneys and judges. While it won't change my own educational obligations (since I am licensed in New York as well as New Jersey, and already bound by their stricter requirements), it's good that all attorneys in the regions where I practice are obligated to maintain their education and to keep refreshed on the ethical rules before representing their clients. I just couldn't say whether the non-attorney representatives are playing by the same rules.

Gabe Hermann