Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts

Friday, January 9, 2009

Social Security Judges (ALJ) Productivity Report

Search SSA judges’ (SLJ's) decisions online.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Oregonian, the Social Security Administration released the production numbers and approval rates for all of its administrative law judges.

The agency released complete reports for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The table for 2008 covers most — but not all — of the year.To search the database, enter a judge’s name or select a year. You can sort the table by any of the categories by clicking on the category header.

Click here to access the database

http://bridge.caspio.net/dp.asp?AppKey=64ae0000d1i0d2c9f2d8i9a3f2h4

The Office of Inspector General released a report in April 2008 highlighting the deficiencies and the delay in the hearing process. As of that date there were 773,999 cases awaiting a decision and the average processing time was 505 days.




Sunday, March 23, 2008

Collecting Both Social Security Disability Insurance And Workers’ Compensation Benefits Generates Inequality of Benefits

A recent study by the federal government reports that some disabled workers who receive workers' compensation or public disability benefits may receive less money than their counterparts. The reason why this phenomenon occurs is because the Social Security benefit computation is designed to replace more of the lower earner’s pre-retirement or predisability earnings than a higher earner’s.
“The Social Security benefit computation is designed to replace more of a lower earner's preretirement or predisability earnings (average indexed monthly earnings) than a higher earner's. This is done by "bend points" in the primary insurance amount formula, which create three earnings brackets. Earnings up to the first bend point are replaced at 90 percent; earnings between the first and second bend point, at 32 percent; and earnings above the second bend point, at 15 percent, up to the taxable maximum. The three brackets are a convenient way to group workers by income (represented here by AIME). This grouping also helps distinguish differences in replacement rates, which are largely determined by the earnings bracket in which the worker belongs.”

The Social Security disability system was established in 1956 to pay cash benefits to those workers who sustained long-term disabilities and were insured for coverage. On the other hand, state workers compensation systems had been in place since 1911 and may be combined with other public disability benefits in addition to Social Security benefits.

The Social Security system, unlike state workers compensation programs, provides a nationally distributed benefit to over 8 million disabled-worker beneficiaries. State public disability benefits are paid under numerous laws including federal, state or local government were plans that provide compensation for medical conditions that are not work related. Some of them may be short-term such as state temporary disability benefits.

As of December 2005, the date that the study utilized for collection of data, there were 8,305,702 disabled-worker beneficiaries in the Social Security program. Of those beneficiaries, 1,440,772 had some past or present connection to workers compensation or public disability benefits and 798,476 at a current connection to workers' compensation or public disability benefits.

In 1984 Congress amended The Social Security Amendments of 1956 and required that workers’ compensation benefits were to be offset against the federal Social Security disability insurance benefit. In 1985 the offset was eliminated and it was again reinstituted in 1989 by Congress. Further amendments in 1996 to The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Of 1981 extended the offset provision to public disability benefit programs. However, Congress excluded the offsets of workers’ compensation and public disability beneficiaries who are receiving Social Security disability benefits in those states where the State took the offset. These have been named reverse offset states. The state law needed to be in effect as of February 18, 1981. Presently there are 16 states and Puerto Rico that are reverse offset states.

The recent study involving 18 month period from January 2003 through June 2004, identifies that a proximately 11% of all Social Security disability beneficiaries were also entitled to receive state workers compensation for public disability payments. It reported that those who receive combined benefits were most likely to be male, high earners, older it retirement and from the Western states.

The report concludes that the earnings replacement rate for disability insurance beneficiaries under the Social Security system, as measured by the ratio of the monthly disability insurance benefits to the average indexed monthly earnings, demonstrates that disabled workers without workers’ compensation or public disability benefits had higher replacement rates. Therefore, collecting multiple benefits may create an economic disparity.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

NJ Beneficiaries Wait for Supplemental Increase in Workers’ Compensation Benefits

For almost 2 years New Jersey’s most severely injured and their families have been waiting for the legislature to act upon a law to provide for a cost of living increase of their benefits. The legislation, S-1005, would increase benefits of those injured after December 31, 1979. The bill was stalled in the legislature as the parties ironed out technical issues concerning the Social Security reverse offset. NJ is one of the few States remaining that allow workers’ compensation insurance carriers to benefit from Social Security offset rules.

Additionally NJ has side stepped the triennial increase that is provided for under the Social Security Regulations causing NJ’s injured workers not to be allowed to obtain any additional increases in benefits afforded by application of that provision of the Federal law.

………………………..
The Senate Labor Committee reports favorably Senate Bill No. 1005.
This bill provides, from July 1, 2006 forward, an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers' compensation benefit rate for any worker who has become totally and permanently disabled from a workplace injury at any time after December 31, 1979 and for the surviving dependents of workers who have died from a workplace injury at any time after December 31, 1979.
The cost of living adjustment would be an amount such that, when added to the workers' compensation weekly benefit rate initially awarded, the sum would bear the same percentage relationship to the maximum benefit rate at the time of the adjustment that the initial rate bore to the maximum rate at the time of the initial award, except that the amount of the adjustment shall be reduced as much as necessary to ensure that the sum of the adjustment and the amount initially awarded does not exceed the amount which would cause any reduction of disability benefits payable under the Federal Old Age, Survivors and Disability Act. The amount of the adjustment would be paid from the Second Injury Fund (SIF), which is supported by a uniform assessment spread out evenly over all employers and insurers.
Current law requires such annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) in the workers' compensation benefit rate for death and permanent total disability to be paid from the SIF, but only in cases in which the injury or death occurred before January 1, 1980. The bill extends the adjustments to cases originating after December 31, 1979, although the adjustments would apply only to benefits paid on those claims after July 1, 2006.
The bill makes no change in the provisions of sections 1 and 9 of P.L.1980, c.83 (C.34:15-94.4 and 34:15-94.5), which provide for the reduction of certain portions of workers' compensation benefits by the amount of Social Security disability benefits paid. In addition, the bill expressly states that the supplemental benefits shall not be paid in a manner which in any way changes or modifies the provisions of those sections.