The backlog of Social Security disability claims is growing. The Social Security Administration had made great strides on shortening the appeal time, but all those gains have been lost in the last year. Why is this happening? People in the Social Security Administration, or perhaps politicians, have decided that Social Security disability cases need to be more closely reviewed. There was a view that too many people who are not truly disabled were receiving benefits. To address this misperception, two things have changed: first, up until about a year ago, if someone had a very strong case of disability, instead of requiring the person to wait for a hearing with the judge, an attorney in the Social Security Administration was able to write a favorable decision, and therefore get benefits to the person a lot sooner. That program has all but been shut down. Second, the Social Security Administration began a much more intense examination of all of the decisions being issued by their judges. The Social Security Administration has more actively criticized judges decisions when the Social Security Administration believed that the judge did not have adequate support to find someone disabled. What this means is that the judges are spending even more time holding their hearings, and writing their decisions, to avoid criticism from the Social Security Administration. Up until fairly recently, when the case appeared relatively strong, the judges were able to move to a decision quite quickly. That has all changed. The result is that in Albany, where the hearings were held about one year after the appeal was filed, they now are being delayed for about 15 months after the appeal is requested. The timeframe seems to be growing, especially in light of an increase in the number of disability claims being filed.

What does this all mean for someone considering applying for disability? First, a person who wants to seek Social Security disability should not delay in starting the application, because from the time of the initial application until a judge hears the case, and makes a ruling, can now approach two years. Second, because of the long processing time, a person seeking disability has to do everything they can to obtain proper medical documentation to give themselves the best chance possible to win their claim.

Beware of false claims of debt collectors.

In this day and age, debt collectors continue to use illegal and immoral tactics to try to collect debts. They will claim that you will be arrested, they will claim that legal action will be taken against you if you don't immediately return their phone call, and they will make other false claims. They may even pose as court officers or other officials, as a threat to collect a debt. The state and federal government tries to shut down improper debt collectors, and they have done so, but it seems that every time one is shut down another one pops up. Very recently the state and federal government targeted two firms in Western New York, Vantage Point Services and Four-Star Resolution, accusing them of improper practices. When you add the improper practices to the fact that certain debts are "bought" improperly by some debt collectors, including debts that are no longer valid for various reasons, you should be extremely cautious and skeptical upon receiving any contact from a debt collector. Debt collectors have no power over you or your money. In New York State, for anybody to try to take money from you through a garnishment or other means, they have to start by filing a lawsuit and properly serving you with a summons.

If you are receiving multiple calls from debt collectors, it may be helpful to talk to an attorney about your rights and your options. And whatever you do, do not give out personal information to any stranger over the phone, and certainly not over the Internet.

Social Security Blog

November 7, 2013

 The Social Security Administration is now processing claims for same sex couples following a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.  The Social Security Administration is accepting claims for couples who live in states where gay marriage is legal, as well as states where civil unions and domestic partnerships are legal.  Currently, the Social Security Administration is processing and approving claims for spouses of retired workers if the couple is married and currently live in a state that recognizes same sex marriage, which includes New York State.

Source: NOSSCR Volume 35, Number 8, August 2013.

RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES BANKRUPTCY BLOG

INHERITED IRA’S

November 7, 2013

 The U.S. Supreme Court is to resolve the issue of inherited IRA’s.  Two different Circuit Courts, the Fifth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit, have ruled different ways as to whether inherited IRA’s are exempt under the bankruptcy code.  The Seventh Circuit ruled that inherited IRA’s were not exempt, while the Fifth Circuit ruled they are exempt for non-spouse beneficiaries.

 The Supreme Court decision will have a far-reaching impact on inherited IRA’s.

Source: Consumer Bankruptcy News October 28, 2013, Volume 24, Issue 2.

RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES BANKRUPTCY BLOG

EXEMPTIONS

November 7, 2013

 The Eighth Circuit has ruled that some equity needs to be shown in property in order to claim an exemption.  This issue most commonly arises when a motion is made to strip a judgment lien off a home using the Homestead exemption.  Some judges have ruled that equity needs to be shown to take the exemption.  In other words, if the mortgage is higher than the value of the home listed on the petition, there may be no ability to strip under 11 U.S.C. 522(f).  This is apparently the law within the Eighth Circuit.  In the Albany District, this rule does not take effect.  See: Goben v. Corydon State Bank Eighth Circuit, 9/23/13.

Source: Consumer Bankruptcy News October 28, 2013, Volume 24, Issue 2.

Reported in vol. 33, no. 10 criticizing an ALJ’s analysis and revealed an all too common misunderstanding of mental illness, “The very nature of bipolar disorder is that people with the disease experience fluctuations in their symptoms, so any single notation that a patient is feeling better or has had a ‘good day’ does not imply that the condition has been treated.”

cited: Scott v Astrue, 647 F.3d 734 (7^th Cir. 2011)

Cited: Holder of Note & Mortgage Had Standing to Seek Relief

Consumer Bankruptcy News Dec 22, 2011 vol. 22, issue 4

The holder of a note and mortgage has standing to bring a motion to lift stay.  Capital One Bank received an assignment from Mortgage Electronic registration system (MERS) was able to overcome an objection to the lift stay motion by a chapter 7 trustee.  The court in essence determined that whether Capital One Bank would ultimately prevail in a state court foreclosure, is an issue for state court determination.  However in 11 usc 362(d) the MERS possession of the note and mortgage in the assignment is enough to establish standing for Capital One to pursue a lift stay motion.

RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES BLOG

MEDICAL BILLS AND BANKRUPTCY

July 2, 2013

 Medical bills are a huge contributing factor in bankruptcy filings.  CNBC.com reports that 1.7 million American households will likely file bankruptcy this year because of rising bills.  The CNBC article published Tuesday, June 25, 2013, reports rising medical bills, more than credit cards, mortgages, and other forms of debt cause people to file bankruptcy.  Additionally, having health insurance is not always a financial safeguard.  High deductibles of up to $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 could force some people to file bankruptcy, along with people without health insurance needing medical treatment.  It is also speculated that some consumers may skip prescription medications in an effort to save money.  However, foregoing prescription medication can trigger long-term and expensive medical problems down the road.

In the case Williams v Astrue the Northern District of Indiana reversed the administrative law judges hearing where the plaintiff had morbid obesity as a severe impairment and the district court considered the other impairments that the claimant had.  The claimant also suffered from a combination of bilateral knee impairments.  The court essentially said you have to take a combination of impairments as a whole in order to assess disability determination.