free_spirit_etc

yoggi, Did you ever get your SSD payment? Free

So is the was the OIG investigates complaints mostly just to ask the Regional Office to provide an explaination (but not really investigate it themselves?) Free

Whomever entered their initials and office code into the system. GN 00201.015 Alternative Signature Methods C. Policy — Attestation For Title II and Title XVI in-person applications and teleclaims, Title II and Title XVI amendments, Title XVI redeterminations, and other forms completed as part of the claims/appeals process, the interviewer confirms the proper applicant’s intent to file and sign the application and other forms, provides and reviews the penalty clause notice, and attests to the proper applicant’s intent to sign the application and other forms by annotating SSA records (i.e., MCS/MSSICS/RPS). The act of attesting to these facts is documentation of the proper applicant’s signature and is deemed equivalent to a signature. When the issue “ATTEST” is displayed in the Issue field and a date is entered in the receipt field, MCS propagates the interviewer’s three position office code, a space, up to six letters of the interviewer’s last name, a comma, and the first initial to the Remarks field. The comma following the last name is a floating comma. If the last name contains fewer than six characters, the comma should immediately follow the last character of the last name (e.g., 216 Cox, N). The ATTEST issue(s) and interviewer’s name will be retained electronically and deemed equivalent to the signature for the application or amendment. I noticed this when my son had his hearing. I even filed a statement asking that they waive the 10 days we had to correct any statement - because we had just become aware of it. But now, when I am working on my letter to the OIG - I am looking up the regs - and to me that is just WRONG!!! Capital wrong, not little wrong. For a SSA employee to make a change in YOUR statement - and then attest to the fact that YOU made the change - NOT good! To me he falsified a document in my son's claim. My son's application stated "All the children were living with the deceased at the time of death." (Actually, my son was all the children..but you know how they just have their little checkboxes...) The Amendment to Appplication states: "I wish to change the following information on my application for Title ll / Title XVlll Benefits / Rights: The following has been changed for a dependent child of the worker: Name: XXXXXX Living in same household with applicant: NO No??????? Of course it was changed the same day my son's claim was adjudicated - and one of the bases they denied him on was that he was not "living with" my husband. The application was changed to be more in accordance with the decision being made. Now granted, the worker might have denied him anyway (since he wasn't willing to allow us to submit any evidence in support of the claim) - But still - to go in an falsify a document and attest that my son made the change and attest that my son intended to sign it - that is just downright WRONG! This isn't near the largest thing this guy pulled - but on some of the issues it is just my word against the word of the person who falsifies documents. Free < signed electronically

So with this electronic signature stuff with SSA - where they fill out an application and read you all that stuff about making false statements and give you the paper you kind of sort of filled out to take home telling you to contact them in 10 days if you disagree with any of the statements.. which is considered to be 'electronically signed" by you (because they click the box that attests that they read you the stuff and you agreed with the answers)............. My Question is: If they later AMEND that application, by changing one of the statements WITHOUT your knowledge or consent - would you call that falsifying documents? fraud? I mean - if you notice that your claim file has an AMENDMENT saying I (as in you) wish to make the following change... (but YOU didn't make the change - or even know it was made...) but the amendment is supposedly "electronically signed by you .. (with your electronic signature attested to by the SSA employee who made the change without your knowledge, coincidentally on the very same day they were denying your claim) isn't that kind of WRONG?

Maybe since they aren't supposed to shred them anymore, they are just eating them...

I think with Social Security you have to live through a full month to get the check. If you die on the last day of the month = no check due for that month. They don't do part of months. But SSA (retirement / disability) does pay one month behind (SSI pays current month). So there is one check still due on SSA if you die. I found SSA to move very quickly on this one. When I called to report my husband's death to SSA, they stopped the direct deposit -but told me to go to the Social Security office to apply for the last check that was due to him. I think I got the check in a couple of weeks. They also automatically sent out a letter letting me know that they might owe him money, and I could apply for any amount due to him but unpaid. But I had already been paid. I was pretty impressed with their follow through - and with their speed in the matter though. Free

It took them 34 days to shred and lose your evidence? Must have been a big file. I would be inclined to want to go to the VARO and start looking for the file myself. But I think that is against the regs.(as is shredding files and ignoring claims...) Free

As long as the medical records show (or you can get a doctors statement saying) that the renal failure is secondary to the diabetes, that should be no problem. I am glad to hear you have a kind and informative representative. That will help a lot! Do be aware that if you are granted DIC (and I believe you will) - they will send you back pay. Also be aware that this might take some time. (i.e. don't absolutely count on it arriving until it is in your hand.) Plan B's are wonderful things to have. Also - have you been granted your husband's Month of Death payment yet? Be careful of this one, as the VA has been known to reclaim this money (i.e. suck it directly out of your bank account) and make you fight to get it back. Make sure they have granted you the right to keep it. (As the widow, you have the right to keep the payment for the month of death). Much much much much much luck to you! Free

On the paying taxes issue: If you are still paying the IRS BACK taxes, then they can apply the stimulus payment to your tax bill, rather than send it to you. :D If you are still paying taxes, in that you and / or your spouse are employed, then you will most likely get BOTH the tax stimulus check (for being a SSD recepient) AND the tax credit on your paycheck(s) given to the working folks. Unfortunately, when it comes time to file taxes next year, part of that will have to be paid back - as you had been "over stimulated." Free

Good place to search for books: http://www.bookfinder.com/

Welcome! I am so very sorry to hear about your husband. I am a widow too. I personally think there should be widows pay for everyone for one year. So you can take some time to adjust to the loss of someone so special to you before you have to start fighting for your survival! But it doesn't work that way. Everyone starts swooping in, there are deadlines to meet, and everyone wants everything done yesterday - right at a time you are most vulnerable. I hear the first year is the hardest. I am not quite sure of that, but it seems to be true. It does sound like you have a strong basis for DIC. But sometimes, with the VA, no brainers is an understatement. Do you have other income, other funds, etc that can tide you over until you know for sure what the VA is doing? Hopefully you have some of your eggs in other baskets. What does your DAV rep think about your claim? Free

Great Research! Great work! Free

If they cover it up to the outside - do they at least do anything internally to deal with it? Maybe not fix it - but at least put some pressure on? If not, what good does it do to have the agency? Or is it just a pretend agency? Free

Be sure to get a COPY of your discharge physical!!! If you file a VA claim upon retirement - the VA becomes the "keeper of your records." My husband's discharge physical has disappeared. Of course, the VA keeps telling me to check with the Records Center - and the Records Center tells me the VA has it. The VA had it at one time, because earlier decisions refer to it. But they don't have it now. Also - make sure you get copies of any DOCTOR's notes. When my husband asked the Base for his Medical Records, he was given a bunch of very brief computerized pages. He went back to find out why his records were so brief. They said he hadn't asked for the Doctors Records (which are somehow different than the Medical Records)Of course, these were Post-Service Records, so it might be different. As far as getting an IMO - you might want to consider it. This would mostly concern the severity of the disability. But it might also concern the occurance. Or you might consider waiting and see what they come up with first - and then you will know more of what you will need in the way of an IMO. Also make sure you keep getting treatment for Service Connected Conditions - and you might want to consider getting a non-military non-Tri-Care provider for this, if the military or Tri-care provider balks at writing any opinions for the VA. Actually, my husband's military provider was going to write my husband an opinion letter, but then told us the base attorney told him that he couldn't. Good luck, Free

This link explains the Grace year: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/hand...dbook-1807.html which is your first year of entitlement - and the income is considered on a month to month basis, rather than an annual basis. This link explains the Adjustments for Family Maximum http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbo...dbook-0732.html However, it only discusses how it is affected when one member doesn't draw benefits. I think it also applies when one member draws reduced benefits, but you will need to check that out futher. Also check on the TAXATION of benefits. Sometimes more income can reslut in less income overall - if it kicks you into the level where Social Security benefits become taxable. You might want to consider using a tax software application - and play around with the figures. If I earned this much, what would our taxes be? Then you get a better view of the overall "what will be in our pockets" picture. It might surprise you. But figure out a ball park of what will be in your pockets with different scenarios and so you will know more of the REAL profit / cost of different decisions - working full-time, working part-time, not working at all. Then you will be better able to decide what you want to do. Free

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm We use a formula to determine how much your benefit must be reduced: If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit. For 2009, that limit is $14,160. http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking2.htm Examples: When you work and get Social Security at the same time Updated: January 05, 2009 You can continue to work and earn above the annual earnings limit and still get some of your benefits. Let's look at a couple of examples: You are receiving Social Security retirement benefits every month in 2009 and you Are under full retirement age all year. You are entitled to $800 a month in benefits ($9,600 for the year). You work and earn $22,160 ($8,000 over the $14,160 limit) during the year. Your Social Security benefits would be reduced by $4,000 ($1 for every $2 you earned over the limit), but you would still receive $5,600 of your $9,600 in benefits for the year. ($9,600 - $4,000 = $5,600)

Hi, Yes you can work. There is a certain amount you can earn BEFORE it affects your benefits. It is somewhere around $14,000 a year. I will need to look up the exact amount. Keep in mind though, if it is the first year that you are eligible, they calculate it each month (during your grace period). After the first year, it is annual income. Anything over the designated amount reduces your benefit $1 for each $2 you earn. So the amount each person can earn before getting NO benefits depends on the amount of their benefits to begin with. So basically take the exempt amount, and add double your benefits, and you have the amount you can earn before you get nothing. I THINK that your daughter's benefits would increase if yours decreased, but I am not certain of that. I would have to check that out a bit more. I know if you didn't draw at all, your daughters would increase, because, as you note - the dependent amount is split between you. I will get back to you on the amounts - I have them on my other computer - which is sick at the moment. Free

The US Code Reads the same: § 1304. Special provisions relating to surviving spouses No dependency and indemnity compensation shall be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran dying after December 31, 1956, unless such surviving spouse was married to such veteran— (1) before the expiration of fifteen years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated; or (2) for one year or more; or (3) for any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage. Good idea on looking up Court of Veteran Appeals cases. I haven't done that yet. But - I don't think this is about actually interpreting the law. It is about leaving the part of the law that makes me eligible out of the decision. There is not much to interpret. The law is clear. Was I married to the veteran within 15 years of the termination of the period of service in which he incurred the disability? Yes. There is a difference between misinterpreting the law, and ignoring it. That is why I say the VA is often "dumb on purpose." They know better than to take the law and try to misinterpret it in this case. The law is too clear. So they just IGNORE that part of the law. They fail to mention it. They remain silent on that part of the law. SSA did the same thing with my son's claim for Survivor Benefits. He was my husband's legally adopted child. Being his legally adopted child, he was eligible for benefits on my husband's record. Did they misintepret the law and state why he wasn't eligible as a legally adopted child? No. They merely informed him of all the reasons he was not eligible under the OTHER categories - and didn't mention the legal adoption. Even wehn we specifically asked them to make an initial decision in regard to my son's eligibility as a legally adopted child - they failed to. We had to take it to the Hearing level. The decision was easy. He is the number holder's legally adopted child. He is eligible. But until the Hearing level, SSA remained "dumb on purpose." They knew he was eligible as a legally adopted child, so they just left that part out. I think this is different than interpretation of the law. It is ignoring specific parts in order to deny benefits. Pay close attention to the issues and the parts of the law they continually side-step. They intentionally side-step those to be "dumb on purpose." Free

"An anonymous tip that regional office managers ordered employees to delay the processing of claims led to the inspector general's investigation. Investigators said they could not substantiate the tip, although the report said five of seven employees told inspectors in interviews that they were operating under the belief that managers ordered the delays." They couldn't substantiate it, with five of seven employees confirming it? I'm not clear on the OIG's role in things. I know they are an investigative unit for the agency. But do they generally investigate and then try to paint a semi-rosy picture to "outsiders?'

That is nice to know - that when you file, lawyers will contact you. I had a horrid time trying to find a lawyer for our SSA claims. Most lawyers handle disability. Survivor benefits are not that lucrative, I suppose - because as a general rule, SSA doesn't mess with survivors that much. I found it much easier, and much quicker, just to learn enough of the law to hang in there myself (though it was neither easy, nor quick) than to try to find a lawyer to help. Most discussions with lawyers went something like this: Them: When did you become disabled? Me: I am not disabled. This is a SURVIVOR claim. Them: So what work limitations do you have? Me: I have no work limitations. This is a SURVIVOR claim. Them: Oh... okay.. so when did you stop working... Me: AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

See! He's wincing! From the pain I see on people's face even just TALKING about plantar fasciitis - I think it should warrant an automatic 100%.

My husband wanted special boots when he was in the Air Force. Some that were better on his feet. But he was only allowed to get them if he had a doctor sign that he needed them. So he went to the doctor and the doctor wrote up the slip. I can't remember the exact "diagnosis" the doctor gave - Ped presentus or something. But he said my husband had it - and that he should get the special boots. My husband asked the doctor what the diagnosis meant. The doctor said - "It means you have feet." So in essence, the doctor used medical language to say "This man has feet. Give him the special boots." He got his boots. Free

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plantar Fasciitis is VERY painful! I have never had it...but I have never seen a person who has had it be able to talk about it without wincing. Even people who treat it kind of cringe when the word is mentioned.

It kind of makes me think that when I tried to help my ex-father-in-law get an increase in his VA pension for Housebound and Aid and Attendance, when he was 97 and had a letter from his doctor and was receiving in-home services from Senior Citizens, the VA's required that he travel an approximately 100 mile round trip so one of THEIR doctors could determine if his 97 year old body needed a little help getting around - that was someone discriminatory... He never got over there - and died before we could convince the VA that he was old and sick.

The following link gives contact info for filing Section 504 complaints for various federal agencies (discrimination on the basis of disability). http://www.access-board.gov/enforcement/504.htm The contact for the VA is: Mr. Tyrone M. Eddins External Affairs Program Manager Department of Veteran Affairs Office of Resolution Management 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20420 (202) 501-2800 tyrone.eddins@mail.va.gov Interesting to note that discrimination can be intentional or unintentional. And failure to take someone's disability into consideration, and / or provide reasonable accomadation for the disability is included in discrimination. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) ) TAYLOR HOME OF CHARLOTTE, INC. ) Intervenor-Plaintiff. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 3:94-CV-394-MU v. ) ) ) CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, ) Defendant. ) ) UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS INTERVENOR'S SECOND AND FOURTH CLAIMS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Individuals and entities who are injured by discrimination on the basis of disability have standing under section 504 even though they are not, themselves, individuals with disabilities. In Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, 811 F.2d 171, 182 n. 12 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 849 (1989), Section 504's protection extends not just to handicapped individuals who are direct participants in federally-funded programs or activities but also to those who are intended ultimate beneficiaries of such programs or activities. Under 504, discrimination on the basis of handicap is actionable upon a simple showing that discrimination has resulted in "a diminution of the benefits [a disabled individual] would otherwise receive from [a federally-funded]program." . . . In fact, the clear intent of Congress in enacting 504 was to make unlawful direct or indirect discrimination against any handicapped individual who would benefit from a federally-funded program or activity. Title II's antidiscrimination provision employs expansive language, intended to reach all actions taken by public entities. It states: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by such entity. Title II's legislative history leaves no doubt that Congress intended title II to cover every action taken in every forum in which a public entity may function. The House Report states: "The Committee has chosen not to list all the types of actions that are included within the term 'discrimination,' as was done in titles I and III, because this title essentially simply extends the antidiscrimination prohibition embodied in section 504 to all actions of state and local governments." H.R. Rep. No. 485 (II), 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 84 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 367 (emphasis added). The House Report emphasizes the broad coverage of title II later, stating: "Title II of the bill makes all activities of State and local governments subject to the types of prohibitions against discrimination against qualified individuals with a disability.