Ink ("wet") Signatures

[free_spirit_etc]

I have a question about signatures on letters. I assume that if a letter from an agency has a printed signature, or possibly a stamped signature - it could have come from anyone. And I know that letters from most agencies do not really carry the name of the person who actually wrote it.

BUT if the letter has an INK signature (or what Social Security refers to as a "wet signature") of the person, I am led to believe the letter was actually SIGNED by THAT person.

I have no idea if this is just MY misperception, or if it is a common belief. But my idea has always been that an ink signature meant the person actually signed the letter - and an ink signature with initials meant someone else signed the letter on the person's behalf (with the authority to do so) - and that letters that just go out from an agency UNDER the person's name carry no actual signature.

Am I off-base in this?

Free

[free_spirit_etc]

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I most generally error on the side of giving way too much information.

I am working on a discrimination appeal right now with SSA. I filed a discrimination complaint with SSA last year and received their report last month.

Briefly, they did not find any discrimination occured, but did find mutiple processing errors in multiple areas of how our claims were handled. They also said that as a direct result of my complaint, the local office had an office-wide training. So at least some good may have come from it..

But my question on the signature had been that a person who really seemed to be actually working against our claims was the person who made the reconsiderations. This person even attempted to block our adminstrative review of our claims by dismissing our appeals.

And when I really started figuring out that someone really seemed to be working AGAINST our claims, those letters were actually signed IN INK by a manager in the processing center. I am used to everything from Social Security to either be signed by a computer or signed (in ink) by the person who actually wrote it. (and I have been dealing with SSA since 1993).

In fact, I am used to that in most written communication - that if it is signed in ink, that it is either signed by the actual person who wrote it (or authorized it), or someone signing on their behalf (most generally a person directly under them). I am not used to things that are sent out semi-widespread under someone's name being signed in ink.

So this led me to believe that someone high up in Social Security was actually supporting the games (and / or playing them.) And that really effected what I felt I could do to try to protect us.

Several people suggested I talk to the field office manager. I considered it from time to time, but I figured that once I did, things would either get better OR a whole lot worse - and I wasn't sure which direction it would go. And considering the fact that I believed that a manager at a HIGHER level was already involved (AND working against the claim) - I wasn't willing to take the risk...ESPECIALLY since I had already filed a complaint with the OIG, but did not receive any acknowledgment of the complaint - and when I called the number they said to call if you don't hear from them, they never returned my calls.

There were times I was pretty scared that the system would stop merely biting us, and just swallow us whole. I just kept appealing decisions, sending evidence, and hoping to get a hearing.

I am not sure what to do with the information right now, but I do think that sending letters signed in ink can be very misleading. There is a difference between sending something out OVER someone's signature and sending something out WITH someone's signature.

Free

free,

The question is what is the importance of having a signature

and wheter it was hand "wet" signed or a rubber stamp ?

If you feel it is something of importance to you, it may

also be important to other's.

I was not trying to be harsh to you.

It was just a straight forward question.

Sometimes I am just to the point, probably relative to working

on VA Claims, and in the VAola mind-set.

carlie

[carlie]

free,

Sounds to me like someone that was envolved in the original SSA denial

is still fing with the claim to prevent it from going forward.

I believe SSA even has a rule (like VA) regarding an employee that was involved in the

original decision to deny benefits CAN NOT be involved in the appeal process of the same claim.

jmho,

carlie

[free_spirit_etc]

Carlie,

I actually did get the claim to go forward. But it wasn't easy. They played lots of games.

I talked to someone who worked for ALLSUP one time, and they said that often the reconsideration is done by the person who sits at the desk next to the person who denied you the first time. They just kind of go through the motions and write the same thing the first person wrote. (Kind of like some of the VA's denovo reviews.)

But then, again, if they sign in ink that they are some upper level person, you get a whole different idea of who is working against you. And in our claims, they actually did work against us for some reason.

It certainly seems like a big waste of time to even bother with reconsiderations and denovo reviews - if they aren't really reconsidering or reviewing anything.

If the true intent of the agency is to grant benefits to those who are entitled - that step is the process is very costly and ineffective.

But yes, I know it saves them money in the long run because it is a step where many people stop pursuing their claim, or mess up in some way where they have to start over.

I have read that Social Security is trying out letting people go directly from the initial denial to a Hearing in some areas - skipping the Reconsideration step entirely.

Free

free,

Sounds to me like someone that was envolved in the original SSA denial

is still fing with the claim to prevent it from going forward.

I believe SSA even has a rule (like VA) regarding an employee that was involved in the

original decision to deny benefits CAN NOT be involved in the appeal process of the same claim.

jmho,

carlie