NADR CONFERENCE MARCH 21-24, 2021 FOUR SEASONS, BALTIMORE, MD
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DISABILITY REPRESENTATIVES
THIRD QUARTER 2020
IN THIS ISSUE:
3
A NOTE FROM THE PRESIDENT
4
2021 BALTIMORE CONFERENCE
5
MALPRACTICE ARTICLE
20
COMING SOON NADR AFTERWORK
21
CHIEF ACTUARY LETTER
CONTENTS
NADR NEWSLETTER THIRD QUARTER 2020
IN THIS ISSUE 3
A NOTE FROM THE PRESIDENT
4
2021 BALTIMORE CONFERENCE
5
MALPRACTICE ARTICLE
20
COMING SOON NADR AFTERWORK2
21
CHIEF ACTUARY LETTER2
A NOTE FROM THE PRESIDENT urge each of you to participate in these virtual opportunities. They will make you think and maybe make you smile. And they will, for sure, brighten your day and your outlook. The Talklist Forum remains lively and the Facebook posts are informative.
Greetings ColleaguesI was really looking forward to writing about my first year as President of NADR. But, as I reflect back, I’m only struck by, “Oh what a wonderful year it should/could have been.” We should still be talking about the outstanding Puerto Rico conference experiences and looking forward to our St. Petersburg Networking Weekend. But, alas none of that occurred. Our current Board was looking forward to celebrating the 20 years of immeasurable hard work performed by our predecessors to get us to this point. Those talented and dedicated folks handed over to us an organizational structure that had a firm financial foundation and a road map for success. We looked forward to a fun, relaxed year, highlighted by multiple opportunities to engage the membership to higher levels of participation and interaction. Instead, we’ve had some really fun virtual engagements and a lot of disappointment. Our celebrations were mostly robbed from us by Covid-19. I’m not comfortable in large gatherings but, I have always enjoyed NADR for the opportunity to share experiences and learn relevant information about our profession. And, I’ve greatly missed seeing and talking to each of you. For many years now, I’ve motivated myself to stay on task by planning future trips. It makes it difficult to stay on track when every planned event keeps getting pushed back.
The PAC initiatives have always been the most active when we gather together. Thus, our PAC group is working on new ways to get you attention. It’s really a no-brainer, set up an automatic monthly contribution to help us get a seat at the table with the legislators that make decisions regarding Social Security benefits. Rest assured, that if you live long enough, you’ll face challenging times and situations. This current situation surely fits that bill. I’m sure things will return to ‘normal’ (…normal: a concept that occurs only in textbooks and dictionaries) or we will have a new concept of normal, before long. One of my mother’s favorite sayings was, “this too shall pass and something else will take its place.” Please reward yourself with a pat on the back occasionally. The work we do is “essential” for a large number of people. And lastly, let’s start talking about getting together in Baltimore in March. See you there, Greg Cates
Despite our woes, the legislative committee continues to work hard on many issues. The social media and education folks have worked overtime to collaborate and provide outstanding webinar content and even a virtual cocktail party and jam session. I NADR NEWS
3
THIRD QUARTER 2020
NADR CONFERENCE MARCH 21-24, 2021 FOUR SEASONS, BALTIMORE, MD
NADR NEWS
4
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE And Its Impact on Your Business
Karl Osterhout, Esq Managing Partner, Osterhout Berger Disability Law Karl@mydisabilityattorney.com
NADR NEWS
5
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
Introduction The beginning point is to say, when discussing legal malpractice, that it is impossible to say what some lawyer out there might do. So, this article is not even designed to say, for instance, that a malpractice case could never happen to you or that every rep should not have malpractice-based issues in mind when conducting their business. But I think it’s extremely important also to remember that the word “malpractice” is sometimes used in a more colloquial way to describe “bad practice,” but as we will see, this is not the legal definition of malpractice, or really even in the universe of what someone must prove in order to succeed in a malpractice case. Nothing in this presentation is designed in any way shape or form to let us off the hook in terms of the absolute necessity of continuously improving our skills and adding tools to the toolbox. At all. There just is, as we’ll see, a pretty wide distance between a valid legal malpractice claim on one hand, and our moral/ethical obligations to our clients, on the other. That may be especially true in Social Security disability cases, for reasons we’ll look at momentarily. But, the reality of malpractice cases in general and of legal malpractice cases in particular, is that there are a lot of definitions in terms which absolutely matter in establishing whether or not malpractice has actually occurred. Benefits of Malpractice Insurance My impression in talking with folks is that the word “malpractice” invokes a very strong emotional reaction, probably something like fear mixed with shame on one hand, or anger on the other. It’s not my focus today to help people with their personal responses to any mistake or possible mistake they may have made, or how to deal 1 NADR NEWS
6
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
with fools, but to focus on the fact that a malpractice case is a legal matter with definitions and terms which matter greatly in terms of doing an actual analysis of the situation. In that sense, this presentation might be thought of as rather dry. Of course, you’ll have to deal with the emotional and legal aspects if this ever happens to you, but let’s think about this, first, in terms of something everyone is familiar with, their auto insurance policy. Does the average person drive down the road in fear and shame, or anger, worrying about whether they’ll smack into somebody’s car or get smacked into? I don’t think so, and I think the reason that they don’t is because they know they have insurance. Well, Hello! You have legal malpractice insurance too, which is important and necessary, for numerous reasons: • Protects you against claims of professional negligence, including providing you with legal representation by someone who handles these types of cases on a regular basis; • Provides you with the peace of mind to focus on other aspects of your practice; • Could provide your practice with a means to outsourcing risk management; • Builds client confidence in your practice, thus legitimating your practice; • May fulfill your ethical and professional obligations; and • Might cover the cost of having independent legal counsel represent you in an ethical complaint. Typical terms of a legal malpractice policy (not intended to be comprehensive) This is only intended to address a few common terms that seem to appear in most or all policies. As mentioned before, state law can affect the wording or requirements of a malpractice policy. So, in the end there just isn’t a substitute for actually reading 2 NADR NEWS
7
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
it yourself, becoming familiar with its terms, and making sure you understand any clauses or get someone to help you understand them. • Notice to the insurance company must be given “as soon as practicable” of “any circumstance which could reasonably be expected to give rise to a claim.” Must use written notice which includes “the specific wrongful act,” the damages which have or may have resulted from the wrongful act” and “the circumstances by which you first became aware of such wrongful act.” • “Limits of liability” and deductible. • “You shall admit no liability, make no payments, assume no obligation and incur no expense related to such claim.” • “You shall immediately forward every demand, notice, summons or other process received by you.” • “You shall cooperate with us and… Assist in making settlements and in the conduct of suits. You shall attend hearings, trials and depositions and assist…” • You shall not demand or agree to arbitration of any claim without our written consent.” • “Prior bad acts” not covered. • “Defense and settlement” – insurance company must obtain your consent to settle, but such consent may not be unreasonably withheld. You may not admit liability and/or make any attempt to voluntarily settle case without the insurance companies consent, once the case has been referred to the carrier.
3 NADR NEWS
8
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
What are the legal elements of a malpractice claim? In law school most of the basic legal courses like contracts, property issues, and “tort cases” like malpractice cases were taught in terms of the “elements” of what was needed to prove a legal case. All “elements” refers to are essentially the “steps” of establishing a claim, which is something you are familiar with from the five-step sequential analysis that we do every day. One of the immediate difficulties in discussing this is that malpractice is a state law issue and, of course, there will be some variance from one state to another. To get it out of the way right at the beginning, nothing I could write here could be an exhaustive discussion and certainly should not be taken as “legal advice” to anyone reading it. But, the general definition that generally works everywhere is that a rep will be deemed negligent if he/she “fails to possess and exercise that degree of knowledge, skill and care which would normally be exercised by members of the profession under the same or similar circumstances, and that negligence has resulted in actual harm to the client.” To break it down, citing Pennsylvania law, to establish a viable legal malpractice claim, the plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) the employment of the attorney or other basis for duty (DUTY); (2) the failure of the attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge (BREACH OF DUTY); and (3) the attorney's failure to exercise the requisite skill and knowledge was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff. (ACTUAL DAMAGES).
4 NADR NEWS
9
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
(1) the employment of the attorney or other basis for duty This is typically not a very tricky point. If you and the claimant have signed a fee agreement and/or in the Social Security context, and appointment of representative (even if you did not get a signed fee agreement), it seems clear enough that the rep has been “employed.” Once this occurs, the employment cannot and until the claimant has been notified by the rep that they are deciding to end the relationship (I’m assuming I don’t have to tell you that this needs to be done very carefully, preferably with something signed by the claimant acknowledging the termination of employment or, at least, proof of some sort that the letter was received by the claimant). Another consideration in Social Security is the hearing office rules related to withdrawal – a claimant might be able to successfully argue that even if you send a letter, get a signed acknowledgment and/or proof of service of the letter, the termination of employment might not be effective if it violates the hearing office rules in some way. I’m not sure anyone knows the answer to this question, but it’s at least something you should be doing anyway, just on the basis of avoiding problems. There is another issue related to terms of employment and engagement by the claimant which I have seen, although occasionally: where the rep explicitly lists actions they will take on the claimant’s behalf (“request all medical evidence.”; “Take any action necessary… [to win the case]…” and things of a like nature. Now, instead of (or in addition to) a legal malpractice case, you may be looking at a breach of contract case (e.g., “My rep explicitly promised to request all medical evidence in my case, and then failed to do so.”). Now, breach of contract is another legal issue that is controlled (largely) by state law and so no comprehensive discussion can be offered here, or is even attempted; however, it is reasonably safe to say that the more specific the fee agreement is about what kind of services will be provided, the more 5 NADR NEWS
10
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
opportunities this provides for trouble down the road if things go sour with the claimant. It is natural to say such things in order to “win over the claimant” but I think it’s fair to say that even when we say we will do “everything” to win the case for the claimant that does not include requesting records that have nothing to do with the claimant’s disability, or remaining in a case when you know that the claimant is lying about working or something like that. Yet, you’ve created possibly some confusion and trouble for yourself by being so specific in the fee agreement which you must view as a contract of employment. (2) the failure of the attorney to possess and exercise ordinary skill and knowledge. To discuss this topic I am choosing a hot button issue that is frequently discussed in NADR presentations and amongst ourselves: cross examination of vocational experts. So, the question here would be “what is the ordinary skill and knowledge employed by reps when it comes to VE cross examination?” The answer is that normally a rep does almost nothing related to VE cross examination and/or legal memorandum writing on the topic of vocational issues. So, a real hurdle for the legal malpractice attorney looking at a potential Social Security malpractice case is that the standard is to do next to nothing with respect to vocational expert cross examination. Put another way, you do not stand out when you fail to do these things; in fact, you are in the majority. Put yet another way, the standard of possessing and exercising skill is not that a rep must exercise extraordinary skill, but rather ordinary skill; the standard in a legal malpractice case is not a comparison of the rep to best practitioners out there. Or, to go for a third way, the legal malpractice attorney knows that he must establish the failure of duty on the basis of expert testimony, usually a lawyer who identifies 6 NADR NEWS
11
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
and describes that breach of duty. It would not seem difficult to impeach any supposed expert witness who testifies that normally a rep deeply and effectively crosses vocational experts and/or effectively identifies legal arguments related to vocational issues. To be more general about it, in the reading I have done (and there aren’t a lot of legal malpractice cases out there – go figure: lawyers essentially wrote this law), the general bases for legal malpractice cases (not all of which were successful, by the way) is a fairly long list: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Failure to meet statutory and/or court-ordered deadlines Failure to Represent a client with appropriate skill Failure to represent a client zealously and diligently Not acting with reasonable promptness Not keeping clients reasonably informed about their case Not properly explaining matters to clients Failing to provide legal fee terms in writing Engaging in a conflict of interest Failing to protect the client’s interests Practicing law in a jurisdiction where not licensed Failing to comply with court orders Conduct interfering with the administration of justice Intentional failure to seek the client’s lawful objectives Misappropriation of client funds Charging unreasonable fees Failing to return unearned fees upon the termination of representation Disobeying the rules of a tribunal Making false statements to a court or tribunal Conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” Poorly worded or misleading “closeout letters”
(believe it or not, this was a list of grievances against a single attorney in a single case!)
7 NADR NEWS
12
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
Of course, the facts always matter and we will get to that momentarily. I emphasize again that this article is only about legal malpractice. It says nothing at all about what standard we should be attaining for, or what should be motivating us every time we agreed to take on a claimant’s case. (2) the attorney's failure to exercise the requisite skill and knowledge was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff. In other words, did it cost the claimant any money? (And, in some states there is an attendant option to also claim “mental distress” as a damage in malpractice cases). This factor is HUGE in most of the legal malpractice attorneys’ consideration of whether or not to take a case (don’t forget, however, that there are plenty of Don Quixotes out there). And, to put it simply, there just isn’t a lot of money at stake in most potential Social Security legal malpractice cases (of course, it’s a lot of money to the claimant, so again I’m not addressing conscience, just potential exposure to legal malpractice). As mentioned above, one of the large costs in legal malpractice is hiring an expert. On top of that, there’s a significant amount of time that goes into reading the record, crafting a complaint that sets forth all the elements described above, and including damages (sometimes with great specificity). Most if not all malpractice attorneys handle cases on a contingent fee basis, like we do, although the standard seems to be a 40% contingent fee. To get the obvious “big ticket” Social Security cases out of the way first, the most obvious examples of cases that could actually be worth a lot of money involved cases with expired DLIs and lapsed prescribed periods in widows’ cases. Screwing up one 8 NADR NEWS
13
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
of those cases (by, let’s say, negligently amending an onset date to after the DLI or prescribed period), would not only affect any past due benefits, but would in almost any case also include future benefits. Depending on the age of the claimant (especially in DLI cases) and the monthly amount at issue, it would be nothing at all for such a case, to have a “bottom-line value” of $500,000 or more. This is an amount that could get a legal malpractice attorney interested. But, of course, you probably knew this already. The “run-of-the-mill” amount of past due benefits (in a case where the claimant is going through the process for the first time, the vast majority of our cases), as you know, is much more like $20$30,000 in a really good Title II case. So, in those cases the “bottom-line value” is $20-$30,000. I can’t say how much an expert will cost, because I just don’t know, but even assuming that as the only cost in a case worth $20-$30,000 (therefore, only $8000-$12,000 for the malpractice attorney, assuming no cost for the expert), it is pretty easy to see why malpractice cases in Social Security cases are very rare. However, let’s think about Don Quixote for a minute. He/she just thinks that a real injustice has occurred (and frankly maybe it did) and that is his/her motivation. Here are additional factors he/she must consider: (1) the claimant has a duty to mitigate damages. This almost always requires filing a new application and attempting to reopen the issue in the new application (essentially arguing that whatever evidence was overlooked, never obtained, etc., which has now been obtained and submitted, was new and material and requires a different outcome). This is a kind of two-edged sword because if the application is denied, and the ALJ denies it also, this
9 NADR NEWS
14
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
probably requires the claimant to file a federal court action to get the ALJ decision overturned. All requiring more and more time, and more expense. (2) If the case is an SSI case, all the numbers above are even less, far less. (3) And, the rest of the two-edged sword is that if the claimant actually wins their argument that the evidence or whatever was improperly overlooked, etc., then there is no malpractice case (except, possibly, in states where “mental distress” is a valid element of a malpractice case). (4) Assuming the claimant does everything required to mitigate damages and still did not get a favorable outcome the first problem of course is that SSA’s decision stating that the new evidence or whatever wasn’t convincing will be Exhibit A of the defense to the malpractice case (e.g., “SSA explicitly considered the (evidence/arguments) advanced in this malpractice action and found them to be without merit.”). (5) But, let’s assume the case proceeds past this and to an actual valuation. Even assuming, theoretically, that a court will proceed past a negative finding to still look at damages, you would never be talking about the full amount of $20-$30,000 I posited above – the real math would be something like: $30,000 x .5 chance of winning before the agency = $15,000, x .5 winning before court = $7500 x .6 chance of winning on remand = $4500. (This is kind of made up math in a way, but depending on the posture of the case and if mitigation has been required, etc., this is a very real possibility for how an insurance company would value the case for the purposes of settlement.) 10 NADR NEWS
15
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
(6) And, finally, remember: you have insurance! Most of the work of dealing with this will be done by a law firm hired by the insurance company to handle it. Even if, in a small case, something ends up actually being paid to the claimant, the hard-boiled bottom-line business effect of this is that you will probably start paying a more for your insurance (just like if you wreck your car). Nobody goes to jail after a malpractice case. What if you are threatened with or served with notice of a malpractice claim? As I noted above, once you have been threatened with or actually received notice of a malpractice claim, you now have two responsibilities. Certainly, if you are still engaged by the claimant (i.e., you have not already sent out a closeout letter and closed the file), you probably have an obligation to talk to them. But, as noted above, the insurance company is rather insistent that you inform them “as soon practicable” and to not admit liability, attempt to settle the case, or other like activity. So, I think this is probably the best advice. Probably the easiest scenario is when the client has already received a closeout letter and you have closed the file, so you have no ongoing obligation to even talk to that claimant (it may feel like you do, but legally you don’t). I think the best way to handle it is to ask the client if they’re willing to explain the basic facts of their complaint, but I would tell them ahead of time that you are obligated by your insurance company to not discuss the merits of the case with them or try to resolve it. If you want, you could even take their side on this, saying something like, “yeah, I think it’s stupid, but I can’t risk the insurance company not covering this. If there
11 NADR NEWS
16
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
is anything to what you’re going to tell me.” The client may not want that, but at least you’ve given them the opportunity. Assuming they go ahead and explain to you what the nature of their complaint is, then I would stick by what I said, thank them for taking the time to explain it to them, but that the only way to proceed is for the former client to find an attorney to help them with their case, and that you will be informing your insurance carrier that there may be a claim made. You will not feel like this is the best course. I get it, but it would not likely be helpful at all, and might even put you in a jam with the insurance company, if you were to possibly admit (intentionally or otherwise) to any sort of wrongdoing, attempt to settle the matter, etc. What you risk is that the insurance company says this to you because they intend to deny coverage (possibly) if you violate your obligation to them. Again, I am certain that for most folks it will not feel right to handle a situation like this in such an antiseptic matter, especially when you might be angry that the case is even being pursued, or perhaps feeling guilty because the claimant may have a point. But, it really is better, even for the claimant, if he or she is getting their advice from someone who is completely looking out for them and, it is just clearly a conflict of interest for you to even pretend that you’re able to do that and still manage your own feelings and still preserve what are perhaps legitimate defenses to the lawsuit on your own part. In cases where the claimant has not been discharged as a client, the conversation still proceeds along the same assumptions, but obviously you have the issue that the claimant is still a client. I think the best advice, which I have followed myself on
12 NADR NEWS
17
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
numerous occasions (I did have to report malpractice once, but obviously we get in these kind of conversations more often than that) is this: In this situation, it is legitimate and you have a basis for asking to go into more detail about what the nature of the claimant’s complaint is. It might be something that isn’t malpractice at all, but just disappointment or a desire to have input into how the case is being presented, opinions about how to present the case, etc. These aren’t probably malpractice issues, they are client/case management issues, and sometimes the whole discussion of “malpractice” kind of fizzles. But even there I think that conversation must end with some sort of confirmation along the lines that: “I know this conversation began with you talking about malpractice, and I need you to know that if you still feel that way you have every right, and maybe even an obligation to yourself, to seek another attorney’s advice. Obviously, I can’t advise you on something like this. If you need to do that, I’m not going to say or do or imply anything that would be an attempt to change your mind. But, I need to know, because if you feel it is in your best interest to pursue a case like that, then you will have to find another representative for your Social Security case also. I’m not saying that because I don’t want to represent you, but because it would be a conflict of interest to represent you while I was being sued for malpractice (I am sure a malpractice attorney you spoke with would confirm this). On the other hand, if we are on the same page and we agree about how to proceed, etc., then I’m ready to get to work on your case.” I think the best thing in closing is to remind you of what I said at the beginning: that you have insurance for a reason. These people do not stay in the insurance business 13 NADR NEWS
18
THIRD QUARTER 2020
REPRESENTATIVE MALPRACTICE (CONTINUED)
losing malpractice cases that do not have merit. On the other hand, they also do not take kindly to violations of the terms of the contract of insurance either. Frankly, I’m hoping that this just makes any malpractice situation simpler and less anxiety producing, because the insurance you have purchased gives you access to experts who can give you rational advice at a time when it’s probably hard for you to be entirely rational. But, I also want to return to something else I said at the beginning, that anything I’ve said here today about malpractice has literally almost nothing to do with the ethical/moral obligation to know everything we can know, and to take all reasonable steps to represent our clients in their “cases” (which I put in quotes to remind you of the definition I’ve been using for several years now – a “case” is your expression of intent to do the best you can for your “client”, which I have also defined for years as “that person who has looked to you to help ensure that they have a roof, some clothes, a regular supply of food and reliable healthcare coverage.”). So, I would just close with something that I’m not even going to write down, but which I want to say, so you can hear me saying it the way I mean it, with love:
KARL E.OSTERHOUT
MANAGING PARTNER, OSTERHOUT BERGER DISABILITY LAW
14 NADR NEWS
19
THIRD QUARTER 2020
NADR NEWS
20
THIRD QUARTER 2020
SOCIAL SECURITY Office of the Chief Actuary August 24, 2020 The Honorable Chris Van Hollen United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Bernard Sanders United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Charles E. Schumer United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senators Van Hollen, Sanders, Wyden, and Schumer: This letter is in response to your August 19, 2020 letter (available at https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/download/van-hollen-letter-to-ssa-actuary-on-payroll-tax) requesting analysis of the implications of hypothetical legislation that would change the tax rate paid by employers, employees, and self-employed individuals to zero percent for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll taxes and Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) taxes that fund Social Security’s Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund. This hypothetical legislation would apply for all earnings paid on January 1, 2021 and thereafter. When we in the Office of the Chief Actuary receive a request from one entity for an estimate regarding a proposal made by another entity, our policy is to ask the entity who made the proposal if they would like us to prepare an estimate for them directly. I am not aware that anyone has proposed the hypothetical legislation you describe. Therefore, I am answering your questions here based on the specifications you have provided. If the hypothetical legislation specified that the OASI and DI Trust Funds would be held harmless from the reduction in the tax rate paid by employees, employers, and self-employed individuals (as was the case for the temporary payroll tax rate reductions of 2010, 2011, and 2012, where automatic transfers were specified from the General Fund of the Treasury to the trust funds in the amounts that would have been made in the absence of the tax rate reductions), then OASI and DI Trust Fund income, benefits NADR NEWS
21
THIRD QUARTER 2020
Page 2 – The Honorable Chris Van Hollen, Bernard Sanders, Ron Wyden, and Charles E. Schumer paid, and the projected depletion date of the trust fund reserves would be essentially unaffected by the legislation. Given your specification that there would be no other changes to current law, we assume that the reduction in payroll taxes paid by employees, employers, and self-employed individuals under this hypothetical legislation would also reduce the transfers of payroll tax revenue from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI and DI Trust Funds. With the elimination of payroll tax liability on earnings paid on January 1, 2021 and thereafter, the remaining sources of income to the trust funds would be limited to interest on the trust fund asset reserves and revenue derived from income taxation of monthly Social Security benefits. These two sources of income account for $118.8 billion, or just 10.3 percent, of the total $1,149.8 billion in income projected to be received by the trust funds under current law for calendar year 2021. However, the total OASDI income for 2021 under this hypothetical legislation would be less than 10.3 percent of the amount projected in the 2020 Trustees Report. Following the normal process for “truing up” payroll tax income, revenue adjustments made in 2021 will be based on the reestimation of payroll tax liability for 2020. Due to the COVID-induced recession, the reestimated liability for 2020 will be smaller than was previously estimated, and thus will require a significant transfer from the trust funds to the General Fund of the Treasury. As a result, the reduction in income to the OASI and DI Trust Funds in 2021 under this legislation would be in excess of the $1,031.0 billion net payroll tax income that was estimated for 2021 in the 2020 Trustees Report, and would thus exceed 90 percent of the total trust fund income estimated for 2021 under current law in the 2020 Trustees Report. For years after 2021, reductions in total trust fund income under the hypothetical legislation would increase as a share of the amounts estimated under current law, because interest on trust fund asset reserves would diminish as asset reserves move toward depletion While benefits scheduled in the law for OASI and DI are obligations, such obligations can only be met to the extent that asset reserves are available in the OASI and DI Trust Funds. The law does not provide authority for the trust funds to borrow in order to pay benefits beyond the limited authority for “advance tax transfers.” This limited authority allows all payroll tax income expected for a month to be advanced to the beginning of that month if needed to meet benefit obligations on a timely basis. Thus, under this hypothetical legislation, benefit obligations could not be met after the depletion of the asset reserves and elimination of payroll taxes. If this hypothetical legislation were enacted, with no alternative source of revenue to replace the elimination of payroll taxes on earned income paid on January 1, 2021 and thereafter, we estimate that DI Trust Fund asset reserves would become permanently depleted in about the middle of calendar year 2021, with no ability to pay DI benefits thereafter. We estimate that OASI Trust Fund reserves would become permanently depleted by the middle of calendar year 2023, with no ability to pay OASI benefits thereafter. Sincerely,
Stephen C. Goss, ASA, MAAA Chief Actuary
NADR NEWS
22
THIRD QUARTER 2020
CHERMOL & FISHMAN, LLC EXPERIENCE FROM THE INSIDE, NOW ON YOUR SIDE
Our federal court attorneys have more combined experience litigating federal court appeals on behalf of SSA than any other firm in the nation – it is not even close. In addition, our appellate team includes the legendary Judge David G. Hatfield. We have won thousands of disability appeals in every circuit around the nation. Our firm LOVES NADR, and we work every single day to help our organization thrive. Our firm offers training on how to properly represent your clients at the ALJ level so as to preserve issues for federal court appeals.
1-888-SSI-PAID 7 7 4 7 2 4 3
NADR NEWS
fdc@ssihelp.us www.ssihelp.us
23
THIRD QUARTER 2020
FEDERAL COURT PRACTICE
Disability Law Is All We Do! • NATIONWIDE APPEALS • FEDERAL COURT • APPEALS COUNCIL • LONG-TERM DISABILITY
CHECK US OUT ON THE WEB OR CALL US TODAY 1-888-WIN-SSDI | WWW.WINDISABILITY.COM 250 S CLINTON ST. STE 210 SYRACUSE, NY 13202
NADR NEWS
24
THIRD QUARTER 2020
NADR NEWS
25
THIRD QUARTER 2020
NADR NEWS
26
THIRD QUARTER 2020
nADr MentorInG GUIDe (For Mento r
s and Ment
ees)
Board of Director s 2014-2015 President Robert McDowell Elizabethtown, KY Vice President Steve Skinner Redding, CA
Mentor Guide Sub-Committee, Earline
Secretary Philip Litteral Ashland, KY
Marchand, and the following folks on her
Treasurer Michael Wener Memphis, TN
Committee for their hard work on the production of the NADR Mentoring Guide.
Directors-at-Large Karen Starr Grand Rapids, MI Greg Cates Memphis, TN
Please consider signing uptio as a Mentor or a NADR Na
Patty Sexton Wauna, WA
Mentee after
Barbara Manna Pittsburgh, PA
nal Office PO Box 96503 #3 0550 Washithrough reading the guidelines. ngton, DC 2009 0-6503
We are hopeful that this will be another
NADR National Offi ce Administrators Eva Sirman 202-822-2155 eva@nadr.org Julie Phelps 202-822-2155 admin@nadr.or g
NADR PO Box 96503 Washington, DC 20090-6503 Phone: (202) 822 -2155 Fax (972) 245-67 01 Web Site: www.n adr.org
NADR NEWS
NADR would like to thank the chair of the
27
invaluable NADR member benefit. Mentor Guide Sub-Committee Earline D. Marchand Carol Balderee Sherrell Rodgers Steven Gragg Brandy Bowdry Dedra Wood THIRD QUARTER 2020
a Sirman 2-822-2155 a@nadr.org
lie Phelps 2-822-2155 min@nadr.org
ADR
Box 96503 ashington, DC 20090-6503 one: (202) 822-2155 x (972) 245-6701 eb Site: www.nadr.org
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2020 - 2021
President C. Greg Cates, EdD., ADR Memphis, TN
Vice President Michael Wener, ADR Memphis, TN
Secretary Clifford Berkley, ADR Fullerton, CA
Treasurer Christopher Mazzulli, ADR Baltimore, MD
Director At Large Kelly Blad, ADR Cook, MN
Director At Large Melissa Smith, ADR St. Louis, MO
Director At Large Meredith Marcus
Director At Large Sherrell Rodgers
Director At Large Carl Groves
NADR News is published by NADR and is the property of the National Association of Disability Representatives. Copyright 2016, NADR. The articles appearing in the NADR News do not necessarily reflect the opinions of NADR. The accuracy and content of each article is the responsibility of the individual writer.
NADR NEWS
28
THIRD QUARTER 2020