Well, it looks like there may be an extra stimulus payment to seniors to help offset the increase.

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year.

Check out this article for more information: Obama calls for $250 payments to seniors – Yahoo! News.

The news has been going around for some time that there will be no cost of living adjustment in Social Security benefits (including retirement and disability benefits) for the next two years, 2010 and 2011. However, it looks like the real amount of benefits will actually  decrease for many.

The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won’t be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. …  By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.

Ouch!

Keep in mind that if you are receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and not Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), then you are receiving Medicaid, not Medicare and not subject to this premium increase. However, your benefits in the next two years are also locked and will not increase.

via Gazette.com : Social Security payments will shrink for many next year.

The “Social Security Hot Topics” Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program provided quite a bit of information about the state of Social Security.

More judges on the way:

• 150 new judges already hired in 2009.
• 20-30 additional judges to be hired before end of 2009
• ~200 more judges to be hired in 2010.

Applications on the rise:

With the poor economy, more people are filing for disability benefits. There has been approximately a 25% increase in new claims filed in 2009.

Psychological problems loom large in disability cases:

35-40% of disability cases involve mental limitations.

New National Hearing Centers (NHC) coming online:

National Hearing Centers handle video hearings only, and can hear cases from around the country to try to reduce backlog. As previously noted, the Falls Church Virginia, and Albuquerque New Mexico hearing centers are already up and running.

Another NHC in Chicago is set to open in 2009, with a fourth center to open in Maryland in 2010.

Social Security has opened a National Hearing Center (NHC) in Albuquerque New Mexico. This is Social Security’s second NHC — a hearing office which only handles video hearings. 

Albuquerque initially will hear disability cases for Kansas City and Portland, Oregon — two of the most backlogged offices in the US. Social Security’s first NHC, located in Falls Church, Virginia, opened in December 2007 and has contributed to improve processing times in Atlanta, Georgia, Cleveland, Ohio and Flint, Michigan.

Read Social Security’s press release here.

The April 2009 NOSSCR Social Security Forum  notes that two additional NHC offices are planned for Chicago, Illinois in 2009 and in the Baltimore Maryland, in early 2010.

Everyone is waiting for the one-time $250 economic stimulus payment from Social Security. However, some seniors may have to give the money back!

Social Security beneficiaries received notices last month that they soon will be getting a $250 check courtesy of President Obama’s economic recovery package, but the administration did not say that some recipients may have to give part of it back.

The problem: Seniors who also work and qualify for Mr. Obama’s $400 Making Work Pay middle-class tax cuts may find themselves forced to give back some or all of the Social Security bonus come tax-filing time in 2010.

….

The one-time payments that will be sent this month to millions of Social Security retirees and beneficiaries of other federal entitlement programs are part of a little-noticed provision in the $787 billion economic stimulus law approved by Congress in February.

But recipients who are still working full or part time to supplement their income may also qualify for Mr. Obama’s Making Work Pay tax cuts, targeting lower- to middle-income workers.

In the murky world of tax policy, the answer seems to be that they can’t fully benefit from both, and the “surplus” has to be sent back to the government.

If you are a working senior and you qualify for the “Making Work Pay” tax cut, don’t spend the $250 stimulus, just yet. It looks like you won’t really get to keep it.  Ouch!

via Obama tax breaks may trip up seniors – Washington Times.

We all know Social Security cases take too long. Well, get ready for more delays! 

In spite of increasing number of new claims for disability, Governors around the nation are requiring disability examiners (the very people who make the decisions in Social Security cases) take unpaid furloughs. 

The nation’s top Social Security official says benefits for tens of thousands of people with severe disabilities are being delayed by furloughs and layoffs of state employees around the country. ….

State officials have announced furloughs, layoffs and hiring freezes to help balance budgets battered by the recession. 

The cutbacks come as disability claims are rising because of high unemployment, the weak economy and the aging of the baby boom generation.

The Social Security Administration expects nearly 3 million new disability claims this year, up from 2.6 million in 2008. Each month the agency pays $12 billion in disability benefits to more than 13 million people.

Dr. Dann said he had to take off every other Friday. “I can review about 20 disability cases a day, and I am off two days a month,” he said. “So I do 40 fewer cases a month.”

via State Cuts Delay U.S. Benefits, Official Says – NYTimes.com.

Timegoesby has a post up about scams popping up to scam you out of your Social Security stimulus payments. 

Scam artists saw an opening and immediately began targeting consumers, including elders, to “help them qualify” for the payments. By email and on websites with official-sounding names, these criminals ask for payment or personal information including names, addresses, bank and credit card account numbers, etc. to do the paperwork for payment of the stimulus check.

These swindles are so widespread that the Federal Trade Commission, on 3 March, issued a warning which you can read at the FTC website.

Here is more information from that FTC warning:

E-mail messages may ask for bank account information so that the operators can deposit consumers’ share of the stimulus directly into their bank account. Instead, the scammers drain consumers’ accounts of money and disappear. Or bogus e-mail may appear to be from government agencies and ask for information to “verify” that you qualify for a payment. The scammers use that information to commit identity theft. Some e-mail scams don’t ask for information, but provide links to find out how to qualify for funds. By clicking on the links, consumers have downloaded malicious software or spyware that can be used to make them a victim of identity theft.

“Web sites may advertise that they can help you get money from the stimulus fund. Many use deceptive names or images of President Obama and Vice President Biden to suggest they are legitimate. They’re not,” says Eileen Harrington, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Don’t fall for it. If you do, you’ll get scammed.”

Some sites suggest that for a small sum of money – as little as $1.99 in some cases – consumers can get a list of economic stimulus grants they can apply for. But two things can happen: the number of the credit card the consumer uses to pay the fee can fall into the hands of scam artists, or the $1.99 can be the down payment on a “negative option” agreement that may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars if the consumer does not cancel.

“Consumers who may already have fallen for these scams should carefully check their credit card bills for unauthorized charges and report the scam to the FTC,” Harrington said.

Do not get taken! If you are eligible for the Social Security stimulus payment, you do not have to do anything to to receive it.  Social Security will automatically issue the $250 payment starting in May 2009.  For more information about the one-time payment, check the Frequently Asked Questions page on the Social Security website.

An email is making the rounds purporting to be a “history lesson” on Social Security for “young whipper snappers” who “weren’t taught or just didn’t know” the following truths about Social Security.  In case you doubt any of these, the email tells you “facts are facts.”

The email tells you:

• Social Security is VOLUNTARY and has been since FDR set it up.
• Participants would only have to pay 1% of their annual income. 
• The money put into Social Security would be deductible from the participant income taxes.  
• Money put into Social Security would go into Trust Fund and not the General Operating Fund.
• Annuity payments to retirees would never be taxes as income.

OMG! Voluntary? One percent? Deductible?

IS THIS TRUE?!?!

In a word: no. This very effective, get-your-blood-pumping, email is… FALSE.

Factcheck.org takes apart the email’s claims.

1. Not Voluntary. Contrary to the e-mail’s very first claim, FDR never promised that “the program would be completely voluntary.” It is supported by taxes and participation has never been voluntary. As historian DeWitt states: “From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes. ”

2. Not 1 Percent. Another false claim is that FDR promised participants would pay only “1% of the first $1,400″ of income. The law FDR signed taxed income up to $3,000, for one thing. And while the rate was 1 percent for the first few years, the law FDR signed raised it incrementally in 1940, 1943, 1946 and 1949, when it reached 3 percent.

3. Not Deductible. Also false is the statement that Social Security contributions “would be deductible from their income for tax purposes.” The opposite is true. Section 803 of the law Roosevelt signed specifically says Social Security payroll taxes “shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year.” So the claim made later in the e-mail – that Democrats “eliminated the income tax deduction” for payroll taxes – cannot possibly be true. There was never a deduction to eliminate.

4. Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used “for no other government program,” but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund “so that Congress could spend it.” This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: “[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.” All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a “unified budget.” As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and “has no affect on the actual operations of the [Social Security] Trust Fund itself.”

5. Taxation of benefits. The e-mail also gets it wrong when it claims that Roosevelt promised that “annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.” It’s true that Social Security benefits weren’t taxed at first, but DeWitt writes that this was the result of a series of administrative rulings by the Treasury Department, not the result of Roosevelt’s law or anything he did or promised. And contrary to a false claim made later in the e-mail, it was not Democrats alone who “started taxing Social Security annuities.” Congress authorized taxation of Social Security benefits in 1983, when Republicans controlled the Senate, and the measure was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The measure was part of a bipartisan compromise to shore up the finances of the system, which were then on the verge of collapse.

Read the entire email (with even more wild claims) and Factcheck.org’s complete analysis here.

Honestly, I do not expect this email to die here. The story is just too good. You want it to be true. 

A good rule of thumb with emails is if it gets you excited or angry, it if promises to tell you the real truth, it is probably false. At least, check with Snopes.com or Factcheck.org.

I was recently asked if children who receive Social Security benefits are eligible for the one time $250 economic recovery stimulus payment.

Originally, it looked like the answer was “no.”  When this article was written in March 2009, the SSA FAQ said the following.

Question: Are children who receive Social Security benefits eligible for the one-time economic recovery payment?

Answer: No, children under the age of 18 (19 if still in high school) who receive Social Security benefits are NOT eligible for the one-time payment. However, disabled adult children will receive a payment. 

However, it was pointed out to me that children on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are eligible for the economic recovery stimulus payment.

Question: Are children who receive SSI benefits eligible for the one-time economic recovery payment?

Answer: Yes, disabled children receiving SSI are eligible for the one-time payment.

Social Security Economic Recovery Payments page including FAQ.

Updated April 21, 2009.  Thanks for the tip Jen!

If you are on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or applying for SSI, you should know that Social Security’s SSI benefits have increased. 

For 2008, the Federal Benefit Rate (the maximum you can receive in SSI) is $674 for individuals and $1,011 for couples. For most people though, this means the maximum SSI benefits you can get i 2008 is $674 per month.

This is up from $637 per month in 2008.

This page lists the Federal Benefit Rates back to 1998.

What is Social Security doing with its share of the economic stimulus? Building a huge data center, of course!

Using a hefty down payment from the newly signed economic stimulus law, the Social Security Administration has embarked on a $750 million project to replace its outmoded National Computer Center.

The agency received a total of $1 billion in the stimulus, with half to go toward the computer project and half for reducing a huge backlog in processing disability claims.

The injection of funds could result in hiring 5,000 to 6,000 workers in Baltimore and around the country, Michael J. Astrue, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, said in an interview yesterday.

Read the entire article at The Baltimore Sun.com .

You may have already heard that part of the Obama’s stimulus package is a one time payment to recipients of Social Security.

The payment will be $250 and it was just revealed that everyone entitled to receive a payment should have it by late May 2009.

Social Security also revealed that if you are eligible for the one time payment, there is nothing you need to do. Social Security will automatically send you the payment.

Here’s an interesting tidbit I came across on Notes on Social Security Reform citing the University of Michigan Retirement Research Center winter newsletter:

Does the Rise in the Full Retirement Age Encourage Disability Benefits Applications?

Evidence from the HRS by Xiaoyan Li and Nicole Maestas WP 2008-198

• As the Social Security full retirement age (FRA) rises, the relative generosity of Social Security retirement benefits compared to disability benefits is declining, raising the incentive for insured people to apply for disability benefits. 
• We find that an average four month increase in the FRA slightly increases the two-year DI application rate by 0.04-0.30 percentage points. 
• The effect is greater among those with a work limiting health problem (0.22-0.89 percentage points).

So, it appear that increasing the full retirement age increases Disability Insurance applications by .04 to .30 percent. 

Read the entire article here.

Social Security attorney Gordon Gates wrote about a Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who only approves 11 percent of cases.

In trying to find some insight in to how this ALJ could only approve 11% of cases when most other ALJs approve somewhere between 45-60% of cases, Gordon found the following post from the ALJ on a high profile public website:

Some doctors go overboard on diagnoses and treatment because they sense the “pot of gold” in having a fairly young patient on Medicare for many years to come with a reliable source of payment for constant treatment.

Lawyers and other non-attorney representative can receive fees as a percentage of the back benefits awarded to a claimant. Once a claimant has a legal representative, one can actually track how the alleged impairments become much worse, with new impairments and symptoms added as the case matures.

A judge with some experience can almost recite verbatim the same story we hear from virtually EVERY claimant, suggesting they have received training from the national organization of the claimants attorneys. The government is complicit in this boondoggle, because the Social Security Administration actually publishes lists of symptoms for various impairments in the form of rules for judges to follow. Is it any wonder we hear those lists of symptoms at almost every hearing?

The Judge’s quote is quite lengthy and covers a number of topics.  I encourage you to read it in Gordon’s article:  The 11 Percent ALJ.

While I can agree with the Judge on several points in the longer quote, I strongly disagree with what the Judge says above.

Let’s set ‘em up and knock ‘em down!

Medicare as a “Pot of Gold”

The ALJ states that doctors are likely to “go overboard” with medical opinions to get patients approved for Social Security so the doctor has a “reliable stream of income” for years to come. 

In my experience, doctors generally do not want to provide any medical opinions and the hardest part of being an advocate for the disabled is trying to get doctors to make opinions in Social Security disability cases. 

Of course, the attorney’s and client’s attempts to get these medical opinions happens before the hearing and is typically invisible to the ALJ.

Additionally, there are two kinds of health insurance which come with Social Security:

1. Medicare – if you are approved for disability insurance (Title 2 – SSDI).
2. Medicaid – if you are approved for Supplemental Security Income (Title 16 – SSI).

Many clients tell me that they cannot find a doctor to take them on if they are on Medicaid. The doctor’s office is either no longer taking Medicaid patients or they have taken all the Medicaid patients they can for the year.

Doctors often do not want to take Medicaid patients because they make less money on those patients.  Medicaid is not any kind of “windfall” for doctors.

So, I wonder if the ALJ also believes that doctors are also likely to exaggerate opinions in SSI cases where the person will only get Medicaid?

Attorneys receive a percentage of the claimant’s back benefits.

Yes, attorneys do not work for free.  Neither does the Judge, the Judge’s clerk, or his staff.  We all have to pay rent, buy groceries, and pay our utilities. 

But, don’t disability attorneys have a vested interest in finding everyone disabled.

Do firefighters have a vested interest in burning buildings?

Do cops have a vested interest in crime?

Disability attorney have a vested interest to the extent that we only get paid if our client wins. But, you could also say attorneys who take Social Security disability cases feel strongly enough about the disabled that we risk not getting paid for our work if we don’t win.

But, how do you know if you have an attorney who just wants to be paid versus one who genuinely cares about helping the disabled. That’s pretty simple.

Attorneys “train” their clients.

No.  We prepare our clients for the day that may change their lives forever.  

That’s just semantics!

I don’t think so. I do not tell my clients what to say. But, I go over common hearing questions and their answers. Why?

• Time is short. Judges often schedule 30-45 minutes for each hearing. That the Judge’s comments, swearing in, Medical Expert testimony (in some cases), and Vocational Expert testimony.  
• You need to focus on what’s important. People have a natural tendency to drift off into other topics. With the limited time, I want to make sure my client does not miss a critical part of the case because we ran out of time.
• You need to address inconsistencies ahead of the hearing. A client may say something which appears to be inconsistent with their disability. Often there is an explanation. But, unless you work through the inconsistency before the hearing, the client may be too nervous at the hearing to provide an adequate explanation. 

Actually, it is pretty easy to tell when someone is just repeating something they were told to say. Most people are terrible liars, especially when faced with the stress of their Social Security hearing.

Ultimately, the coaching question comes down to this: good lawyers do not hide the problems in a case, they overcome them.  

Impairments and symptoms become worse as the case matures.

Well, of course they do!

When you work with a good attorney, he or she helps you obtain evidence that Social Security was not able to get or was unaware of. 

• I have seen bi-polar cases where none of the psychiatric records were obtained until the lawyer got involved.
• I have seen back injury cases where the spinal specialist’s injection records were not obtained until the lawyer got involved.

As more evidence is obtained, cases become better developed which means there is more relevant documentation of the impairments and symptoms. So, of course, impairments and symptoms “get worse.”

However, the ALJ seems to suggest that the actual condition(s) worsen AFTER the attorney is hired. That lawyers somehow add-on symptoms and impairments that do not exist to make their clients look worse than they actually are in order to improve the chances of winning the case. 

Allow me to present an alternative explanation: a benefit of regularly meeting with my clients is that they tell me how they are feeling.  Often the conversations go like this:

You just told be about your migraines. Have you talked to your doctor? Why not bring it up at the next visit.

-or- 

I am sorry to hear the physical therapy isn’t helping. Maybe your doctor can send you to a specialist for a consultation?

Good Social Security disability attorneys help their clients get their conditions evaluated and documented.

Also, doctors are very good at telling when someone is exagerating symptoms, let alone, faking symptoms outright.

One of the purposes of getting medical records is to see if the symptoms reported at the hearing have been previously reported to the doctor AND whether the doctor found any exaggeration, malingering, “drug seeking behavior,” or “secondary gains issues.”

If a patient is exaggerating, it will show up in the medical records. 

Symptoms described at hearing parallel those in the government published “list of symptoms.”

The Judge is referring to the Social Security Listing of Impairments (aka The Blue Book).  The Listings describe conditions which Social Security views as “disabling” and the medical findings necessary to find a person disabled for those conditions. 

The Listings are literally a short-cut in the disability evaluation process.  If you have a condition described in the Listings and the medical evidence supports the severity required to be approved, you can be found disabled for “meeting a listing.”

The judge asks, “Is it any wonder we hear those lists of symptoms at almost every hearing?”

Let’s remember that the Listings are Social Security’s own attempt to create uniformity in how its technicians and Judges evaluate medical conditions.  The idea is that different people within Social Security should not have different standards on whether a condition, for example whether diabetes is disabling or not. 

Is it fair to complain that people actually use the regulations Social Security has put in place for the evaluation of claims?

The Listings are not a free pass to disability.  It is not enough to have a condition described in the listing, you also have to have medical documentation (not just your say-so) that the condition meets certain medical requirements.  For example, here is the listing for chronic pulmonary insufficiency which may be used for COPD. Not only do you need to have a breathing test performed but your results must be within a particular range based on your height. 

I have had numerous clients with COPD and other respiratory conditions.  Very few have met the Listing.

However, when I have a case that does meet a Listing, of course I will structure the presentation of the case around it: Social Security own guidelines says that the condition is disabling.

Are we all liars?

The sum of the Judge’s quote suggests that doctors lie, lawyers lie and claimants are trained to lie.

So, who is left? Ah, yes, the Social Security technicians and Social Security doctors who denied the case in the first place. 

Should anyone be surprised that this judge only approves 11% of cases?

I have no problem that Judges should approach disability cases with skepticism since they are the holders of the public purse strings. But, this goes beyond healthy skepticism and into cynicism.

Is this the right approach for reviewing Social Security disability claims at hearing? What is your opinion? Add a comment to let us know.

The long wait times in Social Security cases are prompting a backlash against Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in Social Security cases.  

Across the country, it takes an average of 480 days to get a judge’s ruling on a Social Security disability claim — but 650 days if your case is in Portland.

The problems in Portland reflect a broader national crisis, according to Social Security Administration records … Only about half the agency’s administrative law judges meet its minimum goal of clearing 500 cases a year.

….

In October 2007, Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue met with a delegation of judges from around the country and … complained that many were not productive enough, according to the union that represents the judges. Astrue also accused them of not wanting to be subjected to any professional standards.

The commissioner has testified before Congress that the bulk of administrative law judges are hardworking. But he has griped about underachievers, and the agency set performance goals that ask judges to clear 500 to 700 cases a year..

Grab the pitch forks!  Light the torches!  It’s the judges’ fault!

Of course, things are not that simple.

The November 2008 Social Security Forum (published by the National Organization of Social Security Claimant’s Representatives — NOSSCR) also covered this topic:

Staff levels and a myriad other variables are important factors in ALJ [administrative law judge] productivity… Many ALJs ask for more hearings but support staff is overwhelmed and unable to prepare additional cases for hearing. 

Support staff in many government agencies are being cut, overtime is refused, and work days are reduced to 4 days a week.

Judges are not solely responsible for how many cases they can process. From my experience with the Colorado Springs ODAR (Office of Disability Adjudication and Review), everyone is working feverishly to try to get as many cases done as possible. 

What’s wrong with requiring Social Security ALJs to process 500 case a year?

Ultimately, it comes down to this: do you want Social Security hearings to be handled like a sausage factory?

Social Security hearings are the final step in the Social Security disability process where someone will:

• Personally review all the records (many cases have over a thousand pages of medical records); 
• Meet with you; and
• Hear your side before making a decision.  

Hearings are your day in court.  Hearings are a check against the bureaucracy of the Social Security system. Do you really want to make hearings more bureaucratic?

It reminds me of a sign at my mechanics:

We can do the work a) right, b) fast, c) cheap.

Pick two.

Slow pace of Social Security cases laid to judges, staffing – The Oregonian – Special Coverage from The Oregonian – OregonLive.com .

Would you like to know what percentage of cases the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to your Social Security disability, or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) case, approves and denies?

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.

Click below and enter the Judge’s name to see the statistics for that judge.

via Social Security database – The Oregonian.

Some words of warning:

As in the stock market, “prior results are no guarantee of future performance.” Just because a judge approves say, 65 percent of cases, does not mean you have a 65% chance of winning.

Your case is as good or as bad as the evidence in your file. These statistics will not tell you where the problems are in your case, or what you should do to resolve them.

To increase your chances of winning, the best advice I can give you is to work with an experienced attorney.

Veterans have filed a class action lawsuit has alleging the VA has been downplaying PTSD diagnoses and reducting VA impairment ratings:

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the federal government by five veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The soldiers allege that they were illegally denied disability benefits despite being diagnosed with severe cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The soldiers were discharged by the Army after it determined that their damaged mental health left them unfit to serve. They were then assigned disability ratings well below the 50 percent figure needed to qualify for lifetime health care benefits. The complaint claims that the Army “systematically” ignored rules requiring that all servicemen diagnosed with PTSD receive an automatic 50 percent rating. In October, the Defense Department ordered the Army to stop deflating PTSD victims’ disability ratings.

The lawsuit asks the Army to award the soldiers the disability benefits they would have received, as well as unspecified damages.

I have personally heard stories from veterans, trying to get their Social Security disability benefits, of nurse practitioners downplaying PTSD diagnoses to reduce the benefits veterans are entitled to.  Shameful, shameful behavior.  

I am glad to see veterans standing up and demanding the government stop short changing them.  When we send our sons and daughters into harms way, giving them the highest quality medical care is the least we can do. 

via Veterans Sue Federal Government Over Lack of PTSD Disability Benefits | InjuryBoard Charlottesville .

Social Security has started podcasting, and you can listen in, on your web browser.

Just go to Social Security Podcasts.

The first episode is titled “Deciding When to Start Receiving Retirement Benefits” and deals with the many factors to consider when deciding the right time for you to retire and start collecting Social Security benefits.

Remember the article about veterans suing for faster disability rulings in VA cases? Sadly, the lawsuit was denied.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in Washington, D.C., has ruled that the court does not have the authority to require the Department of Veterans Affairs to accelerate efforts to process disability claims.

Federal Judge Rejects Request By Veterans Groups To Require VA To Process Disability Claims Within 90 Days.

The lawsuit, filed by the Vietnam Veterans of America and Veterans of Modern Warfare in U.S. District Court in Washington, seeks to force the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide an initial ruling on every veterans claim for disability benefits within 90 days and to resolve appeals within 180 days.

The veterans’ groups also are seeking interim benefits for veterans whose claim rulings take longer than those time periods.

Don’t you wish someone would do this with the Social Security Administration?  

In case you missed my earlier post the average wait time in a Social Security case is 532 days!

Veterans groups sue for faster disability rulings – CNN.com.