People With Disabilities Foundation (PWDF) has two cases in District Court and one case in the United States Court of Appeals through the Ninth Circuit awaiting oral argument.

In District Court, we are waiting for an order in the case of client who has fibromyalgia, generalized back pain and other impairments (Case No. 4:16-cv-023580-JSC).

The case of PWDF versus the Social Security Administration (SSA) (PWDF v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Case No. 3:06-cv-06108-EMC) involves 42 USC § 406 B, which was amended in OBRA 1990 to attract more attorneys to represent disabled individuals before the SSA.  It requires the attorneys to be paid 25% of a client’s retroactive benefits, provided they win the case.  These amendments did not require attorneys to itemize their hours; however, there was a limit on the amount of attorney fees, which were $4,000, then $5,300, and are now $6,000.  Since 2006, the SSA has made it, and continues to make it, more difficult to get an attorney fee, which in turn means less representation by attorneys who specialize in this area of law.  Instead of speeding up fee payment, the SSA is slowing down payment and refusing to honor attorney fee agreements, which have been enabled since July 1, 1991 by Congressional amendments.  Since PWDF has limited resources, we may not pursue this important case for the private bar. Any private Social Security or other lawyers who are interested should contact us as soon as possible.

Our case in the US Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 1:15-cv-02995-NJV) involves a disability issue where the SSA and a magistrate judge sitting as a judge in a US District Court subverted the law by mischaracterizing mental impairments as “non-severe” and claiming that the claimant could not return to her past relevant work as a medical assistant without basing this on any evidence, a position first invented by the SSA’s Appeals Council to impede her appeal of psychiatric disabilities.

PWDF is considering filing a complaint in federal court against the SSA on the basis that Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries are having their benefits suspended without a required pre-termination due process hearing.  If there is an ongoing recoupment of an overpayment during these illegal suspensions or terminations, the SSA has offset 100% of the SSI check amount, instead of the 10% maximum allowed by law.  If and when these individuals’ benefits are reinstated, the SSA has refused to reinstate the full amount minus the 10% for the checks that were illegally withheld. (See related article in Counsel’s Corner, this issue.)

We have an opening for a paralegal Program Manager.  This is a half-time position.  See the Careers page on our website for further details.