NEWS | ||
|
Add me to PWDF's newsletter list Current Newsletter
NEW - Upcoming Clinics: Social Security Post-entitlement / Eligibility Issues I. Clinic Description People With Disabilities Foundation (PWDF) will hold monthly clinics on the subject of Social Security/SSI disability post-entitlement / eligibility issues at its office in San Francisco. The clinics will provide legal advice to beneficiaries with mental and/or developmental disabilities. They will address SSDI Work Activity Reviews and SSI redeterminations based on income, whether earned or unearned, and resulting overpayments. The clinic is open to all mentally and/or developmentally disabled individuals who have these social security issues. At this time, PWDF only has the resources to help people who have overpayment issues that are directly related to a mental and/or developmental disability. This clinic is not for people who only have overpayment issues. The Social Security disability work incentive rules are not the same for SSDI and SSI. The clinics will cover cessation of benefits and some resulting in overpayments. Some of the main issues covered in the clinics will be Impairment Related Work Expenses (IRWE), Unsuccessful Work Attempts (UWA), Plan to Achieve Self-Support (PASS) and other special circumstances. The clinics will be located at PWDF’s office at 507 Polk Street, Suite 430, San Francisco, CA 94102. These clinics will be offered by PWDF based on a sliding scale from $00.00 up. Call 415-931-3070 to make an appointment for the next clinic, which will be held on Thursday, June 27, 2013 from 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. II. Background Since 2000 PWDF has focused on advocating for the rights of people with invisible disabilities. Through our work with this population, especially our work with federal court discrimination cases involving the Social Security Administration (SSA), we have discovered a real need for representation and advising individuals on continuing disability reviews, which involve complex work incentive rules and regulations. The SSA has increased quotas for the number of work activity reviews done by the field offices each year; they have determined that every dollar spent on a work review results in $15 in savings for the SSA.1 Accordingly, more people are having their benefits ceased due to the increase in the number and aggressiveness of these reviews. On top of incentivizing the removal of people from benefits the SSA eliminated funding for the Work Incentive Planning and Assistance (WIPA) program;2 thus, there are going to be more individuals on benefits who are attempting to re-enter the workforce without this kind of assistance. Amongst the population that is affected by the increasing amount of work reviews and elimination of assistive services, those with invisible disabilities are affected disproportionately due to SSA’s lack of training and the beneficiaries’ inability to understand the complex rules and communications from the SSA. Our agency has recently settled two cases that alleged the SSA discriminated against this population regarding work reviews: see Terrence Davis v. Michael Astrue, and John Doe v. Michael Astrue.3 1 Joint Hearing on Social Security's Payment Accuracy Oversight and Social Security, June 14, 2011. 2 Social Security Administration, “Work Incentives Planning and Assistance” available at http://www.ssa.gov/work/WIPA.html (last visited May 1, 2013). 3 Terrence Davis v. Michael Astrue, Case No. 3:06-CV-6108 EMC (NC) John Doe v. Michael Astrue, Case No. 3:09-CV-980 EMC (NC).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE People With Disabilities Foundation (PWDF) and Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC) File Administrative Class Action Complaint Against Social Security Administration (SSA) for Discriminating Against Individuals with Mental Disabilities in Post-entitlement or Post-eligibility Status San Francisco, California –May 22, 2013 – PWDF and the LAS-ELC have filed an administrative class action complaint against SSA for violations of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the precursor to the Americans with Disabilities Act). SSA has failed to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with mental disabilities in post-entitlement and post-eligibility status and the complaint requests that SSA investigate, issue findings, and provide a list of reasonable accommodations. The complaint was filed on behalf of four individual complainants and similarly situated individuals. The primary allegation is that SSA is discriminating against people by not providing reasonable accommodations who have psychiatric disabilities and therefore is depriving them of equal, meaningful access to SSA’s disability programs. The complainants have psychiatric disabilities that may make it difficult for them to understand and therefore respond to notices from SSA. Complainant 1 has large overpayment and underpayment issues with SSA that have been unresolved for over 10 years. He has bipolar disorder and ADHD; he claims SSA is discriminating against him because of these disabilities by not conducting a required formal conference that he requested. Complainant 2 has major memory and other limitations in communicating with SSA due to complex PTSD, dissociative identity disorder, and major depressive disorder and claims that SSA has not followed any policy or procedure to provide an accommodation. Complainant 3 has chronic schizophrenia with constant auditory hallucinations. SSA reduced her benefits; however, it sent her notices without any meaningful explanation based on her disability and continues to refuse to provide an explanation. Complaint 4 has psychosis and a sever anxiety disorder. SSA employees refused to talk to her. Second, the complaint alleges that SSA does not provide a neutral and detached decision-maker in grievance procedures because their own attorneys serve as the decision-makers. Thus, complainants have no realistic avenue for relief. Thirdly, while complainants have a clear right to their claims files maintained by SSA, the complaint alleges that SSA has failed to provide complainants with their own claims files in spite of multiple requests. In July 2010, SSA agreed to perform a self-evaluation of its program activities to ensure the activities are in compliance with § 504 and its implementing regulations. This evaluation was to include an assessment of SSA’s reasonable accommodation practices and procedures to ensure effective communication with individuals with psychiatric and developmental disorders. Although the evaluation was begun in October 2010, to-date SSA has not publicly released results and states it will not set a deadline for its self evaluation. PWDF and LAS-ELC are seeking additional complainants from the western states, including California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska and Hawaii.
PWDF provides services for people with psychiatric and developmental disabilities through advocacy, education and public awareness. The LAS-ELC was founded in 1916 and is committed to protecting the rights and economic self-sufficiency of low-income and disadvantaged workers and their families. The LAS-ELC provides free legal services, educational materials, technical assistance to other groups, and direct legal representation addressing racial equality, gender equity, immigration and national origin, and disability rights.
Contacts: April Banerjee, Program Manager for Public Awareness and Education
# # #
Press Releases and Announcements
From: Steven Bruce, Legal Director, People With Disabilities Foundation People With Disabilities Foundation (PWDF) and Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC) would like to communicate with individuals with mental and/or developmental disabilities, who have been on Social Security SSDI and/or SSI disability benefits, and who continue to be entitled or eligible for such benefits. We are interested in assessing timely (within the past two years) issues of discrimination post-entitlement regarding SSA proceedings or interactions related to work reviews and medical reviews (including non-disability income and/or resource eligibility requirements). Such discrimination might include: a failure to provide reasonable accommodation during post-entitlement communications and proceedings; a failure to effectively communicate with the beneficiary; and the use of eligibility criteria (e.g. confusing procedural requirements) that exclude or screen people out on the basis of disability. Post-entitlement work review proceedings include a host of issues relating to: a trial work period (TWP); an extended period of eligibility (EPE); a ticket to work; expedited reinstatement (EXR); the calculation of SSI benefit (the $1.00 deduction for every $2.00 earned); a PASS (plan to achieve self-support); payments under section 1619(a); the consideration of “special conditions” and/or “employer subsidies” relating to disabilities; the deduction of impairment related work expenses (IRWEs); and additional matters. Other post-entitlement issues include medical reviews and related resource and income reviews. We want to determine if there are enough people who reside in California and who can be Complainants in an administrative disability civil rights case against the Social Security Administration (SSA) and perhaps, if legally indicated, Plaintiffs in a civil rights case under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (precursor to ADA) in Court. The administrative process could be private. Identifying information such as name and address could be private even in a court. To recap, specific criteria for possible claimants include:
Please contact Bill Reyes, Advocacy Program Manager, PWDF, breyes@pwdf.org; 415-931-3070- fax 415-931-2828.
### Social Security Administration Agrees to Unprecedented Settlement re Discrimination Against Mentally/Developmentally Disabled IndividualsSan Francisco, California - June 19, 2012 – People with Disabilities Foundation (PWDF) has reached an unprecedented settlement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) in two cases alleging discrimination against mentally/developmentally disabled individuals, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) which, unlike the ADA, applies to federal agencies; Terrence Davis v. Michael Astrue, Case No. 3:06-CV-6108 EMC (NC) and John Doe v. Michael Astrue, Case No. 3:09-CV-980 EMC (NC). After 5 years of litigation the parties have filed a final settlement agreement in U.S. District Court, that has been approved by Honorable Edward M. Chen Plaintiffs Davis and Doe argued that the SSA continually, over the course of many years, discriminated against them by failing to effectively communicate regarding complex SSA rules. Both clients had their social security benefits terminated and or reduced to zero, but were not informed in a manner in which they could understand and respond, due to their psychiatric and/or developmental disabilities. Their impairments include chronic schizophrenia, cognitive and intellectual challenges, severe anxiety, depression, autism and functional illiteracy. The settlement agreement affords reasonable accommodations so Plaintiffs can have equal meaningful access to the SSA’s disability programs under Title II (SSDI) and Title XVI (SSI) of the Social Security Act. The accommodations include training for SSA field office employees and alternate communication methods with plaintiffs to comply with Section 504, which requires that all government agencies must ensure effective communication with disabled individuals. “This is a major step for human and civil rights for people who have mental and/or developmental disabilities,” says PWDF’s legal director, Steven Bruce. Bruce also notes, “There have been numerous cases on behalf of people with physical disabilities, but it is our belief that this is the first time that, as a result of legal action, any federal agency has agreed to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with mental or developmental disabilities, to allow equal, meaningful program access. Although these two cases are not class actions, they will have a greater impact beyond the individual plaintiffs, bringing awareness to the issue and ideally paving the way for millions of other mentally and developmentally disabled Americans to actually receive the equal, meaningful access to which they are entitled under the law.” # # # |
| |
