On October 6, 2013, the long-running CBS show “60 Minutes” ran a piece on the Social Security Disability system noting an uptick in the number of claims paid over the last several years (a change that is largely attributable (PDF File) to demographic changes rather than widespread fraud). This piece implied that the system was full of fraud and abuse, laying some blame at the feet of claimants and some at the feet of their attorneys. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) called these claimants “scallywags”, term with an interesting historical background lending a dose of irony to a report rife with inaccuracies and hyperbole. Senator Coburn stated that individuals receiving undeserved benefits were draining the disability system dry. This report also focused on the alleged misdeeds of an attorney inKentucky, and tried to create the existence of disability attorneys as a problem to be solved.
We do not condone fraud, nor abuse of the disability system. What we do support is the protection of the rights of disabled individuals under the law, and we believe that attorneys practicing social security disability law are a bulwark against a careless bureaucracy.
The “60 Minutes” report wrongfully implies that the Social Security Administration is paying attorney’s fees. Like many firms focusing on Social Security Disability, we work on contingency, meaning that we only get paid when our clients receive benefits. Under a typical fee agreement, attorneys are paid out of funds due at the time a client receives their first payment, funds that would be due to the client. These are funds that the Social Security Administration would have been (and, by implication of the fact that each decision at a later stage of the process overturns a denial, should have been) paying regardless of our involvement. The only increases in cost to the American tax payer based on the work that we perform are due to the number of individuals who were previously wrongfully denied that now receive benefits due to successful representation, and a small rise in administrative costs based on the thorough, zealous, and ethical representation of our clients. The alternative is a record developed entirely by the Social Security Administration or by the claimant themselves. Perhaps this has led to a larger number of applicants, but the insinuation that a person exercising their right to an attorney to further their own interests is somehow wrong for doing so is harmful and outside the spirit of regulations that specifically allow for representation.
This is the promise of theUnited Statesgovernment: if you are disabled and unable to work, as defined by Congress, you are entitled to disability benefits. Put simply: we do not buy opinions or otherwise behave in an unethical manner, we do not “leech” money off the disability system, and we do not apologize for holding the government to its promise on behalf of our clients.
Those who attack the disability system often do not do so with the interest of the system or its participants in mind. If there are problems with the manner in which we provide disability benefits, those problems should be addressed in a serious, methodical manner, as should the underlying problems that drive our need for such a large program. We should not govern by anecdote or yellow journalism, especially when the livelihoods of some of our most vulnerable citizens are on the line.
Please visit our blog in the near future for further discussion of the issues addressed in the “60 Minutes” report and an upcoming congressional report, or read this article for a discussion of several more of the many inaccuracies contained in this report.
