Articles from prior issues of The Advocate

July/August, 1996

SOCIAL SECURITY
Office of the Commissioner
May 23, 199

Mr. Douglas Willman
Disability Determinations Services Administrator
Nebraska Department of Education
Disability Determination Section
P O Box 82530
Lincoln, Nebraska 68501-2530

Dear Doug:

As promised, I shared the proposal concerning direct compensation of DDS employees for work performed to assist the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) with the appropriate components within the Social Security Administration. Please accept my apology for the length of time it has taken to coordinate the components’ review and evaluation of the proposal.

We appreciate the innovative thinking that went into developing this proposal designed to assist us in processing our disability cases. Although the concept as outlined would provide additional decision writing resources from people who have knowledge of the disability adjudication process and who have experience in processing this workload, issues have been identified which prevent us from responding favorably to this proposal.

The major barrier relates to compensation requirements, including overtime, as prescribed by the Federal Labor Standards Act, i.e., “no employer shall employ any of his employees...for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee received compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” Our interpretation is that the Agency is not authorized to pay Federal overtime compensation to State employees based on forty hours of work for the State and the hours in excess of that same forty hours on OHA work.

One possible alternative that we considered involved negotiating with State employees on an individual basis through Intergovernmental Personnel Act agreements. However, such agreements would involve periods of time in excess of the “overtime hours only” envisioned by this proposal. Another alternative involved “contracting” with State employees as consultants, similar to our arrangements with medical consultants; this alternative would require extensive internal negotiations. Given the barrier we have identified and anticipated problems that some State governments might have with the proposal, we believe that it is not feasible to pursue it.

As you are probably aware, the leadership for the Short Term Disability Project (STDP) has recently changed. We will advise the new team of the proposal and ask that they keep it on file for future consideration should circumstances change.

We appreciate the assistance that the DDSs have provided, and the commitment to quality public service that DDS employees have shown.

Sincerely,

Charles A. Jones Director Disability Process Redesign Team cc: Carolyn W. Colvin Janice L. Warden Rita S. Geier Larry Massanari