Articles from prior issues of The Advocate

July/August, 1996

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Disability Determinations Section
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 82530
Lincoln, Nebraska 68501-2530
Phone (402) 471-2961
FAX #402-471-3626
Determinations for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income Disability

October 30, 1995

Charles Jones, Director, Disability Process Redesign Team Social Security Administration 440 Altmeyer Building 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235

Dear Chuck:

I WRITE TO YOU TODAY in your capacity as director of the Short Term Disability Project. I want to put formally in writing a proposal I conveyed to you last week at the NADE National Conference in Portland, Maine. I use the word “conveyed” since the idea did not originally occur to me, but came up in informal discussion. I am sorry to say that I do not recall the persons or small group that proposed the idea. I also want to make clear that this conveyance of the idea is not made on behalf of NCDDD - at least not yet.

DDSs have collectively been very successful in reducing their pending caseloads and are at or near the goals set by STDP. Generally, the DDS caseload is in excellent shape. Meanwhile, the STDP objectives for OHA are not being met, and the pending caseload at OHA is seriously delayed. Many OHA cases have been pending for over a year. I understand that about 50,000 of the pending cases have been heard and decided and are awaiting drafting of the ALJ decision.

We have discussed the possibility of utilizing DDS employees as a resource for accomplishing reduction of the OHA caseload. While DDS employees constitute a repository of skills and energy which could certainly be effective in completing OHA cases and while the persons awaiting OHA decisions deserve better service than they are getting, a substantial dilemma becomes evident when we balance the prospect at assisting OHA with need to continue to process initial and reconsideration workloads. The problem is that while DDSs assist OHA, our own workloads would continue to arrive. The normal DDS workload will be deferred by rather than replaced with OHA workload. Once DDSs were successful in getting OHA “caught up”, we would then have to turn attention to the deferred workloads. The dilemma then is that the public deserves better service and DDSs should help provide it, but DDS staff should not be treated unfairly by being asked to do someone else’s work now and their own work later.

I want to propose a solution which would be available to all, mandatory for none, and from which OHA, DDS employees and claimants could simultaneously benefit.

I propose that SSA explore the possibility of directly compensating DDS employees who perform tasks on OHA cases during work time separate from their usual DDS work schedule.

Some preliminary suggestions for the logistics follow. The tasks could be determined by SSA, but decision writing, folder realignment, and review of remanded cases are examples of appropriate tasks that come to mind immediately. Any DDS employee determined to have the skills necessary to make a contribution would be eligible to participate. Examiners and supervisors could prepare decisions, support staff could transcribe dictation and realign folders, etc. The rate of compensation should be the rate that would be paid if the work were performed by federal personnel. Compensation should probably be at the time and one half rate in order to eliminate any FLSA actions. A “fire wall” separating regular DDS hours from OHA project hours could easily be constructed by requiring that the OHA work be done only during evening hours, weekend hours and perhaps leave ours. Agreements could be formalized with state governments and the individual employees (perhaps in the form of memoranda of understanding) that state premises and equipment would be used for this federal task, but that all compensation would be paid directly for the federal government. A verification system could be established under which specified individuals would affirm in writing to SSA the number of hours worked by each participating employee. The work product (realigned folders, written decisions based on ALJ drafts, remand reversals, etc.) would become the “property” of SSA. Some states may not permit their employees to participate, but since state borders would become irrelevant, enough participants could be found to make the project successful.

Although the main advantage of this idea would be reduction in the OHA workload while treating the DDS employee fairly, there are by-products as well. We would get to know more about each other’s workload, DDS employees would feel more included in the SSA family and something tangible would result for STDP.

I know that a lot of details would need to be worked out, and my purpose today is not to attempt to specify every detail. Rather, in the spirit of brain storming and redesign, I just wanted to layout enough of the idea to stimulate further development. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to expedite the further exploration of this proposal.

Sincerely,

Douglas Willman DDS Administrator an equal opportunity agency