November 2014
E-Newsletter Editor: Michael Persellin
UPCOMING CLE PROGRAM
Presentation by the Honorable Richard Thrasher, Chief ALJ of MPLS ODAR
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Time: Noon - 1:30 P.M.
Location: MSBA Office
The Social Security Disability Law Section is excited to announce that our new chief ALJ has accepted our invitation to speak to our section! He will discuss the current state of ODAR and outline his goals. We will also invite him to answer our questions about how any policies and procedures may impact our Social Security practices.
Lunch will start at Noon followed by the CLE program from 12:15-1:15 p.m. Special meal requests need to be received no later than Tuesday, December 30.
Presenter:
Chief Administrative Law Judge Richard Thrasher
CLE Credits:
1.0 Standard CLE credits will be applied for | Event Code: 198602
Remote Participation:
Remote attendance is available. Please indicate that you will attend remotely when registering. Instructions will be sent via e-mail on Monday, January 5.
Cost:
Social Security Disability Law Section Member: Free
MSBA Member but not a member of the Social Security Disability Law Section: $15.00
Non-MSBA Members: $20.00
Law Students: Free
Deadline to register is Tuesday, December 30, 2014. Click here for information on how to register.
UPCOMING COUNCIL MEETING
The Social Security Disability Law Council will meet after the CLE program on January 6 from 1:30-2:00 p.m.
SECTION ELECTIONS
On July 30, 2014, the Social Security Disability Law Section held its annual meeting and elected the following people as officers and council members:
Officers:
Co-Chair: Andrew Kinney
Co-Chair: Michael Persellin
Secretary: Gregg Nelson
Treasurer: Emily Cooper
Council Members:
Linda Bogut
Richard Borland
Samantha Clawson
Mason Emery
Kirk Thompson
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
Each and every member of our section is welcome, and encouraged, to submit news for the section newsletter. News is anything our members might find interesting or helpful, and may include a link to a news story, an article you’ve written for another publication, a helpful practice form, or a case summary – anything relative to our practice area. Please send submissions for the January newsletter to the editor at mjpersellin@mylegalaid.org. by December 31.
SOCIAL SECURITY NEWS
2015 COLA Changes|SSA
SSA Implements Major Changes to Video Hearing Option|NOSSCR
SSA Opens New National Data Center|SSA
Effect of SSA Reduction of Field Office Operating Hours|OIG
Disability Appeals Backlog is 990,399 Cases Behind|Washington Post
Social Security Is a Mess|Washington Post
155,000 Americans Had Social Security Benefits Cut in 2013 Because of Student Debt |Wall Street Journal
More Seniors Carry Student Loan Debt into Retirement|U.S.News &World Report
Women and Social Security Benefits|AARP
After Losing Caseload, Richfield Rep Payee Placed Under Investigation|StarTribune
Horror Stories Reveal Broader Risk to Vulnerable Adults|StarTribune
Same Sex Spouses Denied Survivor’s Benefits|NY Times
SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY LAW CASES
The following opinion was released by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 17, 2014:
Moore v. Colvin, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 5293396 (8th Cir.)
The ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT job descriptions. The ALJ assessed an RFC that included a limitation that the claimant could only occasionally perform overhead reaching bilaterally. The VE testified that the claimant could perform the jobs of janitor and cafeteria attendant “clearing tables.” Both jobs require frequent reaching; though the DOT is silent as to the direction of the reaching. The ALJ failed to “ask about any possible conflict” between the VE evidence and “information provided in the DOT,” as required by SSR 00-4p. The ALJ is not absolved of his duty merely because the VE responds “yes” when asked if her testimony is consistent with the DOT. Remanded.
8th Circuit Case Summaries|ProJusticeMN
STATUTES, REGULATIONS
Advisory Committee Note regarding the amendment of U.S. District Court – Minnesota Local Rule 7.2 (September 12, 2014):
The rule was amended to require that social security appeals be initially assigned to only a magistrate judge. The court will presume that the parties consent to disposition by a magistrate judge unless a party notifies the court to the contrary on or before the date that the answer is due. If a party does notify the court to the contrary, a district judge will also be assigned to the case, the magistrate judge will issue a report and recommendation (R&R), and either or both parties may seek de novo review of the R&R from the district judge. Thus, these amendments do not in any way affect the substantive rights of parties to social security appeals.
Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Genitourinary Disorder – Final Rules|Fed. Reg.
SSA Publishes Acquiescence Requiring Vocational Specialist (VS) or Vocational Expert (VE) Evidence When an Individual has a Severe Mental Impairment(s) (Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.2012)|Fed. Reg.
May 6-9, 2015, Arlington, VA
October 28-31, 2015, Denver, CO