Social Security Disability Outcomes by the Numbers
This chart was released as a part of the Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program in 2010. It shows the outcomes of Social Security Disability Insurance Benefit claims over a period spanning from 2000 to 2009. It is interesting to note the percentages of denials and what the denial was for, as well as the small percentage of initial and reconsideration approvals. A lot of people can become frustrated with these initial and reconsideration denials, so it may bring a small glimmer of hope to realize that such a small percentage of people are approved at these levels.
The final award rate for disabled-worker applicants has varied over time, averaging nearly 45 percent for claims filed from 2000 through 2009. The percentage of applicants awarded benefits at the initial claims level averaged 28 percent over the same period and ranged from a high of 37 percent to a low of 26 percent. The percentage of applicants awarded at the reconsideration and hearing levels are averaging 3 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Denied disability claims have averaged nearly 53 percent.
Social Security by the Numbers
This is a piece researched and written by Charles Hall earlier this year for the North Carolina Advocates for Justice magazine. While some statistics are clearly just for North Carolina, many of them apply to the country as a whole:
50.9 million — Number of Title II Social Security beneficiaries in December 2008 — about one in six Americans of all age
$2.54 trillion — Value of Social Security trust funds at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2009, the highest amount in history
461,000 — Increase in number of people living in poverty in NC alone if Social Security ended
0.6% — Social Security administrative expenses as a percentage of retirement benefits paid in 2009
44% — Percent of Social Security’s operating budget spent administering disability programs
2.4% — Social Security administrative expenses paid as a percentage of disability benefits paid in 2008
$27.2 billion — Cash workers compensation benefits paid nationally in 2007
$106.3 billion — Cash Social Security disability insurance benefits paid in 2008
7— Number of types of Social Security disability benefits (Disability Insurance Benefits, Disabled Widow and Widower Benefits, Disabled Adult Child Benefits, and Blindness Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act; Adult Disability Benefits, Children’s Disability Benefits and Blind Benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act — Supplemental Security Income)
10,760,672 — Total number of persons receiving Title II Social Security disability benefits as of 2009
4 — Number of levels of administrative review at Social Security (initial, reconsideration, ALJ hearing, Appeals Council — cases may also be reviewed in the federal courts)
37% — Approval rate for Social Security disability claims at initial level
14% — Approval rate for Social Security disability claims at reconsideration level
63% — Administrative Law Judge approval rate for Social Security disability claims
1.1 million — Number of claimants who failed to appeal an initial denial of a Social Security disability claim in 2009
377— Average national processing time for a request for hearing on Social Security disability claim in days
$414,000 — Value of an approved Social Security disability claim if reduced to current value as of 2008, not counting value of Medicare
$3,551.21 — Average fee for attorney representing Social Security disability claimant in 2010
$1.32 billion — Amount of Social Security attorney fees paid nationally in 2010
38 — Number of attorneys certified by the NC State Bar as Social Security disability law specialists
570 — Number of cases disposed of by average Social Security ALJ in FY 2009
$236 million — Value of cases disposed of by average Social Security ALJ in FY 2009
60% — Percentage of those drawing SSI on account of disability who have a mental disorder
1295 — Number of Social Security ALJs as of August 2010
866 — Number of federal Article III judges authorized (District Court, Courts of Appeals, Supreme Court)
395 — Number of state court judges in NC as of June 2008 (District Court, Superior Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court)
609,538 — Number of Social Security ALJ dispositions in FY 2009
21% — ALJ allowance rate at most conservative fully operational hearing office within the United States in October 2010 (Shreveport, LA)
89% — ALJ allowance rate at most liberal fully operational hearing office within the United States in October 2010 (Brooklyn, NY)
61.3% — Percentage of Social Security disability claims approved after all appeals in 1999
55.9% — Percentage of Social Security disability claims approved after all appeals in 2008
7.6% — Percent of population drawing Social Security disability benefits in Alabama
2.6% — Percent of population drawing Social Security disability benefits in Utah
5.4% — Percent of population drawing Social Security disability benefits in NC
Appeals Council Discussion
This is a relevant topic with the newly released SSR 11-1p hanging over everyone’s heads. The new ruling states that if a claimant has a claim pending at the Appeals Council, they cannot file a new claim unless they file a different type of claim from the prior claim (SSI, SSDI, Survivor’s benefits, etc) or if they have a new medical condition. Charles Hall wrote this article on his blog on September 1st.
“In its current form, does the Appeals Council have any legitimate function? The Appeals Council usually takes at least a year and often much longer. It reverses only about 5% of the decisions it reviews and remands only about 20%. I have never seen any rationality in Appeal Council decisions. Frequently, review is denied even though the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision has obvious, severe defects. This is not just my judgment. Social Security’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) clearly agrees with me. Often, after attorneys file civil actions is Social Security cases, OGC takes a voluntary remand because they know they cannot defend the ALJ decision. This probably happens in 25% or more of cases. The remands and reversals that do come out of the Appeals Council seem almost to have been selected at random.
Does the Appeals Council serve any purpose other than to delay and frustrate claimants who want to obtain review of ALJ decisions? To put it another way, I ask myself the question: “If you could waive Appeals Council review and proceed directly to District Court, would you?” The answer to me is obviously “yes.”
The question of whether the Appeals Council should be abolished has been around a long time. It has usually been coupled with the question of whether reconsideration should be abolished. However, reconsideration does not waste nearly as much time as the Appeal Council and, in its own way, is not nearly as irrational as the Appeals Council.
The calls to abolish the Appeals Council were pretty loud before 1999 when claimants were allowed to file new claims while cases were pending at the Appeals Council. In fact, the pressure was so bad at that time that Social Security employees often refused to enforce the policy that sought to prevent a claimant from filing a new claim while an appeal was pending. The 1999 decision to allow a claimant to file a new claim and an appeal released much of the pressure. The issuance of Social Security Ruling 11-1p, which seeks to prevent a claimant from filing a new claim and an appeal, bottles up that pressure once again. This time I think the pressure will build more rapidly because the Appeals Council is even less effective than it was in 1999. As of 1999, if I remember correctly, the Appeals Council was remanding in something like 30% of cases. It’s now about 20%, making the Appeals Council even more useless than it was in 1999.”
Hearing Offices Average Processing Time
The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) released a newsletter updating the average processing time by Social Security Hearing Offices on a person’s claim. Generally, when a claimant receives their 20 Day Hearing Notice, the local Hearing Office will send out a letter informing them of the backlog which in some cases can take up to 16 months. Nashville’s Hearing Office is currently at #122 of 157 on the list of local Hearing Offices. The average processing time for a claim at the hearing level in Nashville is 399 days which translates to roughly 13 months. The shortest processing time nationally is 160 days at the Shreveport Hearing Office.
The national average for processing time is 353 days. This is down significantly from the past, which is encouraging considering that only four years ago, the average claim took over 500 days to process at the hearing level, or close to 17 months. These are some of the prior statistics released by NOSSCR for processing times in recent years.
New Social Security Ruling Affects Appeals Council Claimants
The Social Security Administration released a new ruling SSR 11-1p on July 28th that effectively states that claimants who have filed a Request for Hearing Review with the Appeals Council will not be able to file a new claim. Prior to this ruling, as soon as a claimant received an Unfavorable decision from the ALJ, they were free to both appeal the judge’s decision to the Appeals Council and then file a new claim giving a new onset date the day after the judge’s decision. In this way, they were able to continue their claim process without waiting the sometimes 12 to 30 months for an Appeals Council decision before filing again and then waiting again at the lower levels for a decision. The ruling provides that a claimant must choose between filing a Request for Hearing Review and attempting to overturn the ALJ’s decision and still be eligible for all of their back award benefits, OR they can file a new claim and start over.
It is true that there is a tremendous backlog in the time that it takes for the Appeals Council to process a claim. They receive all of the appeals on ALJ decisions for the whole country and they do not give estimates on the amount of time that it will take them to process a claim. This can be frustrating for claimants who have filed an appeal and then experienced a significant worsening in their disabling condition, as the only new evidence that can be submitted to the Appeals Council is evidence that is relevant to the date of the hearing but that was not available at the time of the hearing. This is because the Appeals Council only reviews the ALJ’s decision and the evidence that was available from the claimant’s Onset Date to the date of the decision. If a claimant has a new condition or diagnosis after the date of the ALJ’s decision, it is in effect not relevant to that time period in review. To overcome this problem, and avoid having people potentially wait close to 3 years before they would be able to file on new evidence of a new impairment, the Ruling states that the Appeals Council will expedite a claim if newly submitted evidence shows that a claimant has a new critical condition.
This ruling will not affect any claimant’s that currently have both an appeal filed and a new claim. It was put into effect July 28, 2011 and applies to claims from that date forward.
If a claimant is no longer eligible for one of the types of claims that they filed for and appealed originally, then they can file a new claim. For instance, if originally, a claim for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDIB) was filed and while waiting at the Appeals Council, the Date Last Insured was passed then a new claim can be filed for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) only.
It will be a bit of a wait to see if this ruling actually sticks. It seems to have been put in place in an effort to reduce duplication of files, confusion with approvals on new claims while a prior claim is waiting at the Appeals Council, and to reduce the total number of claims in order to reduce the backlog. However, it is difficult to say whether this ruling will actually benefit the people that apply for disability, and as a governmental program like Social Security is designed to aid the citizens eligible, and give them the benefit of the doubt, there is a chance that this ruling could come under fire.
The full text of the ruling can be found here.
