The Singapore News Online, Breaking News, Latest News & Headlines

     About two and a half years ago Social Security changed its policies on voluntary remands, that is cases where the agency agrees that a case on appeal to the United States District Court should be remanded to the agency.      I'm curious. Has there been a change in the rate at which Social Security agrees to voluntary remands since that change in policy? Has there been a change in what they do after voluntary remands? Did the policy change matter?

     From the summary of a change to Social Security's HALLEX manual : We clarified that an ALJ must obtain concurrence from the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ), Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge (RCALJ), and Regional Commissioner (RC) of the appropriate region to request the testimony of a particular FO [Field Office] employee at an appearance. We removed the phrase stating that the RCALJ may waive notification of the request because RCALJ's concurrence is now required.      How might this come up? Let's say it's the testimony of a claimant that a particular field office employee, that he can identify by name, told him that he could not file a claim for Social Security benefits and that advice was incorrect and cost the claimant money. The Social Security Act would allow backdating of a claim in this circumstance. Wouldn't the field office employee's testimony be relevant?