September 2012

FILING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BENEFITS:

What Impact Does Professional

Representation Have on the Process

at the Initial Application Level?

 Social Security Advisory Board
Filing for Social Security Disabilty Benefits:

What Impact Does Professional

Representation Have on the Process at 

the Initial Application Level?

Social Security Advisory Board

September 2012
Message from the Board

Third parties have been assisting claimants in 

matters before the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) since the Social Security Amendments of 1939

first established the rules and regulations regarding representation. With the advent of the more 

complex Social Security disability program in 1956 

and the Supplemental Security Income program in 

1972, both the numbers and types of representatives providing such assistance have grown. And 

while representation has for many years been fairly 

common at the hearing level and beyond, professional third parties are increasingly assisting claimants at the initial stage of the process in applying 

for disability benefits. With this back drop in mind, 

we set out to explore the characteristics of professional third party representation and its impact on 

the disability claims process at the initial level. This 

report presents the findings and recommendations 

we developed based on our investigation into current representation practices. 

As we began this study, we had two very basic 

questions that we wanted to answer: 1) does representation increase the likelihood that an individual 

who is eligible will be awarded disability benefits, 

and 2) does representation increase the likelihood 

that the individual will receive a decision sooner. 

We were able to provide preliminary answers to 

these questions; for instance, we found evidence 

that processing times are longer for represented 

claims, particularly when represented by attorneys.  Additionally, we found that represented cases 

have higher allowance rates, significantly so for SSI, 

but barely so for Social Security Disability Insurance 

(SSDI) cases. The available data, however, were 

insufficient to allow for the kind of in-depth, statistical analysis needed to fully assess the impact of 

representation. As a result, we strongly urge SSA to 

develop the comprehensive data needed to provide 

a more complete picture of who these representatives are and how they affect the disability process. 

During the course of our study, we interviewed 

and consulted with many stakeholders including a broad spectrum of professional representatives, agency employees involved in the disability 

adjudication process and staff at the state Disability 

Determination Services. We also talked with 

claimants and beneficiaries who had first-hand 

experience with filing for disability benefits. This 

approach gave us many sources of information and 

identified many problems and issues. After synthesizing the information, we developed a set of recommendations including ideas such as improving 

the electronic filing process, holding representatives responsible for the completeness of the filed 

claim, and reassessing SSA’s role in administering 

payments to representatives. We believe that the 

recommendations, if implemented, could lead to 

improvements in the process that would benefit 

claimants who choose to engage the services of a 

professional representative. It could also reduce 

some of the administrative burden on SSA while 

increasing the accuracy of the initial adjudication 

of claims. 

It is our sincere hope that you will find this report 

useful and informative.

Marsha R. Katz, Acting Chair

Jagadeesh Gokhale

Dorcas R. Hardy

Barbara B. Kennelly

Mark J. Warshawsky
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 1

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Representation at the Initial Claims Level 5

Assessing the Impact of Representation 7

Professional Representatives – Who Are They? 9

Payment to Representatives 10

Governance of the Representation Process 13

Appointment and Registration 13

Standards of Conduct 14

Proposed Changes – A Comprehensive Effort 15

How Representatives Assist Claimants 17

The Representative/SSA Relationship 19

The Use of Technology 19

Allegations of Disservice – Differing Views 20

What Available Data Reveal 23

Conclusion 27

Summary of Findings 27

Recommendations 28

Appendix A: Persons Consulted during the Preparation of this Report 31

Appendix B: SSA’s Policy on Prohibited Actions for Representatives 33

Appendix C: Related Legislation and Regulations 35

Appendix D: Sections of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding Representation 37

Appendix E: Sections of SSA’s Program Operation Manual System (POMS) regarding Representation 39

Social Security Advisory Board 41

Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 3

Introduction

Applying for Social Security disability benefits 

can be a confusing and stressful process. It necessarily requires the submission of a significant 

amount of information regarding medical treatment, education and work history, and specific 

details about a person’s limitations and capabilities, potentially making it a daunting process for 

most applicants. In addition, stressors such as having been born with a disabling condition or having 

acquired a serious health condition later in life can 

make it all the more complicated to navigate the 

application process. 

While some claimants complete both the federal application and any additional state medical 

forms without assistance, others seek help from 

third party representatives. Although a Social 

Security claims representative also provides this 

type of assistance, workload pressures may limit 

the amount of assistance a claims representative 

is able to offer. A third party representative could 

be either a professional, such as an attorney or a 

social worker, or a non-professional, such as a family member or friend. 

Claimants choose to be represented for a variety of reasons: they may not have the mental 

ability to navigate the application process, they 

may feel intimidated by the process, or their disabilities, health conditions, or lack of stable living situation may impede their ability to obtain 

records and communicate easily with employees 

at the Social Security Administration (SSA) or 

the state Disability Determination Service (DDS). 

Professional representatives come from a variety of 

backgrounds: some are professional disability specialists, some provide the assistance as part of their 

suite of services, and others may work for a social 

service or health care agency that provides services to specific groups of people. Given the diverse 

nature of representation and the potential it has to 

assist claimants to navigate the disability application process, we decided to explore the dynamic of 

representation in the initial disability claims process, and, to the extent possible, offer a framework 

to assess the effectiveness of the “system” of third 

party representation for the disability applications 

process that has developed over the years.

Although representation has been part of the 

disability process since its inception, there are 

many unanswered questions regarding the effect 

representation has on a claim. Individuals filing for disability benefits administered by SSA, 

whether Social Security Disability Insurance 

(SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 

are not required to – nor should they be required 

to – have representation to conduct business with 

the agency. However, a claimant may engage the 

assistance of a third party to help him or her with 

the application process from the beginning of the 

initial claim and continuing through any appeals 

that may follow. While that assistance may come 

from family members and friends, our study will 

focus exclusively on those individuals or organizations in the community that routinely provide 

professional assistance with the claims process. 

In addition, this report will focus on representatives at the initial claims stage because the issues 

and challenges are somewhat different than at the 

appeals level. Thirty years ago, most third party 

representation occurred beginning at the hearing 

stage of the appeals process, and most representatives were attorneys. Today, there are attorneys as 

well as non-attorneys representing claimants at all 

adjudicative levels. The intent of this report is to 

neither endorse nor discourage the use of professional representation; rather, our goal is to discuss 

the impact of third party assistance on the disability process. Our focus will be on how to effectively 

manage the additional layer in the relationship 

between claimants and the agency for their mutual 

benefit and that of the process. 

Over the past few years, the Social Security 

Advisory Board has met with a number of groups 

and individuals, as well as staff members from 

federal SSA field offices and the state DDSs in an 

ongoing review of SSA’s disability programs. One 

issue that surfaced repeatedly during our visits 

was the role that third party assistance plays in 

the claims process. While people in the various 
4 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

organizations had their own points of view on the 

nature and extent of the benefits of representation, 

all expressed concern about some aspect of the current process. Throughout this report, we will refer 

to the insights and observations gleaned from our 

discussions with all parties.1

 The views and synthesis of information expressed here, however, are 

those of the Board alone.

1 See Appendix A for a list of the people we consulted for this 

report.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 5

Representation at the Initial Claims Level

The Board has chosen to focus on representation 

at the initial claims level for several reasons. Most 

importantly, the majority of all disability claims are 

finally determined at the initial level. In fiscal year 

2011, 3.4 million medical decisions were made on 

initial disability claims, while the hearing offices 

made decisions on approximately 800,000 appealed 

disability claims. Although appellate hearings have 

received much of the media and Congressional 

attention, approximately 70 percent of all claims 

are decided at the initial level.2

The sheer number of initial disability claims has 

increased in recent years, due in part to the impact 

of baby-boomers reaching their disability-prone 

years, changes and incentives within the programs 

themselves (such as the increase in Social Security’s 

normal retirement age), significant fluctuations in 

the economy and increased unemployment, and 

other issues still being discussed. While the effect of 

the baby boomer cohort may have already peaked, 

other factors such as the state of the economy and 

the ongoing implementation of previous changes to 

the disability programs by Congress and SSA itself 

could result in continuing increases in the number 

of disability applications.3

 As mentioned earlier, 

SSA reported that it completed nearly 3.4 million 

initial disability claims in 2011, up from 2.5 million five years ago.4

 Overall, the agency spent about 

$700 million more on processing and adjudicating 

2 In 2008 (the year that the most recent longitudinal data is available), 965,000 of the 2,570,000 determinations (38%) were allowed 

at the initial level. Of the 1,594,000 claims that were denied, only 

756,000, or roughly half of these claims, were appealed to the 

next level. The remaining 838,000 claims never made it farther 

than the initial level. Therefore, a total of 1,803,000, or 70% of 

all initial claim determinations, were decided finally at the initial 

adjudicative level (SSA, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, 

Longitudinal Disability Research File. Prepared July 15, 2011).

3 Legislative changes in the 1980s are often cited as contributing 

to the expansion of the disability rolls. These changes included a 

medical improvement standard for termination of benefits and 

new criteria for: 1) the evaluation of mental impairments, 2) the 

assessment of multiple impairments on the individual’s ability 

to work, and 3) the use of pain and discomfort allegations in the 

decision-making process.

4 This average growth rate for disability applications is 6.3% per 

year which is much faster than the growth rate of the working 

population or the overall measured incidence of morbidity and 

disability applications in fiscal year 2011 ($3.6 billion) than in fiscal year 2007 ($2.9 billion).5

Concurrent with the increase in the number 

of applications, SSA’s budget and resources are 

decreasing,6

 and these trends will most likely continue in the future. Currently, SSA (including the 

state DDSs) has approximately 82,000 employees, 

down from almost 90,000 in 2010, due to a hiring 

freeze that has been in effect for the last two years. 

With the continuing hiring limitations and attrition (including the number of employees taking 

early retirement),7

 SSA’s Office of Budget expected 

losses of more than 3,000 SSA and DDS employees in fiscal year 2012.8

 During the current budget 

situation, any and all avenues to increase the efficiency of claims processing, while maintaining customer service and taxpayer protection, need to be 

explored; in particular, we are interested in exploring the potential efficiencies and impact of professional representation.

Beyond the growing number of initial applications filed and the consequences that may have 

on agency resources, there are other reasons we 

focused on the initial claims stage. During our visits 

to various SSA offices and supporting agencies, we 

disabling health conditions in that population (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010).

5 These administrative expenditures are not adjusted for inflation. 

Also, while higher workloads have driven up the total cost for disability claims, cost-saving efficiencies have enabled the agency to 

lower the cost per case by about 10% over this period. (SSA, Office 

of Budget).

6 From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2012, funding appropriated 

by Congress for SSA’s operations decreased by $938 million; when 

adjusted for inflation (based on the annual change in the CPI-U), 

the agency’s purchasing power over this period decreased by about 

$1.2 billion in 2012 dollars (SSA, Office of Budget).

7 Regarding SSA’s recent announcement offering early retirement, 

“About 9,000 employees meet the eligibility criteria, representing 14 percent of SSA’s 62,000-strong workforce. According to 

SSA spokeswoman Kia Green, typically 3 percent to 4 percent 

of eligible employees take advantage of early retirement offers.” 

Accessed August 8, 2012, http://www.govexec.com/management/2012/08/social-security-offers-thousands-employees-earlyretirement/57295/

8 As of October 2012, the first month of fiscal year 2013, SSA 

reported that actual net employee losses in fiscal year 2012 were 

2,749, including both SSA and DDS employees (SSA, Office of 

Human Resources and Office of Disability Determination).
6 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

learned that the number of claimants engaging representatives at the initial level has been increasing. 

These comments, along with aggressive marketing, 

especially by attorney representatives, as well as 

recent negative media coverage of scandals involving attorneys specializing in disability, focused our 

attention on issues of representation at this level.

Third party assistance at the initial claims level 

has unique characteristics that make it inherently 

different from representation at the hearing level. 

Ideally, its role is to ensure that the claimant’s 

application is fully developed at the earliest possible point. If third party assistance with the initial 

claim helps to prevent the case from proceeding to 

a hearing, there can be benefits for both the claimant and the agency. For the claimants, an earlier 

decision means that, if they are approved, their disability benefits start sooner, and if they are denied, 

they can either return to work without further loss 

of income and work force skills, or more quickly 

enter the next step of the appeals process. For the 

agency, a claim correctly allowed sooner in the process translates into administrative savings in terms 

of budget and resources because costly appeals are 

not necessary.9,10 Further, when representatives 

provide conscientious service to the claimant and 

submit fully developed claims on a timely basis, 

they should be, in effect, supplementing the work 

of the agency in preparing claims. Policies that 

work in conjunction with representation could create a synergy that ensures the best public service 

for the claimant while supplementing the agency’s 

constrained resources.

Despite the positive potential aspects of third 

party assistance at the initial level, we heard a significant amount of criticism from both SSA officials 

and representatives during the course of our study, 

which causes us concern. We heard allegations from 

agency employees that for-profit representatives 

delay the processing of applications intentionally; 

the longer the claim takes to process, the more back 

pay the claimant may receive, resulting in a potentially larger payment to the representative. We also 

heard that professional representatives submit 

claims that are no more fully documented than an 

9 In fiscal year 2011, the unit cost for an initial disability claim 

was $1,058.44 while the cost of a disability hearing was $2,752.00 

(SSA, Office of Budget).

10 Claims incorrectly decided, however, have associated costs: 

initial claims incorrectly allowed increase taxpayer costs and initial 

claims incorrectly rejected increase administrative costs. 

unrepresented claim, requiring field office or DDS 

employees to develop the case even though the 

claimant is paying for the presumed added value of 

representation. In addition, we heard allegations 

that representatives may coach claimants to hide 

some and exaggerate other information, or prevent 

the agency from speaking directly to their clients 

while also failing to respond to agency requests. On 

the other hand, we heard from representatives that 

agency employees “move under-developed cases 

too quickly” in order to meet agency goals of timeliness, and are not fully trained and/or competent 

in case processing. We also heard that SSA’s online 

application process is not always a good fit with 

how representatives gather information.

To the degree possible, this report presents the 

competing assertions, assesses the impact of representation on both the claimant and the agency, 

and gauges the need for adjusting current protocols 

and policies governing representation. Third party 

assistance is now an integral and growing part of 

the disability process at the initial claims level. 

Therefore, there should be effective management 

and processing strategies in place at the agency in 

order to maximize the usefulness of representation, 

while at the same time minimizing the problems.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 7

Assessing the Impact of Representation

Claimants engage the services of a representative 

because they believe a third party will help them 

achieve their goal of obtaining a disability allowance at the earliest possible date. Thus, we began 

our project with two basic questions:

■ Does representation increase the likelihood 

that claimants will be awarded disability benefits?

■ Does representation increase the likelihood 

that claimants will receive a decision earlier in 

the adjudicative process?

As a first step in answering these questions, 

we requested data from SSA that would show the 

allowance rate and processing time for cases with 

representation, and we asked for information that 

differentiated between categories that were of 

interest to us. For example, we requested data that 

distinguished between types of representation, 

i.e., non-professionals (family members/friends), 

non-profit organizations, attorneys, non-attorney 

representatives, and other for-profit organizations. Additionally, information was requested 

that would address specific problems or allegations about represented cases such as their impact 

on processing time, as well as data for all claims, 

regardless of whether they were represented, to 

use for comparison purposes.

While SSA was able to provide data regarding processing times and allowance rates, overall 

the granularity of the data was not what we had 

hoped for and some of our questions about the 

representation process could not be answered sufficiently.11 For instance, the data we received for 

allowance rates was less helpful because the agency 

was only able to provide allowance information for 

11 Collecting these data is very complicated because SSA keeps 

records for each program in separate databases, and often has multiple databases for the same Social Security program. Furthermore, 

the technology used to input data is outdated, which can cause 

problems itself. Overall, SSA record keeping is geared more toward 

information needed for production rather than the analysis of the 

various aspects of the disability programs. The end result is that 

important programmatic questions cannot be answered as fully as 

desired using the data as it exists today. 

represented claims, with no additional breakdown 

by type of representative.12 In order to address the 

allegation that representatives extend the filing 

period, we requested the processing time by type 

of representation for the time period between the 

point a claimant expresses an intent to file a claim 

and the point when the claim is sent to the DDS.13

This information could not be provided. 

 What processing time and allowance rate data 

we did receive shed light on some aspects of the 

effect of representation, but they do not address 

sufficiently the alleged pathway to quicker case 

approval. With the data received, we can see differences in both allowance rates and processing time 

when all cases are compared to cases involving representation; however, the exact reason for the difference is still conjecture, i.e. purposeful delays by 

representatives, more comprehensive case development by representatives, representatives screening 

cases before electing to represent a claimant, etc. 

Consequently, there remains a number of questions for which the agency does not have objective 

measures, but which are vital to understanding 

the impact representation has on the initial claims 

process. For instance, are represented cases better documented? Do more fully documented cases 

result in more allowances at the initial claims level? 

Are representatives selecting cases that are more 

likely to be allowed? Do specific types of representation result in higher or lower average processing 

times? Even if representation leads to shorter processing time, does faster processing time translate 

to less work for field office and DDS employees? 

While we heard allegations that represented claims 

are less well documented and actually increase the 

workloads of agency employees, there is no data to 

support or refute the impact representation has 

on SSA’s resources. Both the lack of data and the 

12 SSA does not track cases by representation. 13 SSA uses the term ‘FO1 time’ for this period - meaning the time 

the claim is at the SSA field office at the beginning of the claim process. During this period, the representative or field office employee 

gathers the information needed by the DDS to develop evidence of 

the disabling condition. 
8 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

limitations of the data we received point to the need 

for a comprehensive examination of the impact of 

representation on the initial claims process. 
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 9

Professional representatives come from three 

major groups: non-profit organizations, for-profit 

enrollment/eligibility service companies, and 

attorney/non-attorney representatives. While all 

presumably share the common goal of assisting the 

claimant to apply for disability benefits, they differ 

in the following ways: how the assistance is funded, 

whether their services are directed toward a specific claimant group, and whether or not the cost 

of the assistance is recovered from the claimant. 

Just as claimants vary in the amount and type of 

assistance they require, representatives also vary in 

the degree of help they provide claimants to navigate through the disability application process and 

any subsequent appeals. In general, representatives 

should be expected to help claimants 1) gather 

necessary information, 2) complete the necessary 

forms (paper or online), and 3) meet required deadlines. A representative may also become the point 

of contact between the claimant and the agency. 

Some representatives reportedly control all information exchanges with the agency – to the extent 

of refusing any and all direct communication with 

the applicant. 

The non-profit organizations that provide assistance to individuals filing for disability benefits 

administered by SSA are social service organizations, health care entities, or legal aid agencies. Of 

these, social service agencies typically help individuals with no income or low-to-moderate income 

access a wide variety of federal, state, and local benefits and services such as in-home support services, 

food stamps, housing and health care. They may also 

assist clients who have specific limitations, such as a 

mental illness or homelessness. The legal aid agencies provide a broad range of services related to 

civil actions or government regulations, and these 

services can include assistance with filing for government benefits. Non-profit health care entities, 

such as hospitals and clinics, may themselves assist 

patients to apply for benefits; these entities may 

also contract with for-profit third party providers to 

assist their patients with SSI and Medicaid applications, particularly if those patients are uninsured. 

With regard to the disability programs administered 

by SSA, non-profit organizations may provide assistance to individuals at any point of the multi-stage 

disability application process, from filing the initial 

application through appealing an adverse decision. 

For-profit companies, such as GENEX, MASH, 

and Chamberlin-Edmonds, first appeared about 25 

years ago after having identified disability claims 

as a marketable service niche. Unlike non-profit 

organizations whose clients are disability claimants, these eligibility service companies serve clients such as hospitals, clinics, insurance companies, employers, and state and local governments. 

The payment of disability benefits and the receipt 

of Medicare and Medicaid help to increase their clients’ revenues by reducing their share of the cost 

per patient. For instance, if a homeless patient 

becomes eligible for SSI benefits, the hospital can 

be reimbursed for his care by the Medicaid coverage 

that typically accompanies SSI. Eligibility service 

companies are paid through contracts with the client company; payment may be based on a percentage of the reimbursement amount the client (e.g., a 

hospital) receives from Medicare/Medicaid. In these 

situations, the claimant does not pay for the assistance provided.

While non-profit organizations and for-profit 

companies are relatively new players, SSA has recognized the role of attorneys in the SSA claims process since 1939, well before the existence of either 

SSDI or SSI.14 Attorneys, both individuals and firms, 

offer claimants assistance with filing for Social 

Security disability benefits as part of their business 

model. These individuals or firms may specialize 

in assisting clients with a broad range of disability 

and related issues, such as personal injury, worker’s 

compensation, and other disability claims, or they 

may focus solely on Social Security cases, either 

locally or as large national firms, such as Binder and 

Binder, The Shaw Group, and Disability Group, Inc. 

A trade organization, the National Organization 

14 Congressional legislation created the SSDI program in 1956 and 

the SSI program in 1972.

Professional Representatives – Who Are They?
10 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

of Social Security Claimant Representatives 

(NOSSCR), was established in 1979 in response 

to a perceived need among attorneys for information on how to represent claimants before SSA. 

NOSSCR began with fewer than 100 members and 

has grown steadily with membership rolls topping 

4,000 members in 2012, of which approximately 85 

percent are attorneys. While their members have 

long been known for representing claimants at the 

hearing level, NOSSCR leadership estimates that 

25 percent of its members are now beginning to 

handle disability claims at the initial claims level.15 

Another type of representative that has been assisting claimants for many years is the non-attorney representative. This type of representative is frequently 

an individual who has had some experience with the 

Social Security disability programs, such as a former 

SSA or DDS employee. The National Association of 

Disability Representatives (NADR), founded in 2000, 

estimates that 75 percent of its approximately 600 

member organization is made up of non-attorneys. In 

an informal survey conducted in 2011, NADR found 

that while the vast majority of its membership was 

individual representatives or worked at a small firm 

(defined as a firm employing 10 or fewer representatives), some worked with large, national, non-attorney firms such as Allsup, Disability Benefits Alliance, 

and Freedom Disability. In responses to a recent survey, only about 10 percent of its members reported 

working with claimants all across the nation. 

Payment to Representatives

In order to collect payment for their services, 

representatives must first have the fee approved by 

SSA. When the individual files to be the claimant’s 

representative, that individual must also declare a 

particular fee arrangement, of the following options:

■ charge the claimant a fee and request direct 

payment from SSA from any past-due benefits 

the claimant might have, or

■ charge the claimant a fee but waive direct 

payment of the fee from any past-due benefits 

the claimant might have, or

■ waive fees and expenses from the claimant 

(and auxiliaries) but collect a fee from a third 

payer, e.g. a hospital.

15 Correspondence from NOSSCR to the Social Security Advisory 

Board, September 28, 2011.

A representative can also choose the option to 

waive fees for service from any source.

Once approved, representatives who are 

requesting direct payment can use one of SSA’s 

two direct payment methods: a fee agreement or 

a fee petition. A fee agreement is a written statement signed by both the claimant and the representative that specifies the fee the representative 

expects to collect for services rendered in the 

claims process. In order for SSA to approve the 

fee agreement, the agreement must have been 

filed before the first favorable decision is made 

on the case, the disability decision must be either 

fully or partially favorable, and the claim must 

result in the claimant being awarded past-due 

benefits. As of June 22, 2009, the maximum payment for a fee agreement is the lesser of 25 percent of the claimant’s back payments or $6,000. 

If an approved fee agreement is on file at the time 

of case closure, representatives’ fees are paid by 

direct deposit to the named attorney.

Fee petitions, on the other hand, do not require the 

claimant’s signature and are filed after the representatives’ services have been rendered. In order to be 

paid by fee petition directly from the claimant’s past 

due benefits, the representative must file the petition within 60 days of the decision. SSA will issue up 

to 25 percent of the claimant’s past due benefits by 

direct deposit to the representative; the representative is then responsible for collecting from the claimant any fees not covered, such as fees for unfavorable 

decisions, cases where there was no past due benefit, 

or approved fees that exceed 25 percent of the past 

due benefits. The fee petition must be for a reasonable amount that takes into consideration both the 

extent of time and resources spent on the case as well 

as the aim of the program.16 However, the claimant 

can disagree with the requested fee amount.

The processing of fees under these two provisions 

translates into a significant workload for SSA. We 

frequently heard about the complexity of the processes and the amount of resources involved in 

handling this workload. With decreasing staff and 

resources and increasing numbers of represented 

16 Per SSA’s Program Operations Manual, the agency must consider the goal of the particular disability program when authorizing a fee. For SSDI: “to provide a measure of economic security 

for program beneficiaries.” For SSI: “to assure a minimum level of 

income for supplemental security income recipients who otherwise 

do not have sufficient income and resources to maintain a standard 

of living at the established federal minimum income level,” 

GN 03930.010.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 11

cases, many agency employees questioned whether 

the agency should be involved in any type of contract between the representative and the claimant. 

We had initially hoped to compile data on the 

total amount of fees collected by all representatives 

at the initial claims level.  However, SSA informed 

us that it does not collect these data broken down 

by level of adjudication, nor does it keep data on 

representative fees other than the ones it administers.17 Therefore, the representative fee information 

we received is the total SSA-administered representative fees summed from all levels of adjudication, 

initial claims through federal court. As shown in 

Figure 1, all fees paid by SSA to claimant representatives increased by 48 percent between 2007 

and 2010 with SSA paying out $1.74 billion in fees 

by 2010. Fees paid out for SSDI cases through the 

fee agreement process represented the largest portion of the total fees paid. Reaching $1.39 billion in 

2010, they increased by 45 percent from 2007 to 

2010. Although total SSI fees paid through the fee 

agreement process have been low relative to SSDI 

fees in the same category, they saw a much more 

dramatic increase of 75 percent from 2007 to 2010, 

with a total of $280 million paid in 2010. 

17 Fees that are approved by SSA but not paid from the claimant’s 

past due benefits are not included in SSA’s data.  

As Figure 1 shows, most attorney fees are paid 

via fee agreements; the amount paid by fee petition 

remained relatively low and stable for both disability programs throughout the period. It is important 

to note that SSA only collects data on total fees paid 

each year, which includes all levels of adjudication 

and claims for all types of benefits administered 

by SSA (although we believe the majority of represented claims are disability cases). Further, these 

numbers are not broken down by type of representation (e.g. non-profit, for-profit, attorney, nonattorney, individual company).

$2,000

$1,800

$1,600

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$0

Total fees

SSDI Agreements

SSI Agreements

SSDI Petitions

SSI Petitions

2007 2008

Calendar Year

Fees Paid (in Millions)

Figure 1. Total Fees Paid to Claimant Representatives,

by Program and Fee Type, CY 2007–2010

2009 2010

Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 13

Governance of the Representation Process

Appointment and Registration 

Before a representative can provide assistance 

to a claimant on matters before SSA, the claimant 

must sign a statement appointing the individual as 

his or her representative. The representative must 

then accept that appointment in writing, indicate 

whether or not he or she will be charging for services rendered, or waiving the fee for such services, 

and agree to not charge or collect any fee other 

than that which has been approved by SSA. 

As part of the acceptance process, representatives 

must also identify whether they are an attorney or 

non-attorney, and they must attest to certain general qualifications. To be recognized officially by 

SSA as a claimant’s representative, the individual 

must not be disqualified or suspended from acting 

as a representative before SSA, a court or bar association, or another federal agency. Further the individual cannot be prohibited by any law from acting 

as representative. Attorneys seeking to represent a 

claimant before SSA must be admitted to practice 

law in a state, territory, or district, or before federal 

courts or the U.S. Supreme Court. A non-attorney 

seeking to represent claimants must be “generally 

known to have a good character and reputation,” 

and be “capable of giving valuable help to the claimant in connection with the claim.”18

If the representative indicates that he or she will 

be charging a fee for services, SSA must approve 

such fees through the fee agreement or fee petition 

process. A representative whose payment SSA has 

approved can either be paid by the claimant or collect his or her fee directly from SSA from benefits 

that are due to the claimant at the time of the decision. In order to be eligible for direct payment, both 

attorneys and non-attorney representatives must 

register with SSA, either online or by filling out a 

paper form. For attorneys, the onetime registration process involves giving SSA pertinent information regarding his or her authority to practice law, 

18 SSA’s Program Operations Manual System, “Who Is a 

Representative,” GN 03910.020.

information regarding any suspensions or disqualification, attestation statements that the attorney 

will abide by SSA regulations, tax and direct deposit 

information, and his or her contact information. 

The number of registered attorneys nearly doubled 

between 2007 and 2010, starting at fewer than 

10,000 in 2007 and increasing to almost 20,000 

by 2010. The number of registered non-attorneys 

is much smaller – in 2007, 210 non-attorneys were 

registered for direct payment, rising to approximately 500 in 2011.19

Legislation passed in 2010 allowed non-attorneys to seek direct payment from SSA, but added 

further qualifications.20 These non-attorney representatives must possess a bachelor’s degree from 

any accredited educational institution or have the 

equivalent qualifications from training and work 

experience, secure professional liability insurance, 

and undergo a criminal background check. In addition, they must pass a written examination administered on SSA’s behalf which is designed to test 

the individual’s knowledge of relevant agency provisions. Lastly, non-attorneys must enroll in and 

pass specific continuing education course(s) every 

year, including education regarding ethics and professional conduct. SSA does not have comparable 

requirements for its registered attorneys.

 During our study, we heard many criticisms of 

the appointment process from both representatives and agency employees. While registration to 

receive fees from SSA can be done online, the actual 

appointment of a representative by a claimant and 

the acceptance of that appointment by a representative must be done on paper because of the current 

requirement for “wet” signatures. Representatives 

complained about the paper appointment forms 

being lost, and delays by SSA in entering the information from the paper forms into the electronic 

claims systems. Without the appointment information on file, the representatives cannot act on 

19 Data provided by SSA’s Office of Income Support Programs, July 

2011.

20 Social Security Disability Applicants’ Access to Professional 

Representation Act of 2010, Public Law No. 111-142.
14 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

behalf of the claimant, and agency employees cannot notify the representative of any actions taken 

on the case. 

Standards of Conduct

Attorneys and non-attorneys alike are subject 

to a particular set of rules and responsibilities as 

representatives. Primary among those is that the 

individual must provide competent representation 

to the claimant. This implies that representatives 

understand the significant issues in their cases and 

have a working knowledge of the applicable provisions, regulations and rulings of the Social Security 

Act. Representatives are also expected to act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness in obtaining 

and submitting information to SSA and the DDS 

as well as assisting claimants in complying with 

requests for information. They are also expected to 

conduct all dealings in an efficient, fair, and orderly 

fashion at all levels of the decision-making process. 

In addition to the conduct expected of a representative, there are also prohibitions that apply to 

representation. Representatives are strictly prohibited from engaging in certain conduct, such as 

unreasonably delaying a claim without good cause, 

knowingly making or presenting false or misleading statements (oral or written), or collecting fees 

not approved by SSA.21 If a representative violates 

any of these rules, SSA’s Office of General Counsel 

(OGC) has authority to impose administrative 

sanctions of either a suspension – ranging from 

one to five years – or a disqualification, which is 

permanent. If the prohibited conduct also violates 

laws that have potential criminal penalties, OGC is 

responsible for referring the report to SSA’s Office 

of Inspector General (OIG).22

Reports of alleged misconduct by representatives 

can be initiated by anyone involved in the process 

including field office or DDS employees, administrative law judges, claimants, the general public, 

and even other representatives. These reports are 

referred to OGC in the region where the misconduct occurs. According to OGC, the most common 

referrals for misconduct involve the collection 

of fees not approved by SSA and cases where the 

21 For a complete list of prohibited conduct, see Appendix B. 22 We requested information from OIG regarding how often and 

how many potentially criminal cases are passed from OGC to OIG 

and for an inventory of the outcomes of referred cases. At the time 

of this report, we have not received the information requested. 

representative has been disbarred from practicing 

law or disqualified by another federal agency.23

The most common allegation of misconduct we 

heard about during the course of our study was 

that some representatives deliberately draw out 

the adjudicative process in an effort to increase 

the amount of their fees paid based on their claiment’s past due benefits. We discussed these allegations with representative organizations such 

as NOSSCR and NADR, SSA and DDS employees, and OGC attorneys in charge of the sanction 

process. While the representative organizations 

denied the allegations are a regular occurrence, 

agency employees insist that they frequently 

observe instances of non-compliance by representatives. Despite the allegations we heard, OGC 

reports that it rarely receive referrals of this type 

of misconduct; therefore, there is currently no 

way of measuring the prevalence of inappropriate 

conduct by representatives. Further compounding the problem, OGC informed us that no central 

database exists to capture information about the 

number of allegations, the nature of the alleged 

misconduct, or the outcome of the allegations 

reported to the ten OGC regional offices.

If allegations of misconduct are substantiated, 

there are two types of sanctions a representative can receive: suspension or disqualification. 

In deciding the type and length of sanction, a 

determination is made regarding the significance 

of the misconduct. Such things as the severity of 

the misconduct, whether or not it is a repeated 

offense, and whether or not the representative had 

been warned in the past are all taken into account. 

Disqualification is required if the attorney has been 

disbarred, disqualified from another federal agency, 

or had collected and retained unauthorized fees. 

Suspensions can last between one and five years, 

and the representative is automatically reinstated 

at the end of that period; disqualifications are permanent. Sanctioned representatives can request 

to be reinstated after one year and at the end of 

every year thereafter. Despite this provision, OGC 

reports that the majority of sanctioned representatives do not make such a request. 

23 According to OGC, not all referrals meet the criteria for actual 

sanctions. In fiscal year 2011, only 20 representatives were 

sanctioned, all of which resulted in disqualifications. In 17 cases, 

the sanctions were due to disciplinary action by a state bar, three 

sanctions were for the collection of unauthorized fees, and one was 

for multiple conduct violations. Of the representatives sanctioned, 

18 were attorneys and two were non-attorneys.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 15

While OGC may manage and prepare misconduct 

cases, the decision as to whether to sanction a representative is ultimately made at an administrative 

hearing. An administrative law judge oversees the 

actual process, holds the hearing, and renders the 

final decision. If the decision is unfavorable to the 

representative, he or she can appeal that decision to 

the Appeals Council; the Appeals Council decision is 

final. The agency typically processes nine or ten formal sanctions per year, and there are currently a total 

of 193 representatives under sanctions – most of 

whom have been permanently disqualified.24

Proposed Changes – A Comprehensive Effort

In 2008, SSA published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) that offered a number of proposed changes to the third party representation process.25 These changes represented a comprehensive 

effort to acknowledge and respond to the growing 

number of representatives assisting SSA claimants. 

In particular, one major change included in the NPRM 

would introduce the concept of a “professional representative” into SSA regulations. A professional representative would include “...any attorney, any individual other than an attorney, or any entity that holds 

itself out to the public as providing representational 

services before us [SSA], regardless of whether the 

representative charges or collects a fee for providing 

the representational services.” All professional representatives would be required to register and provide 

personal, professional and business information for 

the purposes of authenticating and authorizing the 

individual to conduct business before the agency. 

They would also be required to conduct business with 

SSA electronically; this would include filing initial 

claims and appeals through the SSA website. 

Another change proposed in the NPRM would 

allow SSA to recognize both entities and individuals as representatives. An entity would include, for 

example, a law firm, any non-attorney group practice, and other organizations that collectively offer 

third party representation services. To accommodate this change, the claimant would have to designate a primary or “principal” representative. This 

person would have the responsibility of distributing important information to the claimant as well 

as other representatives in the entity. 

24 SSA’s Office of General Counsel, as of October 15, 2012. 25 “Revisions to Rules on Representation of Parties.” Federal 

Register 73:174 (8 September, 2008), pp. 51963-51983.

During the comment period, SSA received both 

positive and negative feedback on the proposed 

rule changes. The rules that sought to clarify the 

role or identity of representatives received the 

most feedback. Larger organizations and firms typically supported the changes that would identify 

entities as representatives. Others, however, worried about how the agency could hold an “entity” 

responsible for standards of conduct, or even manage the complicated fee payment process for entities. Another controversial provision was the one 

that would make mandatory the use of SSA’s electronic services by representatives. Some embraced 

the use of electronic services, but doubted SSA’s 

ability to deliver dependable online services. Other 

comments argued that electronic services ought to 

remain optional – this would allow small firms and 

individuals to continue to use paper submissions. 

Of the proposed rules, to date only one has 

been finalized: the rule requiring use of electronic 

services by claimant representatives. It should be 

noted, however, that this final rule only requires 

representatives to use electronic services for 

cases in which a representative requests a direct 

fee payment.

Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 17

How Representatives Assist Claimants

As indicated earlier, representatives assisting claimants at the initial claims stage can have significant 

control in developing the case. During the filing process, representatives should help claimants complete 

the necessary forms, either through SSA’s online 

process or via a paper application. More importantly, 

they should help the claimant explain and describe 

the nature of the claimant’s impairment(s) and the 

resulting physical, mental, and vocational limitations in order to present a clear and accurate picture 

to DDS decision makers. Some representatives add a 

narrative explanation to the standard application in 

which they record observations about the claimant’s 

abilities or level of functioning, or they may add an 

overview of the supporting medical and other documentation submitted with the application. They may 

also obtain statements from family, former employers 

and others that describe the claimant’s ability to work 

or function independently, as well as describing any 

limitations, such as what activities the claimant cannot perform or which ones require assistance. These 

statements may also describe any assistance the representative provides, or has provided, to the claimant.

Often, representatives file the claim with SSA 

while they are still in the process of gathering information. The immediate filing acts to protect the 

claimant’s initial filing date so that payment to the 

claimant will be based on the date the application is 

filed, not when the application is completed.26 If the 

claim is completed within the required filing period 

and the claim is ultimately allowed, the claimant may 

be due retroactive payments.27 For representatives, 

having a protected filing period gives them time to 

gather employment history and related information, collect medical evidence, and even arrange for 

26 For SSDI, the protective filing period is 6 months; for SSI, 

the protective filing is 60 days. SSA has proposed a change to its 

regulations to reduce the SSDI protective filing period to match the 

SSI filing period for consistency between programs, to streamline 

procedures, and encourage applicants to pursue claims promptly. 

(“Use of Date of Written Statement as Filing Date.” Federal Register 

70:24 [17 December, 2008] pp. 76573-76575.)

27 For SSDI, payments can be paid for up to a year before the initial filing date if the person’s disability began in the past. For SSI, 

retroactive benefits are determined by the date of initial contact 

with SSA regarding the request to file disability benefits. 

medical testing while at the same time protecting 

their client’s rights to the maximum possible benefit. From the point of view of the agency, an incomplete filing increases the work load of the field office 

employees who have to follow up on incomplete 

applications and assist claimants to complete them. 

Also, these incomplete applications only delay the 

decision for the claimant because until the application is complete, the field office cannot send it to 

the DDS to begin the process of making a medical 

determination. During visits with both SSA employees and third party representatives, the incomplete 

applications were repeatedly identified as a source 

of friction between the groups.

When indicated, third party representatives 

should take additional steps to provide as much 

medical information as possible. They can obtain 

signed statements and copies of records from medical and other sources, and include them with the 

initial application rather than wait for the DDS 

disability examiner to request the information. 

Further, representatives may arrange for the claimant to see a physician, or have other testing done 

to obtain evidence of the disabling impairment. 

Having adequate information for a medical determination can eliminate the need for (and the cost 

to the government of) records or examinations the 

disability examiner might have to request in order 

to obtain sufficient medical evidence.28

After the claim has been submitted, the representative should open a communication channel 

with the field office and DDS. The representative 

can verify that the claim has been received and 

obtain contact information for employees assigned 

to the claim. Assistance should continue throughout the disability determination process, with the 

representative gathering additional information 

and/or evidence needed to support the disability 

decision. This can include any additional medical or 

psychological evidence that might be lacking, any 

28 In order to substantiate this presumption we requested cost 

information regarding the cost of medical records and consultative 

exams in represented cases. SSA informed us that requested data 

were not available.
18 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

information about new medical sources, any details 

about the claimant’s work history, and information regarding the limitations in activities of daily 

living. In other words, the representative should 

assist with any supporting information or evidence 

needed to make a determination. Representatives 

may insist all communication with the claimant be 

made through the representative’s office in order to 

establish control over both incoming and outgoing 

information about the claim, and to remain aware 

of how the claim is or is not progressing.

Another role of the representative should be as an 

expeditor, following up with physicians, clinics and 

hospitals, employers, and others to obtain evidence 

or ensure that files are sent quickly to the examiner. 

This kind of assistance can be invaluable in making 

sure all existing relevant records get sent to the DDS 

in a timely fashion. It can also be helpful when there 

is a need to track down hard-to-reach claimants, such 

as those who are homeless or mentally ill or who, due 

to financial circumstances, move frequently – often 

without providing notice or any forwarding address. 

The representative should also contact the claimant 

to make sure appointments for any scheduled examinations are kept, and may arrange or provide transportation to those appointments. 

Overall, representatives’ services have the 

potential to greatly expedite the disability determination process, while ensuring that the claimant receives the most informed determination 

possible at the initial claims stage. During our 

study, we heard from both representatives and 

agency employees that ideally, representatives 

should have a thorough knowledge of SSA policy, 

take a comprehensive approach to documenting 

the claimant’s disabling conditions, and establish 

good communication with both the claimant and 

agency employees. If the process were to encompass these features consistently, the additional 

assistance from representatives would help the 

agency achieve a more efficient and cost-effective 

process of determining eligibility for disability 

benefits, thus assisting the agency in meeting its 

stewardship goal of providing timely financial and 

medical support for beneficiaries.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 19

The Representative/SSA Relationship

The Use of Technology

Representatives are an established presence in the 

disability claims process. As such, SSA has already 

made some accommodations in its processes and 

policies to manage how representatives interact 

with the agency electronically. As SSA has continued 

to develop improved technology-based processes, 

it has taken into account that both claimants and 

third parties are increasingly using the online filing 

process to complete applications for claimants. We 

found that the response of representatives to the 

online application is generally favorable, but there 

are several issues that diminish both the attractiveness and ease of filing online. These issues are cited 

not only by representatives, but by claimants and 

agency employees as well.

Although the professional representative should 

be familiar with the application process, the multiple steps are cumbersome. As with the paper file, 

filing online for disability involves several different forms: 

■ the application,

■ the medical and work information, and

■ the medical release forms. 

Each form must be opened, completed, and 

signed separately. While there are online instructions that explain the multi-step process, there is 

no automatic connection and sequencing in the 

online application process that leads the applicant from one step to another and warns against 

or prevents the submission of incomplete filings. The large number of applications that arrive 

in SSA’s electronic queue without one or more 

of the required forms is evidence that the process is unclear and fragmented.29  Moreover, the 

online process allows the user to move to the next 

screen or section without completing all required 

fields.  Consequently, even if all needed forms are 

29 In our field office visits, we heard estimates that 80-90% of 

internet disability applications arrive at the field office incomplete, 

with only one or two of the three necessary forms completed.

received, there is often missing information. Also, 

the online application’s usefulness is curtailed in 

that the claimant’s response text boxes have space 

limitations, artificially limiting the claimant’s ability to respond with the detail that may be necessary to answer the questions fully.  This limitation 

disadvantages not only the claimant but also the 

agency personnel who review the information.

Although SSA indicates it is working on integrating these steps and improving the online filing process, these problems have remained unresolved for 

a decade since the ability to file for disability online 

was implemented in 2002. Without the capability to reject incomplete applications, the agency is 

currently required to take multiple steps involving 

several employees, a number of phone calls, letters, 

and emails to complete the application process. To 

address this situation, many SSA employees recommended that the agency consider putting into place 

the capability to return or reject incomplete applications received from professional representatives.

Further limiting the usefulness and efficiency of 

the online application process is that there is no 

online application for SSI. While it is possible to fill 

out both the medical and work history online, the 

SSI-specific forms must be filed with an SSA claims 

representative, either in person in an SSA office, or 

in a phone interview. 

Many representatives’ organizations have their 

own electronic filing systems which capture the 

data needed to apply for benefits and collect disability information. Currently, SSA does not provide 

the capability to receive the information electronically from these private systems. The result is that 

representatives must re-key the captured data into 

the SSA online application or submit paper forms. 

If paper applications are submitted, field office 

employees must re-key the data, expending significant time and resources. Filing software – similar 

to the ones used so successfully for filing income 

taxes – could benefit both the representatives and 

SSA. Representatives propose using software models similar to those used by tax preparers such as 

Turbo Tax, H&R Block, and Jackson Hewitt, which 
20 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

must meet official IRS standards. Similar software 

for disability applications would allow data files 

that meet agency specifications to be transferred 

directly to SSA for processing.

Beyond the electronic filing process, representatives have only limited interaction with SSA online. In 

2009, the agency initiated a project – the Appointed 

Representative Suite of Services – that would provide 

a comprehensive set of electronic services allowing 

appointed representatives to conduct most, if not all, 

of their SSA business online, as indicated in Figure 2. 

Despite ambitious plans, implementation of 

these services has fallen short. First of all, only 

representatives with appeals pending at the hearing level can obtain online access to the electronic 

folder to monitor their client’s cases. In addition, 

a real time status report is only available online to 

those representatives who have electronic folder 

access.  Neither of these services is available at the 

initial claims level. Without the online avenues to 

access information, representatives must continue 

to contact SSA and DDS offices by mail or telephone 

to obtain information regarding their claims.

Because they do not have online access, representatives at the initial claims level report that 

they are not able to access information easily that 

would be helpful in providing assistance to their 

claimants. For instance, during the development 

of a claim, the representative could check to make 

sure that submitted evidence has been included 

in the file without having to call the field office 

or DDS. Also, if online services included access 

to data such as earnings records, representatives 

could have direct access to information that would 

assist in developing evidence of the disability and 

reconstructing past work history. After a case is 

awarded, online access could allow representatives 

to obtain information they need regarding entitlement dates, eligibility for Medicare/Medicaid, and 

payment status – without calling SSA. 

Allegations of Disservice – Differing Views

We heard repeatedly from both sides – agency 

staff and representatives – that they believe that 

the other party is not doing its job properly. The 

field office and DDS employees allege that a number of representatives do not add value; i.e., they 

neither effectively document the case nor provide 

needed evidence. We heard repeatedly from agency 

employees their belief that professional third party 

representatives, usually attorneys, deliberately 

delay the claim’s progress by not providing evidence in a timely fashion in order to increase the 

retroactive payment due when the claim is allowed. 

A claim that is not fully developed is more likely to 

Figure 2. PROPOSED APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE SUITE OF SERVICES

Representatives would have the ability to:

■ complete/submit forms required to be appointed as a representative, 

■ complete/submit forms required to withdraw as an appointed representative,

■ view the electronic claims folder, which stores a claimant’s disability information,

■ add medical evidence to the electronic folder,

■ maintain information regarding the appointment of a representative for all adjudicative levels,

■ submit information required for SSA to process direct fee payments, and

■ obtain answers to questions regarding claims and fee payment status.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 21

be denied at the initial level. If a claim is appealed, 

the potential retroactive benefit check to the claimant will increase as time passes from the original 

filing to the final decision and a larger retroactive 

payment for the claimant results in a larger fee for 

the representative. In the meantime, the claimant 

who is ultimately allowed has not been receiving 

monthly benefit checks.

Field office and DDS employees also report that 

they still have to gather the evidence not provided 

by the representative (or not provided timely), follow up on requested information, and counsel the 

claimant on the next steps – work that the professional representatives are being paid to perform. 

From their perspective, there is no need for representation because field office and DDS employees 

are required to develop the application. 

In contrast, representatives charge that the 

claims process is set up to deny claims at the initial stage. They report that workloads are high and 

thus impede the agency’s ability to assist claimants 

adequately. They also report that employees are so 

driven by processing time goals that they underdevelop cases in order to clear claims off their caseload. Some examples given of case under-development are failure to fully develop:

■ medical evidence of all alleged impairments, 

■ the claimant’s work history, and

■ the earliest possible onset date for benefit 

eligibility. 

Representatives frequently claim that field 

office and DDS employees are not trained adequately and thus fail to apply the rules and regulations properly. In addition, they charge that the 

reviewing DDS physicians often do not have a 

background in the specialty of a particular claimant’s disability. The representatives believe that 

they keep the best interest of the claimant foremost – but that the SSA and DDS employees are 

not always motivated by, or have the capability 

of, meeting that goal.

Interestingly, failure to apply policy consistently is cited by both representatives and agency 

employees as problematic. Both sides cite examples of poorly developed cases, including failure to 

contact all treating physicians, lack of useful medical source statements, missed identification of 

unsuccessful work attempts, and failure to develop 

the earliest onset of the disabling condition. We 

have also heard from representatives that different operating procedures seem to exist in different 

locations across the country; i.e., access to claimant information is easily available from some field 

offices, but not from others, and different or additional requirements to obtain information exists 

in different locales. 

Throughout this report, we have cited areas of 

strong disagreement between representatives and 

agency employees. During our study, there were 

some allegations that delays, inefficiencies, and 

improprieties in claims submission and processing 

(particularly those shown in Figure 3) were pervasive. However, we want to make it clear that, in 

most instances, we could neither confirm nor refute 

these allegations because there is no data gathered 

to support any of them. Nonetheless, the fact that 

these allegations are made so frequently is of major 

concern considering the potential implications for 

the agency, the representative community, and ultimately the claimants utilizing the services of a representative. The body of issues raised by both agency 

employees and the professional representative community needs to be investigated; the issues either 

need to be dispelled or, where appropriate, need to 

result in sanctions.30 An investigation of this type 

will mandate the collection of objective data against 

which any allegations can be measured. Alternative 

outcomes of such an investigation could result in 

administrative action that improves the process in 

one or more of the following ways:

■ clarifications of current policy, 

■ education and training to emphasize correct 

application of policy, 

■ creation of new policies to guide and facilitate 

procedures on both sides, and 

■ removal of barriers that have created problems.

30 We want to stress that we are only discussing allegations of 

questionable work practices in this section; we are not addressing 

any practices that necessarily rise to the level of a criminal offense.
22 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

Figure 3. ALLEGATIONS - DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS

Representatives versus field office (FO) and DDS employees

ALLEGATION: Representatives intentionally delay the processing of the claim (and the appeals 

process) in order to increase their fee.

■ Representative Viewpoint: Thoroughly completing the application, gathering conclusive evidence, and providing needed information to decision-makers all take time. The time needed may 

be even greater if the claimant is homeless or moving around, and is hard to locate. It is not delaying the case; it is doing their job....protecting their client’s rights to file for benefits and ensuring 

the best possible outcome for their client at the earliest point in the process.

■ FO/DDS Viewpoint: Submitting incomplete paperwork to protect a filing date does not allow 

the case to move to the DDS so they can begin the task of developing the case. Failure to provide 

complete information may even result in the case being denied at the initial or reconsideration 

stages, further delaying the case through the appeals process, and increasing past-due benefits.

ALLEGATION: Representatives coach claimants to shape the case by either omitting or inflating the 

importance of key information. They also submit evidence selectively that supports the client’s case.

■ Representative Viewpoint: The representative’s job is to frame the case in a manner that highlights the evidence that shows the claimant meets the disability criteria, thus having a claim more 

likely to be allowed. Often claimants misstate information unintentionally in ways that are detrimental to their case (e.g. exaggerating their residual functional capacity); representatives ensure 

that an accurate picture is provided. Further, not all evidence is relevant to the disabling impairment; submitting only pertinent evidence expedites the decision-making process.

■ FO/DDS Viewpoint: The disability examiner needs to play an important and unbiased role to 

develop the case objectively and determine the importance and relevance of information or claimant statements. Reviewing all evidence is important, particularly in assessing function and vocational capacity. 

ALLEGATION: FO/DDS employees cannot process cases timely because they cannot contact the 

claimant directly to obtain needed information or follow up on requested evidence.

■ Representative Viewpoint: Their job is to act on the claimant’s behalf, answering questions and 

obtaining needed information. They are in the best position to contact the claimant and respond 

to FO/DDS requests 

■ FO/DDS Viewpoint: When they have to go through the representative to get information, it delays 

the claim. What is frequently a quick conversation with the claimant turns into multiple contacts 

between the FO/DDS and the representative, and then the representative and the claimant.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 23

What Available Data Reveal

Although some of the data requested from SSA 

were unavailable, we were nonetheless able to conduct a preliminary analysis regarding the third 

party process. Specifically, we were able to obtain 

the number of represented claims, processing 

times, and allowance rates at the initial level of disability adjudication during recent years. While a 

thorough investigation will require more detailed 

data and sophisticated analysis, the intent of this 

section of the report is to describe what we know 

about representation from the data we received and 

identify areas that will require further exploration.

One of the primary questions from the start of this 

project has been to identify how many claims at the 

initial level of adjudication are represented by a professional third party. The graph in Figure 4 shows 

what percentage of all claims is represented, separately for SSI and SSDI in fiscal years 2009-2011.

While the number of represented initial claims 

for both programs is increasing, represented SSDI 

claims have increased more rapidly; between 2009 

and 2011 alone there was an increase of 4.5 percentage points. Factors that could contribute to 

future trends in represented cases include the 

increase in the number of disability claims filed, 

marketing efforts by representatives, and any statutory or regulatory changes to the governance of 

representatives that could encourage or discourage 

representation of SSDI/SSI claimants.

In addition to looking at the percentage of represented cases at the initial level, we were also able 

to obtain some data on the specific type of representation for those cases. Figure 5 shows the distribution by type of representatives for both SSDI 

and SSI for fiscal year 2011.

As Figure 5 shows, of the 14 percent of SSDI 

claims that were represented at the initial level 

in fiscal year 2011, attorney representation 

accounted for nine percent of the cases, while nonattorney representation was involved in about five 

percent of the cases. Of the roughly five percent 

of SSI claims that were represented at the initial 

level, less than one percent were represented by 

attorneys while a little over three percent were represented by non-attorneys. A substantial majority 

of claimants applying for SSDI and SSI benefits, 

however, did not have any type of representation 

at the initial level of adjudication.

We also wanted to know whether third party assistance increases the likelihood that claimants will 

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

SSDI

SSI

2009 2010 2011

Figure 4. Percentage of Claims Represented at the Initial Level, 

by Program Type, FY 2009–2011
24 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

Figure 5. Percentage Distribution of Initial SSDI and SSI Claims, by Type of Representation, FY 2011*

Attorney Non-Attorney: 

Direct Pay

Non-Attorney: 

No Direct Pay Other** No Third Party

SSDI: 9.1% 1.5% 3.8% 0.01% 85.7%

SSI: 0.6% 0.3% 2.9% 1.2% 95.1%

*Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

**The “Other” group includes cases that likely were represented at some point in the adjudicative process, but unfortunately cannot be categorized by 

representative type due to SSA systems limitations.

receive a decision earlier in the adjudicative process. 

To answer this question, we requested data from SSA 

on initial level processing times for both represented 

claims and unrepresented claims. Processing time is 

calculated as the number of days it takes from when 

the application is filed, including protective filing 

time, to when a final decision is made. 

Figures 6A and 6B show processing times at the 

initial level for both SSDI and SSI, respectively, and 

are further broken down by type of representation.  

Overall, processing times are lowest for claims 

that are not represented.  Further, the data we 

have show that, while any type of representation 

increases processing times, attorney representation results in the highest overall processing times.  

The difference in processing times between attorney representation and no third party representation is on average around 25 days (approximately a 

23 percent difference) for the years shown; this is 

true for both the SSDI and SSI programs.

This evidence, though weak, indicates that processing times for represented claims are longer; 

however, there is a lack of data specifying what

exactly contributes to this outcome. While SSA 

stores processing time data for different segments 

of the process, i.e., field office versus DDS, the data 

do not distinguish represented claims from unrepresented claims. Unfortunately without this more 

detailed information, it is not possible to assess 

the more specific impact of representation on case 

preparation. For example, if the processing time for 

represented claims while they are in the field office 

was available, some assessment could be made 

about the time it takes representatives to prepare 

cases before they are sent to the DDS; this could 

then be compared to cases without representation. If represented claims are sent to the DDS for 

evaluation with the needed evidence already in file, 

data showing the average processing time for represented cases while at the DDS would give some 

indication of the degree to which well-documented 

cases contribute to a faster decision.

A third question that the Board sought to 

address was: does third party assistance increase 

the likelihood that claimants will be awarded disability benefits. To measure this, we compared 

allowances between claims that were represented 

at the initial level and the overall number of 

allowances at that level. 

Figure 7 depicts this comparison between initial level allowance rates for third party represented SSDI and SSI cases and the agency’s overall 

initial level allowance rates. From 2007 to 2010, 

overall initial allowance rates were typically in 

the 36-37 percent range for SSDI and 32-34 percent range for SSI, respectively. The SSDI allowance rate for represented claims was only slightly 

higher, typically ranging from 37-41 percent, but 

the SSI allowance rate for represented claims was 

significantly higher – ranging from 60-64 percent, 

almost double the overall allowance rate. 

One possible explanation for the higher SSI allowance rate for represented claimants is that representation of claimants with the least ability to navigate 

the complex filing process is more likely to have a 

greater impact. For instance, claimants who are 

homeless or have serious mental health problems 

or intellectual disabilities may not have the ability, 

knowledge and/or resources to successfully apply 

for benefits on their own. Another explanation is 

that there may be some selection bias occurring in 

that representatives may screen potential clients 

for the probability of an allowance; i.e. they assist 

only claimants with the strongest cases thereby 
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 25

Note: There were considerable limitations in SSA’s systems’ ability to provide represented SSI processing times.

All SSI represented cases with waived fees are excluded. 

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2009

2010

2011

2009

2010

2011

Attorney

Attorney

Non-Attorney:

Direct Pay

Non-Attorney:

Direct Pay

Non-Attorney:

No Direct Pay

Non-Attorney:

No Direct Pay

No Third Party

No Third Party

Days Days

Figure 6A. Initial Level SSDI Processing Times by Type of 

Representation, FY 2009-2011

Figure 6B. Initial Level SSI Processing Times by Type of 

Representation, FY 2009-2011
26 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

inflating their allowance rates. Representatives 

may be even more motivated to screen SSI cases 

because there is little likelihood that these claimants would have the personal funds (without the 

retroactive benefits from an allowance) to pay the 

representative’s fees. Yet another reason for the 

higher represented SSI allowance rate may be that 

SSI claimants are more likely to be connected with 

disability-specific non-profit organizations with 

staff members who may be more qualified to handle 

the special needs of the SSI claimant as they assist 

them to apply for benefits. 

At present, however, we can only speculate when 

examining this data on allowance rates because it is 

incomplete and does not capture the entire picture. 

For example, there is no data available regarding 

the specific type of impairments individuals alleged, 

nor what type of representation they employed, 

i.e. attorney, non-attorney, non-profit, or eligibility service. This type of data would be necessary to 

control for selection bias. Furthermore, as shown 

in Figures 4 and 5, only about 5 percent of all SSI 

claims are represented at the initial level. Therefore, 

until proper statistical modeling of the relationship 

is performed, no definitive assertion can be made 

about the impact on allowance rates if a greater portion of SSI claimants were to engage representation.

In summary, while the data available to us are 

incomplete, we are able to make several observations about the effectiveness and scope of the 

representation process. Although the percentage of 

represented claims at the initial level is relatively 

small, data show that number has been steadily 

increasing over the last few years. Of those represented cases, SSDI claims are more likely to be represented by attorneys, while SSI claims are more 

likely to be represented by non-attorneys. The data 

also show evidence that processing times are longer for represented claims – particularly when represented by attorneys. With respect to allowances 

rates, we found that represented cases have higher 

allowance rates, significantly so for SSI, but barely 

so for SSDI cases.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

SSDI with Representation

SSI with Representation

All SSDI

All SSI

2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 7. Initial Level Allowance Rates: Represented Claims vs.

All Claims, CY 2007–2010
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 27

Conclusion 

Summary of Findings

We began this report by acknowledging that 

representation has been a part of SSA’s disability 

process from the start of the disability programs 

that the agency administers. More recently, however, we have witnessed growth in the industry, 

not only in the number of representatives and the 

different types of representatives, but also at what 

stage they become involved. In the past, representation was most commonly carried out by attorneys at the administrative law judge hearing level. 

Increasingly, attorneys are becoming involved at 

the initial claims level as well. Further, attorneys 

today are joined by a growing number of non-attorney representatives. Various businesses such as eligibility services companies have found a niche in 

representing claimants while non-profit organizations often see assisting vulnerable and disabilityspecific populations as part of their mission.

As we looked at how the involvement of representatives is managed by the agency, we found the 

lack of any meaningful, effective governance process. Allegations of misconduct and/or poor service 

are pervasive, but little seems to be done to address 

the issues which can ultimately affect the services 

the claimant receives and accrue costs savings for 

SSA. Agency staff seem to rarely use the formal 

communication channel to convey concerns, report 

infractions and/or file formal complaints against 

representatives whom they believe are engaging 

in misconduct. Without effective tracking of these 

allegations, official action to sanction representatives for misconduct is rare. We want to reiterate 

that we definitely heard from some representatives and field office and DDS employees about 

productive, collaborative working relationships. 

Unfortunately, we more often heard complaints 

from both sides about the quality of service provided. These complaints came from very disparate 

parts of the country, so we believe the problems are 

systemic, not localized.

In studying the data that were available to us, 

we have found that the percentage of represented 

claims at the initial level of adjudication is relatively low – around 14 percent for SSDI claims and 

around five percent for SSI claims, although there 

has been a significant increase in recent years. 

While we have some data that show an increase in 

the number of representatives who have registered 

on SSA’s website in the last five years, there is not 

a clear picture of the total number of representatives who assist SSA claimants, and what representative sectors those people represent. How many 

representatives are attorneys and how many are 

non-attorneys? How many representatives work 

for profit and how many work for non-profit organizations? How many are professional representatives and how many are simply family members or 

friends assisting claimants apply for benefits? In 

addition, we have no way to determine if there is 

any correlation between the kind of representative, and the kind of disability alleged, the time a 

claim is in the field office or DDS, the allowance 

rate and any allegations of conflict or claims of 

productive working relationships. There is simply 

insufficient data to make many conclusions with 

any level of confidence. 

There is one fact that we were able to determine 

from the data available to us – that fees being paid 

to representatives directly by the agency have 

increased significantly for both programs at all 

adjudicative levels. From 2007 to 2010, fees paid 

based on fee agreements in SSDI cases saw a 45 

percent increase. During that same period, SSI fees 

based on fee agreements saw a 75 percent increase 

although the total fees paid in SSI cases was much 

smaller than fees in SSDI cases. The total of all fees 

paid was $1.74 billion in 2010, increasing 48 percent from $1.18 billion in 2007. With the ongoing 

increase in disability applications coupled with the 

marketing efforts employed by disability representatives, we anticipate the numbers of representatives – and the fees paid to them – will continue the 

upward climb. 

Our review of information on allowance rates 

confirmed our initial expectation with some qualification. Representation for SSI claims did show 
28 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

significantly higher allowance rates. However, we 

do not know whether there would be the same 

high allowance rates if a larger percentage of SSI 

claims were represented. In contrast, representation for SSDI claims revealed only slightly higher 

allowance rates. 

In response to our question on whether represented claims received faster decisions, the data 

that were available revealed that represented claims 

actually take longer to process than claims without 

representation. This statement, however, must also 

be qualified because we do not know enough about 

the type of represented claims and any effect that 

would have on the time it takes to make a decision. 

For instance, some claimants who are homeless or 

who move often may be harder for representatives 

to track down for information, appointments and 

medical exams. Other claimants who might have 

intellectual, neurological or psychiatric disabilities 

may be personally ill-equipped to remember information or relay it accurately to their representatives. For claimants who are not represented, SSA 

has some policies in place that mandate a certain 

number of attempts to reach claimants or seek relevant evidence. Once those time limits expire and 

the evidence has not been provided or the claimant 

is nowhere to be found, it is likely that claims will 

be denied, which may contribute to a shorter processing time. Again, we have no data to confirm or 

refute these speculations.

In order to fully understand the impact that representatives have on the disability process, a great 

deal more information about representatives must 

be gathered and studied and analyzed. During the 

course of this study, it became clear that data needed 

to answer many vital questions about representation 

are either non-existent, or inaccessible; i.e., they are 

not housed in any single system, instead they are in 

multiple systems and databases that do not interact. 

What data we were able to pull together required 

many months of contacts with many different 

departments within SSA, and piecing together numbers that did not align on multiple factors. The difficulty we had obtaining data to analyze the impact 

of representation for the purposes of this study will 

likewise make it difficult for SSA to make informed 

decisions about procedures and policy regarding 

third party representation. Nonetheless, we hope the 

following recommendations will direct the agency’s 

attention to some specific areas that we believe are in 

particular need of improvement.

Recommendations

DATA COLLECTION

■ In order to create informed policy, SSA first 

needs to create data collection systems that 

gather comprehensive data and that also allow 

for analysis of cases with representation. SSA 

was unable to answer our most basic question 

regarding the number and type of representatives involved in disability cases. In addition to 

the small amount of existing data it is able to pull 

from operational systems, we urge SSA to collect 

information that will provide a comprehensive 

picture of who the representatives are, and what 

impact they have on the system. This information is vital to policy decision-makers, and could 

be valuable in making third party representation 

more transparent to all stakeholders.

■ Currently, SSA’s database of representatives 

only includes representatives that have registered for direct payment – an operationallydriven decision to collect only the information 

that is necessary for payment. Claimant records 

contain some information on the representatives, but they do not interface with the representative database. We suggest that the agency 

further develop the appointed representative 

database to capture comprehensive data on all 

individuals that represent claimants; this database could track and assist SSA in addressing the 

allegations of misconduct or poor performance. 

TECHNOLOGY

■ We suggest that SSA improve the online 

application process; not just for representatives, but for claimants as well. Online applications that are user-friendly should assist 

claimants, representatives, and the agency to 

compile and provide the necessary information 

for improving the disability decision-making 

process. One reason that many applications 

filed online are incomplete is due to the fact 

the users are required to complete multiple 

“forms,” or detached sections before the application process is considered complete, yet these 

multiple forms are not all seamlessly connected 

online. While we have heard that “marrying” 

the different sections is on an agency “to-do” 

list, we believe the years of delay have led to a 

lack of full support for the online process by 

claimants, employees and representatives, and 
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 29

we strongly urge the agency to expedite this 

important enhancement. 

■ We support the recent action of the agency to 

mandate online filing for certain representatives,31

and encourage the agency to continue phasing 

out paper filing. In this spirit, we also urge SSA 

to develop the full online application for SSI in 

order to facilitate a fully electronic application. 

Currently, only SSDI applicants can complete the 

filing process online. 

■ With respect to systems enhancements, we also 

encourage SSA to develop protocols that private 

software developers can use in designing their 

electronic applications to transfer data seamlessly 

into SSA’s processing systems. Many representatives have their own database software to collect 

their applicants’ information. Currently, with no 

ability to transfer data directly, representatives 

must either key the information into the SSA 

online application or, more likely, submit paper 

applications that require field office employees to 

re-key the information. A process similar to what 

is used by the IRS and tax filers such as Turbo 

Tax, H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt would save 

time, energy and fiscal resources for both representatives and SSA, and would also reduce errors 

that occur with re-keying. 

POLICY

In general, we believe SSA needs to examine its 

policies (or lack of policies) affecting representatives 

in order to properly encourage, incentivize, and support well-documented, efficiently-processed claims, 

and resulting in good service to claimants.

■ In a more specific sense, we support the current agency proposal to standardize the protective filing period to 60 days for both SSDI and SSI 

claims (reducing the period for SSDI claims from 

six months), and we strongly urge SSA to take 

immediate action to move this regulation forward. We agree with the proposed language that 

states that standardizing the filing period simplifies procedures for the claimants, and we believe 

that it supports good public service by moving 

claims more quickly through the system. Also, 

the regulation would help address the allegation 

that representatives unnecessarily delay claims 

31 The current requirement for representatives to file online 

appeals only applies to representatives seeking direct payment 

from SSA.

because it would condense the period they have 

to prepare their cases.

■ In addition, we strongly recommend that SSA 

hold professional representatives responsible 

for the completeness of the applications they 

file. Currently, applications filed by professional 

representatives are accepted in any state of completion and work done by field office and DDS 

employees to complete these applications is done 

at the taxpayer’s expense. The agency should set 

clear protocols, time-lines, work incentives, and 

rules for represented claims in order to reduce 

conflicts, enhance the efficiency of the application 

process, and potentially increase the accuracy of 

the final decision. As an example, representatives 

should be required to certify completion of the 

disability application prior to the field office initiating any work on the claim.

■ Given the reality of SSA’s need for hard decisions about the allocation of resources, SSA’s role 

in administering representative fees, including 

paying travel expenses for representatives, should 

be examined. We have heard about the complexity 

of the process and the amount of agency resources 

devoted to this workload. We believe that paying 

third parties is beyond the scope of the core mission of the agency and recommend that policy 

makers review the appropriateness of continuing 

to allocate agency resources for this process.

COMMUNICATIONS 

Overall, we recommend improved and expanded 

communications between agency employees and 

the representative community. 

■ We suggest that a formal means of communication be established between agency employees and the representatives in the same service 

area. An appointed liaison could address specific 

issues, troubleshoot problems, and track recurring complaints for intervention. 

■ We also suggest that SSA investigate policy and 

procedures regarding agency access to claimants 

when a professional representative is involved. 

The lack of direct access to claimants can slow 

the application process and limit the ability to 

authenticate case information and evidence.

■ The SSA webpage for representatives should be 

redesigned to convey the message to representatives (and to the public) that the focus of effective representation should be on providing good 
30 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

service before receiving payment. Rather than 

the current design that starts with links to payment information, the primary emphasis should 

be on information that is needed for the completion of the application. There should also be a 

section for current alerts that can be reviewed 

quickly by professional representatives to ensure 

they are up-to-date with policy releases. This 

approach would help ensure that representatives know exactly what is expected of them so 

that proper procedures are followed and accurate, 

complete claim information is submitted early in 

the process, thus necessitating as little re-contact 

as possible. 

■ Although a representative has the ability to 

access his or her claimant’s information via the 

electronic folder if a hearing is pending, no such 

opportunity is currently available at the initial 

claims level. This means that a representative 

has no way to verify electronically that certain 

information has been received and assimilated 

into the claimants’ folder. At present, a representative needs to contact the field office or DDS 

in order to obtain information about an initial 

claim, which is time-consuming and labor intensive for both agency employees and for representatives. One of the major complaints we heard 

from both agency employees and representatives 

was about the amount of resources that are continually being expended on the exchange of such 

information between the two parties. We therefore recommend the expansion of access to the 

electronic folder to representatives beginning at 

the initial claims stage. 

■ SSA should consider expanding its suite of 

services for representatives to include access to 

other information that may be pertinent to the 

claims process but is not in the electronic folder, 

such as earnings history data. 

■ An ongoing exchange between SSA and the 

representative community to discuss systems 

and related processes would foster collaboration and improvements that benefit everyone 

involved. Just as the IRS has incorporated feedback from tax professionals in developing its 

online filing system, SSA can benefit from input 

from representatives in developing services that 

support the goal of quality public service for disability claimants. 

ALLEGATIONS

During the course of our discussions with both 

agency employees and professional representatives, we heard allegations of undesirable behavior 

and outcomes from both sides. We do not have data 

to support or refute these allegations; yet the frequency of the comments leads us to recommend that 

a thorough investigation of the complaints needs 

to be conducted in order to either show the claims 

are unsubstantiated or to put policies in place to 

address the problems. Specifically, we recommend 

the following allegations should be investigated:

■ Do representatives intentionally delay the processing of claims in order to increase their fee or 

are they making the best use of a protected time 

period to gather necessary evidence?

■ Is the proper role of the representative to present evidence in the manner that is in the best 

interests of the claimant or should the emphasis 

be on full disclosure of all information regardless 

of the impact on the claim?

■ Are representatives contributing to a better 

claims process or are they blocking access to the 

claimant and impeding case development by 

agency staff?

We began this study more than two years ago with 

the belief that, due to the complexity of the disability application process, there are some claimants 

who could benefit from the assistance of a representative at the initial claims stage, and that such 

assistance could enable claimants who meet the disability qualifications to receive benefits at the earliest possible point while also assisting the agency 

in processing this workload. In essence, we believed 

that representation was beneficial to claimants. 

Over the course of our study to verify this belief, 

however, we asked a number of questions for which 

we were not able to obtain conclusive answers. As a 

result, the findings and recommendations we cite in 

this report can only partially address the issues that 

surfaced during this study. Therefore, we urge SSA 

to undertake a thorough review of both the policy 

and operational aspects of the representation process, and to collaborate with representatives in a 

manner similar to the IRS collaboration with tax 

preparers, so that any adverse impacts on the disability process can be minimized, and that acceptable service to disability claimants is provided. 
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 31

Appendix A

Persons Consulted during the Preparation of this Report32

32 While we encouraged candid discussions of the issues, our conversations with the individuals consulted for this report did not include specific details such as names or dates regarding any of the allegations mentioned; instead, the individuals provided information about general 

problems and trends they observed in their work.

Social Security Administration – Headquarters 

(Baltimore, MD)

Office of General Counsel 

Sarah Humphreys, Director, Disclosure Law 

Division

Andrew Maunz, Staff Attorney

Office of Income Security Programs 

Nancy Webb, Deputy Associate Commissioner

Office of Retirement and Survivors Insurance 

Systems 

Anne Nicodemus, Director

Office of Disability Programs

Jim Twist, Director

Field Visits

Members of the Public – Columbus, OH

Robert Carlson

David Gray

Marlene Gray

Deborah Stone 

Social Security Administration/Disability 

Determination Services

Martha Lambie, Acting Regional Commissioner, 

Denver Region, SSA

Jan Foushee, Regional Communications 

Director, Denver Region, SSA

Angelica Rosa, Salt Lake City Field Office 

Manager, SSA

Gary Nakao, Utah DDS Administrator

Dave Carlson, Medical Relations Officer, Utah 

DDS

Marcia Mosley, Deputy Regional Commissioner, 

Chicago Region, SSA

Carmen Moreno, Public Affairs Officer, Chicago 

Region, SSA

Doug Schneck, Columbus, Ohio Area Director, 

SSA

Michael Link, Manager, Columbus Downtown 

Field Office, SSA

Gatian Justice, Acting Assistant District 

Manager, Columbus North Field Office, SSA

Erik Williamson, Director, Ohio, Division of 

Disability Determination

Associations and Organizations

National Association of Disability Examiners

Andrew Martinez, President

Tom Ward, President-Elect

Jeff Price, Legislative Director

National Association of Disability Representatives

Trisha Cardillo, President

Jeanne Morin, Public Policy Advisor

Sandy Fambrough, Director-At-Large

Eva Sirman, Administrator

Art Kaufman, Legistlative Co-Chair
32 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

National Council of Social Security Management 

Associations 

Kathy Vanetta, Chair, Disability Committee

Steve Clifton, President, District Manager, 

Greeley, CO

Scott Hale, Vice President, District Manager, 

Mobile, AL

Joe Dirago, Past President, District Manager, 

Newburg, NY

Rachel Emmons, Government Relations 

Consultant, Washington, D.C. Representative

National Organization of Social Security 

Claimants’ Representatives

Nancy Shor, Executive Director

Ethel Zelenske, Director of Government Affairs

Non-Profit Groups and Projects

Center for Vocational Alternatives – Columbus, OH

Tanya Chiles, Benefit Specialist

Carrie Printz, Benefit Specialist

Mount Carmel West Hospital Clinics – 

Columbus, OH

Darlene Orsley, Hospital Counselor

Ohio State University Medical Center – 

Columbus, OH

Brandy N. Moorehead, Financial Counselor

SSI/SSDI Outreach, Access, and Recovery

Deborah Dennis, Project Director

Yvonne Perret, Executive Director, Advocacy & 

Training Center

Utah Project – Salt Lake City, UT

Lloyd Pendleton, Utah State Team Lead

Brent Newreen, Employment Center Manager

Kathy Franson, Supervisor

James Whitaker, Utah Department of 

Workforce Services

John Pierpont, Utah Department of Workforce 

Services

Solutions for Progress (Benefit Bank) – 

Philadelphia, PA

Robert Brand, President and CEO 

Carolyn Lee Daffron, Director of Research and 

Policy

Deborah Wyse, Project Coordinator for the SSI/

SSDI Initiative 

SSI Ohio Project – Columbus, OH

Raven Bias, Project Coordinator

Southeast Mental Health Center – Columbus, OH

Steven Atwood, Executive Director

For-Profit Representatives: Individuals and 

Agencies 

Binder & Binder – New York, NY

Charles Binder, Partner

Chamberlin Edmonds – Atlanta, GA

Ulrich Brechbuhl, President and CEO

Suzy Perlman, SSA Liaison

GENEX Services, Inc. – Wayne, PA

Melissa J. Davey, Vice President of Disability 

Services

Leventhal, Sutton & Gornstein – Trevose, PA 

Thomas D. Sutton, Partner Attorney
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 33

Appendix B

SSA’s Policy on Prohibited Actions for Representatives

Source: Social Security Program Operation Manual 

Section GN 03970.010C

A representative must not: 

1. In any manner or by any means threaten, 

coerce, intimidate, deceive, or knowingly mislead a claimant, or prospective claimant or beneficiary, regarding benefits or other rights under 

the Social Security Act. 

2. Knowingly charge, collect, or retain, or make 

any arrangement to charge, collect, or retain, 

from any source, directly or indirectly, any fee for 

representational services in violation of applicable law or regulation. 

3. Knowingly make or present, or participate in 

the making or the presentation of, false or misleading oral or written statements, assertions, or 

representations about a material fact or law concerning a matter within SSA’s jurisdiction. 

4. Through his or her own actions or omissions 

and without good cause, unreasonably delay or 

cause to be delayed, the processing of a claim at 

any stage of the administrative decision-making 

process. Unreasonable delay is delay that is not 

justifiable, or delay that is preventable with reasonable care. 

5. Divulge, without the claimant’s consent, 

except as authorized by regulations prescribed by 

SSA or as provided by Federal law, any information SSA or the DDS furnishes or discloses about 

a claim or prospective claim. 

6. Attempt to influence, directly or indirectly, the outcome of a decision, determination, or other administrative action by offering 

or granting a loan, gift, entertainment, or anything of value to a presiding official, SSA or DDS 

employee, or witness who is or may be expected 

to be involved in the administrative decisionmaking process, except as reimbursement for 

legitimately incurred expenses or lawful compensation for the services of an expert witness 

retained on a non-contingency basis to provide 

evidence. 

7. Engage in actions or behavior prejudicial 

to the fair and orderly conduct of administrative proceedings, including but not limited to:

■ repeated absences from, or persistent 

tardiness at, scheduled proceedings without good cause; 

■ willful behavior which has the effect 

of improperly disrupting proceedings or 

obstructing the adjudicative process; and 

■ threatening or intimidating language, 

gestures or actions directed at a presiding 

official, witness, or SSA or DDS employee 

that results in a disruption of the orderly 

presentation and reception of evidence. 

8. Violate any section of the Act for which 

the law prescribes a criminal or civil monetary 

penalty.

9. Refuse to comply with any of our rules or 

regulations.

10. Suggest, assist, or direct another individual 

to violate our rules or regulations.

11. Advise any claimant or beneficiary not to 

comply with any of our rules or regulations.

12. Fail to comply with our decision about 

sanctions. 

13. Knowingly assist someone who is suspended 

or disqualified to provide representational services or exercise the authority of a representative 

as described in 20 CFR 404.1710 and 416.1510.

Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 35

Appendix C

Related Legislation and Regulations

Social Security Act 

Amendments of 1939

Established rules and regulations governing claimant representatives 

and set the maximum fee attorneys could charge (at the time it was 

$10).

Social Security Act 

Amendments of 1954

Created the first actual Social Security disability system with the 

establishment of the “disability freeze.” Disability, as originally 

defined by these amendments, was the “inability to engage in any 

substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in 

death or to be of long-continued and indefinite duration.”

Social Security Act 

Amendments of 1956

Created monthly “cash” benefits to permanently and totally disabled 

workers ages 50-64, as well as to disabled children aged 18 or older of 

retired or deceased workers (if their disability began before age 18).

Social Security Act 

Amendments of 1960

Modified the Social Security Act to provide disability insurance benefits to disabled workers of all ages and to their dependents.

Social Security Act 

Amendments of 1965

Created the rule for fee withholding – attorney fees cannot exceed 25 

percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. This was to ensure that 

claimants would have access to effective legal representation at a fair 

compensation amount. These amendments also changed the original 

definition of disability of “long-continued and indefinite duration” to 

“expected to last for a continuous period of 12 months or longer.”

Social Security Act 

Amendments of 1967

Established “widows” and “widowers” as new types of beneficiaries 

eligible for monthly cash benefits at reduced rates, as early as age 

50. To be eligible for the benefits, the individual must have become 

totally disabled not later than 7 years after the spouse’s death.

Social Security Act 

Amendments of 1972

Established the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

Officially beginning in 1974, SSI is a means-tested, federally administered program that is funded by general revenues. Unlike SSDI, this 

program did not originally authorize fee withholding for direct payment of attorneys from a claimant’s past-due benefits.

The Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 

1990

Created the fee agreement process as a way to streamline payment of 

fees to attorneys. Also continued the exclusion of SSI claims from the 

direct payment of attorney fees from a claimant’s past-due benefits.
36 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

The Ticket to Work 

and Work Incentives 

Improvement Act of 

1999

Authorized SSA to charge an assessment (not to surpass 6.3 percent) 

to recover the costs for defining and certifying fees to attorneys.

The Social Security 

Protection Act of 2004

Included a number of key third party-related provisions:

■ Required all persons/companies providing SSA-related services 

to disclose that services for which they charge a fee are available 

directly from SSA free of charge.

■ Gave the Commissioner authority to disqualify an attorney or 

non-attorney representative who has been disbarred or suspended 

from any court or bar in the state(s) of which he or she was previously admitted to practice.

■ Capped the SSA assessment amount at the lower of $75 or 6.3 

percent of the attorney’s fee (revised annually based on cost-ofliving adjustments).

■ Temporarily extended attorney fee withholding payment system 

to SSI claims.

■ Temporarily extended fee withholding payment system to nonattorney representatives through a 5-year demonstration project.

The Social Security 

Disability Applicants’ 

Access to Professional 

Representation Act of 

2010

Made permanent the extension of fee withholding payment system for SSI claims. The act also made permanent the extension of 

fee withholding payment system to non-attorneys representing 

Title II or Title XVI claims of the Social Security Act. In order for 

non-attorneys to receive direct pay from SSA, however, they are 

required to:

■ Hold a bachelor’s degree,

■ Pass an examination written and administered by the 

Commissioner,

■ Secure professional liability insurance or the equivalent,

■ Undergo a criminal background check, and

■ Complete continuing education courses.

Federal Register 

Regulation:

“Requiring Use of 

Electronic Services by 

Certain Claimant 

Representatives,” 

September 2011

Required certain attorneys and non-attorneys to use SSA’s electronic 

services when conducting business with the agency. It does not force 

claimants to use SSA’s electronic services directly; rather, it only 

requires their representative(s) to use the services, and only for cases 

in which a representative requests a direct fee payment from SSA.

Federal Register 

Regulation: 

“Revisions to Rules of 

Conduct and Standards 

of Responsibility for 

Representatives,” 

December 2011

Revised the former list of prohibited actions in order to ensure that 

attorney and non-attorney representatives comply with SSA’s rules. 

It also added an additional prohibited action that a representative 

may not help a suspended or disqualified person provide representational services.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 37

Appendix D

Sections of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding Representation

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND 

DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- )

Table of Contents

Subpart R—Representation of Parties

404.1700 Introduction. 

404.1703 Definitions. 

404.1705 Who may be your representative. 

404.1706 Notification of options for obtaining 

attorney representation. 

404.1707 Appointing a representative. 

404.1710 Authority of a representative. 

404.1715 Notice or request to a representative. 

404.1717 Demonstration project on direct payment of fees to non-attorneys. 

404.1720 Fee for a representative’s services. 

404.1725 Request for approval of a fee. 

404.1728 Proceedings before a State or Federal 

court. 

404.1730 Payment of fees. 

404.1735 Services in a proceeding under title II of 

the Act. 

404.1740 Rules of conduct and standards of 

responsibility for representatives. 

404.1745 Violations of our requirements, rules, or 

standards. 

404.1750 Notice of charges against a 

representative. 

404.1755 Withdrawing charges against a 

representative. 

404.1765 Hearing on charges. 

404.1770 Decision by hearing officer. 

404.1775 Requesting review of the hearing officer’s decision. 

404.1776 Assignment of request for review of the 

hearing officer’s decision. 

404.1780 Appeals Council’s review of hearing 

officer’s decision. 

404.1785 Evidence permitted on review.

404.1790 Appeals Council’s decision. 

404.1795 When the Appeals Council will dismiss a 

request for review. 

404.1797 Reinstatement after suspension—

period of suspension expired. 

404.1799 Reinstatement after suspension or disqualification—period of suspension not expired.
38 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

Title 20—Employees’ Benefits

CHAPTER III—SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

(Revised as of April 1, 2011)

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR

THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED

Subpart O—Representation of Parties

416.1500 Introduction. 

416.1503 Definitions. 

416.1505 Who may be your representative.

416.1506 Notification of options for obtaining 

attorney representation. 

416.1507 Appointing a representative. 

416.1510 Authority of a representative. 

416.1515 Notice or request to a representative. 

416.1517 Demonstration project on direct payment of fees to non-attorneys. 

416.1520 Fee for a representative’s services. 

416.1525 Request for approval of a fee.

416.1528 Proceedings before a State or Federal 

court. 

416.1530 Payment of fees. 

416.1535 Services in a proceeding under title XVI 

of the Act.

416.1540 Rules of conduct and standards of 

responsibility for representatives. 

416.1545 Violations of our requirements, rules, or 

standards. 

416.1550 Notice of charges against a 

representative. 

416.1555 Withdrawing charges against a 

representative.

416.1565 Hearing on charges. 

416.1570 Decision by hearing officer. 

416.1575 Requesting review of the hearing officer’s decision. 

416.1576 Assignment of request for review of the 

hearing officer’s decision.

416.1580 Appeals Council’s review of hearing 

officer’s decision. 

416.1585Evidence permitted on review. 

416.1590 Appeals Council’s decision.

416.1595 When the Appeals Council will dismiss a 

request for review. 

416.1597 Reinstatement after suspension—

period of suspension expired. 

416.1599 Reinstatement after suspension or disqualification—period of suspension not expired.
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 39

Appendix E

Sections of SSA’s Program Operation Manual System (POMS) regarding Representation

GN 03910.000: Representation of Claimants

GN 03913.000: Individual Registration for 

Appointed Representative Services and Direct 

Payment of Fees

GN 03920.000: Administering Representatives 

Fees Provisions

GN 03925.000: Appointed Representative Fees 

Internet Registration

GN 03930.000: Fee Authorization Under the Fee 

Petition Process

GN 03940.000: Fee Authorization Under the Fee 

Agreement Process

GN 03943.000: Implementation of Increased 

Maximum Dollar Limit on Fee Agreements

GN 03950.000: Administrative Review of Fee 

Authorizations Under the Fee Petition Process

GN 03960.000: Administrative Review of 

Determinations Under the Fee Agreement Process

GN 03970.000: Suspension or Disqualification of 

Representatives

GN 03980.000: Conflict of Interest

GN 03990.000: Equal Access to Justice Act

Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 41

Social Security Advisory Board

In 1994, when Congress passed legislation establishing the Social Security Administration as an 

independent agency, it also created a 7 member 

bipartisan Advisory Board to advise the President, 

the Congress, and the Commissioner of Social 

Security on matters related to the Social Security 

and Supplemental Security Income programs. 

Advisory Board members are appointed to six year 

terms, made up as follows: three appointed by the 

President (no more than two from the same political party); and two each (no more than one from 

the same political party) by the Speaker of the 

House (in consultation with the Chairman and the 

Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on 

Ways and Means) and by the President pro tempore 

of the Senate (in consultation with the Chairman 

and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee 

on Finance). Presidential appointments are subject 

to Senate confirmation. 

Members

Marsha Rose Katz, Acting Chair

Marsha Rose Katz is a Project Director at the 

University of Montana Rural Institute in Missoula, 

where her work has concentrated on assisting 

persons with disabilities to utilize Social Security 

work incentives to start their own businesses or 

engage in wage employment. Since coming to the 

Rural Institute in 1999, Ms.  Katz has focused on 

providing training and technical assistance on both 

employment and SSI/SSDI to rural, frontier and 

tribal communities across the country. Previously, 

she worked for nearly 20 years in a disability rights 

community based organization, the Association 

for Community Advocacy (ACA), a local Arc in Ann 

Arbor, Michigan. She served as both Vice President 

of ACA, and Director of its Family Resource 

Center. It was at ACA that Ms.  Katz began her 

nearly 30  years of individual and systems advocacy regarding programs administered by SSA, 

especially the SSI and SSDI programs.   Ms.  Katz 

has written numerous articles and created many 

widely distributed user-friendly general handouts 

on SSI and SSDI, the majority of which focus on 

the impact of work on benefits, and utilizing work 

incentives. She is the author of Don’t Look for Logic; 

An Advocate’s Manual for Negotiating the SSI and 

SSDI Programs, published by the Rural Institute. 

Her Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees are from the 

University of Michigan. Ms.  Katz’s many years of 

experience as a trainer, technical advisor, and advocate have been guided and informed by her partnership with people with disabilities, from her husband, Bob Liston, to the people she assisted in her 

work with ACA and the Arc Michigan, her current 

work at the Rural Institute, and her longstanding 

participation in ADAPT, the nation’s largest crossdisability, grassroots disability rights organization. 

Term of office: November 2006 to September 2012.

Jagadeesh Gokhale

Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the 

Cato Institute. He earlier worked at the American 

Enterprise Institute as a visiting scholar (2003), 

the U.S. Treasury Department as a consultant 

(2002), and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland 

as a senior economic advisor (1990-2003). An 

economist by training, his main research fields are 

macro and public economics with a special focus 

on the effects of fiscal policy on future generations. During 2008, he served as a member of the 

Task Force on Sustainability Issues for the Federal 

Accounting Standards Advisory Board. Dr. Gokhale 

has written extensively on policy issues including 

Social Security and Medicare reform, national saving, private insurance, financial planning, wealth 

inequality, generational accounting, and public 

intergenerational transfers and he has testified several times before Congress on these topics. He has 

published several papers in such top-tier journals as 

the American Economic Review, Journal of Economic 

Perspectives, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Review 

of Economics and Statistics; in publications of the 

National Bureau of Economic Research and the 

Cleveland Federal Reserve; in the US Budget 

report’s Analytical Perspectives; and in popular 

newspapers and online media such as the Wall 
42 Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits

Street Journal, The Financial Times, The Washington 

Post, American Spectator, and Forbes. Dr.  Gokhale 

is a co-author of Fiscal and Generational Imbalances

(2003) that revealed the U.S. fiscal imbalance to be 

in the tens of trillions of dollars. Another book by 

him entitled, Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy 

Alternatives, was published in 2010. Term of Office: 

November 2009 to September 2015.

Dorcas R. Hardy

Dorcas R. Hardy is President of DRHardy & 

Associates, a government relations and public 

policy firm serving a diverse portfolio of clients. 

After her appointment by President Ronald Reagan 

as Assistant Secretary of Human Development 

Services, Ms. Hardy was appointed Commissioner 

of Social Security (1986 to 1989) and was 

appointed by President George  W. Bush to chair 

the Policy Committee for the 2005 White House 

Conference on Aging. Ms. Hardy has launched and 

hosted her own primetime, weekly television program, “Financing Your Future,” on Financial News 

Network and UPI Broadcasting, and “The Senior 

American,” an NET political program for older 

Americans. She speaks and writes widely about 

domestic and international retirement financing 

issues and entitlement program reforms and is the 

co-author of Social Insecurity: The Crisis in America’s 

Social Security System and How to Plan Now for Your 

Own Financial Survival, Random House, 1992. A 

former CEO of a rehabilitation technology firm, 

Ms.  Hardy promotes redesign and modernization 

of the Social Security, Medicare, and disability 

insurance systems.   Additionally, she has chaired 

a Task Force to rebuild vocational rehabilitation 

services for disabled veterans for the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. She received her B.A. from 

Connecticut College, her M.B.A. from Pepperdine 

University, and completed the Executive Program 

in Health Policy and Financial Management at 

Harvard University. Ms. Hardy is a Certified Senior 

Advisor and serves on the Board of Directors of 

Wright Investors Service Managed Funds as well as 

several nonprofit organizations. First two terms of 

office: April 2002 to September 2010. Current term 

of office: October 2010 to September 2016.

Barbara B. Kennelly

Barbara B. Kennelly became President and Chief 

Executive Officer of the National Committee to 

Preserve Social Security and Medicare in April 

2002 after a distinguished 23-year career in elected 

public office. Mrs. Kennelly served 17 years in the 

United States House of Representatives representing the First District of Connecticut. During her 

Congressional career, Mrs.  Kennelly was the first 

woman elected to serve as the Vice Chair of the 

House Democratic Caucus. Mrs. Kennelly was also 

the first woman to serve on the House Committee on 

Intelligence and to chair one of its subcommittees. 

She was the first woman to serve as Chief Majority 

Whip, and the third woman in history to serve 

on the 200-year-old Ways and Means Committee. 

During the 105th  Congress, she was the ranking 

member of the Subcommittee on Social Security. 

Prior to her election to Congress, Mrs.  Kennelly 

was Secretary of State of Connecticut. After serving in Congress, Mrs.  Kennelly was appointed to 

the position of the Counselor to the Commissioner 

at the Social Security Administration (SSA). As 

Counselor, Mrs. Kennelly worked closely with the 

Commissioner of Social Security Kenneth S. Apfel, 

and members of Congress to inform and educate the 

American people on the choices they face to ensure 

the future solvency of Social Security. She served 

on the Policy Committee for the 2005 White House 

Conference on Aging. Mrs. Kennelly received a B.A. 

in Economics from Trinity College, Washington, 

D.C. She earned a certificate from the Harvard 

Business School on completion of the HarvardRadcliffe Program in Business Administration and 

a Master’s Degree in Government from Trinity 

College, Hartford. First term of office: January 2006 

to September 2011. Current term of office: March 

2012 to September 2017.

Mark J. Warshawsky

Mark  J. Warshawsky is Director of Retirement 

Research at Towers Watson, a global human capital 

consulting firm. He conducts and oversees research 

on employer-sponsored retirement programs and 

policies. A frequent speaker to business and professional groups, Dr.  Warshawsky is a recognized 

thought leader on pensions, social security, insurance and healthcare financing. He has written 

numerous articles published in leading professional journals, books and working papers, and has 

testified before Congress on pensions, annuities 

and other economic issues. A member of the Social 

Security Advisory Board for a term through 2012, 

he is also on the Advisory Board of the Pension 

Research Council of the Wharton School. From 
Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits 43

2004 to 2006, Dr. Warshawsky served as assistant 

secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury 

Department. During his tenure, he played a key 

role in the development of the Administration’s 

pension reform proposals, particularly pertaining 

to single-employer defined benefit plans, which 

were ultimately included in the Pension Protection 

Act (“PPA”) of 2006. He was also involved extensively in the formulation of Social Security reform 

proposals, and oversaw the Department’s comprehensive 2005 study of the terror risk insurance 

program. In addition, Dr.  Warshawsky led the 

efforts to update and enhance substantially the 

measures and disclosures in the Social Security 

and Medicare Trustees’ Reports, as well as the 

setting of the macroeconomic forecasts, which 

underlie the administration’s budget submissions 

to Congress. Dr.  Warshawsky’s research has been 

influential in the 2001-2002 regulatory reform 

of minimum distribution requirements for qualified retirement plans, the increasing realization 

of the importance of financial protection against 

outliving one’s financial resources in retirement, 

and a product innovation to integrate the immediate life annuity and long-term care insurance. For 

the latter research, he won a prize from the British 

Institute of Actuaries in 2001 for a professional 

article he co-authored. Favorable tax treatment for 

this integrated product was also included in PPA 

due to Dr. Warshawsky’s advocacy. Dr. Warshawsky 

has also held senior-level economic research positions at the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal 

Reserve Board in Washington, D.C. and TIAACREF, where he established the Paul A. Samuelson 

Prize and organized several research conferences. A 

native of Chicago, he received a Ph.D. in Economics 

from Harvard University and a B.A. with Highest 

Distinction from Northwestern University. Term of 

office: December 2006 to September 2012

Staff

Deborah Sullivan, Staff Director

Jacqueline Chapin, Ph.D., Professional Staff

Jeremy Elder, Research Assistant

Joel A. Feinleib, Staff Economist

Beverly Sheingorn VanDerhei, Executive Officer

Robin Walker, Staff Assistant

David Warner, Professional Staff

If you would like to join our mailing list to receive 

Board publications, please contact us at

400 Virginia Avenue, S.W., 

Suite 625

Washington, D.C. 20024

(202) 475-7700

info@ssab.gov

www.ssab.gov
Social Security Advisory Board

400 Virginia Avenue, S.W.

Suite 625

Washington, D.C. 20024

Tel: (202) 475-7700

Fax: (202) 475-7715

E-mail: info@ssab.gov

www.ssab.gov