type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' ~ SECU\n :)Ci\n ~\n W/\'US~~\n \\~ 11\\1111\n ~~\n qlS~\n\n SOCIAL SECURITY\n\n Office of the Inspector General\nMEMORANDUM\nDate: AUG. 2 1 ;2(}J1- Refer To: 31233-23-204\n\nTo: Lar~ G. Mas~anari\n Acting Commissioner\n of Social Security\n\n\n Inspector General\n\n\n Approval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\n\n The attached final report presents the results of our evaluation. Our objectives were to\n determine the extent of duplicate fees paid to attorneys and to assess the Social\n Security Administration\'s screening process at the Office of Hearings and Appeals level\n for claimant representatives.\n\n Please comment within 60 days from the date of this memorandum on corrective action\n taken or planned on each recommendation. If you wish to discuss the final report,\n please call me or have your staff contact Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant Inspector\n General for Aud it, at (41 0) 965-9700.\n\n\n\n l]/tIJMcA--\n James G. Huse, Jr.\n\n Attachment\n\x0c OFFICE OF\n\n THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n APPROVAL OF CLAIMANT\n REPRESENTATIVES AND\n FEES PAID TO ATTORNEYS\n\n\n August 2001 A-12-00-10027\n\n\n\nEVALUATION REPORT\n\n\x0c Mission\n\nWe improve SSA programs and operations and protect them against fraud, waste,\nand abuse by conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations, and\ninvestigations. We provide timely, useful, and reliable information and advice to\nAdministration officials, the Congress, and the public.\n\n Authority\n\nThe Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units,\ncalled the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled\nout in the Act, is to:\n\n 0 Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and\n\n investigations relating to agency programs and operations.\n\n o Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.\n\n 0 Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and\n\n operations.\n\n 0 Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed\n\n legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.\n\n 0 Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of\n\n problems in agency programs and operations.\n\n\n To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:\n\n o Independence to determine what reviews to perform.\n 0 Access to all information necessary for the reviews.\n 0 Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.\n\n Vision\n\nBy conducting independent and objective audits, investigations, and evaluations,\nwe are agents of positive change striving for continuous improvement in the\nSocial Security Administration\'s programs, operations, and management and in\nour own office.\n\x0c Executive Summary\nOBJECTIVE\nOur objectives were to determine the extent of duplicate fees paid to attorneys and to\nassess the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) screening process at the Office of\nHearings and Appeals (OHA) level for claimant representatives.\n\nBACKGROUND\nState Disability Determination Services make disability determinations under the\nDisability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income programs. Claimants may\nappeal the determinations to Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) located at Hearing\nOffices (HO) throughout the nation. The ALJ has the responsibility of ensuring the fair\napplication of SSA laws and regulations by issuing de novo decisions on appealed\ndisability determinations for which claimants have a right to a hearing. OHA administers\nthe hearings and appeals program for SSA.\n\nAt all administrative levels, a claimant may designate an attorney or other qualified\nindividual to represent him or her at a hearing with SSA. Claimant representatives may\ncharge and receive a fee for their services. The fee must be approved by SSA. If the\nrepresentative is an attorney and the claimant is entitled to past-due DI benefits, SSA\nwill withhold up to 25 percent of the past-due benefits and pay the attorney all or part of\nthe fee authorized. If the representative is not an attorney, SSA assumes no\nresponsibility for payment of the fee. Eight Processing Centers (PC) issue attorney fee\npayments. In Calendar Year (CY) 2000, the PCs processed over $510 million in\nattorney fee payments. However, six of the eight PCs do not track duplicate attorney\nfee payments\xe2\x80\x94only PC 7 and PC 8 at the Office of Central Operations (OCO) track\nthese payments. OCO is a component that consists of PC 7 and PC 8. PC 8 does\nprepare attorney fee payments, however, these payments are keyed in PC 7. In\nCY 2000, PC 7 processed 153,749 attorney fee payments totaling over $357 million.\n\nSSA has established standards of conduct and responsibility for a person serving as a\nclaimant representative before the Agency. Among other duties, OHA\xe2\x80\x99s Special\nCounsel Staff (SCS) serves as agency representatives when addressing conduct\nreferrals of claimant representatives. SCS investigates potential violations of the laws\nand regulations governing the conduct of claimant representatives in SSA proceedings.\nWhen evidence exists that a representative fails to meet SSA\xe2\x80\x99s qualification\nrequirements or has violated SSA\xe2\x80\x99s rules, SCS may begin proceedings to suspend or\ndisqualify that individual from acting as a representative. About once a year, SCS\nsends an updated list of disqualified/suspended representatives to SSA Senior and\nExecutive staffs; the Offices of the 10 Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges; all\nregional attorneys; all Administrative Appeal Judges; all Appeals Officers; all Branch\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) i\n\x0cChiefs in the Office of Appellate Operations; all hearing offices; the Regional\nCommissioners; and others with a need to know. The list is also redistributed to SSA\ndistrict offices.\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW\nEven though PC 7 implemented a new system in 1997 to prevent duplicate payments to\nattorneys, PC 7 made 12 duplicate payments totaling $23,558 in January 1999 and\n15 duplicate payments totaling $30,850 in March 2000. Further, we could not assess\nwhether SSA made duplicate payments at six of eight PCs since these PCs do not track\nduplicate attorney fee payments. In addition, we believe the claimant representative\nscreening process needs to be improved.\n\nATTORNEY FEE PAYMENT PROCESS\n\nSix of the eight PCs do not track duplicate attorney fee payments. SSA estimates that\nthese 6 PCs process 30 percent of the attorney fee payments. PC 7 does track\nduplicate attorney fee payments, and, therefore, this was the only attorney fee payment\nprocess we were able to review. However, PC 7 uses the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s Social Security\nnumber (SSN) for tracking attorney fee payments and not the attorney\xe2\x80\x99s SSN. Since\nPC 7 does not track attorney fee payments using the attorney\xe2\x80\x99s SSN, SSA is unable to\ndetermine the amount of fees a specific attorney has been paid during the year, nor\ndoes SSA prepare IRS Form 1099 for attorneys.\n\nSSA uses an error-prone, labor-intensive system called One-Check Only A- (OCO A) to\nprocess attorney fee payments. In 1997, SSA installed an automated Duplicate\nPayment Prevention System (DPPS) at PC 7 to catch possible duplicate attorney fee\npayments. Our analysis revealed that DPPS is generally working as intended.\nHowever, we examined attorney fee payment reports for January 1999 and March 2000\nand discovered the following:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Benefit authorizers (BA) did not always follow procedures when using the override\n indicator, causing duplicate payments to occur. The override indicator is placed on\n the attorney fee payment form and allows an attorney fee payment to bypass DPPS.\n As a result, 12 duplicate payments totaling $23,558 were made to attorneys in\n January 1999 and 15 duplicate payments totaling $30,850 were made in\n March 2000.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Claimant records in the Payment History Update System (PHUS) were erroneous\n because SSA used incorrect SSNs when the payments were posted to the PHUS.\n An incorrect SSN is a valid SSN belonging to an individual other than the claimant\n who used the attorney\xe2\x80\x99s services. We determined that there are two causes why\n incorrect SSNs are used. Either the BAs entered the incorrect SSN onto the\n payment authorization forms or keyers in the Data Input Unit (DIU) entered the\n incorrect SSN into the OCO A system. Thirty-four records in PHUS were incorrectly\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) ii\n\x0c credited with attorney fee payments in January 1999 and 30 were incorrectly\n credited in March 2000 totaling $64,991 and $67,689, respectively. The likelihood of\n duplicate payments increases when an attorney fee payment is processed with an\n incorrect SSN. For example, an attorney may receive a payment processed with an\n incorrect SSN and later receive a duplicate payment processed with the correct\n SSN.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t There are no system controls to prevent OCO A from processing invalid SSNs for\n attorney fee payments. An invalid SSN is one that has not been issued by SSA.\n Ten attorney fee payments were made using invalid SSNs in January 1999 and\n 11 were made in March 2000.\n\nWe worked closely with Integrity and Security Branch (ISB) staff at OCO during this\nevaluation. As of June 2001, ISB staff had recovered $40,838 in duplicate payments\nand are in the process of collecting others that we identified. ISB has also corrected the\nPHUS records.\n\nSCREENING OF DISQUALIFIED/SUSPENDED CLAIMANT REPRESENTATIVES\n\nBased on attorney fee payments made at PC 7 from January 1999 through March 2000,\nwe determined that no disqualified or suspended representatives were representing\nclaimants. However, we believe the claimant representative screening process needs\nto be improved. Twenty-four percent of the 139 HOs told us that they do not receive the\nclaimant representative disqualification/suspension list. In addition, 32 percent of the\nHOs that received the list reported that they did not receive instructions on what to do\nwith the list, once received.\n\nCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nIn 1997, PC 7 improved its controls over attorney fee payments by implementing DPPS.\nHowever, PC 7 continues to make duplicate payments to attorneys representing\nclaimants. Further, SSA does not track duplicate attorney fee payments at six of\neight PCs. SSA estimates that these 6 PCs process 30 percent of all attorney fee\npayments. While PC 7 does track duplicate attorney fee payments, they use the\nclaimant\xe2\x80\x99s SSN for tracking purposes and process these payments through an\ninefficient and error-prone OCO A system.\n\nDuring our evaluation, we reviewed attorney fee payments made in January 1999 and\nMarch 2000. Our review found duplicate attorney fee payments during both of these\nmonths. Since SSA did not improve its controls over the attorney fee payment process\nsince our evaluation began, we believe that similar errors have occurred in the\nintervening months and are still occurring. Based on the results of our review of\nJanuary 1999 and March 2000 payments, and using a non-statistical weighted average\nprocess, we estimate PC 7 paid $510,000 in duplicate payments to attorneys during\nCYs 1999 and 2000.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) iii\n\x0cWe recommend that SSA:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Establish an automated system to account for attorney fee payments at all PCs;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Collect each attorney\xe2\x80\x99s SSN, name and address information so IRS Form 1099 can\n be issued to attorneys;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Develop procedures for other recovery options when SCS is unable to collect\n duplicate payments to attorneys, such as offsetting future payments to attorneys or\n referring these debts to the Treasury Offset Program;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Identify and recover duplicate attorney fee payments made since January 1999 due\n to incorrect use of the override indicator by BAs;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Establish a procedure for reviewing the override indicator reports as they are\n generated;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Correct PHUS records for all accounts where incorrect and invalid SSNs were\n processed to make attorney fee payments since January 1999;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Develop a system edit in the OCO A system so that invalid beneficiary SSNs cannot\n be processed for attorney fee payments;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Remind BAs of correct procedures when using the override indicator;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Establish quality control measures for keyers in DIU to prevent input errors of SSNs\n into the OCO A;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Set a priority for automating the OCO A system, so that attorney fee payments can\n be validated against the Master Beneficiary Record; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Issue instructions for screening disqualified or suspended claimant representatives\n and place the disqualification/suspension list on SSA\xe2\x80\x99s intranet, so that every SSA\n office that needs to identify attorneys will have instant access to screening\n procedures and an up-to-date list.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS\nSSA agreed with nine of our recommendations, but did not concur with our seventh and\ntenth recommendations\xe2\x80\x94addressing modifications and automate of the OCO A system.\nSSA plans to install a new Single Payment System in 2002 to process attorney fee\npayments. As a result, SSA does not want to shift resources from this new system to\nimprove the OCO A system since it will be replaced soon. (See Appendix F for SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomments.)\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) iv\n\x0cOIG RESPONSE\nOnce SSA completes the corrective actions described in its response, staff should have\nquality controls to reduce the number of duplicate attorney fee payments being issued\nand to prevent disqualified/suspended claimant representatives from participating in the\nprocess. However, we believe that duplicate payments will continue until the OCO A\nsystem is improved or replaced. Further, we believe that SSA will have a difficult time\nmeeting its goal of implementing a new Single Payment System by 2002, since there\nare challenging technical difficulties in automating such a large, complicated system.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) v\n\x0c Table of Contents\n\n Page\n\n\nINTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW.......................................................................................... 9\n\n ATTORNEY FEE PAYMENT PROCESS .......................................................... 9\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Duplicate Payments................................................................................... 10\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Incorrect and Invalid SSNs ........................................................................ 11\n\n SCREENING OF DISQUALIFIED/SUSPENDED CLAIMANT\n REPRESENTATIVES ..................................................................................... 11\n\nCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 13\n\nOTHER MATTERS............................................................................................... 15\n\nAPPENDICES\n\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 One-Check Only A- Process at Office of Central Operations\n\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Duplicate Payment Prevention System\n\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 Methodology for Determining Duplicate Attorney Fee Payments\n\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 Offices and Personnel Sent the List of Disqualified/Suspended\n Representatives\n\nAPPENDIX E \xe2\x80\x93 Office of the Inspector General Survey Instrument\n\nAPPENDIX F \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Comments\n\nAPPENDIX G \xe2\x80\x93 OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c Acronyms\n\nALJ Administrative Law Judge\n\n\nBA Benefit Authorizer\n\n\nCY Calendar Year\n\n\nDI Disability Insurance\n\n\nDIU Data Input Unit\n\n\nDPPS Duplicate Payment Prevention System\n\n\nHO Hearing Office\n\n\nISB Integrity and Security Branch\n\n\nMBR Master Beneficiary Record\n\n\nOCO Office of Central Operations\n\n\nOCO A One-Check Only A-\n\n\nOHA Office of Hearings and Appeals\n\n\nOIG Office of the Inspector General\n\n\nOIO Office of International Operations\n\n\nPAS Payment Accounting Section\n\n\nPC Processing Center\n\n\nPHUS Payment History Update System\n\n\nSCS Special Counsel Staff\n\n\nSSA Social Security Administration\n\n\nSSI Supplemental Security Income\n\n\nSSN Social Security number\n\n\nTA Technical Assistant\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c Introduction\n\nOBJECTIVE\nOur objectives were to determine the extent of duplicate fees paid to attorneys and to\nassess the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) screening process at the Office of\nHearings and Appeals (OHA) level for claimant representatives.\n\nBACKGROUND\nState Disability Determination Services make disability determinations under the\nDisability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. Claimants\nmay appeal the determinations to Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) located at Hearing\nOffices (HO) throughout the nation. The ALJ has the responsibility of ensuring the fair\napplication of SSA laws and regulations by issuing de novo decisions on appealed\ndisability determinations for which claimants have a right to a hearing. OHA administers\nthe hearings and appeals program for SSA.\n\nAt all administrative levels, a claimant may designate an attorney or other qualified\nindividual to represent him or her at a hearing with SSA. The claimant must sign a\nwritten notice of appointment and file the notice with SSA. The notice constitutes proof\nof appointment. Without evidence to the contrary, SSA presumes that an appointed\nrepresentative is of good character and reputation, and capable of providing assistance\nto the claimant.1\n\nIn Fiscal Year 2000, about 75 percent of disability claims had attorney representation.2\nClaimant representatives may charge and receive a fee for their services. The fee must\nbe approved by SSA. If the representative is an attorney and the claimant is entitled to\npast-due DI benefits, SSA will withhold up to 25 percent of the past-due benefits and\npay the attorney all or part of the fee authorized. If the representative is not an attorney,\nSSA assumes no responsibility for payment of the fee. The amount of attorney fee\npayments paid by SSA since 1995 is shown in Figure 1.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Representation of Parties \xe2\x80\x93 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1700 through 404.1799 and 416.1500 through 416.1599.\n2\n SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Information Management data derived from OHA\xe2\x80\x99s case control system.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 1\n\x0c Figure 1\n\n Attorney Fee Payments\n\n 600\n Payments in Millions\n\n\n\n\n 500\n\n\n\n 400\n\n\n\n 300\n 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000\n Calendar Year\n\n Source: Payment History Update System (PHUS)\n\n\nTHE OFFICE OF CENTRAL OPERATIONS PROCESSES 70 PERCENT OF ALL\nATTORNEY FEE PAYMENTS\n\nAttorney fee payments are processed by SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Processing Centers (PC). There are\neight PCs located in different regions throughout the U.S., including the Office of Central\nOperations (OCO) 3 in Baltimore, Maryland. PC 7 processes payments for claimants\nwho are under 55 years of age, PC 8 processes international attorney fee payments,\nand the other six PCs process payments for claimants who are aged 55 and older.\n\nIn CY 1991, PC 7 processed 71,600 attorney fee payments totaling $140 million. The\nnumbers have grown dramatically since 1991. In CY 2000, PC 7 processed\n153,749 attorney fee payments totaling over $357 million. This represents a\n115 percent increase in the number of payments and a 155 percent increase in the\namount of payments.\n\nFigure 2 illustrates SSA\'s estimate of the percentage of attorney fee payments\nprocessed by each PC.4\n\n\n\n3\n OCO is a component that consists of two PCs, the Office of Disability Operations (ODO or PC 7) and\nthe Office of International Operations (OIO or PC 8). PC 8 does prepare fee payments for attorneys;\nhowever, these payments are keyed in PC 7 by the same data entry clerks who key the ODO payments.\n4\n Percentages are based on SSA estimates of attorney fee payments processed by each processing\ncenter.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 2\n\x0c Figure 2\n\n Percentage of Attorney Fee Payments Northeastern\n by PC for CY 1999 PC 1\n\n 4% Mid-Atlantic\n 5%\n PC 2\n 9%\n Southeastern\n PC 3\n 3%\n Great Lakes\n 4% PC 4\n\n Western\n 5% PC 5\n\n Mid-America\n PC 6\n\n OCO and OIO\n 70% PC 7 & PC 8\n\n\n\n\nTHE ONE-CHECK ONLY A- PROCESS AT PC 7\n\nIn the mid-1990s, attorneys began filing lawsuits against SSA because of extremely\nlong delays in receiving their payments for representing claimants at hearings. Due to\nthis significant litigation risk, SSA assembled a team in 1997 to examine the cause of\ndelays in processing attorney fee payments. The team\xe2\x80\x99s report discussed systems\nimprovements and concluded that automation of the attorney fee process would greatly\nenhance the processing of attorney fees and streamline a fairly complex process.5 The\nteam recommended that SSA strictly maintain its schedule for automating the attorney\nfee payment process. However, competing automation priorities have repeatedly\ndelayed automation of the attorney fee payment process.\n\nAt PC 7, the attorney fee payment system, called the One-Check Only A- (OCO A)\nsystem, requires extensive human resources (see Appendix A). The manual process\nbegins when a benefit authorizer (BA) calculates the amount of the attorney fee. The\nBA verifies previous payments made to the attorney using the Master Beneficiary\nRecord (MBR) and PHUS. The MBR contains special messages for items relating to\nthe attorney fee. A historical record of payments made to a claimant\'s account is\n\n\n5\n SSA Attorney Fee Processing Team Report, December 16, 1997. The team was composed of staff\nfrom OHA, OCO, Office of Systems, Office of the General Counsel, and the Litigation Staff.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 3\n\x0carchived in PHUS. The system tracks payments made to a claimant\'s account and\ngenerates IRS Form 1099 for claimants. PHUS uses the claimant\'s Social Security\nnumber (SSN) and a code to identify attorney fee payments.\n\nIf the BA determines that no attorney fee payment was previously made, or that an\nadditional payment will not exceed mandated limits, the BA prepares a Form 2795. This\nForm contains the beneficiary\'s SSN, the attorney\'s name and address, the payment\namount, and signatures of approving officials. The forms are collected by personnel in\nthe modules and then carried to the Payment Accounting Section (PAS). Technical\nAssistants (TA) in the PAS review every form for accuracy, completeness, and proper\nsignatures. The forms are returned to the BA if any discrepancies are found. The TAs\nbatch the forms into groups of 20 and use an adding machine to total the amount of\npayments per batch. The adding machine tape is stapled to the top form of the batch\nand is used as an audit check. The batched forms are then carried to the Data Input\nUnit (DIU). Keyers in DIU access the Falcon6 system and enter payment information\ninto the OCO A application program. After the keying operation, the forms are returned\nto PAS for archiving. The payment information is then processed electronically through\nthe Duplicate Payment Prevention System (DPPS).\n\nDUPLICATE PAYMENTS AT PC 7 WERE IDENTIFIED BY DPPS\n\nIn a 1992 Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audit7 of the attorney fee payment\nprocess at PC 7, we recommended that SSA periodically identify and review cases that\ncontain two or more identical attorney fee payments to determine if duplicate payments\nwere made. SSA agreed with the recommendation. In 1997, SSA installed DPPS\xe2\x80\x94an\nautomated system that reviews attorney fee payments before they are issued and flags\npayments that match or closely match SSNs to attorney fee payments that were made\nin the past (see Appendix B). When a possible duplicate is identified, the attorney fee\npayment record is removed from processing and no payment is made.\n\nThe OCO A system prints daily, weekly and monthly reports on payments made to\nattorneys. A daily report of \xe2\x80\x9cno payment made\xe2\x80\x9d cases is also generated. When a\npayment is flagged as a possible duplicate, a TA in PAS pulls the Form 2795 from the\nbatch and returns it to the BA who initiated the payment. The BA determines whether\nthe attorney fee payment is a \xe2\x80\x9ctrue\xe2\x80\x9d duplicate. It is a slow and time-consuming process\nto verify duplicate payments. The BA must examine PHUS and printed payment\nreports. If the BA is able to determine that the attorney fee payment is a \xe2\x80\x9ctrue\xe2\x80\x9d\nduplicate, the BA must obtain copies of cancelled checks from the Department of\nTreasury proving the attorney cashed the duplicate check. After obtaining copies of the\ncashed check, PC 7 attempts to collect the duplicate payment from the attorney. If the\n6\n The Falcon system is the automated system which SSA uses to record all OCO A payments. Access to\nthe system is controlled either by an external security package (TOP Secret) or by a single log-on\npassword system.\n7\n SSA/OIG report, \xe2\x80\x9cBetter Controls are Needed to Help Prevent or Detect Duplicate Payment to\nAttorneys,\xe2\x80\x9d (A-13-92-000219), September 1992.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 4\n\x0cBA is unable to collect the overpayment, the case is sent to Special Counsel Staff\n(SCS) for collection and any appropriate administrative action regarding the\nrepresentative, which can include suspension and disbarment from the program. In\nCY 2000, SCS collected approximately $70,000 in remittances from attorneys. For\nthose duplicate attorney fees that SCS is unable to collect, SSA does not currently\npursue other recovery options, such as offsetting future payment of fees to attorneys8 or\nreferring these debts to the Treasury Offset Program.9\n\nAN OVERRIDE INDICATOR ALLOWS SELECTED ATTORNEY FEE PAYMENTS TO\nBYPASS DPPS\n\nNot all attorney fee payments flagged by DPPS are \xe2\x80\x9ctrue\xe2\x80\x9d duplicates. SSA refers to\nthese payments as \xe2\x80\x9cfalse\xe2\x80\x9d duplicates. There are two main causes of \xe2\x80\x9cfalse\xe2\x80\x9d duplicates.\nThe first is a returned check that has not been cashed due to a wrong attorney address.\nIf the BA tried to submit another payment to this attorney, the DPPS would flag the\npayment because the claimant\'s SSN matched the previous payment. The second\nreason a \xe2\x80\x9cfalse\xe2\x80\x9d duplicate payment occurs is when more than one attorney represents a\nclaimant. If more than one attorney is authorized a payment, multiple checks must be\nissued against the claimant\'s SSN. The DPPS would flag these payments because\nmore than one check was issued to the same SSN. To get around the problem of\n\xe2\x80\x9cfalse\xe2\x80\x9d duplicates, the override indicator is used. The override indicator allows a\npayment to bypass DPPS. A daily report of attorney fee payments paid using the\noverride indicator is printed and stored by the Integrity and Security Branch (ISB) at\nOCO.\n\nRULES GOVERNING CLAIMANT REPRESENTATION\n\nEffective September 3, 1998, SSA amended the rules governing representation of\nclaimants seeking DI or SSI benefits under titles II or XVI of the Social Security Act.\nThese regulations established standards of conduct and responsibilities for\nrepresentatives and further defined SSA\xe2\x80\x99s expectations regarding their obligations to\nclaimants.10 Among other functions, OHA\xe2\x80\x99s SCS serves as the Agency representative\nin actions against claimant representatives and investigates potential violations of laws\nand regulations by claimant representatives. When evidence exists that a\nrepresentative failed to meet SSA\xe2\x80\x99s qualification requirements, or has violated SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nrules, SCS may begin proceedings to suspend or disqualify that individual from acting\nas a representative. About once a year, SCS sends an updated list of\n\n8\n Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 404(a)(1)(A), may allow the Commissioner\nof Social Security to prescribe regulations relating to decreasing future fees for attorneys who are paid\nmore than the correct amount.\n9\n See Collection of overdue debts by administrative offset, 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 422.310.\n\n10\n Rules of Conduct and Standards of Responsibility for Representatives, 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1740 and\n416.1540.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 5\n\x0cdisqualified/suspended representatives to SSA Senior and Executive staffs; the Offices\nof the 10 Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges; all regional attorneys; all\nAdministrative Appeal Judges; all Appeals Officers; all Branch Chiefs in the Office of\nAppellate Operations; all hearing offices; the Regional Commissioners; and others with\na need to know. The list is also redistributed to SSA district offices. If a disqualified or\nsuspended claimant representative appears at a HO to represent a claimant, the HO is\nresponsible for identifying that claimant representative as disqualified or suspended.\n\nAs of October 2000, there were 78 disqualified and 4 suspended claimant\nrepresentatives. After more than 1 year from the date of the disqualification or\nsuspension, a disqualified or suspended representative may ask the Appeals Council\nfor permission to serve as a representative again.\n\nSCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\nTo achieve our objectives, we:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed staff at PC 7 and OHA headquarters.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Examined General Series Program Circulars initiated by PC 7.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Reviewed reports on payments made using the override indicator and the\n January 1999 and March 2000 reports, \xe2\x80\x9cNo Payments Made, Possible Duplicate\n One-Check Only A-\xe2\x80\x9d (see Appendix C for our methodology). We selected the\n January 1999 report because it was the earliest data available. We attempted to\n review the January 2000 report on attorney fee payments flagged by DPPS to make\n a comparison with January 1999 results. However, we were unable to perform a\n similar analysis due to an error in the printed report for January 2000. ISB staff is\n examining the cause of the error. We randomly chose the March 2000 report and\n found similar errors to those identified in the January 1999 report.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Performed a walk-through of the OCO A payment process at PC 7.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Examined the claimant representative disqualification/suspension list as of\n July 1999 and compared it to the attorney fee payments made by PC 7 from\n January 1999 through March 2000.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Conducted a survey of all 139 HOs to evaluate the screening process for\n disqualified/suspended claimant representatives.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Examined data on attorney names, addresses and payments from PC 7.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Reviewed Program Operations Manual System references and SSA laws and\n regulations governing the conduct of representatives in SSA proceedings.\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 6\n\x0cIn addition, we followed up on the status of pertinent recommendations contained in the\nfollowing reports:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t SSA/OIG report, \xe2\x80\x9cBetter Controls are Needed to Help Prevent or Detect Duplicate\n Payments to Attorneys,\xe2\x80\x9d (A-13-92-000219), September 15, 1992.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 SSA report, \xe2\x80\x9cAttorney Fee Processing,\xe2\x80\x9d December 16, 1997.\n\nWe planned to perform a statistical sample of attorney fee payments paid by PC 7 in\nCY 1999 that were processed using the override indicator. We were unable to verify the\naccuracy of the automated data on attorney fee payments paid using the override\nindicator because the records are not stored electronically.\n\nThe following table lists the number and amounts of attorney fee payments processed\nat PC 7 for CYs 1999 and 2000 by month. We did not conduct our review to determine\nwhether the number and amounts of attorney fee payments reported by PC 7 presented\nfairly the number and amounts actually expended. Nothing came to our attention to\nindicate that the number and amounts of attorney fee payments made by PC 7 were not\nthose listed in the table.\n\nTable 1: Attorney Fee Payments by Month\n January February March April May June July August September October November December\n\n\n\nCY 1999\n\nNumber 13,845 12,106 13,368 11,081 6,293 11,717 10,605 12,213 13,865 9,065 10,729 6,728\n\nAmounts $33.4 $28.5 $31.4 $26.2 $14.7 $28.4 $25 $30 $33.4 $22.4 $25.8 $16\n(in millions)\n\nCY 2000\n\nNumber 17,485 20,932 16,077 10,932 11,950 11,961 12,191 13,745 11,500 9,651 9,918 7,407\n\nAmounts $42 $51.2 $38.2 $25.7 $27.5 $27.3 $27.5 $31.4 $25.6 $21.8 $22.3 $16.8\n(in millions)\n\n\nTo estimate the total number of duplicate payments made to attorneys, we created a\nweighted average for CY 1999 using the duplicate attorney fee payments we identified\nin January 1999 divided by the total number of attorney fee payments made that month.\nWe then multiplied that weighted average by the total amount of attorney fee payments\nfor each month in CY 1999. We summed the totals for each month to get a grand total\nfor the year. We used the same methodology for CY 2000 using the March 2000\nduplicate payments identified.\n\nWe conducted our evaluation from March 2000 through January 2001. The entities\nreviewed were OCO under the Deputy Commissioner for Operations and OHA under\nthe Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs. Our review did\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 7\n\x0cnot include attorney fee payments made by PCs 1 through 6. We conducted this review\nin accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President\xe2\x80\x99s\nCouncil on Integrity and Efficiency.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 8\n\n\x0c Results of Review\n\nWe could not assess whether SSA made duplicate payments at six of eight PCs, since\nthese PCs did not track duplicate attorney fee payments. Even though PC 7\nimplemented DPPS in 1997 to prevent duplicate payments to attorneys, PC 7 made\nduplicate payments to attorneys during January 1999 and March 2000. Based on our\nreview of attorney fee payments made by PC 7, we found that:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t SSA made duplicate payments to attorneys during January 1999 and March 2000\n totaling $23,558 and $30,850, respectively;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 BAs did not follow procedures when using the DPPS override indicator; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 attorney fee payments with invalid or incorrect SSNs were not detected.\n\nIn addition, we determined that PC 7 did not pay attorney fees to any disqualified or\nsuspended individuals during the period covered by our review. However, we believe\nthe claimant representative screening process needs to be improved.\n\nATTORNEY FEE PAYMENT PROCESS\n\nSix of the eight PCs do not track duplicate attorney fee payments. SSA estimates that\nthese six PCs process 30 percent of the attorney fee payments. PC 7 does track\nduplicate attorney fee payments. However, the data that PC 7 collects on attorney fee\npayments are not standardized, which prevented us from taking a random sample.\nThere are variations in spelling and the use of titles for attorney names. In one\ninstance, there were 30 different spellings of the same attorney name. The name\ninformation contains the first and last name of the attorney in the same field, making it\nimpossible to do a computerized search on just the last name. We also experienced\ndifficulties in searching the address fields. The address fields are blended in with the\nclaimant\'s name. Many addresses also contain numerous variations in their spelling.\nBecause of the lack of standardization, we were unable to use data base technology to\nsort, query or report on the information. SSA does not track attorney fee payments by\nthe attorney\'s SSN, but instead uses the claimant\'s SSN. We believe the process for\ntracking attorney payments and the prevention of duplicate payments could be\nimproved if SSA recorded the attorney\xe2\x80\x99s SSN, name and address information.\nRecording such information would also allow SSA to prepare and send each attorney an\nIRS Form 1099.\n\nIn an attempt to eliminate duplicate payments from being made to attorneys, PC 7\ninstalled DPPS in 1997. However, the Associate Commissioner for Central Operations\nacknowledged in a January 2000 memorandum that duplicate payments to attorneys\nare still being made at PC 7. In conducting our review, we attempted to uncover the\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 9\n\x0ccause of the duplicate payments, identify the duplicate payments made in the past so\nthat they could be recovered, and determine what could be done to prevent this from\nhappening in the future.\n\nWe examined attorney fee payment reports that were generated by DPPS during\nJanuary 1999 and March 2000. Based on our examination of data from these reports\nand our analysis of the PHUS and the MBR, we believe that DPPS is generally working\nas intended. However, our analysis revealed the following.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t BAs did not follow procedures when using the override indicator, causing duplicate\n payments to occur. The override indicator is placed on the attorney fee payment\n form and allows an attorney fee payment to bypass DPPS. Twelve duplicate\n payments totaling $23,558 were made to attorneys in January 1999 and 15 duplicate\n payments totaling $30,850 were made to attorneys in March 2000.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Claimant records in PHUS were erroneous because SSA used incorrect SSNs when\n the payments were posted. An incorrect SSN is a valid SSN belonging to an\n individual other than the claimant who used the attorney\xe2\x80\x99s services. We determined\n that there are two causes for incorrect SSNs being processed. Either the BAs\n entered the incorrect SSN onto the payment authorization forms or keyers in the\n Data Input Unit (DIU) entered the incorrect SSN into the OCO A system. Thirty-four\n records in PHUS were incorrectly credited with attorney fee payments in January\n 1999 and 30 were incorrectly credited in March 2000 totaling $64,991 and $67,689,\n respectively. The likelihood of a duplicate payment increases when an attorney fee\n payment is processed with an incorrect SSN. The attorney receives a payment\n processed with the incorrect SSN and then later could receive a duplicate payment\n processed with the correct SSN.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t There are no system controls to prevent OCO A from processing invalid SSNs for\n attorney fee payments. An invalid SSN is one that has not been issued by SSA.\n Ten attorney fee payments were made using invalid SSNs in January 1999 and\n 11 were made in March 2000.\n\nDuplicate Payments\n\nBAs did not always follow procedures when using the override indicator. When these\npossible duplicate payments were identified by DPPS, the BA who initiated the payment\nwas supposed to examine the attorney fee payment records to determine whether the\nattorney had been paid previously. Instead of examining the payment reports, the BAs\nissued another payment using the override indicator. The attorney then received a\nduplicate payment. The first payment was made using an incorrect SSN and the\nsecond payment was made using the correct SSN. Based on the results of our review\nof January 1999 and March 2000 payments, and using a non-statistical weighted\naverage process, we estimate PC 7 paid $510,000 in duplicate payments to attorneys\nduring CYs 1999 and 2000.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 10\n\x0cIncorrect and Invalid SSNs\n\nAttorney fee payments with invalid or incorrect SSNs are not automatically detected\nbecause OCO A does not validate SSNs against the MBR. SSA has no verification\nmethod to ensure attorney fee payments are correctly associated with the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s\nSSN in the MBR. As a result, we had to manually determine why incorrect SSNs were\nused to make attorney fee payments. We requested 29 case folders where incorrect\nSSNs were used to make attorney fee payments during January 1999. Ten of the case\nfolders could not be analyzed because six folders did not contain the Form 2795 and\nfour folders could not be found. For the 19 cases that we were able to analyze, human\nerror was to blame for the SSNs being input incorrectly into OCO A. In 13 out of\n19 cases (68 percent), keyers in the DIU typed incorrect SSNs into the OCO A; and in\n6 out of 19 cases (32 percent), BAs entered incorrect SSNs onto the Form 2795. We\nalso requested the 10 case folders where attorney fee payments were made using\ninvalid SSNs. We could not determine the reason why these attorney fee payments\nwere paid using invalid SSNs. Eight of the cases did not contain either the Form 2795\nor the OCO A output information. The remaining two case folders could not be found.\n\nWe worked closely with PC 7 and ISB during this evaluation. ISB staff are working with\nthe U.S. Department of Treasury to determine whether the attorneys cashed the\nduplicate payments. As of June 2001, ISB staff had recovered $40,838 in duplicate\npayments and are in the process of collecting other duplicate payments we identified.\nISB has also corrected the PHUS records.\n\nISB has printed copies of the \xe2\x80\x9cNo Payments Made, Possible Duplicate One-Check Only\nA-\xe2\x80\x9c reports dating back to January 1999. SSA can use the methodology outlined in\nAppendix C to identify duplicate payments that were made using the override indicator\nsince January 1999. Duplicate payments made using the override indicator prior to\nJanuary 1999 cannot be identified, since ISB no longer has those printed reports.\n\nSCREENING OF DISQUALIFIED/SUSPENDED CLAIMANT REPRESENTATIVES\n\nBased on attorney fee payments made by PC 7 between January 1999 and March\n2000, we determined that attorney fees were not paid to any disqualified or suspended\nrepresentatives. However, we believe the claimant representative screening process\nneeds to be improved, because not all HOs received the disqualification/suspension list\nand some did not get instructions on what to do with the list.\n\nSCS prepares a list of disqualified and suspended claimant representatives and, about\nonce a year, sends by e-mail an updated list to the offices and personnel listed in\nAppendix D. The Privacy Act prevents SSA from disclosing this list to the public. The\nresults from our survey of the HOs are illustrated in Table 2.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 11\n\x0cTable 2. Results of HO Survey\n Number of Total Percent\n Survey Characteristic Respondents Number of Total\n HOs responding to the survey 139 139 100\n HOs reporting that they did not receive the list 34 139 24\n HOs reporting that they did receive the list but\n did not receive instructions on what to do with 34 105 32\n the list\n\nThe survey questionnaire is shown in Appendix E. We received survey responses from\nall 139 HOs.11 From these survey results, we concluded that the current process is not\nworking as well as it could. Thirty-four HOs stated that they never received the\ndisqualification/suspension list and 34 HOs reported that they do not know what to do\nwith the list.12 By placing the list on SSA\xe2\x80\x99s intranet, every HO would have real-time\naccess to the current list, and access would be limited to SSA employees.\n\n\n\n\n11\n At the time of our survey, there were 139 HOs. As of February 2001, there were 138 HOs.\n12\n Section I -1-150G (Processing an Alleged Violation) of the Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law\nManual sets forth instructions for OHA employees.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 12\n\x0c Conclusions and\n Recommendations\nIn 1997, SSA improved its controls over attorney fee payments by implementing DPPS\nat PC 7. However, PC 7 continues to make duplicate payments to attorneys\nrepresenting claimants. Further, SSA does not track duplicate attorney fee payments at\nthe other PCs. SSA estimates that these PCs process 30 percent of all attorney fee\npayments. While PC 7 does track duplicate attorney fee payments, they use the\nclaimant\xe2\x80\x99s SSN for tracking purposes and process these payments through an\ninefficient and error-prone OCO A system.\n\nDuring our evaluation, we reviewed attorney fee payments made in January 1999 and\nMarch 2000. Our review found duplicate attorney fee payments during both of these\nmonths. Since SSA did not improve its controls over the attorney fee payment process\nsince our review began, we believe that similar errors have occurred in the intervening\nmonths and are still occurring. Based on the results of our review of January 1999 and\nMarch 2000 payments, and using a non-statistical weighted average process, we\nestimate PC 7 paid $510,000 in duplicate payments to attorneys during CYs 1999 and\n2000.\n\nWe recommend that SSA:\n\n1. Establish an automated system to account for attorney fee payments at all PCs;\n\n2. \t Collect each attorney\xe2\x80\x99s SSN, name and address information so IRS Form 1099 can\n be issued to attorneys;\n\n3. \t Develop procedures for other recovery options when SCS is unable to collect\n duplicate payments made to attorneys, such as offsetting future payments to\n attorneys, or referring these debts to the Treasury Offset Program;\n\n4. \t Identify and recover duplicate attorney fee payments made since January 1999 due\n to incorrect use of the override indicator by BAs;\n\n5. \t Establish a procedure for reviewing the override indicator reports as they are\n generated;\n\n6. \t Correct PHUS records for all accounts where incorrect and invalid SSNs were\n processed to make attorney fee payments since January 1999;\n\n7. \t Develop a system edit in the OCO A system so that invalid beneficiary SSNs cannot\n be processed for attorney fee payments;\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 13\n\x0c8. Remind BAs of correct procedures when using the override indicator;\n\n9. \t Establish quality control measures for keyers in DIU to prevent input errors of SSNs\n into the OCO A;\n\n10. Set a priority for automating the OCO A system, so that attorney fee payments can\n be validated against the Master Beneficiary Record; and\n\n11. Issue instructions for screening disqualified or suspended claimant representatives\n and place the disqualification/suspension list on SSA\xe2\x80\x99s intranet, so that every SSA\n office that needs to identify attorneys will have instant access to screening\n procedures and an up-to-date list.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS\nSSA agreed with nine of our recommendations, but did not concur with our seventh and\ntenth recommendations\xe2\x80\x94addressing modifications and automate of the OCO A system.\nSSA plans to install a new Single Payment System in 2002 to process attorney fee\npayments. As a result, SSA does not want to shift resources from this new system to\nimprove the OCO A system since it will be replaced soon.\n\nOIG RESPONSE\nOnce SSA completes the corrective actions described in its response, staff should have\nquality controls to reduce the number of duplicate attorney fee payments being issued\nand to prevent disqualified/suspended claimant representatives from participating in the\nprocess. However, we believe that duplicate payments will continue until the OCO A\nsystem is improved or replaced.\n\nWe believe that SSA will have a difficult time meeting its goal of implementing a new\nSingle Payment System by 2002, since there are challenging technical difficulties in\nautomating such a large, complicated system. In FY 2000, there were over\n500,000 attorney fee payments made at 8 PCs located across the country. Automating\nthe attorney fee payments at one location is difficult, but coordinating the automation at\n8 different locations will take time. Over the past 4 years, SSA has planned to automate\nthe manual, error-prone OCO A system, but other automation priorities have\ncontinuously postponed this endeavor. A SSA task force in 1997 made\nrecommendations to improve the attorney fee payment process, but SSA did not act on\nthose recommendations.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 14\n\x0c Other Matters\n\nDuring the course of our review, a question came to our attention regarding SSA\xe2\x80\x99s legal\nresponsibility for issuing IRS Form 1099 to attorneys. While this issue was outside the\nscope of our review, we believe it should be brought to management\xe2\x80\x99s attention. We\nwill research this issue further and report our results to SSA separately.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027) 15\n\x0c Appendices\n\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c Appendix A\nOne-Check Only A- Process at Office of Central Operations (1)\n\n M anuaP\n l rocess E l e c t r o n i cP rocess\n\n F o r m 2 7 9 5 R e t u r n e d t o M o d u le\n\n\n D u p lic a teP a y m e n t\n M o d u le s P a y m e n tA c c o u n t i n g S e c t i o n D a t aI n p u t U n i t P re v e n tio n S y stem\n NO\n\n K e y er: (5 )\n (2 ) T e c h n ic a l A s s is ta n t : (3 ) Fo rm\n B e n e fit A u th o riz e r : 2 7 9 5 fo r m\n E rro r\n se nt T o\n F ree? K e y s b a tc h e d f o rm s in to S eeA p p e n d ixB :\n C hecks R e v i e w sF o r m 2 7 9 5 f o r O n e - C h e c k O n lyA - F lo w D i a g r a m o f t h e\n M a s t e r B e n e f ic i a r y R e c o r d & a c c u r a c y , c o m p le t e n e s s ,a n d a p p li c a tio n p r o g ra m v i a th e P a y m en t d a tas en t D u p lic a te P a y m e n t\n YES to\n P a y m e n t H is t o r y U p d a t e S y s t e m . p r o p e ra u t h o r i z a t i o n . ( 4 ) ed F A L C O N s y s te m . e le c tr o n ic a lly t o P re v e n tio n S y s te m\n er\n iv\n el\n P r e p a re sF o r m 2 7 9 5 . sd\n F o rm s 2 7 9 5 a re b a tc h e d in to rm A u d it C h e c k : T o ta l\n fo\n g ro u p s o f 2 0 . d p a y m e n t a m o u n t p e r b a tc h\n O b ta in s s ig n a tu res . he\n tc\n Ba c o m p a re d a g a in s t k e y ed\n A u d itC h e c k : P a y m e n t p a y m e n ta m o u n t .\n a m o u n t o n e ac h f o rm a n d t o tal\n p a y m e n t a m o u n tp e r b a t c h a r e A u d it T r a i l: B a tc h e d f o r m s\n a tta c h e d to th e f ro n t o f th e re tu rn e d t o P a y m en t\n b a tc h . A c c o u n tin gS e c tio n fo r\n a rc h iv in g .\n\n\n\n\n IN D E X\n\n ( 1 ) P r o c e s s i n g C e n t e r 7 p r o c e s s e s a n a v e r a g e o f 6 0 ,0 0 0 O n e - C h e c k O n ly A -p a y m e n t s e a c h m o n t h .\n O n e - C h e c k O n ly A -P r o c e s s u s e d f o r :\n - - - C la i m a n t B e n e f i t > $ 3 0 ,0 0 0\n - --B a n k R e c la m a tio n s\n - - - A t t o r n e y F e e P a y m e n t s ( 1 3 1 ,6 1 6 a t t o r n e y p a y m e n t s i n C a l e n d a r Y e a r 1 9 9 9 )\n - --G a rn is h m e n ts\n - --T a x L e v ie s\n\n ( 2 ) 4 8 M o d u le s\n 9 2 3 B e n efit A u th o riz e rs\n\n ( 3 )\n 4 T e c h n i c a l A s s i s t a n t s\n\n ( 4 ) P r o p e r A u t h o r i z a t i o n s :\n\n P a y m e n t s > $ 5 , 0 0 0 B e n e f i t A u t h o r i z e rP e e r s i g n a t u r e r e q u i r e d .\n P a y m e n t s > $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 M a n a g e m e n ts i g n a t u r e r e q u i r e d .\n P a y m e n t s > $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 In t e r g r i t y B r a n c h p e r s o n n e l s i g n a t u r e r e q u i r e d .\n\n (5 ) 1 7 k eyers\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c Appendix B\n Duplicate Payment Prevention System\n Duplicate Payment Prevention System\n Division Report\n Payment Accounting Section: reviewedby Modules\n Benefit\n Pull Form 2795 from batch and A uthorizer\n return to Benefit Authorizer. Program Analyst:\n Benefit Authorizer:\n Outputs:\n File reports.\n Determine if payment is true duplicate.\n Daily and bi-weekly reports of no\n Yes payment made.\n Computer Analyst:\n Payment input from\n Performs data base\n One-Check Only A- Payment\nap plication program match of:\n Flagged? No\n Outputs: Tr ue Resubmit\n ---Beneficiary Social Duplicate\n Security number Form 2795\n No Integrity Branch Payment?\n Daily, weekly, and monthly reports using\n on One-Check Only A- payments. override Indicator.\n Payment Disability Specialist:\n Daily report of payments made Yes\n using override indicator.\n File reports.\n\n Currently there are no audits\n performed on payments made\n using override indicator.\n E lectronic transmission to Department of Treasury.\n M aster Beneficiay Record updated through\n Manual Adjustment Credit Award Program.\n Pa yment History Update System annotated.\n Destroy Form 2795\n\n\n\n\n Approval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c Appendix C\nMethodology for Determining Duplicate\nAttorney Fee Payments\nSteps taken to determine the number and amount of duplicate payments made by the\nOne-Check Only A- system:\n\n1. \t Obtained a copy of the January 1999 report, \xe2\x80\x9cNo Payments Made, Possible\n Duplicate One-Check Only A-.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n2. \t Manually identified the unique records contained in the report. Reviewed every\n record in the report, and eliminated any duplicates. We identified 1,060 unique\n records that were flagged by the Duplicate Payment Prevention System as possible\n duplicate payments in January 1999.\n\n3. \t Identified attorney fee payments that were flagged by DPPS as closely matched\n Social Security numbers (SSN) to attorney fee payments that were made in the past.\n The following record was taken from the January 1999 report, \xe2\x80\x9cNo Payments Made,\n Possible Duplicate One-Check Only A-.\xe2\x80\x9d The attorney fee payment in the first row\n was paid using (SSN 088-XX-XXXX) on December 1, 1998. The attorney fee\n payment in the second row using (SSN 085-XX-XXXX)1 was flagged as a possible\n duplicate when it was submitted on January 29, 1999. There were 160 attorney fee\n payments flagged by DPPS in January 1999 as possible duplicates because of\n closely matched SSNs.\n\n Payment\n SSN Amount Indicator Module Payee Name Zip Date\n Paid Code and Address Code Paid\n 088-XX-XXXX $1,523 AT 05 Attorney and 11550 December 1, 1998\n claimant info\n 085-XX-XXXX $1,523 AT J8 Identical 11550 January 29, 1999\n attorney and\n claimant info\n\n4. \t Determined whether an incorrect or invalid SSN was used when inputting the\n attorney fee payment into OCO A. Checked the Master Beneficiary Record for both\n SSNs to verify which claimant used the attorney. Checked the Payment History\n Update System for both SSNs to verify whether the attorney fee payment was made\n only under the incorrect SSN, or made under both SSNs.\n\n\n\n1\n The last six digits are the same.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c Appendix D\nOffices and Personnel Sent the List of\nDisqualified/Suspended Representatives\nSocial Security Administration (SSA) Executive Staff\n\n\nOffice of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Headquarters Executive Staff\n\n\nAll Administrative Appeals Judges, All Adjudication Officers, All Branch Chiefs\n\n\nThe Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge in each of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s 10 regions\n\n\nAll Regional Attorneys in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s 10 regions\n\n\nAll 139 HOs in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s 10 regions\n\n\nAll Regional Commissioners in each of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s 10 regions\n\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c Appendix E\nOffice of the Inspector General Survey\nInstrument\n\n Your Name\n Title\n Hearing Office\n Phone Number\n\n Questions to Determine\n Claimant Representative Screening Process\n\n 1. Do you receive a list of disqualified, suspended\n or not recognized claimant representatives? If not,\n please stop here.\n 2. How often do you receive the list?\n 3. How do you receive the list? Email? List placed\n on bulletin board? Other? Please specify!\n 4. What is the date on the latest list?\n 5. How many disqualified, suspended, or not Number of disqualified =\n recognized claimant representatives are on the list Number of suspended =\n you currently have?\n 6. What are you instructed to do with the list of\n disqualified, suspended or not recognized claimant\n representatives?\n 7. Are there instructions for screening persons\n appointed by claimants against the disqualified,\n suspended, or not recognized list?\n 8. Has your office ever experienced or witnessed a\n disqualified, suspended, or not recognized person\n who has tried to represent a claimant?\n 9. If you responded yes to number 8, what did you\n or anyone else do about it?\n 10. Do you have any suggestions for how to\n improve the screening process to prevent\n disqualified, suspended, or not recognized persons\n from representing claimants?\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c Appendix F\n\nAgency Comments\n\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c\xc2\xa5EMORANDUM\n\n\nDate:\n August 13,2001 Refer To: SlJ-3\n\nTo: JamesG. Ruse, Jr.\n Inspector General\n\nFrom: Larry G. Massanari (\n Acting\n ~\n\nSubject: Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, "Approval of Claimant Representatives and\n FeesPaid to Attomeys"{A-12-00-10027)-INFORMATION.\n\n We appreciatethe OIG\'s efforts in conducting this review. Our comments on the draft report\n and the specific recommendations are attached.\n\n Pleaselet us know if we may be of further assistance. Staff questionsmay be referred to\n Robert Berzanski on extension 52675.\n\n Attachment:\n SSA Response\n\x0cCOMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT REPORT,\n\xe2\x80\x9cAPPROVAL OF CLAIMANT REPRESENTATIVES AND FEES PAID TO ATTORNEYS\xe2\x80\x9d\n(A-12-00-10027)\n\nThank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on this draft report.\n\nBefore addressing the specific recommendations, we would like to note that we have been\nexamining the attorney fee process over the last year. Among its activities, the Representative\xe2\x80\x99s\nFee Process Review Workgroup, established in May 2000, reviewed the current level of\nautomation, data collection and management information. Subsequently, in May 2001, the\nActing Commissioner established an Executive Task Force to oversee the development of a plan\nfor improvement of the attorney fee payment process and to build on the work of the\nRepresentative\'s Fee Process Review Workgroup. The Task Force is developing an approach for\nimproving the attorney fee process that includes improvements in automation.\n\nFollowing are our comments on the recommendations.\n\nRecommendation 1\n\nEstablish an automated system to account for attorney fee payments at all seven Processing\nCenters (PCs).\n\nComment\n\nThe Social Security Administration (SSA) will implement a new Single Payment System (SPS)\nin 2002 that will:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Record all attorney fee payments nationwide;\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Provide for Customer Information Control System screens to automate the payment\n (eliminating the Data Input Unit participation in paying attorney fees);\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Check Master Beneficiary Record (MBR)/Payment History Update System(PHUS)/Critical\n Payment System data bases to ensure that the attorney fee payment is not a duplicate;\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Release attorney fee payments only when a MBR has been established with attorney fee\n withholding present;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Establish a record of who issued the payment; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Establish a record of who and why an override was input.\n\nRecommendation 2\n\nCollect each attorney\xe2\x80\x99s Social Security number (SSN), name and address information so IRS\nForm 1099 can be issued to attorneys.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (CIN A-12-10027) F-2\n\x0cComment\n\nSSA\'s Executive Task Force is addressing the issue of providing IRS Form 1099 to attorneys and\nis developing a business process for issuing these forms. A timeline for implementation has not\nyet been determined.\n\nRecommendation 3\n\nDevelop procedures for other recovery options when the Office of Hearings and Appeals\' (OHA)\nSpecial Counsel Staff (SCS) is unable to collect duplicate payments to attorneys, such as\noffsetting future payments to attorneys or referring these debts to the Treasury Offset Program.\nComment\n\nWe concur. We currently are exploring the availability and use of the various recovery options\nand plan to develop procedures using those recovery tools that prove feasible.\n\nRecommendation 4\n\nIdentify and recover duplicate attorney fee payments made since January 1999 due to incorrect\nuse of the override indicator by Benefit Authorizers (BAs).\n\nComment\n\nWe concur. SSA identified the duplicate payments and started the recovery process in August\n2000. The completion date depends upon the degree of verification and/or documentation\nrequested by the recipients of the duplicate payments.\n\nRecommendation 5\n\nEstablish a procedure for reviewing the override indicator reports as they are generated.\n\nComment\n\nWe concur. SSA will establish a procedure for reviewing the reports by January 2002.\n\nRecommendation 6\n\nCorrect PHUS records for all accounts where incorrect and invalid SSNs were processed to make\nattorney fee payments since January 1999.\n\nComment\n\nWe concur. SSA initiated corrective actions on the PHUS records in September 2000.\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (CIN A-12-10027) F-3\n\x0cRecommendation 7\n\n\nDevelop a system edit in the One-Check Only A- (OCO A) system so that invalid beneficiary\n\nSSNs cannot be processed for attorney fee payments.\n\n\nComment\n\n\nWe do not concur. The SPS described in the response to Recommendation 1 will perform\n\nvalidation against the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s SSN. We do not want to shift resources from the SPS project\n\nto a system that will soon be obsolete.\n\n\nRecommendation 8\n\n\nRemind BAs of correct procedures when using the override indicator.\n\n\nComment\n\n\nWe concur. SSA will issue a reminder item by August 31, 2001.\n\n\nRecommendation 9\n\n\nEstablish quality control measures for keyers in the Data Input Unit to prevent input errors of\n\nSSNs into the OCO A.\n\n\nComment\n\n\nWe concur. Control measures will be implemented by October 1, 2001.\n\n\nRecommendation 10\n\n\nSet a priority for automating the OCO A system, so that attorney fee payments can be validated\n\nagainst the MBR.\n\n\nComment\n\n\nWe do not concur. The SPS will perform validation against the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s SSN. We do not\n\nwant to shift resources from the SPS project to a system that will soon be obsolete.\n\n\nRecommendation 11\n\n\nIssue instructions for screening disqualified or suspended claimant representatives and place the\n\ndisqualification/suspension list on SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Intranet, so that every SSA office that needs to identify\n\nattorneys will have instant access to screening procedures and an\n\nup-to-date list.\n\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (CIN A-12-10027) F-4\n\x0cComment\n\nWe agree and have already implemented this recommendation. HALLEX and POMS, which are\nboth available through the SSA Intranet, provide extensive instructions on how to proceed if a\nclaimant representative is identified as suspended or disqualified from representing claimants.\n\nIn April 2001, we informed our employees in field and hearing offices that future lists of\ncurrently disqualified or suspended representatives would appear on the SSA Intranet and would\nbe promptly updated by the SCS as soon as a suspension or disqualification decision became\nfinal. We emphasize that it is not only attorneys that can appear on the disqualified/suspension\nlist.\n\nOn June 18, 2001, we sent a follow up message to our employees identifying the Intranet site\naddress for the list, making clear that the site is currently operational and identifying the SCS\ncontact for further questions.\n\nWe expect revisions with more detailed instructions for the Intranet site to be available by\nSeptember 30, 2001.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (CIN A-12-10027) F-5\n\x0c Appendix G\nOIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements\nOIG Contacts\n\n Rona Rustigian, Acting Director, Disability Program Audit Division, (617) 565-1819\n\n Michael Maloney, Deputy Director, (703) 578-8844\n\nAcknowledgements\n\nIn addition to those named above:\n\n Nicholas Milanek, Program Analyst\n\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please contact Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s\nPublic Affairs Specialist at (410) 966-5998. Refer to Common Identification Number\nA-12-00-10027.\n\n\n\n\nApproval of Claimant Representatives and Fees Paid to Attorneys (A-12-00-10027)\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\n No. of\n CaRies\n\nCommissioner of Social Security 1\nManagement Analysis and Audit Program Support Staff, OFAM 10\n\nInspector General 1\nAssistant Inspector General for Investigations 1\nAssistant Inspector General for Executive Operations 3\nAssistant Inspector General for Audit 1\n I\nDeputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit 1\n Director, Systems Audit Division\n\n Director, Financial Management and Performance Monitoring Audit Division 1\n Director, Operational Audit Division 1\n\n Director, Disability Program Audit Division 1\n\n Djrector, Program Benefits Audit Division 1\n\n Director, General Management Audit Division\n\nIssue Area Team Leaders 25\n\n\nIncome Maintenance Branch, Office of Management and Budget 1\n\n\nChairman, Committee on Ways and Means 1\nRanking Minority Member, Committee on Ways and Means 1\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means 1\nChairman, Subcommittee on Social Security 2\nRanking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security 1\nMajority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security 2\nMinority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security 2\nChairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources 1\nRanking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human Resources\n\nChairman, Committee on Budget, House of Representatives\n\nRanking Minority Member, Committee on Budget, House of Representatives\n\nChairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight\n\nRanking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight\n\nChairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs\n\nRanking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs\n\n\x0c Page 2\n\nChairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives 1\nRanking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives 1\nChairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education\n and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives 1\nRanking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\n Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives 1\nChairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate 1\nRanking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate 1\nChairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education\n and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate 1\nRanking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\n Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n U.S. Senate 1\nChairman, Committee on Finance 1\nRanking Minority Member, Committee on Finance 1\nChairman, Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy 1\nRanking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy 1\nChairman, Senate Special Committee on Aging 1\n\nRanking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging 1\n\nVice Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management Information\n and Technology 1\nPresident, National Council of Social Security Management Associations,\n Incorporated 1\nTreasurer, National Council of Social Security Management Associations,\n Incorporated 1\nSocial Security Advisory Board 1\nAFGE General Committee 9\nPresident, Federal Managers Association 1\nRegional Public Affairs Officer 1\n\n\nTotal 97\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\n\n\n Office of Audit\nThe Office of Audit (OA) conducts comprehensivefinancial and performance audits of the\nSocial Security Administration\'s (SSA) programs and makes recommendations to ensurethat\nprogram objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits, required by the\nChief Financial Officers Act of 1990, assesswhether SSA\' s financial statementsfairly present\nthe Agency\'s financial position, results of operations, and cash flow. Performance audits review\nthe economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\' s programs. OA also conducts short-term\nmanagementand program evaluations focused on issuesof concern to SSA, Congress,and the\ngeneralpublic. Evaluations often focus on identifying and recommending ways to prevent and\nminimize program fraud and inefficiency.\n\n Office of Executive Operations\nThe Office of Executive Operations (OEO) supportsthe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) by\nproviding information resourcemanagement;systemssecurity; and the coordination of budget,\nprocurement, telecommunications, facilities and equipment, and human resources. In addition,\nthis office is the focal point for the OIG\'s strategic planning function and the development and\nimplementation of performance measuresrequired by the Government Performance and Results\nAct. OEO is also responsible for performing internal reviews to ensurethat OIG offices\nnationwide hold themselves to the samerigorous standardsthat we expect from the Agency, as\nwell as conducting employee investigations within OIG. Finally, OEO administers OIG\'s public\naffairs, media, and interagency activities and also communicates OIG\'s planned and current\nactivities and their results to the Commissioner and Congress.\n\n Office of Investigations\nThe Office of Investigations (01) conducts and coordinates investigative activity related to fraud.\nwaste, abuse,and mismanagementof SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing\nby applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, physicians, interpreters, representativepayees,third\nparties, and by SSA employeesin the performance of their duties. Or also conductsjoint\ninvestigations with other Federal, State,and local law enforcement agencies.\n\n Counsel to the Inspector General\nThe Counsel to the Inspector General provides legal advice and counsel to the Inspector General\non various matters, including: l) statutes,regulations, legislation, and policy directives\ngoverning the administration of SSA\' s programs; 2) investigative procedures and techniques; and\n3) legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material produced\nby the DIG. The Counsel\'s office also administers the civil monetary penalty program.\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Černé moře ( [Černo more], , [Čorne more], [Čornoje more], [Amšyn Eiqwa], megrelsky [Uč'a zugha], [Šavi zghva], ) je moře Atlantského oceánu, se kterým je však spojeno pouze prostřednictvím Středozemního moře, na něž navazuje v oblasti Bosporu.
 Geografie
 Kromě zmíněného spojení se Středozemním mořem jde víceméně o vnitrozemské moře, obklopené ze všech stran pevninou: na severozápadě evropskou, na jihovýchodě asijskou. Kolem moře se rozkládají následující země: na západě balkánské státy Bulharsko a Rumunsko, na severu Ukrajina, na severovýchodě Rusko, na východě Gruzie, na jihu Turecko.
 Černé moře se rozkládá na ploše 461 000 km2 a jeho největší známá hloubka je 2210 m.
 Největšími řekami, které do Černého moře přivádějí své vody, jsou Dunaj na pomezí Rumunska a Ukrajiny, Dněstr a Dněpr na Ukrajině a Don v Rusku.
 Za součást Černého moře bývá považováno menší Azovské moře, jež od Černého moře na severovýchodě odděluje Kerčský průliv. Ze severu do Černého moře vybíhá poloostrov Krym.
 Významné přístavy
 Největšími přístavy jsou Oděsa, Čornomorsk, Sevastopol, Jalta, Kerč, Novorossijsk, Soči, Poti, Batumi, Trabzon, Samsun, Varna, Burgas a Constanța.
 Etymologie
 Současné pojmenování Černé moře je v překladu používáno ve většině okolních zemí, ale nebylo zatím doloženo jejich používání před 13. stoletím:
 , přepis: Amšyn Eiķa̋a, ()
 agydejsky Хы шӏуцӏэ, přepis: Xı Ş́uts’ə, ()
 , přepis: Sev tsov, ()
 , přepis: Cherno more, ()
 , přepis: Qara deñiz, ()
 , přepis: shavi zghva, ()
 lazsky a mergelsky უჩა ზუღა, přepis: Ucha Zugha, () nebo mergelsky ზუღა, přepis: Zugha, (), tj. „moře“
 , ()
 , přepis: Chyornoye móre, ()
 , ()
 , přepis: Chorne more, ()
 V řečtině široce využíván historický název „Euxinské moře“ (což může mít různé významy, viz níže) a méně často název pro Černé moře:
 , přepis: Eúxinos Póndos, (), doslova „Pohostinné moře“
 , přepis: Mávri Thálassa, (), doslova „Černé moře“
 Původní řecký název Póntos Áxeinos je obecně přijímán jako ztvárnění íránského slova *axšaina- („tmavě zbarvený“). Starověcí řečtí cestovatelé přijali jméno jako Á-xe(i)nos související s řeckým slovem áxeinos („nehostinný“). Jméno Πόντος Ἄξεινος (Póntos Áxeinos, tj. „Nehostinné moře“) je poprvé doloženo v díle Pindarose (asi 475 př. n. l.), avšak protože bylo takové jméno považováno za zlé znamení, bylo eufemizováno na jeho opak, Εὔξειν Seaς (tj. „Pohostinné moře“), což také poprvé zmiňuje Pindaros. Nové označení se stalo v řečtině běžným, i když v řeckém mytologickém kontextu zůstalo oblíbené „pravé“ jméno Póntos Áxeinos. Ranně středověké zmínky o Ruském moři jsou spojeny s útvarem Kyjevská Rus (9.–11. století, dnešní Ukrajina), protože Moskevské velkoknížectví převzalo název Rusko až v roce 1721.
 Vznik Černého moře
 Na konci poslední doby ledové bylo Černé moře jezero, jehož hladina byla o 170 metrů níže než dnes. Vznik dnešního mořského dna se datuje do doby před 1,7 mil. let. Během ledových dob bylo Černé moře odříznuto od Středozemního. V této době byly nízké srážkové úhrny a přítoky řek nebyly dostatečné a proto jezero vysychalo. Podobně i hladina Středozemního moře, které bylo rovněž vnitrozemským jezerem, klesla o 30 metrů. Po jeho opětovném spojení s Atlantikem přes Gibraltarskou úžinu se jeho hladina zvyšovala a hladina Středozemního moře se začala přelévat i do Černomořského jezera. Možná i v souvislosti s tektonickou nebo sopečnou aktivitou v oblasti došlo nakonec k prolomení Bosporské úžiny před asi 7600 lety. V této době existovala na březích Černého moře vyspělá civilizace, která byla rychle postupující záplavou zničena. Podle počítačových modelů stoupala hladina přibližně o 12–15 cm denně, což znamenalo postup moře až o 1 km denně. V této době byla hladina o 120 metrů níže než dnes.
 Existují důkazy, že Černé moře bylo přechodně před prolomením Bosporu sladkovodním jezerem. Náhlý příval slané vody tak musel způsobit ekologickou katastrofu i pro samotné vodní organismy.
 Je možné, že zánik civilizací na březích Černomořského jezera byl předlohou pro příběh biblické povodně nebo i v legendě o Atlantidě. Na druhou stranu je jasné, že největší katastrofa se odehrála při severních březích moře a v prostoru dnešního Azovského moře, kde vodní hladina zalila stovky kilometrů souše. Podle provedených propočtů vyrovnávání hladin trvalo asi 35 let, kdežto biblická povodeň 40 dní.
 Odkazy
 Reference
 Související články
 Zemětřesení v Černém moři 1901
 Literatura
 Externí odkazy
 Moře Asie
 Moře Evropy
 Vodstvo Turecka
 Vodstvo Bulharska
 Dobričská oblast
 Varenská oblast
 Burgaská oblast
 Vodstvo Rumunska
 Vodstvo Ukrajiny
 Krym
 Moře Ruska
 Krasnodarský kraj
 Vodstvo Gruzie
 Geografie Abcházie
 Části Středozemního moře
 Hydronyma podle barev


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 14.3.2016
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 98/57
 Žaloba podaná 25. januára 2016 – Česká republika/Komisia
 (Vec T-32/16)
 (2016/C 098/73)
 Jazyk konania: čeština
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobkyňa: Česká republika (v zastúpení: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, splnomocnení zástupcovia)
 Žalovaná: Európska komisia
 Návrhy
 Žalobkyňa navrhuje, aby Všeobecný súd:
 —
 zrušil vykonávacie rozhodnutie Komisie (EU) 2015/2098 z 13. novembra 2015, ktorým sa z financovania Európskou úniou vylučujú určité výdavky vynaložené členskými štátmi v rámci Európskeho poľnohospodárskeho záručného fondu (EPZF) a v rámci Európskeho poľnohospodárskeho fondu pre rozvoj vidieka (EPFRV) v rozsahu, v akom vylučuje výdavky v celkovej výške 584 299,25 eur vynaložené Českou republikou, a
 —
 zaviazal Európsku komisiu na náhradu trov konania.
 Dôvody a hlavné tvrdenia
 Na podporu svojej žaloby, žalobkyňa uvádza dva žalobné dôvody.
 1.
 Prvý žalobný dôvod založený na porušení článku 52 ods. 1 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1306/2013 zo 17. decembra 2013 o financovaní, riadení a monitorovaní spoločnej poľnohospodárskej politiky.
 —
 Komisia rozhodla o vylúčení výdavkov z financovania Úniou, hoci nedošlo k porušeniu práva Únie ani vnútroštátneho práva. Komisia sa totiž nesprávne domnievala, že uplatňovanie nižšieho maximálneho veku nadobúdateľa v prípade podpory odchodu do predčasného dôchodku vyžaduje zmenu programu pre rozvoj vidieka v zmysle článku 19 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1698/2005 z 20. septembra 2005 o podpore rozvoja vidieka prostredníctvom Európskeho poľnohospodárskeho fondu pre rozvoj vidieka (EPFRV).
 2.
 Ak Všeobecný súd nevyhovie prvému žalobnému dôvodu, žalobkyňa uplatňuje druhý žalobný dôvod vychádzajúci z porušenia článku 52 ods. 2 nariadenia č. 1306/2013.
 —
 Aj ak by uplatňovanie nižšieho maximálneho veku nadobúdateľa v prípade podpory odchodu do predčasného dôchodku bez zmeny programu pre rozvoj vidieka predstavovalo porušenie nariadenia č. 1698/2005 (quod non), Komisia nesprávne posúdila závažnosť tohto porušenia a finančnú ujmu spôsobenú Únii. Závažnosť tohto prípadného porušenia je totiž minimálna a nedošlo k žiadnej finančnej ujme Únie.