Frank Bisignano was sworn in as the new Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025 following a Senate confirmation vote of 53-47 that fell along party lines. Bisignano now leads an agency experiencing significant upheaval: a massive reduction in force, structural reorganization, and historic lows in the level of customer service. 

As discussed in the April 2025 issue of this newsletter, Senate Democrats had opposed Bisignano’s confirmation due to reports of his coordination with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to radically reduce Social Security Administration (SSA) staff and offices, and to obtain improper access to SSA systems. They also criticized his record of sharply reducing workforce in his last role in the private sector. Although Bisignano denied contact with DOGE at his confirmation hearing, he admitted communication with DOGE-affiliate Michael Russo, who was later elevated to CIO. He also described himself as “a DOGE person” and has praised its work. 

While DOGE no longer formally operates within SSA, there are still DOGE-affiliated staff remaining at the agency, and many of DOGE’s priorities—downsizing, automation, and data centralization—appear to be continuing under Bisignano’s leadership.

As discussed in the accompanying article on American Oversight v. Treasury and SSA, watchdog groups are actively litigating DOGE’s role in accessing SSA systems and influencing agency policy. The Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in SSA v. AFSCME, temporarily permitted DOGE to access SSA data. 

Government Executive and other sources reported that soon after assuming his role as Commissioner, Bisignano joked to SSA staff that he had to “Google his new job” when nominated, a remark that raised concerns about his potential lack of preparedness and  relevant experience to lead a complex public benefits agency. Bisignano comes to SSA with a long career in the financial technology industry, most recently as the CEO of Fiserv, a company that offers technology services such as payment processing to companies in the financial sector. This background has led lawmakers and others to expect the new head to bring increased modernization, automation, and efficiency to the agency’s operations.  

Since his confirmation, SSA and Bisignano have indeed emphasized technology in their statements about future plans. Yet, as discussed later in this newsletter, many recent tech-driven changes – such as those aimed at improving phone service – have only worsened service. 

In early July 2025, the Social Security Administration (SSA) began involuntarily reassigning approximately 2,000 employees from its local field offices (FOs) to its teleservice centers (TSCs) to answer calls to its 1-800 number, a move that significantly reduces the agency’s in-person service capacity. The transfer, part of SSA’s broader shift toward centralized and remote service delivery, comes at a time when many claimants—particularly those with disabilities, limited English proficiency, or restricted access to technology—continue to face increasingly limited access to much-needed in-person services at the local FOs. The move also comes after the agency has already seen a drastic reduction in staffing led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

 SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano framed the move as part of a broader modernization effort, touting a 35% reduction in average call wait times and the expansion of automated self-service options. However, union representatives and frontline staff have pushed back, warning that the reassignments are exacerbating service gaps at local offices and undermining the agency’s ability to serve walk-in clients. Jessica LaPointe, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 220, criticized the move as “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” arguing that it reflects a deeper staffing crisis rather than a strategic improvement. The shift also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the type of service needed by the public, and about the nature of the workloads at the FOs.

The staffing shift coincides with SSA’s rollout of a new Amazon Web Services (AWS)-based phone system, which has been plagued by technical issues since its implementation. Advocates report that claimants continue to experience dropped calls, long wait times, and inconsistent service—problems that have persisted despite SSA’s public statements suggesting improvements. SSA issued a press release on July 7, 2025, touting “achievements” in customer service and modernization efforts. However, many advocates remain skeptical, noting that SSA has simultaneously removed key performance metrics that previously allowed for public accountability regarding phone service quality. 

In a July 13, 2025 letter to Bisignano, a group of U.S. Senators led by Elizabeth Warren raised concerns about the impact of the staff reassignments on field office operations and equitable access to services. They also questioned whether SSA had adequately consulted with stakeholders or assessed the long-term consequences of shifting staff away from community-based offices. Senator Warren announced that in a meeting held July 23, 2025 with Bisignano, he committed to releasing more metrics to the public. 

In July 2025, the Social Security Administration (SSA) sparked controversy by sending a mass email to over 70 million “My Social Security” account holders stating that the recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), Public Law No: 119-21 (H.R. 1, 119th Congress), “eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.” The email was also released as a press statement titled "Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors.” 

While the message came from an official SSA address and used confident language, the information was flagged by representatives and policy experts as incomplete and misleading. In truth, the new law does not repeal taxation of Social Security benefits. Instead, it creates a temporary deduction (up to $6,000 for single filers and $12,000 for married couples over age 65) that can reduce the taxable portion of Social Security income through 2028. The benefit phases out at higher incomes (beginning at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples), and does not apply to beneficiaries under age 65, including many disabled individuals. It is estimated that only about half of Social Security recipients would benefit from the temporary deduction. That context is not explained in the SSA’s email. 

The Rolling Stone reported on July 5, 2025 that critics, including former SSA officials and several members of Congress, raised alarms over what they called an unprecedented, misleading, and politically-charged form of “propaganda” from a historically apolitical agency. Members of the Ways & Means Committee sent a letter to Commissioner Frank Bisignano demanding the agency issue a correction. Democratic senators led by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden also sent their own letter. Some warned the email could even violate the Hatch Act’s prohibition on federal employees using their roles to influence elections.  

The SSA later appended a correction to the press release on its website but did not distribute it to millions of email addresses previously contacted.  

In a meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren on July 23, 2025, Bisignano admitted his team was responsible for the initial email. He confirmed that it was discussed with the White House, but conceded that he didn’t know whether it had been run by SSA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) before it was sent out to all beneficiaries. Bisignano said he did not know why they had not initially sent out a correction but believed the email had “aged” and did not require a follow-up.  

As reported in the last issue of this newsletter, at the direction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA) in April listed 6,300 immigrants known be alive on its Master Death File (MDF), in an effort to pressure them to “self-deport”. The New York Times has now reported  on July 1, 2025, that SSA has backed away from the tactic, and taken steps to “resurrect” or remove those individuals from the list. The Times reported that senior-level SSA officials had expressed “widespread ‘policy, legal and data integrity’ concerns” about the original measure. The policy also prompted opposition from advocates and lawmakers. 

 SSA will instead flag this group as having Social Security numbers (SSNs) that are “unverified,” a status used, until now, in circumstances usually related to identity theft, or when where there is a discrepancy or other indication that the SSN itself maybe fraudulent, erroneous, or mistakenly associated with someone. While not as damaging as being added to the Master Death File, flagging an SSN as unverified will still inflict hardship on those impacted.  

An administration official told the Times that the change would achieve the same goal as the death list, by alerting third parties such as banks, agencies, and other third parties that the targeted individuals may not be eligible for benefits or services. Yet, an SSN cannot be a proxy for citizenship or benefits eligibility. 

Under the Social Security Act, SSA is to issue SSNs to appropriate groups, including immigrants who are lawfully admitted. 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i). There are no provisions for cancellation of SSNs, and SSA’s POMS state that “SSA does not delete, destroy, rescind, inactivate, or cancel SSNs once they are assigned.”  

On July 17, 2025, in response to a FOIA request, SSA released  two memoranda from DHS dated April 7, 2025 in which  DHS described SSNs as “the central administrative unit in our country” and asked SSA to take “all measures consistent with the law to prevent suspected terrorists and convicted criminals who are here illegally from using [SSNs] to obtain privileges reserved for those with lawful status...” 

The Times found that many of the moves pushed by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the original effort to manipulate SSN data were driven by misinformation and false claims about fraud. Officials had asserted without evidence, that the 6,300 people who had been put on the Master Death File had criminal records or were suspected terrorists. But this new approach to the policy similarly appears to conflate terrorists and convicted criminals with all undocumented immigrants.

In a closely watched 6-3 decision issued June 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the federal government’s emergency request to stay an injunction that had blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) systems. The ruling in SSA v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, No. 24A1063 allowed DOGE to resume access to sensitive data while litigation continues in the Fourth Circuit. But the legal battle over DOGE’s reach continues on one other front: the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the watchdog group American Oversight filed a separate lawsuit, American Oversight v. Treasury and SSA (D.D.C., Docket No. 25‑1966), alleging that DOGE’s actions at SSA and the U.S. Department of Treasury violated the Privacy Act, FOIA, and constitutional norms.  

The injunction in SSA v. AFSCME had been issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in April, following a lawsuit brought by labor unions and advocacy groups alleging that DOGE’s access violated the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. As we discussed in the April 2025 issue of this newsletter, the Fourth Circuit declined to stay the injunction, prompting the government to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.  

In granting the stay, the Court found that the government had made a strong enough showing of likely success on the merits and that delaying DOGE’s access would cause irreparable harm. The majority emphasized that DOGE’s access was authorized under Executive Order 14158, which directed agencies to provide DOGE teams with “full and prompt access” to unclassified records and systems. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented, warning that the decision permits DOGE to access “highly sensitive data of millions of Americans” before courts have fully assessed the legality of such access.   

The U.S. Department of Education Department announced it would begin involuntary collection of debt – including offsetting Social Security benefits – for borrowers in default, using the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), which allows garnishing up to 15% of federal payments, starting in May 2025. However, due to a strong backlash, the agency reversed course within weeks. By June 3, 2025, the Department officially paused garnishment of Social Security checks, stating no offsets had occurred since collections resumed, and that future garnishments were on hold.  

However, the pause is only temporary and collections may resume at any time. It is noteworthy that the July 4, 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill restructures student loan repayment options and explicitly reauthorizes collection tools like paycheck garnishment, tax refund intercepts, and Social Security offset.  

For historical context, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 authorizes the federal government to collect certain delinquent debts by offsetting federal payments, including Social Security. Specifically, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, through TOP, can withhold part of a beneficiary’s monthly payment if they have defaulted on federally held student loans. 

Under current law: 

• Up to 15% of a person’s Social Security benefit can be garnished. 

• The first $750 per month in benefits is protected from garnishment. This floor has not been updated since 1998. 

• Garnishment does not apply to Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 

Collections had been paused in response to the COVID-19 pandemic under the CARES Act.  TOP resumed in October 2023, but Social Security garnishment remained paused until the recent actions in May 2025. 

Representatives may want to encourage recipients to explore if their federal student loans are eligible for discharge due to “total and permanent disability”.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has launched a new form  – SSA‑792, the Statutory Benefit Continuation Election Statement – standardizing how individuals appeal the cessation of disability benefits. This update, introduced via Emergency Message EM‑25033 on May 28, 2025, is already in effect and seeks to simplify the appeals and continuation of payments process for beneficiaries. 

Under the Statutory Benefit Continuation (SBC) provision, when a recipient is found to be no longer eligible for benefits, they may continue receiving payments during the appeal if they elect to do so in writing within 15 days (10 days plus 5 for mailing) of the notice.

Previously, these requests were processed with the generic SSA‑795 form, which carried the risk of confusion and procedural delays. The newly implemented SSA-792 form is designed specifically for SBC elections. 

EM-25033 directs SSA field office and processing center staff to follow the new procedures. 

On May 28, 2025, the Social Security Administration (SSA) rescinded several Social Security Rulings (SSRs) related the assessment of substantial gainful activity (SGA) that have become obsolete: SSRs 83–33, 83–34, 83–35, 84–25, and 84–26. In its Notice of Rescission, SSA stated that the SSRs had been rendered outdated by subsequent regulations. It also stated that its action was done in compliance with Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation, which directs agencies to rescind as appropriate sub-regulatory guidance documents. 90 Fed. Reg. 22557 (May 28, 2025). SSRs do not have the same force and effect as law but are binding on all SSA components. 20 CFR § 402.160(b)(1). 

The rescissions coincide with SSA’s implementation of a new rule, effective March 3, 2025 and discussed in the January 2025 issue of this newsletter, that expanded SSA’s authority for payroll information exchange with Equifax, a payroll data provider.  Once the claimant signs a one-time authorization, SSA can pull real-time monthly wages, enabling the agency to automate many aspects of SGA determination and reduce improper payments.  

Two rulings that provided tests for SGA, SSR 83–33 and SSR 83–34, were rescinded. SSR 83–33 provided detailed guidance on evaluating whether an employee’s work activity constituted SGA when earnings alone were inconclusive. The ruling elaborated on two non-monetary tests referenced in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1574(b)(3)(ii)(A)–(B) and 416.974(b)(3)(ii)(A)–(B): the comparable services test and the worth of work test. 

The comparable services test assessed whether the claimant’s work was similar in quality and quantity to that of unimpaired individuals in the same occupation. The worth of work test evaluated whether the work, even if not comparable, was clearly worth more than the SGA threshold based on prevailing community pay scales. SSR 83–33 emphasized that if there is any reasonable doubt as to whether an individual is engaged in SGA under the tests of comparability and worth of work, adjudicators should generally conclude in favor of the claimant and on actual work performed—not speculative capacity for SGA. This useful language is no longer available.  

The SSR also provided guidance for development, including when to contact employers or others for corroborating information. And it offered a more robust framework than the regulations for evaluating subsidized earnings. It outlined indicators of when a subsidy might be present—such as unusual supervision, sheltered employment, or mental impairments—and included detailed questions for employers to help determine the true value of a claimant’s work. While the core principles are retained in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1574(a)(2) and 416.974(a)(2), the rescission removes practical examples and development tools that were useful in nuanced cases. 

Disability Advocacy Program (DAP) advocates should take note that some Social Security citations now have a new look. On April 19, 2025, the Social Security Administration (SSA) renumbered all sections of the instructions and policies found in its Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX). The change is intended by SSA to “consolidate and standardize” its internal instructions. 

SSA states that during the transition period, it will accept HALLEX references in either numbering convention. It did not specify the length of the transition period. SSA also posted a conversion chart on its website.  

These renumbered sections have the prefix “HA.” They can now be found listed under other sections of SSA’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS) with a numbering convention consistent with the format used for POMS.  

The renumbered HALLEX is here. All links to the prior HALLEX numbering convention will automatically redirect to the new HALLEX section number and location.  

What are the HALLEX and POMS? 

Both are detailed, internal employee operating instructions.

The HALLEX conveys guiding principles, procedural guidance, and information to hearing level and Appeals Council staff for processing and adjudicating claims at the hearing, Appeals Council, and civil action levels. HA 01105.001. The POMS are directed primarily at field office staff as internal guidance to interpret rules and regulations.

  Although we look to these instructions routinely in our advocacy, they are not binding. Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770, 775 (2d Cir. 1999)(POMS are not binding on the Commissioner and have no legal force). However, internal instructions can be used as evidence of SSA’s construction of its authorizing statute or regulations, and as such, possibly entitled to deference. Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90, 97 (2d Cir. 1992)(POMS). Whether the HALLEX is binding has never been addressed directly by the Second Circuit, but some courts have similarly found it is a source of “persuasive authority.” Emiliano P. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2024 WL 4189657 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2024). 

Executive Order (EO) 14247, Modernizing Payment To And From America’s Bank Account, dated March 25, 2025, mandated the U.S. Department of the Treasury deliver all federal benefit payments electronically via direct deposit or through the Direct Express® Debit Mastercard®. This includes payments of Social Security benefits. The Department of Treasury is to phase out the issuance of paper checks for all Federal disbursements no later than September 30, 2025. 

In alignment with that directive, the Social Security Administration (SSA) had announced that it will discontinue offering paper checks when processing initial benefit applications. This transition was formally communicated in Emergency Message EM-25040 dated July 2, 2025. The EM further clarified that individuals will be directed to contact the U.S. Treasury Electronic Payment Solution Center at 1-800-967-5042 if they allege a qualifying exemption and need a waiver. The Treasury is responsible for reviewing the request, but on its blog, SSA warned that waivers will be granted only in “extremely rare circumstances.” 

However, SSA has already reversed this policy, according to a statement made to CBS MoneyWatch on July 23, 2025. Following public concern and a meeting between Senator Elizabeth Warren and Commissioner of Social Security Frank Bisignano, the agency stated that it would continue issuing paper checks to beneficiaries who lack other means of receiving payments.  

The change is the latest of several other reversals made over the past six months. SSA has walked back several major policy changes soon after they are made public, often in response to public pressure, internal concerns, or congressional scrutiny. This includes the agency's reversal or scaling back of its policies related to identity proofing, overpayment recovery rates, office closure plans, and immigration policies. 

Those who rely on Direct Express will still see changes to that program. On June 27, 2025, SSA announced that it had discontinued its Direct Express call resolution site. See EM-25038. The call resolution site had been established as an avenue for SSA staff to contact the Direct Express vendor, Comerica, on a claimant’s behalf after the claimant was unsuccessful in obtaining service from Direct Express. However, Treasury is transitioning away from Comerica to Conduent as the sole card processor for Direct Express.  See EM-25018 REV. 

Difficulty resolving issues with Direct Express has been a source of claimant frustration over the years. As noted in the July 2023 issue of this newsletter, a June 2023 OIG report also found problems with unfinished enrollment and communication with claimants. POMS GN 02402.007, obtained through a FOIA request by NYLAG two years ago, explained the assistance that SSA could provide. Claimants experiencing issues with their Direct Express cards (locked/frozen cards, replacement requests) are now limited to addressing them solely to Direct Express, without recourse with SSA.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. __ (2024), which overturned Chevron deference, federal agencies face a radically altered legal landscape. As discussed in the July 2025 issue of this newsletter, Loper Bright was widely viewed as a move to curtail expansive agency regulation. However, just a year later, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 605 U.S. __ (2025), the Court further defined how courts should evaluate agency decision-making without relying on the Chevron framework, and ultimately concluded that the agency in question was not given enough deference. While the Court’s Seven County decision focused on a Utah railway project, it impacts agencies across the federal landscape, including the Social Security Administration (SSA). 

The 8-0 ruling holds broader implications for how all federal agencies conduct impact assessments. Under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), courts deferred to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. But in Loper Bright, the Court held that Article III of the Constitution requires courts, not agencies, to say what the law is, effectively ending Chevron’s two-step test.

However, in Seven County, the Court clarified that while legal interpretation now belongs to courts, agencies still retain discretion over procedural judgments, like the scope of environmental review, so long as those decisions are not arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Justice Kavanaugh described the default standard: 

As a general matter, when an agency interprets a statute, judicial review of the agency’s interpretation is de novo. See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. 369, 391–392 (2024). But when an agency exercises discretion granted by a statute, judicial review is typically conducted under the [APA’s] deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Under that standard, a court asks not whether it agrees with the agency decision, but rather only whether the agency action was reasonable and reasonably explained. 

In Flinton v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 23-7715-cv (2d Cir. July 2, 2025), the Second Circuit issued a precedential decision reinforcing the constitutional remedy required when Social Security disability hearings are held before improperly appointed administrative law judges (ALJs).  

The case arose from Mollie Marie Flinton’s 2015 application for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. Her claims were denied after a March 2018 hearing conducted by ALJ Mark Solomon, who, at the time, had not been properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that certain federal officers be appointed by the President, courts of law, or heads of departments. The Appeals Council denied review, and Flinton appealed to the Southern District of New York, which affirmed the Commissioner’s decision in a ruling by Judge Jesse M. Furman. 

On appeal, a Second Circuit panel consisting of Judges Susan L. Carney, Steven J. Menashi, and Myrna Pérez unanimously vacated the district court’s decision.

Writing for the Court, Judge Carney concluded that Flinton had not received the constitutionally required remedy outlined in Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. 217 (2018).  

At the time of Flinton’s hearing, ALJs like Solomon had not been appointed by the head of a department, as required by the Appointments Clause, rendering their authority constitutionally deficient. In Lucia, the Supreme Court held that when a hearing is conducted by an unconstitutionally appointed ALJ, the appropriate remedy is a new hearing before a different, properly appointed ALJ, not simply post hoc ratification or rehearing before the same judge. Although ALJ Solomon had been reappointed by the Acting Commissioner in July 2018, Flinton’s original hearing occurred months earlier, and she was never afforded a fresh hearing before a different ALJ.  

Following Lucia, the SSA issued SSR 19-1p and HALLEX guidance requiring reassignment to a different ALJ for timely raised Appointments Clause challenges.

In Rella v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 21-CV-4170 (JS), 2025 WL 1070231 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2025), District Judge Joanna Seybert agreed with the plaintiff that a residual functional capacity (RFC) limitation to occasional interaction with others can be disabling, and ordered the calculation of benefits. 

The plaintiff relied on Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-15 to argue that the ALJ’s own factual finding—that Plaintiff could not appropriately interact with others on a sustained basis—rendered her disabled. The Court agreed, reasoning that the plain reading of SSR 85-15 instructs that when a claimant has “a substantial loss” in the ability to maintain certain basic work-related activities, including responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations, such a scenario severely limits the potential occupational base and justifies a finding of disability.    

Judge Seybert concluded that this standard applied to the plaintiff, noting that she could only occasionally tolerate changes in the workplace and was limited to occasional contact with the public, coworkers, and supervisors. The Court emphasized that requiring the plaintiff to interact normally with others on a sustained basis would likely trigger negative intrusive thoughts, undermining her ability to maintain employment. 

The Court further explained that because the ALJ repeatedly acknowledged that Plaintiff’s mental impairments would impede her ability to work on a sustained basis, the logical conclusion was that the ALJ had effectively found her disabled—despite the written decision stating otherwise. 

Rella stands apart from most other caselaw involving occasional interaction limitations, and the direct award of benefits – rather than remand for more proceedings – also makes it unusual. However the case is a great one to cite as persuasive authority in future arguments involving similar RFC limitations. It is also a reminder of the usefulness of SSR 85-15. Although the POMS DI 25020.010 was not cited in Rella, its guidance—like SSR 85-15—also recognizes that a substantial loss in basic mental functioning can justify a disability finding, making it another valuable reference in similar cases. 

Thank you to Michelle Spadafore of NYLAG for alerting us to this decision.

As a general rule, able-bodied adults who apply for public assistance are required to comply with work rules as a condition of receiving those benefits. However, when a social services district requires a Safety Net Assistance (SNA) recipient to apply for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as a condition of eligibility, those persons are considered exempt from the work requirements and are not required to “work off” their grants. See 06 ADM-6, p. 2    

Some people in receipt of SNA apply for SSI without the social services district requiring them to do so, and in those cases, the district may require the recipient to participate in a work experience program (WEP). Since the person has “worked off” their grant, they have repaid some or all of the SNA provided to them. So what happens when their SSI application is approved by the Social Security Administration and the district recovers interim assistance as set forth in SSL § 158(2)? Is the district required to credit the value of the work performed against the interim assistance recovery?  

This issue is soon to be decided by the New York State Court of Appeals, which recently granted a motion for leave to appeal in the case of Andersen v. Hein, 43 NY 3d 904 (2025).  One of the lead plaintiffs in Andersen, an SSI recipient, had worked over 280 hours at two different work assignments as a condition of receiving SNA while she was waiting for a decision on her application for SSI. 

She was assigned to work at two food pantries cleaning kitchens, bathrooms, and offices; unloading vehicles and carrying donations inside; moving food with older “use-by” dates to the front of the shelves; putting food away in the cabinets and making meals for families. When she was awarded SSI, the County that had provided her with SNA recovered the value of the SNA that she had been paid from her retroactive SSI payment without applying any credit for the value of her work. 

With the overall remand rate from the Appeals Council (AC) still very low, Senior Attorney William Holland at the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York recently secured an impressive win for his client in persuading the AC to remand a claim for a new hearing. The errors that the AC found compelling included a procedural failure and errors in considering the persuasiveness of the medical opinions of record.  

At the administrative law judge (ALJ) level, William had advocated for a subpoena to be issued to the mental health care provider. When the provider failed to produce psychotherapy notes or progress notes, he asked the ALJ for a second subpoena that included a specific request for those documents. Citing 20 .C.F.R § 404.950(D) and HA 01250.078, the AC remanded because the ALJ failed to either issue the second subpoena or to even respond to the request.   

The AC also found that the ALJ had failed to give sufficient consideration to the findings of moderation limitations made by the state examiner, which the AC found to be a failure to articulate the persuasiveness of all medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings under 20 .C.F.R § 404.1520(c) and Social Security 96-8p. The ALJ also failed to address the supportability of the opinion one of the claimant’s treating sources. 

The AC ordered the ALJ to give further consideration to the prior administrative findings and treating source opinions when considering again the claimant’s maximum residual functional capacity . The ALJ was also directed to consider the request for the second subpoena.  

Congratulations, William and his client on this win.

 The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), released its 2025 Statement, to be included by the Social Security Administration in its Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program. This year’s statement focuses on the exclusion of most U.S. territorial residents from SSI eligibility.  

The statement provides an overview of the residency requirements for SSI. Individuals who meet all SSI eligibility rules can receive benefits if they reside in any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or the Northern Mariana Islands. Northern Mariana’s inclusion stems from a 1976 covenant negotiated as part of its political union with the U.S. But U.S. citizens living in other territories are not eligible for SSI for any month they spend entirely in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), or American Samoa. 

Three years ago, the April 2022 issue of this newsletter discussed the Supreme Court ruling that permitted exclusion of territories from the SSI program: in United States v. Vaello Madero, 142 S. Ct. 1539 (2022), the Court upheld the exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from SSI, applying rational basis review and deferring to Congress’s authority under the Territories Clause. 

The majority reasoned that Puerto Rico’s different tax status, and the exemption from most federal taxes, justified the differential treatment, and emphasized that Congress may treat territories differently so long as the distinctions are not arbitrary or invidious. 

The decision failed to address why similar tax status would not preclude the Northern Mariana Islands. The Court declined to revisit the Insular Cases, which have long permitted disparate treatment of unincorporated territories despite their colonial origins. Justice Sotomayor dissented, calling the exclusion “especially cruel” and arguing that it irrationally denies equal protection to U.S. citizens based solely on geography. 

The SSAB statement analyzes the availability of block grant benefit programs in the territories, and highlights the inadequacy of these programs as alternatives to SSI. Block grant programs are available under the Social Security Act for aged, blind, or disabled adults who meet financial eligibility requirements in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the USVI. But they differ significantly from SSI in benefit levels, administration, and scope. One major difference is that the block grants are limited to adults only.

Pepper, the 16-year-old companion of University of Florida based virologist, Dr. John Lednicky, has sniffed out yet another new discovery in the world of viruses. The inquisitive senior cat enjoys spending their leisurely time hunting in their suburban Florida backyard and had recent success dragging home a dead Everglades short-tailed shrew that Dr. Lednicky then conducted lab tests on as part of his ongoing work studying the transmission of mule deerpox virus. This revealed a never-before-seen strain of orthoreovirus, now named UF-1, which was once considered harmless but now has certain strains linked to respiratory, gastro-intestinal, and neurological illnesses in humans.  

How this virus will affect humans remains unclear, but what is clear is that Pepper’s contribution to wildlife disease surveillance has proven useful- and not for the first time. This senior cat has used their instincts for good in the past by assisting in the discovery of the first known jeilongvirus in the US. Animals such as “Pepper the Viral Hunter” may reveal the potential to improve upon early warning symptoms of possibly harmful diseases that can transfer from animals to humans. Hopefully, others will follow Dr. Lednicky and his team’s example of opportunistic surveillance and test all wild animal specimens brought to them for further scientific discovery.