Friday, July 29, 2011(this week's post posted at http://mrsdbarron.blogspot.com., could not get the Post to post at Typepad on yesterday; apologies for the format
*Education: Live Case Study- Pt VII. 9Year Government “Back to Work” Case with No End or Resolution in Sight by Mrs. Dorothy Barron
*Education: Live Case Study- Pt VII. 9Year Government “Back to Work” Case with
No End or Resolution in Sight by Mrs. Dorothy Barron
“Why do you compel others to embrace democracy, justice and obedience to the law when you, yourselves do not” (Mrs. Dorothy Barron)
Parents Taking Charge in Education Blog Post 7/29/2011: Positive Parents and Parenting by Mrs.
Dorothy Barron http://mrsdbarron.blogspot.com/2011/07/positive-parents-and-parenting-by-mrs.html
On today, in *Education: Live
Case Study- Pt VII. 9Year Government “Back to Work” Case with No End or
Resolution in Sight by Mrs. Dorothy Barron, the Recipient will provide a summary
of the Live Case Study from 2002 to July 2011. She will cut to the chase and
resolve this case by law,
effortlessly. What remains of this live case study
are the outcome of the scheduled August 1, 2011, Hearing and a review of one
additional component of Back to Work Programs under SSA; they will be shared at
some point in thefuture.
The purpose of
the 9Year Government “Back to Work” Case with No End or Resolution in Sight Live
Case Study written by the Recipient and Author, Mrs. Dorothy Barron has been to
give you a view of an on-going study, which showed how one program recipient
with physical disabilities has been deliberately prevented from completing her
Back to Work Educational goal under the Social Security Administration, namely
by SSA PASS, the State of Tennessee Vocational Rehabilitation and
others.
You have been provided a clear
and accurate picture of what occurs within these programs, the effect and
adverse impact to program recipients and how such impacts society. She has shown
that fraud, waste and abuse abound within these agencies, as well as lack of
accountability and
regulatory authority and failure of many within the
government agencies and government, itself, to support and uphold The
Constitution of the United States of America. The Recipient believes she has
provided evidence and supported her Live Case Study. Such will better assist
those who are striving to make America a better America for all
Americans.
The Recipient enrolled in
SSA and State of Tennessee Vocational Rehabilitation Back to Work Program---
Social Security Administration Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS) in 2001;
it was approved in 2002 by both Social Security Administration and the State of
Tennessee Department of Human Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
Each agency approved its own plan as well as the other. The Recipient has now
come to the realization that neither agency had any intention of her completing
her goal as an Attorney-at- Law. The Recipient case is one steeped in Fraud
by
not one government agency, but two. A legal definition of “Fraud” is
“deception that is intentional and which
injures.”
The total cost of the
Recipient’s approved Back to Work SSA PASS Plan was $170,602.72. Major
components and expenditures of the Recipient’s SSA PASS consisted of an
undergraduate degree -16 months, Law school- 2½-3 years, an accessible vehicle,
insurance coverage and other necessary expenditure. The financial
responsibilities of the Recipient’s Plan were to be funded by the State of
Tennessee Department of Human Services Division of Vocational Rehab and the
Social Security Administration through a Plan to Achieve Self-Support. The
Recipient’s chief responsibilities were to attend her Back to work Program and
maintain a certain grade level, which the Recipient well exceeded. SSA did
mandate the Recipient contribute whatever funds she received outside
her
regular monthly Social Security Benefits of $483.00 and Social Security
Insurance (SSI), which was less than
$65.00.
At the outset of the Plan, both
the Social Security Administration and State of Tennessee Department of Human
Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation failed to comply with the law;
each failed to uphold the terms of their contract agreements with the
Recipient.
Ÿ The Social Security
Administration approved the Recipient’s SSA PASS Plan of $170,602.00,
of
which according to SSA, they were only responsible for the purchase of a
mini-van, yet approved a plan that entailed expenditure for which each
wereresponsible for within the Plan. This within itself is a deception. SSA and
Vocational Rehabilitation had full knowledge of the Recipient’s income benefits
from SSA. They may have set aside $483.00 for a vehicle, but they approved
the
entire SSA PASS Plan. As previously stated, in a letter to the Recipient
dated October 3, 2002, SSA wrote, [i]“we approved your
Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS). The plan is effective July 2002”
(Paul D. Barnes. SSA Atlanta Regional Commissioner. letter. 10/3/2002).
The vehicle which SSA PASS set aside funding was not enough to pay for the
vehicle in the four year duration of the Recipient’s
PASS.
Prior to Vocational
Rehabilitation dropping the Recipient from its Back to Work Program, they failed
to provide transportation and other services listed in the SSA PASS Plan. SSA
approved the Recipient’s
$170,000.00 SSA PASS Plan of which Vocational
Rehabilitation was responsible for over $130,000.00; SSA failed to hold
Vocational Rehabilitation liable.
When
the Recipient’s case reach the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
(Falls Church, VR), the Administrative Appeals Judge wrote in the Order of
Appeals Council Remanding Case to Administrative Law Judge,[ii]”the claimant
would also like the Social Security Administration to force the state of
Tennessee to provide her with transportation; however, the Social Security
Administration does not have that power, nor was the Social Security
Administration ever responsible for the claimant’s transportation needs”
(Kelly Salzmann. Administrative Law Judge. ODAR- Falls Church, VA.
1/25/2011). One agency responsible for over $130,000.00 was not liable or
accountable and the other even though approved itself for the purchase of a
vehicle under the SSA PASS plan was not ever responsible for the
Claimant/Recipient’s transportation. As a result of these agencies not being
held liable, their actions, and intentional deceptions; the Recipient was
egregiously injured.
The State of
Tennessee Department of Human Services Division of Vocation
Rehabilitation:
Didnot have transportation or a driver for the
Recipient when school started.
Transportation providers which Vocational
Rehabilitation contracted with for transportation of the Recipient in her Back
to Work Program were only temporary (some for personal reasons and most, due to
the actions by Vocational Rehabilitation), others unreliable and at least one
with a vehicle that was unsafe and hazardous to the Recipient. As the Recipient
has shown Vocational Rehabilitation was not able to retain transportation
providers for the Recipient; not she as the State of Tennessee Department of
Human Services attempted to show during the
Recipient’s
Hearing.
As we
later viewed in the Recipient’s Hearing cases against Vocational Rehabilitation
on the issue of Comparable services. If Vocational Rehabilitation attempted to
claim monies which SSA had mandated the Recipient place in her SSA PASS Saving
Bank Account to pay for expenditures within the PASS, one must wonder, how
Vocational Rehabilitation expected to fund a $130,000.00 law school education?
With Vocational Rehabilitation, the Recipient was condemned if she signed
certain changes under the plan (Voc-Rehab knew the plan would adversely affect
and harm the Recipient); she would be held to the contract and condemned when
unable to comply. She was also condemned if she did not sign forced changes
under Voc-Rehabilitation’s plan for the same reason; she would then be condemned
for having failed to comply with her
contract.
Both agencies’ failure to
comply with the law seriously impeded and injured both the Recipient and her
Back to Work Program; their deceptions continued until each had unlawfully
removed the Recipient from their Back to Work
Programs.
Abuse and Waste of
Resources-
Both agencies in written
Court documents provided fallacious and mendacious information to make it appear
that the Recipient was wasteful of funding and extravagant. As instructed by
PASS, the Recipient placed the remainder of Pell Grant funds, state grant funds
and her merit based scholarship funds in her SSA PASS Savings Bank Account.
Funds were spent by her only on expenditure SSA PASS approved and those already
approved within the SSA Pass Plan that were necessary for the Recipient to
complete her Back to Work Goal. Neither agency revealed their waste and abuse of
the Recipient’s government funding. Vocational Rehabilitation paid drivers
approximately and/or at least $100.00 per day ($2,000.00 per month) to transport
Recipient from home to university. Vocational Rehabilitation unnecessarily
purchased a new electric scooter for the Recipient (the Recipient had her
personal electric scooter as was listed as a resource item in her SSA PASS
Plan), which Vocational Rehabilitation kept housed at the University, as well as
a cell phone (Recipient was to call drivers when class ended or she was left
stranded./drivers forgot to pick up, etc.). The Recipient deposited monthly,
$483.00 in PASS set aside funds in SSA PASS Bank Savings Account in which SSA
mandated she establish. $2,000.00 monthly from Vocational Rehabilitation and SSA
of $483.00 per month in one year amounted to $29,796.00. Such would have
purchased the Recipient’s vehicle and she could have driven and transported both
her scooter and self to and from school and all other places necessary and
school-related.
Frantic, with no
transportation provider for the Recipient, Vocational Rehabilitation
(without
having informed the Recipient) moved quickly and made transportation
arrangements with the same Taxi Cab owner who had abruptly stopped providing
transportation to the Recipient during a previous school semester while school
was in session. The State of Tennessee Department of Human Services Vocational
Rehabilitation failed to comply with the law; they ended services to the
Recipient while her case was on appeal. The law also requires that the Hearing
Officer and ALJ be two different individuals; the same person cannot serve in
both capacities on the same case. Once again, the State of Tennessee Department
of Human Services failed to adhere to the law. Administrative Hearings are
conducted in-house or inner- agency. In the Recipient’s cases, employees of the
agency in which the complaint was/is against heard and ruled on the Recipient's
Complaints; the rulings or decisions are legally binding. This process anywhere
else would be viewed as a conflict of interest. The Recipient filed complaint
after complaint from the outset and continually against both agencies throughout
her Back to Work program. It did little to no
good.
In 2005, State of Tennessee
Department of Human Services ---- much of the evidence and violations committed
by the State as presented in the Recipient’s case and the highest ranking
administrator, the assistant commissioner for the State of Tennessee Department
of Human Service made the Final Decision in the Recipient’s case, which removed
the Recipient from Vocational Rehabilitation’s Back to Work Program. One cannot
help but wonder at the logic of the assistant commissioner’s decision even with
an abundance of evidence presented in favor of the Recipient, the State of
Tennessee maintained, that under Vocational Rehabilitation’s Letter of
Understanding which the Recipient signed for services from Vocational
Rehabilitation, the Recipient, [iii]“…not interrupt
her training for any reason without prior approval of her DRS counselor”
(Dorothy Barron v. Tennessee Department of Human Services. Final Order. Docket
RS 050725304. 3/3/06)
Sadly,
there is no accountability under the Administrative Agencies and agency
programs; their actions of excessive abuses and egregious violations have made a
mockery of the law. Even sadder is the fact that information provided in this
case by the Recipient has not been accounted for in this case. Letters were
provided which disproved the State’s claim that the Recipient did not respond,
answer or contact Vocational Rehab. In one instance, Vocational Rehabilitation
scheduled a meeting with the Recipient fully aware that the Recipient was
enroute from school. The Recipient reminded the DRS agency’s director/counselor
and the meeting was rescheduled. Saddest of all is the fact that the State of
Tennessee has no qualms about altering legal documents, legal decisions and
rulings and
having them cease to exist should it suit the state; such has
occurred at least twice with the
Recipient.
Not only did SSA failed to
hold the State of Tennessee Department of Vocational Rehabilitation liable for
their action and failure to provide crucial services as approved under the
Recipient SSA PASS by both agencies. The Recipient completed requirements and
actually earned her Bachelor of University Studies Degree in December 2003. As
previously discussed, the University of Tennessee remanded all transfer credit
hours, yet neither agency held the University of Tennessee liable for their
actions. The Recipient appealed her case in Federal Court against the University
of Tennessee. The Court ruled that as an arm of the State of Tennessee, the
University was covered under the 11th Amendment of
The
Constitution, the Sovereign Immunity Clause. Sadly, The Constitution of the
United States has not given Officers of and/or under this Constitution or any of
its citizens Sovereign Immunity. The Recipient addresses this and other
Constitutional issues in her book, Slinging Stones when
United States Congress has lost control and American Courts are out of control
by Mrs.Dorothy Barron.
SSA PASS
Specialist gave the Recipient approval to pay for crucial services both within
and/or additional ones from her set aside SSA PASS funds. Such was not a problem
with SSA until after VRS exited the picture and the outlay of the approved SSA
PASS exceeded the SSA PASS Bank Savings Account and additional necessary
services needed for the Recipient to complete her Back to Work SSA PASS Plan of
becoming an Attorney- at-law. SSA PASS now short of $130,000.00 (Vocational
Rehabilitation has exited the picture) is not willing or according to them, not
able to cover the
Recipient’s approved SSA PASS
Plan.
There are further issues that
bear scrutiny and because of the import, the Recipient mentions them
here:
1. SSA’s signature is not on the
Recipient’s approved SSA PASS Plan; SSA’s signature was
not on the
Recipient’s SSA PASS Bank Account, although SSA mandated the
Recipient open
and deposit SSA’s set aside funds of $483.00 and any other funds
she receive
other than her SSDI and SSI. Could this be SSA method of
preventing
themselves from being held
liable?
2. According to SSA, they have
no power over Vocational Rehabilitation; would the fact that
Vocational
Rehabilitation’s signature is not on the SSA PASS Plan. If they
operate as
separate agencies, why is the government funding two different
government
agencies for a Recipient’s single government Back to Work
Program?
3. If you recall, SSA informed
the Recipient that if, for any reason Vocational
Rehabilitation
dropped one from its program, so does SSA. SSA failed to mention
that the
reason could consist of the State of Tennessee Department Human
Services
Vocational Rehabilitation not being in compliance of the
law.
According to SSA PASS, it was up
to the Recipient to find the financial means to fund her SSA PASS goal as
Attorney-at-Law. In 2005, when Vocational Rehabilitation failed to provide
transportation and the Recipient was not able to continue her Back to Work
Program, SSA suspended the Recipient’s SSA PASS in 2005, yet continued to extend
the Recipient’s SSA PASS up through 2007, even though they knew the Recipient
did not have a means for funding her SSA PASS of over $130,000.00 at least. In
2007, SSA officially closed the Recipient’s SSA PASS retroactive, 2005. Due to
the actions of SSA PASS, the Recipient filed Notices of Reconsideration and
appealed both agency and SSA PASS personnel actions and decisions. The Recipient
filed appeals in 2005, 2006, and
2007.
In 2008, the Recipient after
having written a book, sought to use the book, amended her SSA original PASS to
include an additional step which would enable her to use the funds in the SSA
PASS Savings Account to publish and market the book in an effort to earn monies
and complete her work goal. SSA did not have a solution and was not willing to
set aside any more than $602.00 per month to fund the Recipient’s SSA PASS Plan.
The Recipient submitted the plan on August 29, 2008; SSA received the plan on
September 3, 2008 and on September 4, 2008, wrote, [iv]“we cannot approve
your plan for the following reason: you are unlikely to reach your goal. Your
PASS work goal of Attorney is no longer feasible or viable” (Quittie C
Wilson. SSA Assistant Regional Commissioner Program Center Operations. 9/4/2008.
PASS. Marked Exhibit AC1. Pages. 2). The Recipient appealed SSA PASS’
decision.
In 2009, the SSA PASS Savings
Bank Account held a little over 16,141.77. The Recipient returned to school and
dwindling funds (as with Vocational Rehabilitation, transportation costs for the
Recipient daily was $120.00) caused the Recipient to have to withdraw after the
summer semester. She returned for the Spring 2010 Semester, only to have to
withdraw after the Spring 2010 semester with the chief reasons once again-
transportation! Each time SSA suspended the Recipient SSA PASS; the Recipient
was cited for either not have followed her plan or was not taking steps to reach
her SSA PASS goal (SSA PASS. letters. 2005. 2007.
2010)
During 2009, the Recipient’s was
notified that her SSA record and appeal (such would have come from SSA PASS) had
been received by the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR
Nashville, TN). According to the Office of ODAR office manager, the Recipient’s
presence would not be required at her own Hearing, even though the Recipient
requested to be in attendance at her
hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) on September 15, 2009 ruled in the Recipient’s favor: Notice of Decision-
Fully Favorable. The Recipient requested that she be present at her Hearing. The
ALJ denied the Recipient’s request. According to the Social Security
Administration, the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, [v]“… will review
your case to see if an immediate favorable decision without holding a hearing is
possible.” (SSA Form HA-L4 (03-2007). The Regional Commissioner (Atlanta
Region) contacted the Deputy Director Office of Appellate Operations, OHA with a
recommendation to reopen or review the ALJ’s Decision even though the limitation
for review had expired. The Appeal Council (ODAR- Falls Church, VA) overturned
the ALJ’s September 15, 2009 Decision. The Recipient appealed the Appeal
Council’s decision. On January 26, 2011, an Administrative Appeals Judge vacated
and remanded the case to “an administrative law judge.” The remanded and vacated
case has been returned to ODAR (Nashville,
TN).
The Law has been created for a
purpose; those who fail to uphold it or ignore it often cause havoc, chaos and
most often injury as a result. Had a Hearing been held to begin with, such would
have prevented this particular situation. The Recipient did not view marked
exhibits surrounding her September 15, 2009 case until June 2011. Questions
addressed to the Recipient by ODAR (Nashville, TN) made her aware that records
which should have been in her SSA PASS could not be located by ODAR. SSA
administrators and others confirmed documents missing. Some documents marked as
exhibits are not the original and/or have been altered. Some exhibits of which
the Court used to base its decisions within the September 15, 2009 Notice of
Decision were/are not supported; had been deliberately marked to falsely
represent other exhibits and a number of false assumptions were made by the
Court.
A Hearing has been scheduled for
August 1, 2011. The Recipient notified ODAR (Nashville, TN) that without
transportation or the means to pay $120.00 or even $90.00 she would not be able
to attend the August 1, Hearing. If a Recipient is unable to attend, some Courts
have no qualms about dismissing your case and ruling against you. In fact, the
Court in a letter to the Recipient in reference to the upcoming August 1, 2011
Hearing wrote, [vi]“I set aside this
time for you to come and tell me
about your case. If you do not come to the
hearing and I do not find that you have a good reason, I may dismiss your
request for hearing. I may do so without giving you further notice” (Notice of
Hearing. ODAR- Nashville, TN. June 20. 2011). SSA will pay or reimburse
one for transportation, provided they live outside a radius of 75 miles one-way
of the Hearing location. If one cannot obtain and/or pay for transportation to
get to their hearings to exercise their rights, tough luck! Even a favorable
decision, such can be appealed and overturned.
The only other alternative open to the
Recipient was to respond in written form. The Recipient did so in a 16 page SSA
PASS Recipient, Mrs. Dorothy Barron’s Response to the Office of Disability
Adjudication and Review (ODAR- Nashville, TN) Administrative Law Judge September
15, 2009 Notice of Decision in SSA PASS Recipient, Mrs. Dorothy Barron’s 2008
Amended PASS Appeal; it was faxed to ODAR(Nashville, TN) on July 27,
2011.
Cutting to the Chase and deciding
this Case
The Recipient will not share all 16 pages of her
Response to the Court’s September 2009 Notice of Decision, but she will share
the issues on which the Court were to decide the Recipient’s case; they were,
[vii]was the amended
PASS plan viable? Was the beneficiary, Ms. Dorothy Barron likely to reach her
goal of obtaining an undergraduate degree so that she could become a licensed
attorney” (ALJ Notice of Decision. 9/15/2009)? Findings as the Recipient views
in the Case:
1) The
Administrative Law Judge did not state, of what the amended PASS was
viable?
2) The Recipient’s 2008 amended
SSA PASS Appeal (on the original) was heard before the Recipient’s Hearings on
her 2005, 2006 and 2007 Hearings
3) SSA
discontinued services and closed the Recipient’s case while the case was on
appeal.
4) The ALJ had to review or
refer to the Recipient’s original 2001 SSA PASS Plan to decide the 2008 Amended
Plan. If the original was not viable or feasible under the law, would not the
2008 amended SSA PASS be void and
null?
5) SSA suspended the Recipient’s
SSA PASS 8/11/2007, effective 2005? The Recipient filed her amended SSA PASS on
8/29/2008. According to SSA PASS guideline regulations, an amended SSA PASS must
be filed within 12 months. Should the Court even have heard this
case?
The case can easily be decided
and in the Recipient’s “Favor” in this case. The ODAR failed to hear the
Recipient’s 2005 Appeal Hearing before it heard her 2008 amended SSA PASS Appeal
Hearing. Had the Recipient’s 2005 Appeal Hearing been heard in the correct
order, the 2001original SSA PASS would have shown that SSA PASS approved a SSA
Plan which SSA could not financially cover having set aside PASS funds in the
amount of $483.00 per month for four years and the Recipient could not have
covered due to lack of income. It is a distinct possibility that had the Appeal
Hearing been heard in the order in which appealed by the Recipient, the 2008
amended SSA PASS Hearing would not be before the Courts. SSA’s failure to comply
with various laws did egregiously and adversely injure the
Recipient.
In addition, more and more
laws are created when there are too manyon the books as is; many of which, most
do not know exist or are in conflict with The Constitution of the United State
and result in injury. Any law (legally binding decree) created that is not
pursuant to The Constitution of the United States is unlawful. SSA denied the
Recipient her day in Court and such has resulted in injury. Because SSA failed
to uphold and support The Constitution, the Court should rule in favor of the
Recipient and Order Social Security Administration to pay compensatory and
punitive damages to the
Recipient.
Adverse Effects to
the Recipients as the result of SSA, Voc-Rehab and
others
1. The Recipient level of
pain which she experiences on a daily basis has been greatly
exacerbated as a
result of, by and through the egregious actions of SSA, Vocational
Rehabilitation and others and as a result of their failure to uphold the
Law.
2. Emotional
distress
3. Burdened with not knowing
whether she had transportation to school, sometimes from day
to day; whether
she would obtain transportation to school to sit for her final exams, whether
she would remain in school the next semester or obtain needed services to
continue and complete her Back to Work
Program.
4. Nine wasted years in Back
to Work Programs that should have taken four years for the Recipient to become
self-supporting.
5. Recipient reduced
to having to crawl on floor, because Vocational Rehabilitation wanted to conceal
its waste and abuse of services.
6.
Left high and dry without transportation well into the school semester-
Vocational Rehabilitation’s advice to Recipient- “drop out of
school.”
7. Until transportation
arrived, Recipient was at times left sitting in empty school classrooms and/or
school buildings until transportation
arrived.
8. Pushed to class (manual
wheelchair) and left to the mercy of strangers to assist and if
willing to
assist with personal matters
9. Rode
with a chain smoker - having inhaled second hand smoke for approximately five
(5)
months even though the Recipient does not
smoke.
10. Rode in a car with fumes
from oil burning fumes, window down in the rain to prevent the
noxious fumes
and bitten by mites or chigger
11.
Having Vocational Rehabilitation contract without her knowledge with the same
transportation Cab company owner that cancelled services during previous
transport services to the Recipient while school was in
session.
12. Vocational Rehabilitation
refused to purchase necessary assistive technology for the
Recipient that was
listed in the Recipient‘s SSA PASS, of which, SSA PASS gave the Recipient
approval to purchase from her set aside SSA PASS Bank Saving Account funds for
the purchase of a vehicle.
Actually,
the actions of many government agency administrators, agency personnel and
others are the result of a much larger problem with deeper roots which lead back
to U S Congress. Although, many are aware that there is a force and/or powers at
work to insure that the poor and impoverished remain in the abyss of poverty and
dependent upon the government, most simply do not know or understand the
specific tactics involved and from whence they have arose. In the early
seventies, when various government programs were put in place to combat racism,
discrimination and equal the playing field allegedly for all, Congress at this
same time established an Act that opened the front door to equal opportunity,
but sealed the back door to ensure that equality not take place for the majority
who entered the front door; most, at some point have come to the realization
that there was/is no exit or way out. Congress created both an Act and agency to
insure that the poor and impoverished individuals’ rights and privileges under
The Constitution of the United States be denied them and not challenged in a
court of law (more detailed information about both the Act and agency can be
found in the Recipient’s book, Slinging Stones when United
States Congress has lost control and American Courts are out of
control).
As we conclude the
*Education: Live Case Study Pt I.- Pt.VI., 9Year Government “Back to Work” Case
with No End or Resolution in Sight by Mrs. Dorothy Barron up to this point, July
2011, the Recipient has recapped her live case study, which began as an
introduction Post titled, Nothing Will Change by Mrs. Dorothy Barron.
As this live case study has shown, it confirms the remarks made by a Social
Security Administration employee to Recipient; nothing will changes- fraud,
waste, abuse and other egregious actions have and continue to occur by many
within government agencies in an effort to insure that most program recipients
do not rise from the abyss of poverty and off government programs to become
self-supporting; they make sure nothing changes for many Back to Work Program
Recipient (s).
The Recipient created a
Time line for her study, which ranged from 2002 up to the present time, July
2011. Specific problems and serious issues within the Social Security
Administration and State of Tennessee Department of Human Service Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation Back to Work agencies and programs and the effects of
both agencies and agencies' administrators and others on this Recipient
(representative of other individuals with disabilities) and her Back to Work
Goal as an Attorney-at-Law. In addition, the Recipient's Case has become a
Public Appeal for legal representation. The Recipient was notified that an
"Appeal Review on an Appeal Review" has been scheduled for August 1, 2011 on her
Back to Work Social Security Administration
PASS.
You were provided some background
information on the Recipient of this Case Study who is also its author. Resource
information about and on the Social Security Administration and Vocational
Rehabilitation agencies' and their roles in assisting individuals with
disabilities in Back to Work initiatives and incentive programs as well as
obstacles were shared, along with her having listed a number of problems and
obstacles which many Recipients have and continue to face and encounter. You
have also been given a glimpse into the legal process within these
agencies.
The Recipient has shown that
the greatest obstacles and barriers within government Back to Work Programs are
lack of accountability, regulatory authority and failure to uphold The
Constitution of the United States by those sworn or affirmed to do so. Fraud,
waste and abuse abound within these agencies. Such has prevented the Recipient
from completing her work goal, becoming independent of government entitlement
programs and financially
self-sufficient.
You heard from those
inside government. When it comes to individuals with Disabilities and Back to
Work Programs under the Social Security Administration, according to the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; Michael J. Astrue, there is
a need for program reform by Congress; SSA programs are complex for program
recipients and the SSA system itself is so complicated that he would have
trouble explaining the program. (M. Astrue. Media Conference. C- Span.org. May
13. 2011). If the Commissioner over Social Security cannot explain the SSA
program, how does SSA and others expect SSA Back to Work Program Recipients to
understand, navigate and complete the program? The Recipient seriously doubts
many recipients remain in the Back to Work Program wasting their time and meager
resources, if any to find out.
For many
people with disabilities, the problem is not with the individual not wanting to
work; the problem lies with many agency government program agency administrators
and personnel who have the oversight and/or operate government Back to Work
Programs.
If the Recipient was willing
to crawl about in dwellings which she resided in order to get ready for school,
crawl in and out the door to seat herself in a manual wheelchair at the bottom
of her steps (no accessible ramp) to go to school, suffer other indignities and
use a resource she authored to reach a goal that would have remove one more
person from already overburden rolls of government handouts and provide an
avenue for the individual to become self-supporting, somebody should have had
enough courage and determination to insure that government agency Back to Work
programs operate properly and effectively by holding those accountable,
accountable.
The Recipient and author
wishes to thank Readers for joining her in this lengthy and in-depth study. She
has presented evidence and documentation which supports her live case study. Had
the case been funded, there would have been a plethora of documents to accompany
the study.
Citations:
Paul D. Barnes. SSA
Atlanta Regional Commissioner. letter.
10/3/2002
Kelly Salzmann.
Administrative Law Judge. ODAR- Falls Church, VA.
1/25/201.
Dorothy Barron v.
Tennessee Department of Human Services. Final Order. Docket RS 050725304.
3/3/06.
Quittie C Wilson. SSA
Assistant Regional Commissioner Program Center Operations. 9/4/2008. PASS.
Marked Exhibit AC1. Pages 2 of 2.
SSA Form HA-L4
(03-2007.
Notice of Hearing.
ODAR- Nashville, TN. June 20. 2011.
ALJ Notice of
Decision.
9/15/2009.
Resources
Barron.
Dorothy. Author. Book. Slinging Stones when United States Congress has lost
control and American Courts are out of control). 2009
(. (some have expressed an interest in purchasing the
book. For more information, please contact jarrods_pub@yahoo.com
.)
Commissioner Michael J.
Astrue. Social Security
Administration. Statements. Washington, DC. C-SPAN.
13-16 May 2011. http://www.C-SPAN.org
From me, to
you
Mrs. Dorothy Barron,
Author
“Slinging Stones… Blog” by Mrs.
Dorothy Barron:
http://dorothybarron.com/slingingstones
or
http://mrsdbarron.typepad.com/slingingstones
Parents Taking Charge in Education Blog:
http://mrsdbarron.blogspot.com
Twitter:
Follow Mrs. Barron at http://twitter.com/mrsdbarron
No End or Resolution in Sight by Mrs. Dorothy Barron
“Why do you compel others to embrace democracy, justice and obedience to the law when you, yourselves do not” (Mrs. Dorothy Barron)
Parents Taking Charge in Education Blog Post 7/29/2011: Positive Parents and Parenting by Mrs.
Dorothy Barron http://mrsdbarron.blogspot.com/2011/07/positive-parents-and-parenting-by-mrs.html
On today, in *Education: Live
Case Study- Pt VII. 9Year Government “Back to Work” Case with No End or
Resolution in Sight by Mrs. Dorothy Barron, the Recipient will provide a summary
of the Live Case Study from 2002 to July 2011. She will cut to the chase and
resolve this case by law,
effortlessly. What remains of this live case study
are the outcome of the scheduled August 1, 2011, Hearing and a review of one
additional component of Back to Work Programs under SSA; they will be shared at
some point in thefuture.
The purpose of
the 9Year Government “Back to Work” Case with No End or Resolution in Sight Live
Case Study written by the Recipient and Author, Mrs. Dorothy Barron has been to
give you a view of an on-going study, which showed how one program recipient
with physical disabilities has been deliberately prevented from completing her
Back to Work Educational goal under the Social Security Administration, namely
by SSA PASS, the State of Tennessee Vocational Rehabilitation and
others.
You have been provided a clear
and accurate picture of what occurs within these programs, the effect and
adverse impact to program recipients and how such impacts society. She has shown
that fraud, waste and abuse abound within these agencies, as well as lack of
accountability and
regulatory authority and failure of many within the
government agencies and government, itself, to support and uphold The
Constitution of the United States of America. The Recipient believes she has
provided evidence and supported her Live Case Study. Such will better assist
those who are striving to make America a better America for all
Americans.
The Recipient enrolled in
SSA and State of Tennessee Vocational Rehabilitation Back to Work Program---
Social Security Administration Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS) in 2001;
it was approved in 2002 by both Social Security Administration and the State of
Tennessee Department of Human Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
Each agency approved its own plan as well as the other. The Recipient has now
come to the realization that neither agency had any intention of her completing
her goal as an Attorney-at- Law. The Recipient case is one steeped in Fraud
by
not one government agency, but two. A legal definition of “Fraud” is
“deception that is intentional and which
injures.”
The total cost of the
Recipient’s approved Back to Work SSA PASS Plan was $170,602.72. Major
components and expenditures of the Recipient’s SSA PASS consisted of an
undergraduate degree -16 months, Law school- 2½-3 years, an accessible vehicle,
insurance coverage and other necessary expenditure. The financial
responsibilities of the Recipient’s Plan were to be funded by the State of
Tennessee Department of Human Services Division of Vocational Rehab and the
Social Security Administration through a Plan to Achieve Self-Support. The
Recipient’s chief responsibilities were to attend her Back to work Program and
maintain a certain grade level, which the Recipient well exceeded. SSA did
mandate the Recipient contribute whatever funds she received outside
her
regular monthly Social Security Benefits of $483.00 and Social Security
Insurance (SSI), which was less than
$65.00.
At the outset of the Plan, both
the Social Security Administration and State of Tennessee Department of Human
Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation failed to comply with the law;
each failed to uphold the terms of their contract agreements with the
Recipient.
Ÿ The Social Security
Administration approved the Recipient’s SSA PASS Plan of $170,602.00,
of
which according to SSA, they were only responsible for the purchase of a
mini-van, yet approved a plan that entailed expenditure for which each
wereresponsible for within the Plan. This within itself is a deception. SSA and
Vocational Rehabilitation had full knowledge of the Recipient’s income benefits
from SSA. They may have set aside $483.00 for a vehicle, but they approved
the
entire SSA PASS Plan. As previously stated, in a letter to the Recipient
dated October 3, 2002, SSA wrote, [i]“we approved your
Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS). The plan is effective July 2002”
(Paul D. Barnes. SSA Atlanta Regional Commissioner. letter. 10/3/2002).
The vehicle which SSA PASS set aside funding was not enough to pay for the
vehicle in the four year duration of the Recipient’s
PASS.
Prior to Vocational
Rehabilitation dropping the Recipient from its Back to Work Program, they failed
to provide transportation and other services listed in the SSA PASS Plan. SSA
approved the Recipient’s
$170,000.00 SSA PASS Plan of which Vocational
Rehabilitation was responsible for over $130,000.00; SSA failed to hold
Vocational Rehabilitation liable.
When
the Recipient’s case reach the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
(Falls Church, VR), the Administrative Appeals Judge wrote in the Order of
Appeals Council Remanding Case to Administrative Law Judge,[ii]”the claimant
would also like the Social Security Administration to force the state of
Tennessee to provide her with transportation; however, the Social Security
Administration does not have that power, nor was the Social Security
Administration ever responsible for the claimant’s transportation needs”
(Kelly Salzmann. Administrative Law Judge. ODAR- Falls Church, VA.
1/25/2011). One agency responsible for over $130,000.00 was not liable or
accountable and the other even though approved itself for the purchase of a
vehicle under the SSA PASS plan was not ever responsible for the
Claimant/Recipient’s transportation. As a result of these agencies not being
held liable, their actions, and intentional deceptions; the Recipient was
egregiously injured.
The State of
Tennessee Department of Human Services Division of Vocation
Rehabilitation:
Didnot have transportation or a driver for the
Recipient when school started.
Transportation providers which Vocational
Rehabilitation contracted with for transportation of the Recipient in her Back
to Work Program were only temporary (some for personal reasons and most, due to
the actions by Vocational Rehabilitation), others unreliable and at least one
with a vehicle that was unsafe and hazardous to the Recipient. As the Recipient
has shown Vocational Rehabilitation was not able to retain transportation
providers for the Recipient; not she as the State of Tennessee Department of
Human Services attempted to show during the
Recipient’s
Hearing.
As we
later viewed in the Recipient’s Hearing cases against Vocational Rehabilitation
on the issue of Comparable services. If Vocational Rehabilitation attempted to
claim monies which SSA had mandated the Recipient place in her SSA PASS Saving
Bank Account to pay for expenditures within the PASS, one must wonder, how
Vocational Rehabilitation expected to fund a $130,000.00 law school education?
With Vocational Rehabilitation, the Recipient was condemned if she signed
certain changes under the plan (Voc-Rehab knew the plan would adversely affect
and harm the Recipient); she would be held to the contract and condemned when
unable to comply. She was also condemned if she did not sign forced changes
under Voc-Rehabilitation’s plan for the same reason; she would then be condemned
for having failed to comply with her
contract.
Both agencies’ failure to
comply with the law seriously impeded and injured both the Recipient and her
Back to Work Program; their deceptions continued until each had unlawfully
removed the Recipient from their Back to Work
Programs.
Abuse and Waste of
Resources-
Both agencies in written
Court documents provided fallacious and mendacious information to make it appear
that the Recipient was wasteful of funding and extravagant. As instructed by
PASS, the Recipient placed the remainder of Pell Grant funds, state grant funds
and her merit based scholarship funds in her SSA PASS Savings Bank Account.
Funds were spent by her only on expenditure SSA PASS approved and those already
approved within the SSA Pass Plan that were necessary for the Recipient to
complete her Back to Work Goal. Neither agency revealed their waste and abuse of
the Recipient’s government funding. Vocational Rehabilitation paid drivers
approximately and/or at least $100.00 per day ($2,000.00 per month) to transport
Recipient from home to university. Vocational Rehabilitation unnecessarily
purchased a new electric scooter for the Recipient (the Recipient had her
personal electric scooter as was listed as a resource item in her SSA PASS
Plan), which Vocational Rehabilitation kept housed at the University, as well as
a cell phone (Recipient was to call drivers when class ended or she was left
stranded./drivers forgot to pick up, etc.). The Recipient deposited monthly,
$483.00 in PASS set aside funds in SSA PASS Bank Savings Account in which SSA
mandated she establish. $2,000.00 monthly from Vocational Rehabilitation and SSA
of $483.00 per month in one year amounted to $29,796.00. Such would have
purchased the Recipient’s vehicle and she could have driven and transported both
her scooter and self to and from school and all other places necessary and
school-related.
Frantic, with no
transportation provider for the Recipient, Vocational Rehabilitation
(without
having informed the Recipient) moved quickly and made transportation
arrangements with the same Taxi Cab owner who had abruptly stopped providing
transportation to the Recipient during a previous school semester while school
was in session. The State of Tennessee Department of Human Services Vocational
Rehabilitation failed to comply with the law; they ended services to the
Recipient while her case was on appeal. The law also requires that the Hearing
Officer and ALJ be two different individuals; the same person cannot serve in
both capacities on the same case. Once again, the State of Tennessee Department
of Human Services failed to adhere to the law. Administrative Hearings are
conducted in-house or inner- agency. In the Recipient’s cases, employees of the
agency in which the complaint was/is against heard and ruled on the Recipient's
Complaints; the rulings or decisions are legally binding. This process anywhere
else would be viewed as a conflict of interest. The Recipient filed complaint
after complaint from the outset and continually against both agencies throughout
her Back to Work program. It did little to no
good.
In 2005, State of Tennessee
Department of Human Services ---- much of the evidence and violations committed
by the State as presented in the Recipient’s case and the highest ranking
administrator, the assistant commissioner for the State of Tennessee Department
of Human Service made the Final Decision in the Recipient’s case, which removed
the Recipient from Vocational Rehabilitation’s Back to Work Program. One cannot
help but wonder at the logic of the assistant commissioner’s decision even with
an abundance of evidence presented in favor of the Recipient, the State of
Tennessee maintained, that under Vocational Rehabilitation’s Letter of
Understanding which the Recipient signed for services from Vocational
Rehabilitation, the Recipient, [iii]“…not interrupt
her training for any reason without prior approval of her DRS counselor”
(Dorothy Barron v. Tennessee Department of Human Services. Final Order. Docket
RS 050725304. 3/3/06)
Sadly,
there is no accountability under the Administrative Agencies and agency
programs; their actions of excessive abuses and egregious violations have made a
mockery of the law. Even sadder is the fact that information provided in this
case by the Recipient has not been accounted for in this case. Letters were
provided which disproved the State’s claim that the Recipient did not respond,
answer or contact Vocational Rehab. In one instance, Vocational Rehabilitation
scheduled a meeting with the Recipient fully aware that the Recipient was
enroute from school. The Recipient reminded the DRS agency’s director/counselor
and the meeting was rescheduled. Saddest of all is the fact that the State of
Tennessee has no qualms about altering legal documents, legal decisions and
rulings and
having them cease to exist should it suit the state; such has
occurred at least twice with the
Recipient.
Not only did SSA failed to
hold the State of Tennessee Department of Vocational Rehabilitation liable for
their action and failure to provide crucial services as approved under the
Recipient SSA PASS by both agencies. The Recipient completed requirements and
actually earned her Bachelor of University Studies Degree in December 2003. As
previously discussed, the University of Tennessee remanded all transfer credit
hours, yet neither agency held the University of Tennessee liable for their
actions. The Recipient appealed her case in Federal Court against the University
of Tennessee. The Court ruled that as an arm of the State of Tennessee, the
University was covered under the 11th Amendment of
The
Constitution, the Sovereign Immunity Clause. Sadly, The Constitution of the
United States has not given Officers of and/or under this Constitution or any of
its citizens Sovereign Immunity. The Recipient addresses this and other
Constitutional issues in her book, Slinging Stones when
United States Congress has lost control and American Courts are out of control
by Mrs.Dorothy Barron.
SSA PASS
Specialist gave the Recipient approval to pay for crucial services both within
and/or additional ones from her set aside SSA PASS funds. Such was not a problem
with SSA until after VRS exited the picture and the outlay of the approved SSA
PASS exceeded the SSA PASS Bank Savings Account and additional necessary
services needed for the Recipient to complete her Back to Work SSA PASS Plan of
becoming an Attorney- at-law. SSA PASS now short of $130,000.00 (Vocational
Rehabilitation has exited the picture) is not willing or according to them, not
able to cover the
Recipient’s approved SSA PASS
Plan.
There are further issues that
bear scrutiny and because of the import, the Recipient mentions them
here:
1. SSA’s signature is not on the
Recipient’s approved SSA PASS Plan; SSA’s signature was
not on the
Recipient’s SSA PASS Bank Account, although SSA mandated the
Recipient open
and deposit SSA’s set aside funds of $483.00 and any other funds
she receive
other than her SSDI and SSI. Could this be SSA method of
preventing
themselves from being held
liable?
2. According to SSA, they have
no power over Vocational Rehabilitation; would the fact that
Vocational
Rehabilitation’s signature is not on the SSA PASS Plan. If they
operate as
separate agencies, why is the government funding two different
government
agencies for a Recipient’s single government Back to Work
Program?
3. If you recall, SSA informed
the Recipient that if, for any reason Vocational
Rehabilitation
dropped one from its program, so does SSA. SSA failed to mention
that the
reason could consist of the State of Tennessee Department Human
Services
Vocational Rehabilitation not being in compliance of the
law.
According to SSA PASS, it was up
to the Recipient to find the financial means to fund her SSA PASS goal as
Attorney-at-Law. In 2005, when Vocational Rehabilitation failed to provide
transportation and the Recipient was not able to continue her Back to Work
Program, SSA suspended the Recipient’s SSA PASS in 2005, yet continued to extend
the Recipient’s SSA PASS up through 2007, even though they knew the Recipient
did not have a means for funding her SSA PASS of over $130,000.00 at least. In
2007, SSA officially closed the Recipient’s SSA PASS retroactive, 2005. Due to
the actions of SSA PASS, the Recipient filed Notices of Reconsideration and
appealed both agency and SSA PASS personnel actions and decisions. The Recipient
filed appeals in 2005, 2006, and
2007.
In 2008, the Recipient after
having written a book, sought to use the book, amended her SSA original PASS to
include an additional step which would enable her to use the funds in the SSA
PASS Savings Account to publish and market the book in an effort to earn monies
and complete her work goal. SSA did not have a solution and was not willing to
set aside any more than $602.00 per month to fund the Recipient’s SSA PASS Plan.
The Recipient submitted the plan on August 29, 2008; SSA received the plan on
September 3, 2008 and on September 4, 2008, wrote, [iv]“we cannot approve
your plan for the following reason: you are unlikely to reach your goal. Your
PASS work goal of Attorney is no longer feasible or viable” (Quittie C
Wilson. SSA Assistant Regional Commissioner Program Center Operations. 9/4/2008.
PASS. Marked Exhibit AC1. Pages. 2). The Recipient appealed SSA PASS’
decision.
In 2009, the SSA PASS Savings
Bank Account held a little over 16,141.77. The Recipient returned to school and
dwindling funds (as with Vocational Rehabilitation, transportation costs for the
Recipient daily was $120.00) caused the Recipient to have to withdraw after the
summer semester. She returned for the Spring 2010 Semester, only to have to
withdraw after the Spring 2010 semester with the chief reasons once again-
transportation! Each time SSA suspended the Recipient SSA PASS; the Recipient
was cited for either not have followed her plan or was not taking steps to reach
her SSA PASS goal (SSA PASS. letters. 2005. 2007.
2010)
During 2009, the Recipient’s was
notified that her SSA record and appeal (such would have come from SSA PASS) had
been received by the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR
Nashville, TN). According to the Office of ODAR office manager, the Recipient’s
presence would not be required at her own Hearing, even though the Recipient
requested to be in attendance at her
hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) on September 15, 2009 ruled in the Recipient’s favor: Notice of Decision-
Fully Favorable. The Recipient requested that she be present at her Hearing. The
ALJ denied the Recipient’s request. According to the Social Security
Administration, the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, [v]“… will review
your case to see if an immediate favorable decision without holding a hearing is
possible.” (SSA Form HA-L4 (03-2007). The Regional Commissioner (Atlanta
Region) contacted the Deputy Director Office of Appellate Operations, OHA with a
recommendation to reopen or review the ALJ’s Decision even though the limitation
for review had expired. The Appeal Council (ODAR- Falls Church, VA) overturned
the ALJ’s September 15, 2009 Decision. The Recipient appealed the Appeal
Council’s decision. On January 26, 2011, an Administrative Appeals Judge vacated
and remanded the case to “an administrative law judge.” The remanded and vacated
case has been returned to ODAR (Nashville,
TN).
The Law has been created for a
purpose; those who fail to uphold it or ignore it often cause havoc, chaos and
most often injury as a result. Had a Hearing been held to begin with, such would
have prevented this particular situation. The Recipient did not view marked
exhibits surrounding her September 15, 2009 case until June 2011. Questions
addressed to the Recipient by ODAR (Nashville, TN) made her aware that records
which should have been in her SSA PASS could not be located by ODAR. SSA
administrators and others confirmed documents missing. Some documents marked as
exhibits are not the original and/or have been altered. Some exhibits of which
the Court used to base its decisions within the September 15, 2009 Notice of
Decision were/are not supported; had been deliberately marked to falsely
represent other exhibits and a number of false assumptions were made by the
Court.
A Hearing has been scheduled for
August 1, 2011. The Recipient notified ODAR (Nashville, TN) that without
transportation or the means to pay $120.00 or even $90.00 she would not be able
to attend the August 1, Hearing. If a Recipient is unable to attend, some Courts
have no qualms about dismissing your case and ruling against you. In fact, the
Court in a letter to the Recipient in reference to the upcoming August 1, 2011
Hearing wrote, [vi]“I set aside this
time for you to come and tell me
about your case. If you do not come to the
hearing and I do not find that you have a good reason, I may dismiss your
request for hearing. I may do so without giving you further notice” (Notice of
Hearing. ODAR- Nashville, TN. June 20. 2011). SSA will pay or reimburse
one for transportation, provided they live outside a radius of 75 miles one-way
of the Hearing location. If one cannot obtain and/or pay for transportation to
get to their hearings to exercise their rights, tough luck! Even a favorable
decision, such can be appealed and overturned.
The only other alternative open to the
Recipient was to respond in written form. The Recipient did so in a 16 page SSA
PASS Recipient, Mrs. Dorothy Barron’s Response to the Office of Disability
Adjudication and Review (ODAR- Nashville, TN) Administrative Law Judge September
15, 2009 Notice of Decision in SSA PASS Recipient, Mrs. Dorothy Barron’s 2008
Amended PASS Appeal; it was faxed to ODAR(Nashville, TN) on July 27,
2011.
Cutting to the Chase and deciding
this Case
The Recipient will not share all 16 pages of her
Response to the Court’s September 2009 Notice of Decision, but she will share
the issues on which the Court were to decide the Recipient’s case; they were,
[vii]was the amended
PASS plan viable? Was the beneficiary, Ms. Dorothy Barron likely to reach her
goal of obtaining an undergraduate degree so that she could become a licensed
attorney” (ALJ Notice of Decision. 9/15/2009)? Findings as the Recipient views
in the Case:
1) The
Administrative Law Judge did not state, of what the amended PASS was
viable?
2) The Recipient’s 2008 amended
SSA PASS Appeal (on the original) was heard before the Recipient’s Hearings on
her 2005, 2006 and 2007 Hearings
3) SSA
discontinued services and closed the Recipient’s case while the case was on
appeal.
4) The ALJ had to review or
refer to the Recipient’s original 2001 SSA PASS Plan to decide the 2008 Amended
Plan. If the original was not viable or feasible under the law, would not the
2008 amended SSA PASS be void and
null?
5) SSA suspended the Recipient’s
SSA PASS 8/11/2007, effective 2005? The Recipient filed her amended SSA PASS on
8/29/2008. According to SSA PASS guideline regulations, an amended SSA PASS must
be filed within 12 months. Should the Court even have heard this
case?
The case can easily be decided
and in the Recipient’s “Favor” in this case. The ODAR failed to hear the
Recipient’s 2005 Appeal Hearing before it heard her 2008 amended SSA PASS Appeal
Hearing. Had the Recipient’s 2005 Appeal Hearing been heard in the correct
order, the 2001original SSA PASS would have shown that SSA PASS approved a SSA
Plan which SSA could not financially cover having set aside PASS funds in the
amount of $483.00 per month for four years and the Recipient could not have
covered due to lack of income. It is a distinct possibility that had the Appeal
Hearing been heard in the order in which appealed by the Recipient, the 2008
amended SSA PASS Hearing would not be before the Courts. SSA’s failure to comply
with various laws did egregiously and adversely injure the
Recipient.
In addition, more and more
laws are created when there are too manyon the books as is; many of which, most
do not know exist or are in conflict with The Constitution of the United State
and result in injury. Any law (legally binding decree) created that is not
pursuant to The Constitution of the United States is unlawful. SSA denied the
Recipient her day in Court and such has resulted in injury. Because SSA failed
to uphold and support The Constitution, the Court should rule in favor of the
Recipient and Order Social Security Administration to pay compensatory and
punitive damages to the
Recipient.
Adverse Effects to
the Recipients as the result of SSA, Voc-Rehab and
others
1. The Recipient level of
pain which she experiences on a daily basis has been greatly
exacerbated as a
result of, by and through the egregious actions of SSA, Vocational
Rehabilitation and others and as a result of their failure to uphold the
Law.
2. Emotional
distress
3. Burdened with not knowing
whether she had transportation to school, sometimes from day
to day; whether
she would obtain transportation to school to sit for her final exams, whether
she would remain in school the next semester or obtain needed services to
continue and complete her Back to Work
Program.
4. Nine wasted years in Back
to Work Programs that should have taken four years for the Recipient to become
self-supporting.
5. Recipient reduced
to having to crawl on floor, because Vocational Rehabilitation wanted to conceal
its waste and abuse of services.
6.
Left high and dry without transportation well into the school semester-
Vocational Rehabilitation’s advice to Recipient- “drop out of
school.”
7. Until transportation
arrived, Recipient was at times left sitting in empty school classrooms and/or
school buildings until transportation
arrived.
8. Pushed to class (manual
wheelchair) and left to the mercy of strangers to assist and if
willing to
assist with personal matters
9. Rode
with a chain smoker - having inhaled second hand smoke for approximately five
(5)
months even though the Recipient does not
smoke.
10. Rode in a car with fumes
from oil burning fumes, window down in the rain to prevent the
noxious fumes
and bitten by mites or chigger
11.
Having Vocational Rehabilitation contract without her knowledge with the same
transportation Cab company owner that cancelled services during previous
transport services to the Recipient while school was in
session.
12. Vocational Rehabilitation
refused to purchase necessary assistive technology for the
Recipient that was
listed in the Recipient‘s SSA PASS, of which, SSA PASS gave the Recipient
approval to purchase from her set aside SSA PASS Bank Saving Account funds for
the purchase of a vehicle.
Actually,
the actions of many government agency administrators, agency personnel and
others are the result of a much larger problem with deeper roots which lead back
to U S Congress. Although, many are aware that there is a force and/or powers at
work to insure that the poor and impoverished remain in the abyss of poverty and
dependent upon the government, most simply do not know or understand the
specific tactics involved and from whence they have arose. In the early
seventies, when various government programs were put in place to combat racism,
discrimination and equal the playing field allegedly for all, Congress at this
same time established an Act that opened the front door to equal opportunity,
but sealed the back door to ensure that equality not take place for the majority
who entered the front door; most, at some point have come to the realization
that there was/is no exit or way out. Congress created both an Act and agency to
insure that the poor and impoverished individuals’ rights and privileges under
The Constitution of the United States be denied them and not challenged in a
court of law (more detailed information about both the Act and agency can be
found in the Recipient’s book, Slinging Stones when United
States Congress has lost control and American Courts are out of
control).
As we conclude the
*Education: Live Case Study Pt I.- Pt.VI., 9Year Government “Back to Work” Case
with No End or Resolution in Sight by Mrs. Dorothy Barron up to this point, July
2011, the Recipient has recapped her live case study, which began as an
introduction Post titled, Nothing Will Change by Mrs. Dorothy Barron.
As this live case study has shown, it confirms the remarks made by a Social
Security Administration employee to Recipient; nothing will changes- fraud,
waste, abuse and other egregious actions have and continue to occur by many
within government agencies in an effort to insure that most program recipients
do not rise from the abyss of poverty and off government programs to become
self-supporting; they make sure nothing changes for many Back to Work Program
Recipient (s).
The Recipient created a
Time line for her study, which ranged from 2002 up to the present time, July
2011. Specific problems and serious issues within the Social Security
Administration and State of Tennessee Department of Human Service Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation Back to Work agencies and programs and the effects of
both agencies and agencies' administrators and others on this Recipient
(representative of other individuals with disabilities) and her Back to Work
Goal as an Attorney-at-Law. In addition, the Recipient's Case has become a
Public Appeal for legal representation. The Recipient was notified that an
"Appeal Review on an Appeal Review" has been scheduled for August 1, 2011 on her
Back to Work Social Security Administration
PASS.
You were provided some background
information on the Recipient of this Case Study who is also its author. Resource
information about and on the Social Security Administration and Vocational
Rehabilitation agencies' and their roles in assisting individuals with
disabilities in Back to Work initiatives and incentive programs as well as
obstacles were shared, along with her having listed a number of problems and
obstacles which many Recipients have and continue to face and encounter. You
have also been given a glimpse into the legal process within these
agencies.
The Recipient has shown that
the greatest obstacles and barriers within government Back to Work Programs are
lack of accountability, regulatory authority and failure to uphold The
Constitution of the United States by those sworn or affirmed to do so. Fraud,
waste and abuse abound within these agencies. Such has prevented the Recipient
from completing her work goal, becoming independent of government entitlement
programs and financially
self-sufficient.
You heard from those
inside government. When it comes to individuals with Disabilities and Back to
Work Programs under the Social Security Administration, according to the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; Michael J. Astrue, there is
a need for program reform by Congress; SSA programs are complex for program
recipients and the SSA system itself is so complicated that he would have
trouble explaining the program. (M. Astrue. Media Conference. C- Span.org. May
13. 2011). If the Commissioner over Social Security cannot explain the SSA
program, how does SSA and others expect SSA Back to Work Program Recipients to
understand, navigate and complete the program? The Recipient seriously doubts
many recipients remain in the Back to Work Program wasting their time and meager
resources, if any to find out.
For many
people with disabilities, the problem is not with the individual not wanting to
work; the problem lies with many agency government program agency administrators
and personnel who have the oversight and/or operate government Back to Work
Programs.
If the Recipient was willing
to crawl about in dwellings which she resided in order to get ready for school,
crawl in and out the door to seat herself in a manual wheelchair at the bottom
of her steps (no accessible ramp) to go to school, suffer other indignities and
use a resource she authored to reach a goal that would have remove one more
person from already overburden rolls of government handouts and provide an
avenue for the individual to become self-supporting, somebody should have had
enough courage and determination to insure that government agency Back to Work
programs operate properly and effectively by holding those accountable,
accountable.
The Recipient and author
wishes to thank Readers for joining her in this lengthy and in-depth study. She
has presented evidence and documentation which supports her live case study. Had
the case been funded, there would have been a plethora of documents to accompany
the study.
Citations:
Paul D. Barnes. SSA
Atlanta Regional Commissioner. letter.
10/3/2002
Kelly Salzmann.
Administrative Law Judge. ODAR- Falls Church, VA.
1/25/201.
Dorothy Barron v.
Tennessee Department of Human Services. Final Order. Docket RS 050725304.
3/3/06.
Quittie C Wilson. SSA
Assistant Regional Commissioner Program Center Operations. 9/4/2008. PASS.
Marked Exhibit AC1. Pages 2 of 2.
SSA Form HA-L4
(03-2007.
Notice of Hearing.
ODAR- Nashville, TN. June 20. 2011.
ALJ Notice of
Decision.
9/15/2009.
Resources
Barron.
Dorothy. Author. Book. Slinging Stones when United States Congress has lost
control and American Courts are out of control). 2009
(. (some have expressed an interest in purchasing the
book. For more information, please contact jarrods_pub@yahoo.com
.)
Commissioner Michael J.
Astrue. Social Security
Administration. Statements. Washington, DC. C-SPAN.
13-16 May 2011. http://www.C-SPAN.org
From me, to
you
Mrs. Dorothy Barron,
Author
“Slinging Stones… Blog” by Mrs.
Dorothy Barron:
http://dorothybarron.com/slingingstones
or
http://mrsdbarron.typepad.com/slingingstones
Parents Taking Charge in Education Blog:
http://mrsdbarron.blogspot.com
Twitter:
Follow Mrs. Barron at http://twitter.com/mrsdbarron
