A Cooperative Disability Investigation Unit might be watching you
Sue Bilkens
The Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG), and Disability Determination Services (DDS), administer the Cooperative
Disability Investigation (CDI) project. Since its inception in 1998, CDI efforts
have resulted in over $221 million in projected loss of benefits to disabled
people and over $117 million in projected savings to
non-SSA programs throughout the country.
The program consists of 18 CDI Units (CDIU) nationwide, whose mission is to
obtain evidence of material fact sufficient to cut off the payments of disabled
people. This supports the Agency’s strategic goal of ensuring
the integrity of Social Security programs, with zero tolerance for disabled
leeches.
Since 1998, CDI Units have been established in Atlanta, GA; Baton Rouge, LA;
Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Cleveland, OH; Dallas, TX; Houston, TX; Iselin, NJ;
Nashville, TN; New York, NY; Oakland, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Richmond, VA; Salem, OR;
Seattle, WA; St. Louis, MO; Tampa, FL; Denver, CO; to combat Social Security
fraud.
Seattle is one of the newer CDI Units established in the program. Authorized in
March of 2002, the Unit began operations in December 2002, with employees from
the Washington DDS and the Washington State Patrol staffing the unit.
During the first full calendar year of operations (2003), the Seattle Unit has
proven itself as one of the most successful units in the nation. (they cut off,
killed and made homeless more disabled people than any other unit in the
country) The Seattle unit finished 2003 ranked as the fifth best Unit among the
18 existing Units nationwide. The Unit finished first in the nation for the
month of January 2004.
PURPOSE
Facilitating timely and inaccurate decisions made by the DDS, by gathering
evidence to refute claims, and prosecuting individuals
and/or groups who knowingly facilitate and/or promote fraudulent disability
claims. UNREPORTED WORK ACTIVITY
Anonymous Tips > Obtain specifics; place of work or information on others who
may know about the work, ex spouses make the best witnesses
Repeat Offenders > Patterns of seasonal work or several months of work with no
recent medical review.
Claimant’s Appearance > Things being out of place with one’s personal
appearance and/or one’s personal property Bumper stickers,(logos on vehicles),
make up, smiles.
FOCUS
The majority of referrals to the CDIU are from DDS employees <----------
spotting irregularities (such as someone not seeing a doctor after moving to an
area where no doctors will take medicare) while processing claims and continuing
disability reviews (CDRs). However, the CDIU will accept referrals from anyone
who has something against their neighbor and/or source of information.
In a partnership with SSA, Washington State Patrol detectives conduct the
investigative portion of the case. They do home visits pretending to be
investigating mail fraud and attempt to talk to the claimant. They also follow
claimants in their cars and talk to their neighbors, bosses and college
professors. Often the CDIU investigators will video tape disabled people as
they go to their SSA medical examination and then follow them home. DDS
analysts develop documentation to refute the legitimacy of the claim. The OIG
for the SSA supervises the activities of the CDIU and ensures appropriate action
is taken on each claim in question.
If sufficient information and evidence (such as audio and video tape) is
obtained, the case is presented to either a US Attorney or a local District
Attorney for prosecution. If a referral does not warrant a criminal charge,
civil or administrative remedies may be pursued.
In the vast majority of cases when no evidence is found they may find that you
are still impaired and then cut you off anyway but they will not attempt to
charge you. People with mental disorders are especially vulnerable and favored
targets for this.
Jack
<finge...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure why you keep posting this. With the rigorous and I mean
>RIGOROUS steps they make people go through to finally quality for
>SSDI, are there a lot that aren't disabled? Maybe my head is in the
>sand, but it seemed hard to get on disability. Was there a time when
>it wasn't?
CDI comes into play only when there's some indication of fraud.
In FY 2008, the CDI units closed 967 cases.
http://www.ssa.gov/oig/communications/eyeonoig/eyeoig01222008.htm#hotline
____
As of Dec. 2006, there were 6.8 million SSDI recipients. These do not
include SSI disabled adults or children, title II disabled widow(er)s,
or title II disabled adult children.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2007/5d.html#table5.d1
_____
> Was there a time when
>it wasn't?
No. Our disability program is and has generally been less liberal
than those of many if not all other countries.
Nevertheless, over the long haul, our programs have become more
liberal.
A few examples off the top of the head:
At one time, benefits for SSDI workers could not begin before age 50.
A few years earlier, there were no cash benefits. If you were
disabled, they froze your earnings record so that those blank years
were not used against you when you filed your age 65 claim for regular
social security retirement.
Prior to 1965, the disability duration requirement was not 12 months
but rather "of long, continued, and indefinite duration."
Relaxation of the work credit requirement for people under 31 came
about in '68.
Prior to 1984, there was no medical improvement review std, for CDRs.
Prior to 1991, disabled widow(er)s had to satisfy the automatic
allowance requirement. There was no such thing as a
medical-vocational allowance for them.
____
You could go to ssa.gov and scan the law changes on their history
pages to see many other liberalizations. There have also been a few
DE-liberalizations, e.g., at one time student benefits were paid until
age 22, but now they stop when you graduate from high school or age
19, whichever comes first. -- Jack
Jack
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:25:01 GMT, in alt.social-security-disability
>Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:
>
>>CDI comes into play only when there's some indication of fraud.
>Not true. They come in if doctors give conflicting info, that is not fraud.
In the first place, a significant no. of CDIs are triggered by work
activity that wasn't reported.
Conflicting medical info per se will not trigger a CDI.
Otherwise, they'd need to hire a brigade of investigators.
The nature of the conflicting medical evidence considered together
with all the other case elements can trigger a CDI.
Six String Stu
"Jack" <Windswept@Home> wrote in message
news:4936bbd2...@news-60.giganews.com...
Folks who have been here to read more then a handfull of posts can see that
you are the most knowledgable contributor as per SSA rules, regs and
pratices.
They also should be able to see , without any doubt, that Sue is a nut case
who only has fear mongering in her contributions to this newsgroup.
She is merely exercising her right to prove to the world that her statements
and opinions are the product of a dysfunctional mentality.
For all newcommers to this group:
Ignore and killfilter the trollish harpy. Do not accept anything she posts
as factual or relavant to your own personal experiance. (even if you are as
paranoid as she is)
Jack
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:05:10 GMT, in alt.social-security-disability
>Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:
>
>>
>>Conflicting medical info per se will not trigger a CDI.
>
>yes it will and it did in my case. I have it in black and white from my SSA
>Report. The investigation was called because of conflicting medical opinion.
>
Without having the benefit of your case folder, I can't comment on
your experience except to say that conflicting medical opinions
combined with other indications of possible fraud can trigger a CDI.
Opinions by their very nature are subjective and considered secondary
evidence. The primary determinants of disability are signs, symptoms,
and laboratory findings. A CDI would be more likely triggered where
there's is indication that the objective evidence is misrepresented or
else pertains to another claimant.
If you were terminated inappropriately, I hope that you have been
reinstated, but to imply as you do that CDIs are commonplace is
deceitful. The numbers just don't back it up. And to allege that
there is a conspiracy to remove people from the rolls would require
some evidence that you have not produced so far.
d
again. It's not helping anyone. If anything, your just upsetting
people. Causing them unnecessary stress and worry. We got your
message. If anyone is concerned about this nonsense they can just
look through all your old posts. Time to move on.d
tkd
s Beattie wrote:
>
> I intend to post this every fucking month maybe even twice a month from now on.
nos...@nospam.invalid
"tkd" <noe...@forme.oka> wrote in message news:Pnc_k.7803$v37....@newsfe01.iad...
Twayne
Six String Stu
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ghbrmi$dlh$1...@news.albasani.net...
Relayer
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:05:10 GMT, in alt.social-security-disability
>
> Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:
>
> >Conflicting medical info per se will not trigger a CDI.
>
> Report. �The investigation was called because of conflicting medical opinion.
There was more than conflicting medical opinion in your case, like you
have never
been disabled to begin with.
Terra
news:7cc3fd5e-fc5d-4ab5...@e22g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
She strikes me as a foaming psychotic raging schizo.... Definitely not
the kind you want at the desk next to yours.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **