by Bruce E. Buchanan*

In 2014, there were significantly fewer decisions issued by Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) related to potential I-9 violations under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a.  There were only 17 Form I-9-related decisions in 2014 while there were 30 decisions Form I-9-related decisions in 2013.[i]

The following 1324a decisions were issued in 2014 with penalties sought by ICE, and penalties assessed by OCAHO:

Reduction in Penalties

ICE sought $1,554,883 in penalties in 2014 while ICE assessed $1,006,925 for an average reduction of 35.25%.This is a much lower reduction than in 2012 and 2013 when the reductions averaged 41.5% and 46.5%, respectively. This drop in the reduction of the penalties appears to be partially explainable by the fact that ICE’s second largest proposed penalty - $329,895 - was not reduced by OCAHO. In only two cases, Durable and Minerva Indian Cuisine, OCAHO declined to reduce ICE’s proposed penalties.

The main reason for the reduction in penalties was OCAHO’s finding that the penalties were “excessive” and “unduly harsh”.  This finding was made in at least 10 cases.  Of those cases, OCAHO cited the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act as a significant factor in finding the penalties excessive in seven cases. Other factors in lowering the penalties were inability to pay, the “principle of proportionality”, and when a company had ceased to exist, thus, there was no deterrent effect.

Type of Employers Targeted by ICE

The following industries were involved in OCAHO decisions: Hospitality – 5; Food preparation/Manufacturing – 3;[ii] Construction – 3; Health care – 2; Horse Racing – 2; Retail – 1; and Service – 1.  As for the size of the employers, 11 of the 17 employers were classified as small employers – usually defined as under 100 employees.

Significant or Interesting Legal Issues

Knowingly Employing/Hiring Unauthorized Workers

In Jalisco’s Bar and Grill, OCAHO found the employer to have “knowingly” employed an unauthorized worker because that employee told his employer that he was unauthorized.  However, in two other cases, Minerva Indian Cuisine, and Durable, OCAHO found the circumstances suggested the employers knowingly employed undocumented workers, but the facts did not conclusively prove such.

Repeat Offender

In Durable, OCAHO was faced with the issue of whether an employer is a repeat offender and thus subject to substantially higher penalties.  The evidence clearly established that in 1989 Durable entered into a Settlement Agreement with INS whereby it agreed to pay $30,000 in fines for “knowingly” employing 17 undocumented workers. Durable discounted this settlement because it occurred almost 25 years ago under different ownership; thus, it should not be found to have a history of prior I-9 violations. ICE asserted Durable was the same corporate entity regardless of any change in owners. Furthermore, ICE argued that a fine was supposed to have a deterrent effect on employers, and the $30,000 fine apparently did not have a sufficient deterrent effect. OCAHO sided with ICE and found Durable was the same corporate entity; thus, it was a repeat offender.

Statute of Limitations

In Leeds Construction, ICE alleged the construction company employed 21 unauthorized workers. However, the evidence established their employment ceased beyond the five-year statute of limitations, set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Thus, OCAHO found no violations.

Signing Section 3 in lieu of Section 2

A second interesting issue raised in Durable was whether the company’s execution of Section 3 excused its failure to execute Section. Durable argued it “complied with the spirit of Form I-9”; thus the 116 situations where this occurred did not support a violation. OCAHO disagreed, pointing out that signing Section 3 in lieu of Section 2 was insufficient, especially given that Section 3 “does not require either the date of hire or any issuing authority for any documents examined.” OCAHO found omitting the date of hire from the I-9 form “renders it impossible to determine whether the employee truly completed the attestation as to their citizenship or immigration status upon the date of hire” and whether it was timely completed.

Employees Working 3 Days or Less

OCAHO confirmed in Black and Blue Restaurant that employers will not normally be held responsible for having I-9 forms for employees working three days or less. However, in Speedy Gonzalez, the company was unsuccessful in using that leeway to cover a situation when employees worked sporadically. The company asserted that if an employee had worked three days or less, but over four to six business days, it was excusable to not complete an I-9 form. OCAHO disagreed because the employee was on the payroll for more than three business days.

Missing/Damaged I-9 Forms

In Jalisco’s Bar and Grill, OCAHO confirmed the fact that when an employer’s I-9 forms are destroyed or damaged, the employer should promptly draft a memorandum on the applicable circumstances and should not backdate the I-9 forms that are completed to substitute for the damaged/destroyed I-9 forms. Similarly, Durable failed in its assertion that the 116 instances of signing Section 3 were valid reverifications because, even though the original I-9 forms could not be located, the HR employees believed I-9 forms were originally completed for these employees. 

No Violation for Lack of I-9 Forms for Owners

In Speedy Gonzalez, OCAHO reiterated a position that it has taken in the past - owners of a company with substantial control of the company do not need to complete I-9 forms.

Common Types of I-9 Form Errors

In 13 out of 17 cases, the employer failed to prepare, or timely prepare, I-9 forms for the employees.  This is usually the most common error committed by employers in cases litigated before OCAHO.  In 12 out of the 17 decisions, the employer failed to properly ensure completion of Section 1 and/or failed to complete Section 2 of the I-9 form. These errors included failure to ensure the status was checked in Section 1; failure to ensure Section 1 was signed; failure to ensure the alien number was provided; failure of the employer to sign Section 2; failure to provide a document number and/or issuing authority in Section 2; failure to list documents from List B and/or C; and failure to complete any information in Section 2.

Takeaways

As previously stressed, litigation before OCAHO can result in substantial reductions in penalties. However, many of these reductions can be obtained in a well-articulated argument to ICE attorneys before the issuance of a Complaint.

One final point - it is important for all employers, large and small, to conduct annual self-audits under the direction of an immigration compliance attorney and have a written I-9 Compliance Policy.  If employers take both of these actions, their chances of liability for I-9 form violations can be significantly reduced.

by Kate E. Tucker*

On February 25, 2015, the USCIS published the final rule (80 FR 10284, 2/25/15) extending eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who are seeking employment-based lawful permanent resident (''LPR'') status. The final rule is effective on May 26, 2015, and amends 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(iv) and 274a.12(c).

It is important to note that only certain H-4 dependent spouses are eligible for work authorization under the new rule. Specifically, work authorization will be granted for H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who either: (1) are the principal beneficiaries of an approved Form I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, or (2) have been granted H-1B status under Sections 106(a) and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, as amended (“AC21”).  The USCIS estimates that as many as 179,600 individuals could be eligible for this benefit in the first year, and as many as 55,000 annually in subsequent years.

This rule is one of the products of President Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration announced in November 2014. Its intended purpose is to attract and retain highly skilled foreign workers for the benefit of U.S. businesses and this country’s economy, recognizing that the contributions these individuals make “are highly correlated with economic growth and job creation”. In essence, the rule is designed to allow work authorization for foreign nationals facing the significant backlogs in the LPR process that are the reality for certain nationalities. Because of these backlogs, many foreign workers opt either not to pursue permanent residency in the first place, or to give up on the process along the way and return home (or take their skills to another country where the process promises a faster route to permanent residency).  With regard to the latter, the rule states that it is designed to “bring U.S. immigration policies more in line with those of other countries that are also competing to attract and retain highly skilled workers.”

As a practical matter, eligible H-4 dependent spouses must file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, in order to receive work authorization. The application must be filed with the $380 filing fee and any required supporting documentation. The USCIS will begin accepting applications on May 26, 2015. Once the application is approved, the H-4 dependent spouse will receive an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) which he/she may use to work for any employer in the United States.

_________________________

*Kate Tucker is a partner at Kramer Rayson LLP in Knoxville, Tennessee. She earned her J.D. from William and Mary College of Law in 2001. She is admitted to the state bar of Tennessee and the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of TN. Her primary practice areas include business immigration and employment law.

by Shelley Starzyk*

Since President Obama’s announcements regarding new immigration programs, there has been federal litigation and much discussion regarding the new enforcement policies and programs. This article will provide a brief overview of some of these developments and the anticipated next steps in litigation.

The President announced executive actions on Immigration on November 20, 2014, including an expanded program for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“expanded DACA”), a new discretionary program for Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizen and LPR children (“DAPA”).[i] It is estimated that these new discretionary programs would provide relief to over an estimated 4 million individuals. That same day the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a memo outlining new enforcement priorities for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

Litigation Surrounding the Implementation of Expanded DACA and DAPA

As you know, the implementation of the expanded DACA and DAPA programs is on hold due to federal litigation. On December 3, 2014, the State of Texas along with other states brought suit against the U.S. government in the Southern District of Texas federal court in a case entitled Texas et al. v. United States. The Plaintiff States, which now number 26 (including Tennessee), sought to block President Obama’s Executive Actions for expanded DACA and DAPA. The Plaintiffs argued that the new proposed programs violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Constitution.

On February 16, 2015, District Judge Andrew Hanen entered a preliminary injunction to stop President Obama’s Executive Actions for expanded DACA and DAPA.[ii] Judge Hanen’s preliminary injunction ruling is structured to block all federal government action on expanded DAPA and DACA.

While this temporary injunction has delayed the expanded DACA and DAPA programs, it may not hold up under further scrutiny, or in a different court. Prior to issuing the DAPA and DACA guidance, the Obama administration vetted this new program through their legal counsel. This is not the first action of its kind for this administration, as the original DACA program was implemented in 2012. Furthermore, a previous challenge to that 2012 DACA program was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, allowing that program to move forward.[iii]

While Judge Hanen’s 123 page opinion in support of the preliminary injunction raises issues under procedural process and APA, most of the opinion identifies grounds for standing. In the preliminary injunction, the Court made an initial finding of standing under the APA on the State of Texas’ argument that they would suffer economic injury if it had to issue drivers licenses to all new expanded DACA or DAPA recipients.[iv] This appears to be the main basis for the Court finding standing. The Court also explores the idea that Plaintiffs have standing under the APA because of the federal government’s abdication of enforcing immigration laws. The Court finds that the Administration’s proposed DAPA and DACA is essentially the federal government opting out of enforcing the immigration laws. The Government contests this finding and asserts that it is a lawful exercise of discretion within the enforcement of their laws. The Judge did not rule on the constitutional issues raised in the complaint.

On February 23, 2015, the federal government sought an emergency stay of this preliminary injunction and indicated that if Judge Hanen did not rule quickly they would appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 12, 2015, the Justice Department filed for an Emergency Stay with the Fifth Circuit after Judge Hanen would not set a hearing date until March 19 to hear all pending motions, including the Emergency Stay request.

The expectation of many immigration attorneys is that Judge Hanen’s ruling will be overturned and the expanded DACA and DAPA programs will eventually move forward. This expectation was strengthened by the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 9, 2015 decision, Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, where the Court held the U.S Department of Labor did not need to follow the notice and comment procedures under the APA in issuing “Interpretive” rules.

The November 20, 2014 ICE Priorities Memo is still in Effect

After the February 16, 2015 Federal District Court injunction, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced DHS would suspend DAPA and expanded DACA programs.[v] While Secretary Johnson noted his vehement opposition to the Court’s ruling, he stated that DHS will respect this injunction and pending outcome of this litigation. Therefore, ICE could no longer consider individuals for expanded DACA or DAPA when evaluating enforcement priorities. In this announcement, DHS Secretary Johnson also specifically noted that this injunction did not affect the November 20, 2014 Priorities Memo, and that DHS would continue to follow this memo with respect to immigration enforcement. Interestingly, during the last weeks of February 2015, some ICE offices reportedly acted without following the November 2014 Priorities Enforcement Memo. In response, ICE has issued further guidance, affirming that the District Court injunction does not have any bearing on this new enforcement memo. Therefore, the ICE November 20, 2014 Priority Enforcement Memo remains as the standard policy guidance for immigration enforcement.

The Takeaway

Pending further litigation, many immigration attorneys are advising hopeful expanded DACA and DAPA clients to prepare their documentation and filing fees for these programs. Given the points of the initial injunction, and the previous actions of the executive branch similar to this one, it is appears there is a strong chance the Court’s injunction will eventually be overruled.

*Shelly Starzyk is a solo practitioner and practices immigration law. She is a graduate of Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Ms. Starzyk may be reached at shelley@starzyklawpllc.com or (615) 669-4206.

On the morning of April 16, 2015, at the TBA’s Nashville office, we will hold our annual Immigration Law Section Forum. Speaking at the forum will be Lynuel Dennis, Field Office Director of the USCIS in Memphis, Special Agent Robert Ryan of HSI-ICE in Knoxville, and several local immigration attorneys.  I hope you will be able to attend the seminar.  The link to the seminar is at the end of this issue.

I would like to thank the authors for their timely and insightful articles in this issue: Shelley Starzyk and Kate Tucker. If you would like to write an article, please e-mail me at bbuchanan@visalaw.com or call me at 615-345-0266.

Bruce Buchanan

Hope you are well. We just wanted to follow-up regarding the the 9th Annual Corporate Counsel Initiative Gala, which will be held next Saturday, March 7, in Nashville at The Hermitage Hotel. CCPBI is a collaborative project between the Tennessee Bar Association and the Association of Corporate Counsel established to help foster a coordinated approach to pro bono work and support for the access to justice community in Tennessee.

Many thanks to the organizations that have already joined us as event sponsors, listed below. Sponsorship opportunities are still available and all event supporters will be recognized in the Gala program and TBA coverage of the event. We are finalizing our attendee list for the event and also wanted to send one more reminder about individual tickets, whether for you, colleagues who are not connected with sponsoring organizations or in honor of representatives from our legal services organizations. (Individual tickets are available for $200 each, full-table sponsorships start at $3,000 and donations are accepted in any amount. Please feel free to pass this information along to others who may be interested in attending this unique and meaningful event.) Please RSVP by close of business Monday, March 2 if you are planning on attending.

More information about the event is attached. We are thrilled to have Judge Bernice Donald of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as keynote speaker at the Gala and the Memphis offices of law firm Wyatt Tarrant & Combs and global medical technology innovator Medtronic will both be recognized for their commitment to providing free legal service to Tennesseans. The cocktail reception begins at 6:00 p.m. and dinner will be served at 7:00p.m.

Please visit the TBA website for more information about the Corporate Counsel Pro Bono Initiative: https://www.tba.org/corporate-counsel-pro-bono-initiative

Do not hesitate to contact us as you have questions or need additional information.

Thank you and we hope to see many of you soon!
Liz Todaro


We offer our appreciation to the Sponsors of the 9th Annual Corporate Counsel Pro Bono Initiative Gala
Association of Corporate Counsel – Tennessee Chapter
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC
Bass, Berry & Sims PLC
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee Community Trust
Counsel on Call
Eastman Chemical Company
International Paper Company
Miller & Martin PLLC
Nissan USA
State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company
Stites & Harbison PLLC
Thomas & Betts Corporation
Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, LLP

*By Bruce E. Buchanan, Chair of TBA’s Immigration Law Section

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Brownsville, Texas has temporarily blocked President Obama’s Executive Actions related to Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), finding that President Obama had overstepped his legal authority.

The White House announced the Justice Department would appeal Judge Hanen’s order to the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals. It may also seek a stay of the Judge’s order.

In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security stated it would delay accepting applications for expanded DACA, which were set to begin on February 18. This expansion was expected to provide deportation relief to about 270,000 people, who arrived in the United States before their 16^th birthday.

In his opinion, Hanen wrote "the states have clearly proven a likelihood of success on the merits" of the case. Hanen wrote it was "disingenuous" for the administration to maintain Obama's actions merely "supplements and amends" current policy. He further stated, "It represents a massive change in immigration practice, and will have a significant effect on, not only illegally present immigrants, but also the nation's entire immigration scheme and the states who must bear the lion's share of its consequences."

The White House, through the Justice Department, argued the executive action fell within Obama's presidential powers.

_________________________

*Bruce E. Buchanan is an attorney at the Nashville Office of Siskind Susser, P.C.  He is a graduate of Vanderbilt University School of Law. Bruce is the Chair of the Immigration Law Section.  He writes a blog on employer immigration compliance for ilw.com, located at www.EmployerImmigration.com, and is a contributor toLawLogix’sI-9 and E-Verify Blog, located at http://www.lawlogix.com/blog and HR Professionals Magazine. Bruce may be reached at bbuchanan@visalaw.com or (615) 345-0266.

This year's annual forum will focus on the best practices in premises liability, uninsured motorist, and product liability. Highlights and updates in workers compensation will be addressed. Other sessions include insurance coverage and bad faith, and implicit bias in jury selection. New lawyers in this area as well as seasoned lawyers will benefit from these updates.

Topics Include:

• Premises Liability
• Product Liability 
• Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
• Workers Compensation
• Implicit Bias in Jury Selection

Click here to register today!

There is a three-part webinar series on the basics of Social Security practice currently available through the TBA online. Each one-hour webinar is only $35 for section members!

1) Client Selection: https://cle.tba.org/catalog/course/3198

2) Representation and Application: https://cle.tba.org/catalog/course/3207

3) Disability Hearings: https://cle.tba.org/catalog/course/3199

Section member Eric Buchanan also has a webinar on Federal Court practice available here: https://cle.tba.org/catalog/course/3025

News: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Social Security will stop seizing tax refunds for debts: Last Spring, Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin announced that SSA would stop seizing the tax refunds of individuals with overpayments from more than a decade ago. On Monday, January 12, 2015, the agency announced that it will continue to suspend this program this tax season. More information can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-security-will-stop-seizing-tax-refunds-to-collect-old-debts/

New House rule may result in Social Security cuts in 2016: The House adopted a rule last week that will prevent the routine transfer of tax revenue between the retirement and disability funds, upping the chances of a crisis for the latter in late 2016. More here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/house-rule-sets-election-year-battle-social-security-28048810

Other tidbits:

Higher tax cap. Most workers pay 6.2 percent of every paycheck into the Social Security system until their earnings exceed the tax cap. The maximum taxable earnings will increase this year from $117,000 in 2014 to $118,500 in 2015. About 10 million of the 168 million workers who pay into Social Security are expected to face higher taxes as a result of this change. People who earn more than the taxable maximum do not pay Social Security taxes on that amount or have those earnings factored into their future Social Security payments.

Larger earnings limits. Social Security beneficiaries who are under age 66 can earn as much as $15,720 in 2015, before $1 in benefits will be withheld for every $2 earned above the limit. Retirees who will turn 66 in 2015 and have signed up for Social Security can earn up to $41,880 before every $3 earned above the limit will result in one benefit dollar being withheld. However, once a retiree turns age 66 there is no limit on earnings and Social Security payments are recalculated to give the retiree credit for the withheld benefits.

Your statement might be in the mail. If you will turn age 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 or 60 this year and don’t have a Social Security online account, you can expect to receive a paper Social Security statement that lists your earnings history, taxes paid and expected benefit about 3 months before your birthday. And after age 60 workers will receive a statement annually. The SSA expects to send nearly 48 million Social Security statements each year. These mailings, which were sent annually to all workers age 25 and older between 1999 and 2011, were suspended in April 2011 to save money. Statements are also available online at any time via socialsecurity.gov/myaccount, and 14 million people have created personalized accounts using this service.

The maximum benefit increases.The maximum possible Social Security payment for a worker who signs up at full retirement age will be $2,663 per month in 2015, up $21 from $2,642 in 2014.

Video teleconferences (VTC): Prior to September 8, 2014, SSA notified claimants of the right to object to a hearing by VTC in the notice of hearing, sent after an ALJ was assigned to the case and after the hearing was scheduled. Under those procedures, the claimant could submit an objection to appearing at the hearing by VTC any time before or at the hearing. Because a claimant could submit an objection on short notice, hearing offices frequently lost hearing time slots, as well as other resources used to schedule and conduct the hearing. Additionally, some claimants and appointed representatives were misusing the procedures to forum shop for ALJs with higher allowance rates.

To address these types of issues, SSA changed its procedures for offering the claimant the right to object to appearing at a hearing by VTC. Most importantly, on or after September 8, 2014, the hearing office provides a claimant 30 days to object to appearing at a hearing by VTC in the acknowledgement of hearing. The hearing office sends this notice before an ALJ is assigned to the case and before a hearing is scheduled. There is more information in HALLEX here: http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-05/I-5-1-21.html

2015 COLAs:  In other news, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries will receive a 1.7 percent Cost of Living Adjustment or COLA for 2015.  The SSA Fact Sheet regarding 2014 SSA changes is found at:http://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2015.html

The Health Insurance Marketplace (healthcare.gov) is open for enrollment through February 15, 2015.

Most Title II recipients have a two-year waiting period for Medicare benefits. Sometimes their claims are adjudicated and approved before that time is up. For those individuals in the waiting period, you should know that they may be eligible for help paying for private health insurance through the new Marketplace. As long as their household income is over 100% of the federal poverty level, they can qualify for a subsidy to help pay for this insurance. For example, a one-person household who received Title II benefits in the amount of $1000 per month could pay as little as $20 per month for private health insurance until they are eligible for Medicare coverage. They can apply at www.healthcare.gov or by calling 1-800-318-2596. To find out the approximate amount of the subsidy they may be eligible for before applying, they can go to http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/ or http://www.valuepenguin.com/ppaca/exchanges/tn

Help with Medicare Premiums, Deductibles and Co-Pays - Medicare Savings Plan applications (for QMB, SLMB, QDWI, or QI1) are now processed through TennCare and not DHS. To get an application, call the Tennessee Health Connection at 1-855-259-0701. An application for LIS (Extra Help) through SSA serves as a filing for MSP’s as well pursuant to the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) of 2008 (PL 110-275).

MIPPA establishes that effective January 1, 2010, a LIS application will initiate an application for the Medicare Savings Programs (MSP). The Social Security Administration (SSA) will team with the state Medicaid agencies to auto-initiate applications for MSP for LIS applicants. SSA will transmit specific LIS data to SSA Beneficiary Earnings and Data Exchange (BENDEX) on a daily basis to states beginning January 1, 2010. SSA will also transmit daily data on initial determination of LIS ‘Approvals and Denials’ only. Therefore effective 1/1/2010 DHS (now TennCare) will begin to process MSP applications using the information on the LIS applications. ‘Changes’ reported on LIS active cases will not be sent.

Application Filing Date

Section 1935 (a) of the Social Security Act established the MSP application date as the date the LIS application was filed with SSA. For tracking purposes, DHS will begin the 45 day timeliness count from the first day the application is transmitted to DHS. If the application is approved for SLMB or QI, the benefits will begin the date the LIS application was filed at the SSA office . If approved for QMB, the benefits will begin the month after the approval is authorized.

Other Resources

SSL Discussion List:  Non-government lawyers may sign up for the Social Security Law for Non-Government Lawyers (“SSL”) private mail discussion list with online archives and wiki by going to the following link:  https://sympa.theombudsman.com/sympa/info/ssl.  The discussion list is run by Georgia attorney Charles L. Martin, who concentrates his practice in Appeals Council and court briefs in Social Security disability claims.  Information about the discussion list, membership requirements and instructions for how non-government Social Security lawyers can apply for membership is available at the above-linked page. 

NOSSCR:  The National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR) website is another excellent resource, with coverage of Social Security Basics and up-to date information about Social Security News, Policy Updates and numerous Legal Resources:  www.nosscr.org

Eric Schnaufer’s Social Security Law Page: includes a list of recent SSA cases and links, all circuits:  http://www.schnaufer.com/

We welcome suggestions for ways to improve the Section, enhance our Section website, news articles to distribute and ideas about how to increase opportunities for communications among Section members.

Happy New Year! Social Security has been in the news a lot lately. We have included in this newsletter a compilation of recent news articles and tidbits for you.

We also want to remind you about our upcoming CLE program, “Disability Law Forum 2015” to be held on April 23, 2015 at the TBA Bar Center in Nashville (221 4^th Avenue North, Suite 200).  As a TBA member, you can use your 3 prepaid CLE credits to reduce the cost of this program.  Your section membership also provides a discount to attend this 5 hour seminar, which offers 4 hours of general credit and 1 hour of dual ethics and professionalism credit.  Save the date now! More information about registration will be sent out soon.

This annual CLE will include a session on hearing do’s and don’ts by an Administrative Law Judge from Social Security; a discussion about how to be successful at the Appeals Council;  a troubleshooting session including how to resolve problems with fee claims; and, an important discussion about the February 2014 regulations outlining the ethical obligations of disclosing adverse evidence.  This program is designed to give you practical and interesting information to improve your practice while you connect and exchange ideas with Social Security lawyers, judges and practitioners from all over this State.  We hope to see you there. 

Katie Evans Moss

kmoss@las.org