Pamela A. MacLean
RedwoodAge.com

It isn’t often that a federal judge accuses government agencies of making “lame excuses” for failure to comply with court orders, but that’s what a judge in San Francisco said Tuesday of the Social Security Administration’s failure to accommodate blind or sight-impaired people in its benefit programs.

The American Council of the Blind sued the SSA in 2005 asking the courts to order the agency to provide alternative formats to communicate with 3 million people who have limited or no vision and currently receive benefits from SSA.  The SSA refused, either to change its rules or acknowledge that it was required to comply with the law.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup then ordered SSA to develop and offer a Braille alternative and navigable CD alternative by April 15, 2010. He also said the agency must announce the changes on its website, train its staff to deal with the visually impaired, and to orally tell people about the ruling when they call, email or write.

The agency has until Nov. 25 to file a description of the Braille and Microsoft Word CD it proposes to offer and how it will notify the public.

Alsup pointed to cases of sight-impaired benefit recipients having benefits reduced or terminated without reinstatement because there was no accessible format for them to respond.

He pointed to the case of Mary Ann Alexander, who is blind and receives payments for her minor daughters.  In 2002, she was notified that the agency reduced one of her daughter’s benefits because of overpayment.  Alexander didn’t know if she received a prior notice.  She asked for reconsideration and her employer, a lawyer, wrote letters on her behalf. A year later the issue remained unresolved. 

Alexander finally wrote to her congressman and the agency finally responded to her by letter.  It acknowledged it was in error and reinstated her daughter’s benefits, but it took 14 months to resolve.

$60 Billion a Month
Alsup found that SSA has 53.1 million beneficiaries in programs that pay roughly $60 billion per month.  It has more than 65,000 employees nationwide and sends about 350 million notices and forms per year.  That includes 100 million notices that are individualized.

The agency offers participants three options for notice, first-class mail, followed by telephone call, certified mail or first-class mail.  When no option is selected, the default is a printed notice by first-class mail.

Alsup pointed out the SSA refused an opportunity early in the litigation to pursue systemwide rule changes to accommodate the blind.  

“SSA has spurned that opportunity and chosen to litigate on a class-wide basis,” Alsup wrote.  “Moreover, until this litigation was underway, the agency refused to even acknowledge that it was obligated to follow [the Rehabilitation Act of 1973], routinely denying individual requests for accommodation.  In this litigation, it has been quick to find lame excuses for noncompliance but exceedingly slow to favor accommodations.”

“Since the agency has chosen to litigate this case on a class-wide basis, this order will require relief on a class-wide basis,” he said.