Rose Law Offices

https://www.facebook.com/share/18shTwJiZz/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Social Security’s telephone customer service sucks, acting leader admits. Many senior citizens agree | CNN Politics Social Security’s acting commissioner recently said out loud what many beneficiaries are thinking these days – the agency’s telephone customer service can “suck.”

Two rule changes make it easier for older Americans to obtain Social Security disability benefits:

The two changes recognize the increasing difficulty older Americans face in this technologically advancing economy.

The first change pertains to the look-back period called “past relevant work” (PRW). Heretofore, the look back period was fifteen years for PRW. Beginning June, the look-back period is shortened to five years, recognizing how quickly the job market is changing, and the time limited notion “transferable skills.”

The second change pertains to persons age 55 or older, who have a limited eduction (meaning no high school diploma or GED), and who have one physical or mental impairment. These individuals will now qualify for disability benefits.

If you think you might qualify under these new rules, or know someone who might, feel free to give the Rose Law Offices a call or shoot us an email. We will be happy to discuss your situation with you at no charge.

If you are on parole and violate the conditions of that parole, you will not receive your Social Security disability benefits for any month that you are in violation of your parole or probation.

Daffodils of Hope, the 8th Amendment

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday, April 22nd, in one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in its history affecting cities and how people who are homeless are treated by local governments. The issue before the high court tomorrow is whether a city ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon (a city comparable in size to Puyallup) can make it a crime for people who are homeless for sleeping or camping in public places within the city when there is no shelter space available.

A 2019 study found 602 people homeless in Grants Pass and another 1,045 individuals who were “precariously housed.” Meanwhile, the city has limited shelter space. At a 2013 city council meeting to discuss possible solutions to the city’s homelessness problem, the city council president suggested “mak[ing] it uncomfortable enough for [homeless people] in our city so they will want to move on down the road.” The city decided to increase enforcement of ordinances that bar the use of blankets, pillows, and even cardboard boxes while sleeping within the city.
The ordinances impose a $295 fine for initial violations. After two citations, police can issue an order that bans the individual from city property; a violation of that order exposes the individual to a conviction on criminal trespass charges, which carry penalties of up to 30 days in jail and a $1250 fine.

The main question before the nine justices of the US Supreme Court is whether such fines and penalties violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Laura Gutowski, a participant in the lawsuit, is 55 years old. She has been homelessness in Grants Pass for around three years, following the death of her husband in 2021. Laura’s sole source of income is her monthly Social Security disability check, which she receives due to her array of disabilities, including diabetes, degenerative joint disease in her knees, degenerative disk disease in her back, emphysema, and predictably, severe depression and anxiety.

Laura testified she was unable to afford today’s rental prices on her disability check. She first stayed in her car for about eight months, then slept in a tent under a gazebo at one of the city’s parks and now lives in a tent somewhere in the city until she is forced to move by the police. “I’m disabled so I need help moving to a different place each time.”

What will the Justices decide? Stay tuned.