GN 03930.020 Petitioning for Approval of a Fee for Services Provided in Proceedings Before SSA
In addition to the specific changes noted below, we changed references from SSA to “Us” or “We” where appropriate, and we made numerous editorial changes throughout.
We clarified that former representatives may file fee petitions only when they have not waived their fee. We emphasized with an “IMPORTANT” label that the appointed representative must personally file the fee petition. We changed the word “claim” to “claim, matter, or issue” for consistency with GN 03910.001B, which defines this term.
We removed introductory text regarding the requirement that each representative who wants to collect a fee must file a fee petition. Similar language is already found in subsection B.1.b (now updated to B.2.) regarding co-representation.
We changed the heading of subsection B.1 from “Claimant Appointed One or More as Representative” to “Representative’s associate provided services” because this subsection included information on unappointed “associates” in addition to properly appointed co-representatives. We have removed B.1.a. and B.1.b. to devote all of subsection B.1. to unappointed associates.
We replaced “another person” and “assistant” with the phrase “unappointed associate” for consistency with GN 03910.025B.1.
In the parenthetical citations to GN 03910.025 and GN 03305.025, we clarified that these POMS sections concerned disclosure of a claimant’s record.
We removed this subsection with the contents of subsection B.1.a. placed in B.1. as described above.
We removed this subsection and now refer to it as B.2. We moved the contents of B.1.b. to B.2. We modified language previously mentioning agreements “between the two representatives.” We removed references to a specific number of co-representatives, which clarifies that any number of representatives could be working together.
We now refer to subsection B.2. as subsection C because it concerns representation of multiple parties, which is a separate concern from multiple representatives discussed in subsection B. We modified and expanded on the language in this section to provide an example of the potential fee petitions that would need to be filed in a case with multiple parties. We also used the term “multiple parties” in place of “claimants” to clarify that we are referring to any individual who is a party to a case.
We now refer to subsection C as subsection D due to the reorganization described above. We changed all references from form SSA-1560-U4 to form SSA-1560 and added hyperlinks to form SSA-1560.
We now refer to subsection C.1.a. as D.1.a. We removed a citation to GN 03930.020C.3. because it is already referenced more appropriately in subsection C.1.b. (now referred to as D.1.b.).
We now refer to subsection C.2. as D.2. We removed a reference to Social Security Ruling 83-27 because that ruling only concerns attorney representatives while this POMs section concerns both attorney and non-attorney representatives.
We removed a reference to GN 03930.010B about determining the amount of a reasonable fee, because it is not entirely relevant to this subsection which concerns only the number of petitions required in a concurrent case.
Subsection C.3 to C.6
We now refer to subsections C.3. to C.6. as D.3. to D.6. respectively. We made minor editorial changes throughout these subsections.
We now refer to subsection C.7. as D.7. We emphasized with an “IMPORTANT” label that representatives cannot submit multiple fee petitions for the same services on a single case.
We now refer to subsection C.8. as D.8. We made minor editorial changes in this subsection.
We now refer to subsection C.9. as D.9. We removed an introductory paragraph explaining that the representative could file at any office while simultaneously indicating our preference for certain offices based on the level of adjudication. This paragraph is unnecessary because the bullet points in this subsection sufficiently describe where to file. We include the word “should” when describing the filing requirement in each bullet point to emphasize that while not technically mandatory, it is the preferred office for sending the fee petition at that particular level of adjudication. We also removed the suite number for the Office of Appellate Operations mailing address.