Effective Dates: 01/26/2024 - Present Previous | Next

TN 14 (01-24)

SI 00530.510 How Do I Apply Rules of Administrative Finality When Fraud or Similar Fault is Not Found?

NOTE: Refer to the chart for the action required.

Court Case

Action

Martinez Settlement

On April 1, 2009, SSA changed its policy of not paying fleeing felons. Follow the instructions below only for felony warrants with offense codes 4901, 4902, or 4999. Follow the Martinez settlement instructions in GN 02613.860 – GN 02613.885 for all other felony warrant codes.

Clark Court Order

On May 9, 2011, SSA changed its policy and no longer suspends or denies benefits or payments based solely on a probation or parole violation warrant (i.e., warrants with offense codes 5011, 5012, 8101, 8102, or 9999 or “Blank” and an offense charge symbol of “probation or parole violation”). Follow the Clark Court Order instructions in GN 02615.100 – GN 02615.190 for all probation or parole violation warrants.

We will make additional changes to this section, as necessary, in the future.

A. When to use

Use these instructions when you identify an SSI recipient who is ineligible for benefits because of their status as a fugitive felon or a parole or probation violator, and fraud or similar fault cannot be found, as described in SI 00530.500.

B. Procedure

If provided in the OIG referral documents, use the run date of the computer match as the date for determining the months subject to reopening, provided that the revision is made within 6 months of the run date. See SI 04070.040B. to determine if the requirements of diligent pursuit have been met. If the revision cannot be made within 6 months of the run date, you must contact OIG to find out what actions were taken while the case was pending. If OIG shows that the delay resulted from causes outside its control during the entire period that the case was pending and OIG was diligently investigating it or following up with other agencies, use the run date. If there were any significant periods that no action was taken by OIG on the case while it was pending, use the date that OIG referred the information to the FO.

If the run date is not provided by OIG, use the date that OIG referred the case to the FO. If the referral is undated, or the suspension action is taken as a result of a referral from a source other than OIG, use the date the material is received in the FO.

Enter the earliest date permitted by administrative finality in the “Date Warrant Issued” or “Date Violated Parole or Probation” fields on the AWRF and AWRP screens to post N25. If this date is different from the actual date, show the actual date of the warrant or court order in the Statement of Remarks segment on the AWRF or AWRP screen.

C. Examples

1. Example 1: SSI recipient found to be fugitive answered “NO” to fugitive question on application

Professor Prune has been receiving SSI cash benefits since December 2000 based on an application completed on November 13, 2000. A computer match with the National Crime Information Center, run in December 2001, uncovered an outstanding warrant for Professor Prune that was issued in 1994. Professor Prune is ineligible for all months of entitlement (November 2000 and continuing).

2. Example 2: SSI recipient answers “NO” on redetermination form and is subsequently found to be fugitive felon

Jane Quail, an SSI recipient since 1989, answered “no” to the fugitive questions during a redetermination interview on November 3, 2000. On March 15, 2001, a computer match with the Baltimore City Police Department revealed that Jane is wanted for a crime that is a felony and a warrant was issued for Jane's arrest on March 15, 1997.

In this case, Jane became aware of the provisions of the law and concealed Jane's ineligibility during the redetermination interview. A finding of fraud or similar fault is made and payments will be suspended effective March 1997.

3. Example 3: SSI recipient answers “YES” on redetermination form and is subsequently found to be a fugitive felon

If Jane Quail, from example 2, answered “yes” during the redetermination interview, and our records show that Jane had no prior knowledge of the fugitive provisions, fraud or similar fault would not be found and payments would be suspended effective

December 1998 – two years prior to the date of the redetermination.

To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500530510
SI 00530.510 - How Do I Apply Rules of Administrative Finality When Fraud or Similar Fault is Not Found? - 01/26/2024
Batch run: 01/26/2024
Rev:01/26/2024