What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Your actions are violating the Ticket to Work Act of 1999 from what your letter states. You violated the law by discontinuing my Disability Insurance Benefits based on the determination that my disability has ceased. You cited the following reports:
“Your signed statement regarding work and earnings
Social Security Administration Earnings Records
Work information reported by your employer” (Letter Dated 4/10/2012)
Under the federal law 42 USC 1320b-19 you are required to perform the following”
Sec. 1148. [42 U.S.C. 1320b–19] (a) In General.—The Commissioner shall establish a Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program, under which a disabled beneficiary may use a ticket to work and self-sufficiency issued by the Commissioner in accordance with this section to obtain employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or other support services from an employment network which is of the beneficiary’s choice and which is willing to provide such services to such beneficiary.
(b) Ticket System.—
(1) Distribution of tickets.—The Commissioner may issue a ticket to work and self-sufficiency to disabled beneficiaries for participation in the Program.
(2) Assignment of tickets.—A disabled beneficiary holding a ticket to work and self-sufficiency may assign the ticket to any employment network of the beneficiary’s choice which is serving under the Program and is willing to accept the assignment.
(3) Ticket terms.—A ticket issued under paragraph (1) shall consist of a document which evidences the Commissioner’s agreement to pay (as provided in paragraph (4)) an employment network, which is serving under the Program and to which such ticket is assigned by the beneficiary, for such employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, and other support services as the employment network may provide to the beneficiary.
(i) Suspension of Disability Reviews.—During any period for which an individual is using, as defined by the Commissioner, a ticket to work and self-sufficiency issued under this section, the Commissioner (and any applicable State agency) may not initiate a continuing disability review or other review under section 221 of whether the individual is or is not under a disability or a review under title XVI similar to any such review under section 221.
My ticket to work does not have any expiration date, thus it is to be deemed in effect indefinitely. Under these conditions such review of my disability status is illegal under 42 USC 1320b-19 Sec. I. I demand that my benefits be retroactively restored.
This is because of the following information:
The law is to be followed as written per congressional enacted law. The courts are instructed to follow the laws based on the following Supreme Court Decision:
“The question . . . is not what Congress ‘would have wanted’ but what Congress enacted.” Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 618 (1992) (per Scalia, J.). (Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 4892-4894). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.)
And:
“The text must be construed as a whole. “In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole.” K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (per Kennedy, J.).Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 2573-2577). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.
And:
“These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 (1936) (per Roberts, J.). Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 2667-2669). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.
Finally:
#6: The Synonym-Introducing or
“The award of exemplary or punitive damages is the exception, not the rule.”
“An interpretation can be novel, or innovative.”
In these sentences, the or introduces a definitional equivalent. The second item is nonrestrictive (i.e., the sentence is complete without it), so it is typically (as in the second example just quoted) set off by commas. (Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 1934-2001). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.)
The Ticket to Work Act of 1999 included the following statement” “The Commissioner (and any applicable State agency) may not initiate a continuing disability review or other review under section 221 of whether the individual is or is not under a disability or a review under title XVI similar to any such review under section 221.” The SSA cannot make use of any equivalent process as defined by the Supreme Court Justice has stated, and many Supreme Court decisions have backed up this legal reasoning.
Section 221 contains the legal basis of terminating SSDI benefits based on earnings exceeding the earnings threshold of Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA). The section contains the following section:
“ (m)(1) In any case where an individual entitled to disability insurance benefits under section 223 or to monthly insurance benefits under section 202 based on such individual’s disability (as defined in section 223(d)) has received such benefits for at least 24 months—
(A) no continuing disability review conducted by the Commissioner may be scheduled for the individual solely as a result of the individual’s work activity;
(B) no work activity engaged in by the individual may be used as evidence that the individual is no longer disabled; and
(C) no cessation of work activity by the individual may give rise to a presumption that the individual is unable to engage in work.
(2) An individual to which paragraph (1) applies shall continue to be subject to—
(A) continuing disability reviews on a regularly scheduled basis that is not triggered by work; and
(B) termination of benefits under this title in the event that the individual has earnings that exceed the level of earnings established by the Commissioner to represent substantial gainful activity.”( http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0221.htm)
These determinations of terminating my benefits are legally defined as “other review under section 221 of whether the individual is or is not under a disability or a review under title XVI similar to any such review under section 221.” Per your letter included actions performed by the SSA:
“Your signed statement regarding work and earnings
Social Security Administration Earnings Records
Work information reported by your employer” (Letter Dated 4/10/2012)
The fact that your letter stated that it was a determination of disability in fact demonstrates that the SSA is doing exactly opposite what it is allowed under the federal law means that the actions of the SSA cannot be legitimate or valid. SGA based termination of benefits are within Sec 221 or under 42 U.S.C. 421 (m) (2) (b). Thus the ticket to work denies the use of SGA as any basis to terminate ones SSDI benefits.
Until then, your determination cannot be acted on because you have violated the Ticket To Work Incentives Act of 1999. Until this legislation is amended to allow you to do so, this letter is a demand you cease your actions not only for myself or anyone else. Your letter does not satisfy the requirements under the Federal Ticket To Work Act to discontinue my disability insurance benefits as long as I have a ticket to work.
Your actions are violating the Ticket to Work Act of 1999 from what your letter states. You violated the law by discontinuing my Disability Insurance Benefits based on the determination that my disability has ceased. You cited the following reports:
“Your signed statement regarding work and earnings
Social Security Administration Earnings Records
Work information reported by your employer” (Letter Dated 4/10/2012)
Under the federal law 42 USC 1320b-19 you are required to perform the following”
Sec. 1148. [42 U.S.C. 1320b–19] (a) In General.—The Commissioner shall establish a Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program, under which a disabled beneficiary may use a ticket to work and self-sufficiency issued by the Commissioner in accordance with this section to obtain employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or other support services from an employment network which is of the beneficiary’s choice and which is willing to provide such services to such beneficiary.
(b) Ticket System.—
(1) Distribution of tickets.—The Commissioner may issue a ticket to work and self-sufficiency to disabled beneficiaries for participation in the Program.
(2) Assignment of tickets.—A disabled beneficiary holding a ticket to work and self-sufficiency may assign the ticket to any employment network of the beneficiary’s choice which is serving under the Program and is willing to accept the assignment.
(3) Ticket terms.—A ticket issued under paragraph (1) shall consist of a document which evidences the Commissioner’s agreement to pay (as provided in paragraph (4)) an employment network, which is serving under the Program and to which such ticket is assigned by the beneficiary, for such employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, and other support services as the employment network may provide to the beneficiary.
(i) Suspension of Disability Reviews.—During any period for which an individual is using, as defined by the Commissioner, a ticket to work and self-sufficiency issued under this section, the Commissioner (and any applicable State agency) may not initiate a continuing disability review or other review under section 221 of whether the individual is or is not under a disability or a review under title XVI similar to any such review under section 221.
My ticket to work does not have any expiration date, thus it is to be deemed in effect indefinitely. Under these conditions such review of my disability status is illegal under 42 USC 1320b-19 Sec. I. I demand that my benefits be retroactively restored.
This is because of the following information:
The law is to be followed as written per congressional enacted law. The courts are instructed to follow the laws based on the following Supreme Court Decision:
“The question . . . is not what Congress ‘would have wanted’ but what Congress enacted.” Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 618 (1992) (per Scalia, J.). (Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 4892-4894). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.)
And:
“The text must be construed as a whole. “In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole.” K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (per Kennedy, J.).Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 2573-2577). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.
And:
“These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 (1936) (per Roberts, J.). Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 2667-2669). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.
Finally:
#6: The Synonym-Introducing or
“The award of exemplary or punitive damages is the exception, not the rule.”
“An interpretation can be novel, or innovative.”
In these sentences, the or introduces a definitional equivalent. The second item is nonrestrictive (i.e., the sentence is complete without it), so it is typically (as in the second example just quoted) set off by commas. (Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 1934-2001). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.)
The Ticket to Work Act of 1999 included the following statement” “The Commissioner (and any applicable State agency) may not initiate a continuing disability review or other review under section 221 of whether the individual is or is not under a disability or a review under title XVI similar to any such review under section 221.” The SSA cannot make use of any equivalent process as defined by the Supreme Court Justice has stated, and many Supreme Court decisions have backed up this legal reasoning.
Section 221 contains the legal basis of terminating SSDI benefits based on earnings exceeding the earnings threshold of Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA). The section contains the following section:
“ (m)(1) In any case where an individual entitled to disability insurance benefits under section 223 or to monthly insurance benefits under section 202 based on such individual’s disability (as defined in section 223(d)) has received such benefits for at least 24 months—
(A) no continuing disability review conducted by the Commissioner may be scheduled for the individual solely as a result of the individual’s work activity;
(B) no work activity engaged in by the individual may be used as evidence that the individual is no longer disabled; and
(C) no cessation of work activity by the individual may give rise to a presumption that the individual is unable to engage in work.
(2) An individual to which paragraph (1) applies shall continue to be subject to—
(A) continuing disability reviews on a regularly scheduled basis that is not triggered by work; and
(B) termination of benefits under this title in the event that the individual has earnings that exceed the level of earnings established by the Commissioner to represent substantial gainful activity.”( http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0221.htm)
These determinations of terminating my benefits are legally defined as “other review under section 221 of whether the individual is or is not under a disability or a review under title XVI similar to any such review under section 221.” Per your letter included actions performed by the SSA:
“Your signed statement regarding work and earnings
Social Security Administration Earnings Records
Work information reported by your employer” (Letter Dated 4/10/2012)
The fact that your letter stated that it was a determination of disability in fact demonstrates that the SSA is doing exactly opposite what it is allowed under the federal law means that the actions of the SSA cannot be legitimate or valid. SGA based termination of benefits are within Sec 221 or under 42 U.S.C. 421 (m) (2) (b). Thus the ticket to work denies the use of SGA as any basis to terminate ones SSDI benefits.
Until then, your determination cannot be acted on because you have violated the Ticket To Work Incentives Act of 1999. Until this legislation is amended to allow you to do so, this letter is a demand you cease your actions not only for myself or anyone else. Your letter does not satisfy the requirements under the Federal Ticket To Work Act to discontinue my disability insurance benefits as long as I have a ticket to work.
