Comment from Sprecher, Megan, The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland

The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland serves 5 counties in Northeast Ohio. Many of our clients have reason to visit SSA offices on a regular basis. We are concerned that this rule will disproportionately harm mental health consumers. Ban - A written warning should be required before banning an individual. The warning should specify the problematic behavior, offer an opportunity for an in-person or telephone meeting to resolve it, and give the individual chance to correct action. See attached sample. - The ban should be automatically reviewed after a year- before then if the individual has a relevant change in circumstances. - A blanket nationwide ban is too extensive- in some cases the problem may be solved by having individual go to a different local office. The level of ban should be decided on a case by case basis. - “Engages in disruptive conduct” is too vague and should be clarified to ensure that a ban is only issued in the most serious cases. - The ban notice should include a babel box and additionally say: (1) SSA will provide in-person service if no alternate means are available; (2) ban does not relate to the individuals eligibility for benefits or appeal rights; (3) how to request reasonable accommodation if behavior related to disability; and (4) who can assist the individual in appealing. Appeal Process - The good cause exception for filing deadline should not be time limited. - The appeal should be decided by a different person than who initially decided to ban individual. This person should not be employed at the local office that decided to ban the individual. - An exception to the written appeal requirement should be available for individuals who are illiterate or who have limited English proficiency. SSA should be required to publish statistics annually about the number of individuals banned and by which local office and revisit the effectiveness of this rule within 5 years. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.