QA Stupidity

We have a Quality Assurance (QA) department.  They take a look at much of our work to make sure we're doing it correctly.  Today I had an exchange with a gentleman (read: prickdickfucker) in our QA department who reviewed one of my cases.

From QA:

We should add to the onset letters {letters sent out to the claimant telling them why the date they alleged their disability began is not the date we will be using to start their disability payments} the reason why we allowed the claimant at 03/19/15. The reason is his attaining age 55 but we do not state that in the DDE specifically on the letter. We should add that he is disabled due to his age and that he became disabled when he reached age 55; or something like that. The current letter does not let the claimant know why we chose 03/19/15.

Please add a sentence or two to the onset letter.
My response:

Hi [dickprickfucker],

My previous and current supervisors have both told me that I should not include the language "...because you turned a specific age..." in a [letter to the claimant] for change of onset.  One supervisor gave me the language along the lines of "you are being allowed on this date because that is when you met the requirements of the definition of disability as it pertains to the Social Security Administration."  My current supervisor is asking for a clarification or a specific example of the correct language to use, or why this particular case needs to include the language detailing that the claimant turned a specific age and that's why we're allowing.  Can you advise?

Thank you.


dickprickfucker's response:

The case was returned to you because I do not think the claimant or the SSA Rep can understand why the Onset date is 03/19/15.

Do You?

It is more than one year after the [alleged onset date].  It is not the claimant birthdate.

SSA writing is supposed to be understood by a person of 6th grade education level.

The  Commissioner Broadcast memo of 11/13/14 states we are supposed to promote clear understanding and in accordance with the Plain Writing Act of 2010;  " that the public can understand and requires all Federal agencies to use plain language in documents that provide information to the public. "

My response:

I understand using clear language and Plain Writing Act.  The language I've used in the [letter] is language I've always used, and my feeling is that it is clear according to the guidelines set forth for clear language.  In terms of presenting a clear understanding as to the concepts of why 3/19/15 was selected for the allowance date, this would require explaining the workings of medical vocational allowances including that Social Security deems an individual their next chronological age the day prior to their actual birthday.  It was my understanding that these conceptual issues were complex enough to warrant the language I've used without going into a fairly comprehensive explanation as to how medical vocational allowances are determined.  Of course, I will do whatever I need to do in order to adjudicate and dispose of this case in an accurate and timely fashion.  However, since I've always used this language, I would love an example of how to clearly write the [letter] so that I can adjust my language for the future.  

At this point, I have asked dickprickfucker TWICE for language that would clear up this issue as I have assessed he is either asking me to explain Social Security procedures to a claimant, or use different language.  He has also gone into some detail about how it's important to tell the claimant that they are being allowed because they turned 55, which puts them into a different category of rules and, ultimately, is the reason why they're being allowed when they are.

dickprickfucker's response:

I did not state we should try to explain medical  vocational evaluation processes  to the claimant.

Just that the decision letter  should be understandable to a normal person.

I would add this sentence; Or something similar.

We considered the starting date of disability  that you alleged  but we did not find you to be disabled under our rules for disability evaluation before 03/19/2015; when we reviewed your age, education and medical records.

Upon reflection, this exchange was minor.  The issue was petty.  And, really, the only reason I'm upset is because the case was returned to me and it was unclear, for several email exchanges, how I should change what I had done in order to make it fit with what the QA idiot wanted.  Typically, QA will send you something telling you what you did wrong, then they will tell you, specifically, what changes need to be made.  "...or something like that..." is never included in the specific changes.  Also, when you explain what you want done clearly, it's easier to understand what you want even when you make typos (like this idiot did), and EVERYBODY makes typos at some time. 

This stupid fucker has just ruined my day so far.  I'm now fighting to get back on track.  What a dickprickfucker.


And while I'm at it, I think it's fucking stupid as hell that "proceed" has two "ee"s, and "procedure" has only one "e", and I can't keep the fucking pair separate!  I also have a huge problem with "loose" versus "lose", and typically can only figure out which one is which when I think about the song "Lose Yourself", cuz I know that only has one "o", and means "to get lost".  English is stupid.  People are stupid.  Everything is fucking dumb as hell!