jurisdiction: US

text: b' Office of the Inspector General\n\nMarch 3, 1999\n\nKenneth S. Apfel\nCommissioner of Social Security\n\nActing Inspector General\n\n\nManagement Advisory Report: Welfare Reform Childhood Redetermination Accuracy\n\n\nThe attached final report presents the results of our review, \xe2\x80\x9cWelfare Reform Childhood Redetermination\nAccuracy\xe2\x80\x9d (A-01-98-62012). Our objective was to determine how the Social Security Administration\nintends to investigate and correct accuracy problems for cessations and continuances of children\nredetermined under Welfare Reform by State Disability Determination Service offices.\n\nYou may wish to comment on any further action taken or contemplated on our recommendations. If you\nchoose to offer comments, please provide them within the next 60 days. If you wish to discuss the final\nreport, please call me or have your staff contact Daniel R. Devlin, Acting Assistant Inspector General for\nAudit, at (410) 965-9700.\n\n\n\n\n James G. Huse, Jr.\n\nAttachment\n\x0c OFFICE OF\n THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n WELFARE REFORM\n CHILDHOOD REDETERMINATION\n ACCURACY\n\n March 1999 A-01-98-62012\n\n\n\n\n MANAGEMENT\nADVISORY REPORT\n\x0c Office of the Inspector General\n\n\nKenneth S. Apfel\nCommissioner of Social Security\n\nInspector General\n\n\nManagement Advisory Report: Welfare Reform Childhood Redetermination\nAccuracy\n\n\nOur objective was to determine how the Social Security Administration (SSA) intends to\ninvestigate and correct accuracy problems for cessations and continuances of children\nredetermined under Welfare Reform by State Disability Determination Service (DDS)\noffices.\n\nIn December 1997,1 SSA released a report outlining findings on the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nimplementation of new childhood disability provisions in the Personal Responsibility\nand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, referred to as the Welfare Reform\nlaw. Under this law, individuals under age 18 are considered disabled if they have a\nmedically determinable physical or mental impairment which results in marked and\nsevere functional limitations and if their impairment meets the statutory duration\nrequirement. One of the issues cited in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s report involved assessment accuracy\nproblems with childhood cases at DDS offices. In the report, SSA stated that steps\nwould be taken to correct these problems, including: (1) providing SSA and DDS staff\nwith updated training; (2) reworking a number of the cases that were ceased under the\nnew disability criteria; and (3) revising certain disability criteria. After SSA\xe2\x80\x99s report was\nissued, a steering committee was established to implement these steps.\n\nWe estimate that if the cases identified as inaccurately ceased were overturned as a\nresult of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s rework, both Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the States may\nincur additional SSI benefit costs of between $7.40 million to $24.02 million over a\n1-year period. However, we estimate that Federal and State SSI funds at risk could be\nreduced between $9.47 million to $15.33 million over a 1-year period if SSA were to\nidentify and correct inaccurately continued SSI childhood cases. SSA is currently\nreviewing the inaccurate cessations, but the Agency has not yet taken actions to\n\n1\n Review of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of New SSI Childhood Disability Legislation, Social Security\nAdministration, December 17, 1997.\n\x0cPage 2 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\ncorrect the inaccurate continuances nor provided a plan showing how and when this\nwill be done. These cases could be corrected by scheduling inaccurately continued\ncases for a continuing disability review (CDR) earlier than required under current law.\nBy correcting problems with both cessation and continuance cases, SSA can offset the\nmajority of Federal and State costs incurred by the process, while also ensuring that all\nchildren who should continue to receive SSI benefits do so and those whose benefits\nshould be ceased are stopped. SSA officials have indicated that they plan to address\ninaccurate continuances, but they have not yet provided an action plan. We\nrecommend that SSA ensure that erroneous childhood continuances are reviewed.\nSpecifically, we believe SSA should identify questionable continuation cases and\nupdate the profile of these questionable continuation cases to expedite the next\nscheduled full medical CDR.\n\nIn response to our draft report, SSA agreed with the overall conclusion. SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomments are found at Appendix C in their entirety. Specifically, SSA agreed that\nCDRs on childhood continuances made by States with low continuance accuracy are\nimportant. The Agency had planned to release the relevant cases for CDRs in early\nFiscal Year (FY) 1999. SSA did have comments related to our calculations, pointing\nout that Office of the Inspector General (OIG) should: (1) recognize statistical\nvariability associated with the quality measures on which we relied for our funds at risk\nestimates; and (2) adjust the cost and funds at risk calculations to reflect the potential\nimpact of hearings and appeals. In our response, we noted that we recognized\nstatistical variability and presented the most conservative estimates. In terms of\nhearings and appeals, we modified both our cost and funds at risk estimates in the\nreport to show the potential impact of this process.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nIn August 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity\nReconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), also called the Welfare Reform law.\n 2\nThis law mandates CDRs and/or redeterminations be performed for specific SSI cases,\nincluding:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 redeterminations for children with a disability based on the comparable severity\n standard and/or maladaptive behavior;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 redeterminations for all SSI recipients attaining age 18; and\n\n\n\n\n2\n The purpose of CDRs and redeterminations is to determine whether a disabled beneficiary is still\nmedically eligible to receive benefits.\n\x0cPage 3 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CDRs at least once every 3 years for all SSI recipients under age 18 if not\n permanently disabled.\n\nSSA originally determined that of the 1 million disabled children in the SSI program,\napproximately 288,000 children, with a disability based on the comparable severity\nstandard and/or maladaptive behavior, needed to be redetermined under the Welfare\nReform law. This number was later reduced to approximately 260,000 after all\nscreening processes3 were completed. Under this law, individuals under age 18 are\nnot considered disabled if they have an impairment of comparable severity to that of an\nadult. Rather, individuals under age 18 are considered disabled if their impairment\nmeets the statutory duration requirement and if they have a medically determinable\nphysical or mental impairment which results in marked and severe functional\nlimitations. The law also eliminated the use of individualized functional assessments\nfor children and eliminated reference to maladaptive behavior in the personal domain in\nspecified listings. These redeterminations were performed by State DDS offices which\nare SSA\xe2\x80\x99s primary contractors responsible for performing initial disability\ndeterminations for SSI and the Disability Insurance programs. By January 31, 1998,\nSSA had completed approximately 243,100 redeterminations at the initial level and\ndecided to cease benefits to about 146,700 children (60 percent) and continue benefits\nto 96,400 children (40 percent).\n\nThe Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s Report on Welfare Reform Implementation\n\nOn December 17, 1997, SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Commissioner released a 65-page report as part of his\n\xe2\x80\x9ctop-to-bottom review\xe2\x80\x9d of the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of the Welfare Reform law as it\naffected the SSI childhood disability program. The main goal of the report was to\ndetermine whether disability provisions of the law were being fairly and correctly\napplied. The report identified three specific areas of concern: (1) cessations of\nchildren classified in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s records as having mental retardation; (2) the quality of case\nprocessing; and (3) appeals and requests for benefit continuation during appeal.\n\nIn our review, we focused on how SSA addressed the quality of case processing as it\npertains to redetermination processing at the DDS level. Quality assurance (QA)\nreviews conducted by the Office of Quality Assurance and Performance Assessment\n\n\n\n\n3\n An initial review of the approximately 288,000 children scheduled to be redetermined identified\napproximately 28,000 children that were not the intended target of Welfare Reform.\n\x0cPage 4 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n 4\n(OQA) indicated lower than expected case performance accuracy rates for both\ncessations and continuances at the DDS level.5 The QA reviews examined the support\nfor a sample of determinations, including medical evidence and information from\nparents and schools, where appropriate.\n\nThe Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s report identified the following performance accuracy rates for\nWelfare Reform reviews achieved by DDS offices during June through October 1997:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the performance accuracy rates for cessations averaged 93.4 percent\n (i.e., 6.6 percent of the childhood cessations sampled by OQA were returned to\n DDS for further development); and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the performance accuracy rates for continuances averaged 91.5 percent\n (i.e., 8.5 percent of the childhood continuances sampled by OQA were returned\n to DDS for further development).\n\nAs a result of this review, the Commissioner called for actions to correct the cessation\naccuracy problems. Some of these steps included: (1) providing additional training to\nDDS staff; (2) reworking a number of cessation cases with accuracy problems; and\n(3) developing a Social Security Ruling on the evaluation of speech disorders in\ncombination with cognitive limitations. With regard to continuance errors, SSA\xe2\x80\x99s report\nstated that for those DDS offices in which continuance accuracy is below 90.6 percent,\nthe Agency will give childhood disability cases priority reviews.\n\nSCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 examined the Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s report on Welfare Reform;\n\n\n\n\n4\n \xe2\x80\x9cPerformance accuracy refers to the percentage of cases that do not have to be returned to State\nagencies for further development or correction of decisions based on evidence in the files and as such\nrepresents the reliability of State agency adjudication. The definition of performance accuracy includes\nthe measurement of factors that have a potential for affecting a decision, as well as the correctness of\nthe decision. For example, if a particular item of medical evidence should have been in the file but was\nnot included, even though its inclusion does not change the results in the case, that is a performance\nerror. Performance accuracy, therefore, is a higher standard than decisional accuracy. As a result, the\npercentage of correct decisions is significantly higher than what is reflected in the error rate established\nby SSA\xe2\x80\x99s quality assurance system.\xe2\x80\x9d Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 416.1043(a).\n5\n Cessations refer to disability cases where a DDS office reviewed the medical eligibility of a child and\ndecided that the child was no longer qualified to receive SSI benefits. Continuances refer to disability\ncases where a DDS office decided that the child was still medically eligible to continue receiving SSI\nbenefits.\n\x0cPage 5 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed the most current OQA reports on State DDS redetermination\n performance accuracy rates;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 interviewed SSA personnel on the Steering Committee to Implement the\n Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s Initiatives on SSI Childhood Cases (the Steering Committee)\n and the Office of Disability (OD);\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 interviewed OQA personnel to obtain a more thorough understanding of their\n statistical collection methods;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 estimated costs and funds at risk related to correcting improper cessations and\n continuances using QA data from June 1997 through January 1998, as well as\n other data provided by OQA throughout our review; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed pertinent laws and regulations related to CDRs and/or\n redeterminations for children.\n\nOur review used the same OQA data sources used in the Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s report. We\ndid not verify either the performance accuracy rates or decisional accuracy rates\nprovided by OQA. We performed our review in Baltimore, Maryland, and\nBoston, Massachusetts, between February and July 1998.\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW\n\nCorrective Actions Taken\n\nIn December 1997, the Commissioner of SSA created two Steering Committees,6 one\nunder the direction of OD, to oversee the implementation of corrective actions related\nto cases that may have been improperly ceased under reviews mandated by the\nWelfare Reform law. This Steering Committee has overseen a number of steps to\ninvestigate and correct accuracy problems at DDS offices. These steps relate to the\nscreening and reworking of cessation cases. Screening involves a review of the case\nfile to determine whether all the necessary documentation is present and that the\ndetermination was correct. A case will be reworked if deficiencies are found in a\ndetermination or if it is a mental retardation case with a valid IQ score of 75 or below.\nSome of the steps taken by SSA to correct cessation accuracy problems include:\n\n\n\n\n6\n The Steering Committee is chaired by the Director of the Division of Field Disability Operations and\nconsists of officials representing OD, OQA, Central Operations, regional offices, DDS offices, and the\nOffice of Hearings and Appeals. A second executive-level Steering Committee chaired by the Principal\nDeputy Commissioner for SSA and made up of senior executives from the same components listed\nabove approves policy changes originating from the first Steering Committee.\n\x0cPage 6 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quality Review Plan: OD and OQA issued a Quality Review Plan on\n February 18, 1998. The plan explained the procedures being put in place to\n monitor the quality of DDS screening and reworking of cessations. This\n monitoring is to be performed by OQA, as well as special teams consisting of\n both regional and field staff.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Training: Approximately 15,000 SSA and DDS employees were trained in\n February and early March 1998, on both the contents of the Quality Review Plan\n and the evaluation of childhood mental impairments. Additional training in\n March 1998 related to cognitive and speech impairments. The Agency has also\n put together a training manual to accompany the mental impairment training.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Identifying Cases: In March 1998, SSA issued a listing of approximately\n 38,000 cessation cases to be screened/reworked by DDS offices.7 These\n cessation cases will be selected based upon: (1) type of cessation;\n (2) diagnosis; and/or (3) accuracy problems at DDS. A breakout of the types of\n disabilities involved is provided in Figure 1. Notices to families informing them\n of the rework were also sent out in March 1998. DDS offices began the case\n screening and rework activities in April 1998.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Speech and Language Delay: On March 30, 1998, SSA published a Social\n Security Ruling on Speech and Language Delay. This ruling provides additional\n criteria when DDS offices are screening and reworking cases related to this\n disability. The Agency has also conducted training on this updated criteria for\n both SSA and DDS staff.\n\n\n\n\n7\n On March 18, 1998, SSA identified and selected for rework 21,961 mental retardation denials related\nto new applications since August 22, 1996.\n\x0cPage 7 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\n Figure 1: Redetermination Cases to Be Screened and/or Reworked\n (Provided to DDS Offices in March 1998)\n\n Speech & Language 2,776\n\n Other 4,201\nCase Unknown Diagnosis 4,449\nDiagnosis Learning Disorder\n 5,062\n Maladaptive\n 6,271\n Mental Retardation 14,936\n\n 0 5000 10000 15000\n Number of Cases\n Note: The learning disorder cases noted above include borderline\n intellectual functioning.\n\n\n\nContinuance Accuracy Problems\n\nSteering Committee officials noted that the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s current priority is to reinstate the\nbenefits for those children whose benefits were improperly ceased. Although members\nof the Steering Committee agree that SSA also needs to address performance\naccuracy problems related to continuance redeterminations, at the time of our meetings\nthe Agency had not yet outlined its action plan for addressing these cases other than to\nsay that continuance reviews are expected to begin in FY 1999. We asked SSA\nofficials about the possibility of screening and reworking the erroneous continuances in\nthe same way the Agency is currently reworking the erroneous cessations. These\nofficials told us that SSA had already made a decision to continue these childhood\ncases and could not reopen these cases in the same way as the cessation cases. As a\nresult, we discussed the two available options for correcting these continuance cases:\n(1) reviewing cases for an \xe2\x80\x9cerror on the face of the record;\xe2\x80\x9d or (2) accelerating the\ntiming of the next CDR.\n\nOne way to correct a case would be to review it for an \xe2\x80\x9cerror on the face of the record.\xe2\x80\x9d\nThis occurs when substantial evidence demonstrates that a prior decision or\ndetermination was made in error. If clear and compelling evidence exists that a prior\ndecision was in error, or required material evidence of the severity of the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s\nimpairment was missing, a decision maker can terminate the individual\xe2\x80\x99s benefits.\nHowever, SSA officials noted that this type of review was not a viable option for\ncorrecting erroneous continuances since historically few case decisions have been\nchanged in this manner.\n\x0cPage 8 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\nA second option is an accelerated CDR schedule. The Welfare Reform law requires\nthat CDRs be performed at least once every 3 years for all SSI recipients under age 18,\nif not permanently disabled. If CDRs were performed even sooner on cases identified\nby SSA as likely to be in error, they could be reworked by the newly trained DDS\npersonnel who are more likely to consistently apply the Welfare Reform disability\ncriteria. The continuance cases could be selected using criteria similar to that used to\nidentify improper cessation cases. Once identified, these cases could be marked with\na special element when profiling cases for CDR selection so that they receive a full\n 8\nmedical CDR on an accelerated schedule. This accelerated schedule could potentially\nresult in CDRs being conducted in as few as 6 months, instead of the current schedule\nof 3 years. In addition, although SSA is currently attempting to modify the CDR\nmailers9 so that they can be used for childhood cases, the cases identified for an\naccelerated CDR should receive a full medical review since past DDS errors are not\nlikely to be detected through the CDR mailer process.\n\nAn SSA official in OD noted that the Agency has already committed itself to conducting\napproximately 315,000 childhood CDRs in FY 1999. This official noted that SSA is\ncurrently in the process of adjusting the mix of cases to be reviewed so that States with\nhigh error rates in various childhood areas, including continuance errors from the\nWelfare Reform workload, receive more attention. We asked for more information on\nthis CDR plan, but we were told that the plan was still in draft and not available for our\nreview.\n\nOne potential limitation of an accelerated CDR, however, is the Medical Improvement\nReview Standard (MIRS). This standard applies to all CDRs whether on an\naccelerated schedule or not. According to an OQA official, under MIRS, only an\nimprovement in the individual\xe2\x80\x99s condition would allow an error to be remedied since\npast improper decisions become part of the permanent record. Because of this\nstandard, all past decisions, proper or not, become affixed to the individual\xe2\x80\x99s permanent\nrecord and cannot be used as a reason for cessation. When we discussed this matter\nwith SSA officials they noted that MIRS is not expected to be a hurdle for childhood\ndisability cases since children often show medical improvement as they mature.\nAgency officials noted that \xe2\x80\x9cAs they age, many children become better able to adapt to\ntheir impairments . . . Likewise, many children improve because of medical treatment\nand therapy, and because of support and interventions at their schools and elsewhere.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nIt is also worth noting that some of the continuance cases with accuracy problems have\nbeen or will be corrected sooner than other cases. For example, performance errors\nidentified during the QA sampling were corrected by DDS. In addition, some of these\n\n8\n This new profiling will also need to assume that identified cases are \xe2\x80\x9cnon-permanent\xe2\x80\x9d disabilities and,\ntherefore, require a CDR, since the existence of the disability itself is in question.\n9\n A CDR mailer is a questionnaire pertaining to the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s current condition, medical care, work\nactivity and training.\n\x0cPage 9 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\ncases are likely to be resolved in less than 3 years if the recipient is nearing age 18.\nWhen attaining age 18, all childhood beneficiaries are redetermined using adult\neligibility criteria as required under the Welfare Reform law.\n\nCost and Savings of Performance Accuracy Issues\n\nUsing recent performance accuracy and decisional accuracy10 rates provided by OQA,\nwe estimated the potential increase in SSI costs to SSA and the States if all improper\nchildhood cessations were corrected. We also estimated the reduction in SSA and\nState funds at risk if all improper childhood continuances were corrected.11 We\nattempted to adjust both our costs and funds at risk to reflect the impact of recipients\nappealing DDS determinations. For example, our estimated costs related to reworked\ncessations may be less since a number of these cases are already being appealed and\nsome of the reinstatement costs would most likely be incurred whether or not a rework\nwas performed. In addition, our estimates of a reduction in Agency and State funds at\nrisk related to proposed CDRs on erroneous childhood continuances would be\nimpacted by successful appeals.\n\nAlthough SSA was unable to provide us with information related to a process that is still\nongoing, we referred to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cSSI Welfare Reform Childhood Status Report Through\nMay 30, 1998,\xe2\x80\x9d and determined that approximately 71 percent of the ceased decisions\nhave been appealed. As far as the anticipated success of these appeals, SSA has\nalready reported to the Congress that approximately 40 percent of these cessations are\nexpected to be overturned on appeal. In order to provide a range of estimates for both\ncessation and continuance corrections, we applied these appeal and overturn rates to\nboth the estimated costs related to correcting erroneous cessations and the estimated\nfunds at risk related to correcting erroneous continuances.\n\nWe also adjusted our estimates to show the results of Agency corrections aimed at only\nthose DDS offices that failed to meet the minimum performance accuracy standards as\nwell as the potential results of an Agency attempt to correct childhood redetermination\nerrors at all DDS offices. Although at this time the Agency has only committed to\nreworking cessation cases at DDS offices with the worst performance accuracy (below\n90.6 percent), we wanted to show the full effect of redetermination errors in both\ncessation and continuance cases.\nBy reinstating improperly ceased benefits, we estimate SSA and States are likely to\nincur $7.40 million to $24.02 million in additional benefit payments over a 12-month\n\n10\n Decisional accuracy is a subset of performance accuracy. It represents the percentage of cases\nwhere the decision on the case was reversed after being reworked by DDS staff.\n\n11\n State costs are represented through supplemental payments to SSI recipients within a particular\nState. Presently, there are 28 States that have an agreement with SSA to make supplementary\npayments to individuals who are receiving Federal SSI benefits. The States then pay SSA an amount\nequal to the expenditure.\n\x0cPage 10 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\nperiod (see Appendix A). 12 We also estimate that by expanding the current rework to\nimproperly continued beneficiaries, SSA and State funds at risk could be reduced\nbetween $9.47 million to $15.33 million in benefit payments over a 12-month period\n(see Appendix B).\n\nCONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION\n\nThe Commissioner should be commended for the corrective actions being taken in the\ninterest of ensuring that every child receives a fair assessment of eligibility for benefits.\nThe Agency has developed a plan that should give children removed from the SSI roles\nan objective reassessment of their eligibility. However, SSA should ensure that it also\ninvestigates and corrects cases related to children whose SSI benefits were continued.\nIn doing so, SSA can offset most of the increased costs to the SSI program due to\nidentified performance accuracy problems, while also ensuring that all children who\nshould continue to receive benefits do so and those whose benefits should be ceased\nare stopped. The States, which have their State supplement program administered by\nSSA, will also benefit by correcting these continuations.\n\nWe recommend that SSA ensure that erroneous childhood continuances are reviewed.\nSpecifically, we believe SSA should identify questionable continuation cases and\nupdate the profile of these cases to expedite the next scheduled full medical CDR\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE\n\nIn response to our draft report, SSA agreed with the overall conclusion. Specifically,\nSSA agreed that CDRs on childhood continuances made by States with low\ncontinuance accuracy are important. The Agency had planned to release the relevant\ncases for CDRs in early FY 1999.\n\nSSA took strong exception to our calculation of reduced SSA and State funds at risk if\nerroneous continuances are corrected, stating that there is statistical variability\nassociated with the quality measures on which OIG relied for the provided estimates.\nIn fact, we took this variability into consideration in the calculations and, rather than\npresenting a range, we chose to be conservative and only use the lowest figure in our\ncalculations. As a result, the OIG report was more likely to underestimate potential\nfunds at risk in the calculations rather than overstate potential funds at risk.\n\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s exception to our calculations includes the impact of potential appeals. SSA\nstates that OIG did not adjust the calculations to reflect this information. OIG asked\nSSA for information related to this very issue, but we were told such information was\n\n12\n The lower estimate factors in appeal rates for rework performed only at DDS offices with performance\naccuracy problems. The higher estimate also factors in appeals, but assumes rework performed\nthroughout the nation for all DDS offices falling below 100 percent performance accuracy.\n\x0cPage 11 - Kenneth S. Apfel\n\nnot available due to the ongoing process. As a result, we could only note information\nalready presented by SSA in its internal reports and testimony before the Congress.\nAlthough both OIG and SSA agree that these figures are difficult to determine, in an\neffort to be more conservative in our estimates, we have adjusted the tables in\nAppendices A and B to show the possible impact of appeals. The current report now\nshows a range of estimates for SSA and State costs and funds at risk.\n\nWe again commend SSA for its top-to-bottom review of the childhood cases, its quick\nimplementation of steps to correct childhood cessation errors, and its stated intent to\ncorrect childhood continuance errors. We also fully endorse SSA\xe2\x80\x99s effort to takes steps\nabove and beyond normal actions to ensure that every child receives a fair assessment\nof his or her eligibility for benefits.\n\n\n\n\n James G. Huse, Jr.\n\x0cAPPENDICES\n\x0c APPENDIX A\n ESTIMATED SSA AND STATE COSTS RELATED TO\n QUESTIONABLE SSI CHILDHOOD CESSATIONS\n LOWER UPPER\n JUN 97 - JAN 98 1996 JUN 97 - JAN 98 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED\n REDETERMINATION AVERAGE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF AVERAGE AVERAGE\n CESSATIONS MONTHLY CESSATIONS PERSONS MONTHLY MONTHLY\n (PERFORMANCE) SSI GRANTED PER INCORRECTLY COSTS PER COSTS PER\n STATE ERROR RATE 1 BENEFIT 2 STATE 3 CEASED 4 STATE 5 STATE 5\nAlabama 4.6% $ 428.59 4,976 229.9 $ 98,529.07\nAlaska 6.9% 422.29 89 5.7 2,424.16\nArizona 4.3% 422.49 1,266 32.8 13,853.19\nArkansas 6.3% 417.65 4,307 102.5 42,811.88\nCalifornia 11.1% 504.64 5,368 294.2 148,448.13 148,448.13\nColorado 4.9% 407.15 988 9.7 3,942.19\nConnecticut 2.1% 431.01 683 13.9 6,005.35\nDelaware 2.9% 415.38 243 4.4 1,816.87\nDist. Columbia 18.6% 428.35 213 12.1 5,191.47 5,191.47\nFlorida 6.0% 422.95 8,314 228.6 96,701.17\nGeorgia 8.7% 416.30 3,243 156.6 65,207.94\nHawaii 6.2% 413.00 30 0.0 -\nIdaho 11.9% 395.26 599 60.9 24,054.89 24,054.89\nIllinois 3.7% 436.21 8,751 351.8 153,454.40\nIndiana 6.9% 414.05 3,019 147.9 61,250.83\nIowa 5.4% 391.84 1,271 31.0 12,151.90\nKansas 7.2% 397.79 1,818 25.8 10,269.19\nKentucky 8.7% 423.52 3,161 166.3 70,418.08\nLouisiana 0.8% 434.91 8,698 103.5 45,015.88\nMaine 3.1% 404.47 295 9.8 3,973.31\nMaryland 11.5% 416.06 1,620 102.1 42,463.08 42,463.08\nMassachusetts 3.1% 461.77 2,244 51.8 23,936.49\nMichigan 6.0% 432.11 6,342 238.5 103,040.60\nMinnesota 1.6% 418.44 1,312 21.5 9,003.49\nMississippi 15.8% 426.84 4,589 376.8 160,814.92 160,814.92\nMissouri 3.1% 423.25 4,330 134.7 56,996.11\nMontana 2.4% 418.56 368 7.2 3,034.39\nNebraska 3.3% 401.79 614 12.5 5,007.99\nNevada 2.0% 399.44 230 4.1 1,626.12\nNew Hampshire 1.2% 389.22 171 2.0 792.02\nNew Jersey 9.4% 440.82 2,373 47.7 21,025.92\nNew Mexico 3.2% 428.58 837 12.2 5,237.33\nNew York 7.8% 453.28 15,578 824.1 373,537.26\nNorth Carolina 10.7% 405.72 4,946 210.7 85,485.04 85,485.04\nNorth Dakota 1.5% 399.34 125 0.0 -\nOhio 9.4% 427.02 8,561 525.6 224,461.10\nOklahoma 3.2% 427.28 1,220 42.9 18,349.11\nOregon 13.2% 413.44 471 40.0 16,532.60 16,532.60\nPennsylvania 11.2% 450.12 5,212 436.8 196,596.93 196,596.93\nRhode Island 8.6% 471.49 559 24.4 11,517.70\nSouth Carolina 6.4% 413.36 2,727 159.5 65,943.11\nSouth Dakota 3.3% 407.14 243 6.6 2,700.93\nTennessee 10.7% 424.54 4,041 352.4 149,597.37 149,597.37\nTexas 5.2% 412.79 9,088 414.4 171,065.46\nUtah 3.8% 394.75 536 19.8 7,828.68\nVermont 1.4% 468.35 195 6.6 3,114.29\nVirginia 4.5% 409.10 4,182 213.3 87,253.67\nWashington 9.8% 435.23 1,214 74.2 32,283.36 32,283.36\nWest Virginia 4.1% 428.03 1,362 48.2 20,637.38\nWisconsin 4.0% 416.09 3,911 68.4 28,478.24\nWyoming 5.4% 418.32 178 4.2 1,749.83\n TOTALS -- -- 146,711 6,471 $ 861,467.79 $ 2,795,630.42\n X 12 months X 12 months\n Total Annual Costs $10,337,613.48 $33,547,565.04\n Adjusted for Appeals (less 28%) $ 7,401,731.25 $24,020,056.57\n\n\n A-1\n\x0c NOTES\n\n1) The numbers in Column 1 were taken from the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA)\n \xe2\x80\x9cChildhood Redetermination Reports - INFORMATION - SSI Welfare Reform Childhood\n Status Report for the Week Ending January 31, 1998,\xe2\x80\x9d in Table 6. They reflect the\n accuracy of the original decisions (performance accuracy). These numbers are used for\n informational purposes only and are not used in the table calculations.\n\n2) The numbers in Column 2 were taken from \xe2\x80\x9cChildren Receiving SSI \xe2\x80\x93 December 1997,\xe2\x80\x9d\n prepared by SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, in Table 2.\n\n3) The numbers in Column 3 were taken from SSA\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cChildhood Redetermination Reports -\n INFORMATION - SSI Welfare Reform Childhood Status Report for the Week Ending\n January 31, 1998,\xe2\x80\x9d in Table 1. To calculate the number of cessations granted per State,\n we subtracted the initial redetermination continuances from the initial redetermination\n totals.\n\n4) The numbers in Column 4, estimated number of persons incorrectly ceased was calculated\n using decisional accuracy rates provided by the Office of Quality Assurance and\n Performance Assessment on July 23, 1998. Decisional accuracy rates for erroneous\n cessations were considered statistically reliable for all States with the exception of the\n District of Columbia, Alaska, and Oregon. For each of these 3 States, we compared the\n regional decisional accuracy rate to the State decisional accuracy rate and used the lesser\n rate, which produced the fewest number of persons incorrectly ceased.\n\n5) The numbers in these two columns were calculated by multiplying the estimated number\n of persons incorrectly continued by the average monthly Supplemental Security Income\n benefit per State. The three totals at the bottom of the column represent: (1) the total\n monthly costs; (2) the total annual costs (monthly costs multiplied by 12); and (3) the\n adjusted annual costs assuming an appeals rate of 71 percent and an overturn rate of\n 40 percent. The lower cost estimate pertains to only those States with a performance\n accuracy rate below the minimum of 90.6 percent established by SSA. The upper cost\n estimate covers all States.\n\n\n\n\n A-2\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n ESTIMATED SSA AND STATE FUNDS AT RISK RELATED TO\n QUESTIONABLE SSI CHILDHOOD CONTINUANCES\n\n LOWER UPPER\n JUN 97 - JAN 98 1996 JUN 97 - JAN 98 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED\n REDETERMINATION AVERAGE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF AVERAGE AVERAGE\n CONTINUANCE MONTHLY CONTINUANCES PERSONS MONTHLY MONTHLY\n (PERFORMANCE) SSI GRANTED PER INCORRECTLY PAYMENTS PER PAYMENTS PER\n STATE ERROR RATE 1 BENEFIT 2 STATE 3 CONTINUED 4 STATE 5 STATE 5\nAlabama 5.6% $ 428.59 1,788 33.4 $ 14,330.16\nAlaska 0.0% 422.29 99 3.4 1,442.33\nArizona 5.3% 422.49 1,344 92.2 38,952.90\nArkansas 2.7% 417.65 1,296 57.2 23,870.20\nCalifornia 8.3% 504.64 7,723 329.0 166,026.46\nColorado 8.6% 407.15 777 32.3 13,128.76\nConnecticut 2.3% 431.01 520 0.0 -\nDelaware 5.6% 415.38 251 10.0 4,170.42\nDist. Columbia 7.2% 428.35 391 10.2 4,371.35\nFlorida 5.6% 422.95 5,608 227.1 96,062.10\nGeorgia 0.4% 416.30 1,414 40.4 16,835.34\nHawaii 1.0% 413.00 49 0.0 -\nIdaho 18.1% 395.26 465 18.3 $ 7,223.18 7,223.18\nIllinois 4.3% 436.21 3,837 106.7 46,529.91\nIndiana 2.9% 414.05 1,934 41.6 17,216.61\nIowa 3.2% 391.84 384 7.4 2,888.96\nKansas 11.6% 397.79 589 30.9 12,277.23 12,277.23\nKentucky 6.7% 423.52 3,942 60.7 25,710.54\nLouisiana 13.8% 434.91 2,611 174.7 75,968.30 75,968.30\nMaine 0.7% 404.47 208 2.3 908.60\nMaryland 3.9% 416.06 1,425 22.0 9,130.44\nMassachusetts 1.0% 461.77 2,171 0.0 -\nMichigan 15.0% 432.11 6,281 188.4 81,422.49 81,422.49\nMinnesota 2.6% 418.44 1,788 47.7 19,976.16\nMississippi 4.8% 426.84 1,308 0.0 -\nMissouri 0.0% 423.25 1,632 0.0 -\nMontana 0.0% 418.56 108 0.0 -\nNebraska 12.0% 401.79 281 14.7 5,916.12 5,916.12\nNevada 7.2% 399.44 322 19.3 7,717.18\nNew Hampshire 2.8% 389.22 121 1.3 508.63\nNew Jersey 19.9% 440.82 2,859 421.7 185,894.90 185,894.90\nNew Mexico 18.5% 428.58 418 28.0 11,984.90 11,984.90\nNew York 18.0% 453.28 9,289 1290.2 584,840.94 584,840.94\nNorth Carolina 6.8% 405.72 6,262 139.0 56,401.73\nNorth Dakota 6.1% 399.34 57 2.4 944.64\nOhio 2.1% 427.02 4,408 49.4 21,081.81\nOklahoma 1.5% 427.28 383 12.0 5,122.19\nOregon 0.0% 413.44 651 0.0 -\nPennsylvania 28.9% 450.12 7,575 296.2 133,317.67 133,317.67\nRhode Island 0.0% 471.49 242 0.0 -\nSouth Carolina 9.0% 413.36 1,137 32.5 13,441.72\nSouth Dakota 12.5% 407.14 299 8.1 3,286.84 3,286.84\nTennessee 3.7% 424.54 1,399 29.1 12,353.77\nTexas 0.0% 412.79 2,439 0.0 -\nUtah 1.3% 394.75 356 5.1 2,009.59\nVermont 0.0% 468.35 176 0.0 -\nVirginia 8.4% 409.10 3,702 46.3 18,931.10\nWashington 2.6% 435.23 1,346 25.4 11,071.99\nWest Virginia 4.2% 428.03 723 27.3 11,666.86\nWisconsin 1.4% 416.09 1,913 39.4 16,397.19\nWyoming 3.4% 418.32 148 6.1 2,569.32\n TOTALS -- -- 96,449 4,029 $ 1,102,132.57 $ 1,783,901.53\n X 12 months X 12 months\n Total Annual Funds at Risks $13,225,590.84 $21,406,818.36\n Adjusted for Appeals (less 28%) $ 9,469,523.04 $15,327,281.95\n\n\n B-1\n\x0c NOTES\n\n1) The numbers in Column 1 were taken from the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA)\n \xe2\x80\x9cChildhood Redetermination Reports - INFORMATION - SSI Welfare Reform Childhood\n Status Report for the Week Ending January 31, 1998,\xe2\x80\x9d in Table 6. They reflect the\n accuracy of the original decisions (performance accuracy). These numbers are used for\n informational purposes only and are not used in the table calculations.\n\n2) The numbers in Column 2 were taken from \xe2\x80\x9cChildren Receiving SSI \xe2\x80\x93 December 1997,\xe2\x80\x9d\n prepared by SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, in Table 2.\n\n3) The numbers in Column 3 were taken from SSA\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cChildhood Redetermination Reports -\n INFORMATION - SSI Welfare Reform Childhood Status Report for the Week Ending\n January 31, 1998,\xe2\x80\x9d in Table 1. Specifically, we used the initial redetermination\n continuances granted per State.\n\n4) The numbers in Column 4, estimated number of persons incorrectly continued was\n calculated using decisional accuracy rates provided by the Office of Quality Assurance\n and Performance Assessment on July 23, 1998. Decisional accuracy rates for erroneous\n continuances were considered statistically reliable for only 31 of the States.1 For each\n State where the statistics were less than reliable, we compared the regional decisional\n accuracy rate to the State decisional accuracy rates and used the lesser rate, which\n produced the fewest number of persons incorrectly continued.\n\n5) The numbers in this column were calculated by multiplying the estimated number of\n persons incorrectly continued by the average monthly Supplemental Security Income\n benefit per State. The three totals at the bottom of the column represent: (1) the total\n monthly funds at risk; (2) the total annual funds at risk (monthly funds at risk multiplied by\n 12); and (3) the adjusted annual funds at risk assuming an appeals rate of 71 percent and\n an overturn rate of 40 percent. The lower funds at risk estimate pertains to only those\n States with a performance accuracy rate below the minimum of 90.6 percent established\n by SSA. The upper funds at risk estimate covers all States.\n\n\n\n\n1\n States with statistically valid decisional accuracy information include Alabama, Arkansas, California,\nConnecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,\nMassachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South\nDakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.\n B-2\n\x0c APPENDIX C\n\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s COMMENTS\n\x0c APPENDIX D\n\n\n MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS\n\nOffice of the Inspector General\n\nRoger Normand, Director, Northern Program Audit Division\nRona Rustigian, Deputy Director\nWalter Bayer, Auditor-in-Charge\nJoseph LoVecchio, Auditor\n\n\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please contact the Office of the Inspector\nGeneral\xe2\x80\x99s Public Affairs Specialist at (410) 966-9135. Refer to Common\nIdentification Number A-01-98-62012.\n\x0c APPENDIX E\n\n\nSSA ORGANIZATIONAL CHART\n\x0c'


type: other

text:
Taastati Mari U?em õigused
 Mari Vabariigi Ülemkohus taastas organisatsiooni Mari Ušem õigused
 http://www.mari.ee/est/news/polit/2006/12/02.html
 26. detsembri õhtul tühistas Mari Eli Ülemkohtu tsiviilasjade kohtukolleegium Mari Ušemi (Mari Liidu) tegevuse likvideerimise otsuse.
 Meenutagem, et otsus Mari Ušem likvideerida pärines 8. novembrist, kui Joškar-Ola linnakohus rahuldas Venemaa registreerimisteenistuse Marimaa osakonna taotluse Mari Ušem registrist kustutada. Selles kohtuasjas esindab Mari Ušemit inimõigusühenduse AGORA spetsialist Arkadi Ohhotnikov.
 Linnakohus tegi oma otsuse põhjendusega, et Mari Ušem ei ole esitanud korrektselt oma tegevuse kohta informatsiooni.
 Novembris toimunud istungil ei süvenenud kohus nendesse esitatud tõendusmaterjalidesse, mis näitasid Mari Ušemi pidevat aktiivset tegutsemist. Ülemkohtu kolleegiumi liikmed said nüüd audio- video-ja fotomaterjalide põhjal veenduda, et ainuüksi 2006. aastal viis organisatsioon läbi üle 10 kultuuriürituse, täielikus vastavuses oma põhikirjale. Toimus igaaastane üritus "Ühtne perekond", mis rõhutab tolerantsi eri rahvaste vahel, samuti näiteks õhtu Kaasanis, millel osales ka Tatarstani presidendi esindaja ja kõlasid tatari ja mari laulud.
 Materjalide põhjal saatis Ülemkohus Mari Ušemi likvideerimisotsuse linnakohtule uueks läbivaatamiseks tagasi. Arkadi Ohhotnikov ütleb, et need formaalsed ebakorrektsused mis tõesti ka olid, saab kõrvaldada. "Need pole aga piiisavaks aluseks, et Registreerimisteenistus tohiks organisatsiooni tegevust peatada. Mari Ušem juba tegelebki nende rikkumiste kõrvaldamisega, ning me valmistume linnakohtus asja uueks läbivaatamiseks".
 AGORA esindas 2006. aastal mitmeid kodanikeühendusi, kaitsmaks neid Venemaa Registreerimisteenistuse pretensioonide vastu. Aprillis näiteks jäi Moskva Basmannõi kohtu otsuse põhjal alles tegutsemisõigus Venemaa Inimõiguste Uuringute Keskusel. Samal ajal tõrjus AGORA edukalt Sõduriemade Komiteede Liidu likvideerimiskatseid. Detsembri alguses taastati õigused Tambovi laste ja noorte füüsilise, õigusliku ja vaimse arengu keskusel. Samuti detsembrikuus keeldus tänu AGORA tegevusele Baškortostani Ülemkohus likvideerimast fondi "Rahvusvaheline standard".
 Samasugust tegevust Venemaa Registreerimisteenistuse rünnakute vastu kavatseb AGORA jätkata ka järgmisel aastal.
 Regioonidevaheline Assotsiatsioon AGORA
 MariUver http://www.mari.ee


text:
KSZA/9Co/867/2014
 Súd: Krajský súd Žilina Spisová značka: 9Co/867/2014 Identifikačné číslo súdneho spisu: 5612210879 Dátum vydania rozhodnutia: 16. 10. 2014 Meno a priezvisko sudcu, VSÚ: JUDr. Jana Kotrčová ECLI: ECLI:SK:KSZA:2014:5612210879.2
 ROZSUDOK V MENE SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Krajský súd v Žiline, ako súd odvolací, v senáte zloženom z predsedníčky senátu JUDr. Jany Kotrčovej a členov senátu JUDr. Ladislava Mejstríka a JUDr. Jozefa Turzu, v právnej veci navrhovateľky: POHOTOVOSŤ, s.r.o., so sídlom Bratislava, Pribinova 25, IČO: 35 807 598, zastúpenej spoločnosťou Fridrich Paľko, s.r.o., so sídlom Bratislava, Gr?sslingova 4, IČO: 36 864 421, proti odporkyni: Slovenská republika - Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky, so sídlom Bratislava, Župné námestie 13, v konaní o náhradu majetkovej škody vo výške 125,- Eur a nemajetkovej ujmy vo výške 1.210,- Eur, na odvolanie navrhovateľky proti rozsudku Okresného súdu Liptovský Mikuláš č.k. 10C/269/2012-33 zo dňa 30.01.2014, takto
 Napadnutým rozsudkom okresný súd v I. výroku zamietol návrh navrhovateľky a v II. výroku nepriznal odporkyni náhradu trov konania. V odôvodnení uviedol, že navrhovateľka návrhom doručeným okresnému súdu dňa 27.09.2012 žiadala, aby jej odporkyňa nahradila majetkovú škodu vo výške 125,- Eur a nemajetkovú ujmu vo výške 1.210,- Eur. Škoda podľa uvedenia navrhovateľky vznikla nesprávnym úradným postupom súdu. Nesprávny úradný postup súdu spočíval v prieťahoch v konaní (k rozhodnutiu o žiadosti došlo po uplynutí zákonom stanovenej doby, s omeškaním viac ako 22 mesiacov). Zo spisu Okresného súdu Liptovský Mikuláš sp. zn. 6Er/643/2009 mal súd zistené, že dňa 27.08.2009 bola doručená žiadosť o udelenie poverenia na vykonanie exekúcie vo veci EX 5969/2009, a to na základe exekučného titulu - Rozsudok Stáleho rozhodcovského súdu sp. zn. SR 01460/09 zo dňa 22.05.2009. Exekučný súd vo veci vykonával procesné úkony a dňa 14.12.2009 vydal Poverenie súdneho exekútora JUDr. Rudolfa Krutého pod č. 5505 020296. Po vyhodnotení vykonaného dokazovania súd dospel k záveru, že nie je právne dôvodné navrhovateľke priznať uplatňované peňažné plnenie majetkovú škodu a nemajetkovú ujmu na jej tvrdenom skutkovom základe. Súd nemal za preukázaný základný predpoklad a to nesprávny úradný postup ako jeden z predpokladov pre vznik zodpovednosti štátu za škodu spôsobenú nesprávnym úradným postupom. Navrhovateľka nesplnila už prvú podmienku zodpovednosti za škodu spôsobenú nesprávnym úradným postupom, keď v konaní nepreukázala nesprávny úradný postup. Keďže všetky podmienky vzniku zodpovednosti štátu musia byť splnené kumulatívne a vzhľadom na nesplnenie prvej základnej podmienky súd považoval za nadbytočné a nehospodárne dokazovať a vyjadrovať sa k splneniu ďalších podmienok a to k vzniku škody ako majetkovej či nemajetkovej ujmy a príčinnej súvislosti medzi nesprávnym úradným postupom a vznikom škody. Nepriaznivé procesné dôsledky (neúspech v spore) stíhajú v sporovom konaní toho, kto neoznačil potrebné dôkazy alebo uvedenými dôkazmi nebolo jeho tvrdenie dokázané a preto súd návrh navrhovateľky v celom rozsahu zamietol.
 Proti tomuto rozsudku podala navrhovateľka prostredníctvom právneho zástupcu v zákonom stanovenej lehote odvolanie. Odvolanie odôvodnila tým, že a) v konaní došlo k vadám uvedeným v § 221 ods. 1 O.s.p. - účastníkovi konania sa postupom súdu odňala možnosť konať pred súdom (§ 205 ods. 2 písm. a), v spojení § 221 ods. 1 písm. f), b) v konaní došlo k vadám uvedeným v § 221 ods. 1 O.s.p - rozhodoval vylúčený sudca (§ 205 ods. 2 písm. a) v spojení § 221 ods. 1 písm. g), c) v konaní došlo k vadám uvedeným v § 221 ods. 1 O.s.p - súd prvého stupňa nesprávne vec právne posúdil tým, že nepoužil správne ustanovenie právneho predpisu a nedostatočne zistil skutkový stav (§ 205 ods. 2 písm. a) v spojení s § 221 ods. 1 písm. h), d) súd prvého stupňa nevykonal navrhnuté dôkazy (§ 205 ods. 2 písm. c), e) rozhodnutie súdu vychádza z nesprávneho právneho posúdenia veci (§ 205 ods. 2 písm. f). K dôvodom odvolania bližšie uviedla, že pokiaľ z odôvodnenia napadnutého rozhodnutia vyplýva, že súd prejednal vec v neprítomnosti odporkyne (správne zrejme má byť navrhovateľky pozn. krajského súdu) a jej splnomocneného zástupcu postupujúc podľa § 101 ods. 2 O.s.p., pretože sa navrhovateľka bez ospravedlnenia na pojednávanie nedostavila, tak poukazuje na to, že podala súdu návrh na zrušenie pojednávania a uviedla dôležité dôvody a predložila súdu listiny spájané s označenými dôvodmi. Navrhovateľka uskutočnila podanie obsiahnuté v texte návrhu, ktorým upovedomila súd o skutočnostiach nasvedčujúcich tomu, že sudcu, ktorému bola vec pridelené systémom súdneho manažmentu na prejednanie a rozhodnutie je potrebné z konania vylúčiť. Okolnosť, že krajský súd nevzhliadol v označených skutočnostiach dôvod na vylúčenie sudcu, nič nemení na tom, že v očiach navrhovateľky a objektívne v očiach verejnosti nemožno tohto sudcu považovať za nestranného. Je tomu tak aj preto (okrem dôvodov označených v návrhu), že rozhodnutie krajského súdu je v rozpore s ustálenou rozhodovacou praxou iných krajských súdov v skutkovo a právne totožných veciach. Súd sa podľa navrhovateľky nedostatočne oboznámil s podmienkami, za ktorých je možné viesť konanie, keď ignoroval jej žiadosť o zrušenie (odročenie) nariadeného pojednávania z dôležitého dôvodu. Súd vychádzajúc z mylného skutkového stavu bez oboznámenia sa s obsahom predloženej ústavnej sťažnosti, nesprávne aplikoval ust. § 101 ods. 2 O.s.p. a viedol pojednávanie na ktorom za neprítomnosti navrhovateľky meritórne rozhodol. V žiadosti sa pritom zdôrazňovalo, že návrh trvá na osobnej účasti splnomocneného zástupcu na pojednávaní, avšak na takom, ktoré bude vedené nestranným sudcom na nestrannom súde. Navrhovateľka tiež tvrdila, že nemala možnosť sa vyjadriť k tvrdeniam odporkyne, z ktorých súd pri svojom rozhodovaní vychádzal a zachytil ich aj v odôvodnení svojho rozhodnutia. Nemala možnosť sa vyjadriť ani k dôkazom, ktoré súd vykonal a založil na nich svoje rozhodnutie. Za takejto procesnej situácie došlo k degradácii zásady kontradiktórnosti, k porušeniu práva navrhovateľky na súdnu ochranu, ako aj k odňatiu jej možnosti konať pred súdom. V konkrétnostiach napríklad uviedla, že súd sa dopustil viacerých omylov keď konštatoval, že ním namietané lehoty na vydanie rozhodnutia boli dodržané, avšak v odôvodnení prezentované časové úseky tomu nenasvedčujú. Uviedla, že na splnenie zákonnej lehoty, je dôležité skúmať nie len samotný moment kedy exekučný súd rozhodol o poverení ale aj moment kedy poverenie doručil príslušnému súdnemu exekútorovi. Ďalej tvrdila, že nebola oboznámená s obsahom dôkazov a prednesov, nemala možnosť sa k týmto vyjadriť a sama nemala možnosť navrhnúť dôkazy na podporu svojich tvrdení. V danej veci nebolo možné rozhodnúť bez nariadenia pojednávania za situácie keď bolo potrebné vykonať dokazovanie listinami založenými v exekučnom spise a za stavu keď sa odporkyňa nevyjadrila k návrhu a ak odporkyňa nereagovala na výzvu súdu aby predložila písomné vyjadrenie, mal súd rozhodnúť podľa § 153b O.s.p.. Vzhľadom na uvedené žiadala, aby krajský súd zrušil rozsudok okresného súdu a vrátil vec tomuto súdu na opätovné prejednanie.
 Krajský súd, ako súd odvolací (§ 10 ods. 1 O.s.p.), po zistení, že odvolanie bolo podané včas účastníkom konania (§ 204 ods. 1, § 201 O.s.p.), proti rozhodnutiu, ktoré možno napadnúť týmto opravným prostriedkom (§ 201 O.s.p.), bez nariadenia odvolacieho pojednávania (§ 214 ods. 2, § 156 ods. 3 O.s.p.), preskúmal rozhodnutie v napadnutom rozsahu a z dôvodov uvedených v odvolaní (§ 212 ods. 1 O.s.p.) a rozsudok okresného súdu ako vecne správny potvrdil (§ 219 ods. 1 O.s.p.) z nasledovných dôvodov:
 Odvolací súd po preskúmaní napadnutého rozsudku i konania, ktoré mu predchádzalo dospel k záveru, že okresný súd v prejednávanej veci zistil skutkový stav v rozsahu potrebnom na zistenie rozhodujúcich skutočností, na podklade vykonaného dokazovania dospel ku správnym skutkovým zisteniam a prejednávanú vec aj správne právne posúdil. Nakoľko i odôvodnenie písomného vyhotovenia napadnutého rozsudku je vyčerpávajúce a zodpovedá kritériám uvedeným v ust. § 157 ods. 2 O.s.p., odvolací súd podľa § 219 ods. 2 O.s.p. konštatuje správnosť týchto dôvodov a v podstatných bodoch na ne odkazuje.
 Vzhľadom k tomu, že odvolací súd je rozsahom a dôvodmi odvolania viazaný, pri posudzovaní danej veci sa zaoberal len námietkami navrhovateľky uvedenými v odvolaní a procesným postupom prvostupňového súdu predchádzajúcim vydaniu napadnutého rozhodnutia z hľadiska, či došlo k vadám, ktoré mohli mať za následok nesprávne rozhodnutie vo veci.
 Pokiaľ ide o ďalšie odvolacie námietky, že súd sa podľa navrhovateľky nedostatočne oboznámil s podmienkami za ktorých je možné viesť konanie, keď ignoroval jej žiadosť o zrušenie (odročenie) nariadeného pojednávania z dôležitého dôvodu, že súd vychádzajúc z mylného skutkového stavu bez oboznámenia sa s obsahom predloženej ústavnej sťažnosti nesprávne aplikoval ust. § 101 ods. 2 O.s.p. a viedol pojednávanie na ktorom za neprítomnosti navrhovateľky meritórne rozhodol (v žiadosti sa pritom zdôrazňovalo, že navrhovateľka trvá na osobnej účasti splnomocneného zástupcu na pojednávaní, avšak na takom, ktoré bude vedené nestranným sudcom na nestrannom súde) a k tvrdeniu, že nemala možnosť sa vyjadriť k tvrdeniam odporkyne, z ktorých súd pri svojom rozhodovaní vychádzal a zachytil ich aj v odôvodnení svojho rozhodnutia, že nemala možnosť sa vyjadriť ani k dôkazom, ktoré súd vykonal a založil na nich svoje rozhodnutie a že za takejto procesnej situácie došlo k degradácii zásady kontradiktórnosti, k porušeniu práva navrhovateľky na súdnu ochranu, ako aj k odňatiu jej možnosti konať pred súdom, odvolací súd k uvedeným námietkam uvádza: Preskúmaním spisového materiálu na vec sa vzťahujúceho, bolo zistené, že na deň 30.01.2014 vo veci súd nariadil pojednávanie. Navrhovateľka, jej právny zástupca aj odporkyňa sa pojednávania nezúčastnili a zároveň svoju neúčasť neospravedlnili. Zároveň odvolací súd zdôrazňuje, že o vylúčení zákonnej sudkyne už rozhodoval Krajský súd v Žiline uznesením č.k. 9NcC/310/2013-18 zo dňa 14. marca 2013, ktorým JUDr. Iveta Žišková bola vylúčená z prejednávania a rozhodovania veci sp. zn. 10C/269/2014. Ostatní sudcovia (vrátane JUDr. Evy Uličnej) neboli vylúčení z prejednávania a rozhodovania veci. Odvolací súd v aktuálnom konaní takisto nezistil žiadne skutočnosti, ktoré by spochybňovali nestrannosť zákonnej sudkyne.
 K skutočnosti, že navrhovateľka sa nemala možnosť vyjadriť k tvrdeniam odporkyne, odvolací súd uvádza, že toto sa ukázalo nepravdivým, nakoľko vyjadrenie odporkyne bolo splnomocnenému právnemu zástupcovi navrhovateľky doručené dňa 10.03.2014 (č.l. 37 spisu) a teda navrhovateľka, resp. jej právny zástupca mali možnosť vyjadriť sa k podanému vyjadreniu odporkyne.
 K odvolaciemu dôvodu, že neboli splnené podmienky pre konanie podľa § 101 ods. 2 O.s.p. je potrebné uviesť, že prvostupňový súd nariadil pojednávanie na deň 30.01.2014. Právny zástupca navrhovateľky, predvolanie prevzal 20.01.2014 (č.l. 24 spisu). Tým, že na pojednávanie sa navrhovateľka ani jej právny zástupca nedostavili potom neobstojí jej námietka, že okresný súd vo veci rozhodol bez toho, aby jej umožnil vyjadriť sa ku skutkovým a právnym otázkam veci a odvolací súd konštatuje, že boli v zmysle ust. § 101 ods. 2 O.s.p. splnené všetky predpoklady na prejednanie veci bez prítomnosti navrhovateľky a jej právneho zástupcu a pokiaľ okresný súd vec na pojednávaní dňa 30.01.2014 prejednal a o nej rozhodol, neodňal tým navrhovateľke možnosť konať pred súdom, nakoľko sa tejto možnosti sama zbavila tým, že sa na pojednávanie nedostavila, hoci bola na pojednávanie včas predvolaná viac ako 5 dní pred termínom pojednávania (§ 115 ods. 2 O.s.p.). Odvolací súd bol zhodne s prvostupňovým súdom toho názoru, že dôvody uvádzané navrhovateľkou nebolo možné považovať za dôležité dôvody pre odročenie v zmysle ust. § 101 ods. 2 O.s.p.. Tým si navrhovateľka a jej splnomocnený zástupca sami zmarili možnosť realizovať na pojednávaní svoje procesné oprávnenia, a to najmä možnosť navrhovať dôkazy, vyjadrovať sa k vykonaným dôkazom a tvrdeniam protistrany, právo na poučenia v zmysle ust. § 118 ods. 2 O.s.p. ako aj v zmysle ust. § 120 ods. 4 O.s.p., ktoré sa realizujú spravidla na pojednávaní (vo vzťahu k prítomným účastníkom). Odňatím možnosti konať pred súdom podľa ustanovenia § 221 písm. f) O.s.p. je taký nesprávny, procesné ustanovenia porušujúci, postup súdu v občianskom súdnom konaní, ktorým sa účastníkovi odníme možnosť pred ním konať a v konaní uplatňovať procesné práva priznané mu za účelom zabezpečenia účinnej ochrany jeho práv. V zmysle § 18 O.s.p. majú účastníci v občianskom súdnom konaní rovnaké postavenie a súd je povinný zabezpečiť im rovnaké možnosti na uplatnenie ich práv. Podľa ust. § 101 ods. 2 O.s.p., súd pokračuje v konaní, aj keď sú účastníci nečinní. Ak sa riadne predvolaný účastník nedostaví na pojednávanie ani nepožiadal z dôležitého dôvodu o odročenie, môže súd vec prejednať v neprítomnosti takého účastníka, prihliadne pritom na obsah spisu. Uvedené ustanovenie sa uplatní aj pri prejednaní odvolania odvolacím súdom (§ 211 O.s.p.).
 V prejednávanej veci bol postup okresného súdu v súlade s citovaným ustanovením § 101 ods. 2 O.s.p.. Navrhovateľka nepožiadala o odročenie pojednávania z dôležitého dôvodu tvoriaceho prekážku na jej strane brániacej jej v účasti na pojednávaní (§ 119 ods. 1-3 O.s.p.). Taktiež k námietkam o majetkovej škode a nemajetkovej ujme, odvolací súd uvádza, že s nimi sa už podrobne vysporiadal okresný súd a z tohto dôvodu ich nepovažuje za dôvodné.
 K samotnému porušeniu práva na prerokovanie veci bez zbytočných prieťahov odvolací súd poukazuje na ustálenú rozhodovaciu činnosť Ústavného súdu SR (II. ÚS 471/2012, I. ÚS 86/02, I. ÚS 70/02, I. ÚS 16/02, I. ÚS 63/00), keď samotné nedodržanie zákonom stanovenej lehoty nemožno automaticky vyhodnotiť ako porušenie základného práva účastníka konania na prerokovanie veci bez zbytočných prieťahov. Samotné nedodržanie zákonnej lehoty nemožno totiž vnímať izolovane, oddelene od ostatných okolností, ktoré objektívne majú vplyv na jej plynutie a významnou mierou sa podieľajú na jej predĺžení. Preto bolo nevyhnutné prihliadať na všetky podstatné okolnosti prípadu, tak ako to správne učinil v tomto konaní aj okresný súd.
 Z vyššie uvedených dôvodov odvolací súd rozsudok okresného súdu vrátane výroku o trovách konania ako vecne správny potvrdil.
 O trovách odvolacieho konania bolo rozhodnuté podľa § 142 ods. 1 O.s.p. v spojení s § 224 ods. 1 O.s.p.. Navrhovateľka nebola v odvolacom konaní úspešná, preto nemá nárok na náhradu trov odvolacieho konania. V odvolacom konaní bola úspešná odporkyňa, ktorá si však náhradu trov odvolacieho konania postupom podľa § 151 ods. 1 O.s.p. neuplatnila, resp. jej ani žiadne trovy nevznikli, preto rozhodol krajský súd tak, ako je uvedené vo výroku tohto rozsudku.
 Toto rozhodnutie odvolacieho súdu bolo prijaté hlasovaním v pomere hlasov 3 : 0.