If it's a form of discrimination for an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to deny disability claims because claimants have received unemployment insurance benefits, why is it that Social Security provides information to ALJs showing which claimants have been receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
9 comments:
Because receipt of unemployment benefits still affects credibility. An ALJ cannot say that because you collected unemployment that automatically means you are not disabled, but can still use receipt of unemployment benefits along with other evidence to establish that you have failed to meet your burden of proving disability.
The problem with overblown rhetoric is that it oversimplifies a complex issue. There is possible tension between the receipt of UC benefits and claiming disability under the Social Security Act. That depends upon what is said in both claims. To get UC a claimant must be "ready willing and able to work." That is a term of art with a specific legal meaning. It is NOT NECESSARILY incompatible with being disabled under the Social Security Act which is also a term of art. A claimant can be both ready willing and able to work for UC purposes and disabled for Soc Sec purposes. Thus, the receipt of UC is relevant to a disability claim, but not necessarily incompatible. Why all the angst here. I could give lots of examples, but will provide just a few. Older workers limited to sedentary work with only light work as PRW. Lots of Listings folk -- e.g deafness; dialysis; wheelchair. et
The ruling does not hold that a "bias" against claimants who have received unemployment benefits is illegal discrimination. What the ruling says is that a claim that such bias exists should be treated as any other claim of discrimination. So saying "The ALJ is biased against me personally" is de facto not an allegation of discrimination and such a claim will be ignored, vs. "The ALJ is biased against claimants who fall into class X" is at least a coherent claim of discrimination that can be referred for further investigation. The ruling does not make findings about what allegations constitute illegal discrimination and what allegations do not.
Remember that the SSI program requires that claimants file for "any and all other benefits" they can qualify for; so SSA makes them file for unemployment as a condition of filing for SSI. Hard to then hold it against them later...
re: 4:06PM
Yeah, but if they tell the UC divison that they are disabled and unable to work, they will simply deny the claim and the claimant has met the SSI filing burden. The issue is that the claimants aren't telling the UC divisions that they are disabled while they are telling SSA that they are disabled.
As an ALJ, I'm now finished with any development of workers compensation benefits as an offset. And whatever effect my noticing a claimant has received unemployment during the period he claimed disability will not be mentioned in a decision
Mr. Hall, if that is your take away from SSR 13-01p, I seriously question your reading and comprehension abilities.
I agree with the immediately previous comment.
I believe that was shown as a possible example, not as a fact. I will continue to enquire about both, as well as private disability payments the claimants receive. They are all relevant evidence in a SSI or SSID claim.
12:01 PM, January 29, 2013
Good man.
Justin
Post a Comment