Jacob Sherkow of Stanford Law School thinks that Social Security law is "undertheorized." I've always felt so bereft that Social Security law hasn't received more attention from law school professors! Haven't you? I don't know how the agency has been able to plow forward for the last 73 years.
Sherkow also thinks medical evidence is pretty much irrelevant to judicial review of Social Security disability decisions. How does a judge determine whether "substantial evidence" supports the denial of a disability claim without having some idea of what the evidence is? Sherkow's answer seems to be that judges should ignore that issue since there must always be "substantial evidence" supporting the denial of benefits. Of course, why bother with judicial review in the first place? Maybe it should be dispensed with since the poor judges can't know what to do with a field of law that is so badly undertheorized!
Sherkow also thinks medical evidence is pretty much irrelevant to judicial review of Social Security disability decisions. How does a judge determine whether "substantial evidence" supports the denial of a disability claim without having some idea of what the evidence is? Sherkow's answer seems to be that judges should ignore that issue since there must always be "substantial evidence" supporting the denial of benefits. Of course, why bother with judicial review in the first place? Maybe it should be dispensed with since the poor judges can't know what to do with a field of law that is so badly undertheorized!
1 comment:
I think you might have missed his point.
Post a Comment