Why is the Social Security Administration allowing Administrative
Law Judges (ALJs) to hold hearings? It is the official position of the Executive Branch, of which Social Security is a part, that the ALJs lack authority to hold hearings and issue decisions.
What is Social Security's plan for dealing with a Supreme Court decision holding that ALJs, as presently hired, are unconstitutional? By the way, Social Security, good luck on getting any usable advice on this from the White House or Department of Justice.
Should attorneys request Appeals Council review and District Court review every time a client is denied by an ALJ, given that it is the position of the Executive Branch that the ALJs lack authority to make decisions, a position that the Supreme Court may possibly uphold? Even if I consider that Executive Branch position nuts, my obligation is to advance my client's interests even if those interests conflict with what I consider to be the best interests of the country.
The only immediate solution for the problem is to have the President officially appoint each of Social Security's ALJs as has been done for the Securities and Exchange Commission ALJs. That should have already been done for the Social Security ALJs. If this isn't done, there will be a vast cascade of remands should the Supreme Court hold ALJs as presently appointed unconstitutional. Doing it after a Supreme Court decision isn't enough.
11 comments:
It's all based in their not so subtle efforts to deconstruct the administrative state. If chaos results, that's a good result too. They are showing that it's not too hard to dismantle and with packing the courts with neocon judges, expect more of it.
We must drain the swamp of all poor and disabled people for the safety of the billionaires. My advice to all Americans, get wealthy and stay healthy.
I would love it if they got rid of ALJs. Then I could appeal all of the denials right to the Federal District court. The DDS' evaluations are so poor that I would get every case remanded and collect an EAJA fee.
Of course the Federal District Courts would go insane with the flood of SSD appeals. But if it is chaos your looking for....
@12:50
I'm not so sure. If DDS's findings were the actual final findings reviewed by the Courts, I would imagine the cases would be easy to resolve. If DDS is anything, they are concise. Wrong, but concise.
This would flood the Federal Courts and possibly Supreme Court with countless appeals. My experience is the Federal Courts hate dealing with small potato disability cases. This will not be upheld. Chump and the Repubs are just causing chaos.
However, streamlining hiring of ALJs may happen.
We would end up with District Courts hiring a lot of magistrates and eventually some circuit splits will emerge just as function of hearing so many cases.
You forget that El Presidente is flooding us with federal judicial appointments right now. No offense, but wise up. They are systematically coming for everything.
What would be the effect of disqualifying ALJs? Would it also disqualify AALJ on the Appeals Council? Would it leave reconsideration decision,or in those districts that don 't have reconsideration ("prototype states) the original state agency decision, as the final decision, appealable to the District Courts? What would be the Commissioner's decision that the Court would be reviewing? and what evidence? Would the result be a court order that remands the case for a new decision at the state agency level, bypassing OAO? These are just some of the possibilities I am thinking of when I see this. This is a very large can of worms.
Since so many ALJ's don't seemingly do their jobs well maybe getting rid of the ALJ jobs at Social Security would not be a bad thing.
@6:44 It would be devastating to people with disabilities to take away ALJ hearings, and I say this as an attorney rep who often appeals and critiques ALJ decisions. That's the one chance claimants have to appear face to face with someone to have what should be a full and fair hearing of their claim. Yes, I know that they sometimes don't effectively get a full and fair hearing, and the litany of problems with the system.
If you took ALJ hearings away you would end up with a log jam at the Federal Courts reviewing a lot of seriously under-developed claims, likely years after the record closed, while even more disabled claimants went bankrupt, became homeless, or worse while waiting. Considering the knowledge and resources required to pursue Federal litigation, and that you are dealing with many impoverished claimants with mental limitations, a large number claims would be lost for reasons unrelated to their merits. That's not justice.
remember too, in the Federal courts the Rules of Evidence applies, deadlines are deadlines (no just saying, oops I forgot), and you'll have opposing government counsel.....be careful what you wish for folks....
Post a Comment