Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts

Feb 23, 2023

Good Decision Out Of CA4


    
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision yesterday in Shelley C. v. Commissioner of Social Security.

    The Court found that summary statements assigning "little weight" to the opinion of the treating physician on the grounds that it "is on an issue reserved for the Commissioner and . . . is inconsistent with the medical evidence of record. [His] treatment notes do not indicate any significant symptoms that would render [Shelley C.] unable to perform basic work activities” does not comply with the agency's own regulations. An ALJ decision must identify the alleged inconsistencies between the treating physician's opinion and the medical evidence. The Court also held that the ALJ decision must explicitly show consideration of each of the six factors in 20 C.F.R.§404.1527(c). I think that in practical terms the Court held that merely using canned language won't cut it. If an ALJ gives "little weight" to a treating physician's opinion, the ALJ is going to have to explain why.

    By the way, the Court didn't even deign to discuss the "opinion reserved to the Commissioner" language in the ALJ decision, which is about how much attention one should pay to makeweight language implying that Social Security has some right to summarily make decisions without regard to the evidence and without being held to account by anyone. Taken at face value, that arrogance would render judicial review meaningless.

    The Court also held that the ALJ "could not dismiss Shelley C.’s subjective complaints based entirely upon the belief that they were not corroborated by the record’s medical evidence."

    The Court did not remand the case. It reversed it and ordered payment of benefits. That is uncommon at the District Court level and quite rare at the Court of Appeals level. This was a bad day for Social Security's Office of General Counsel and for canned boilerplate in ALJ decisions. Show your work, ALJs.

Dec 27, 2016

"Take A Number, Please"

     From an editorial in the Des Moines Register:
It’s the stuff of nightmares: Permanently injured in an auto accident, you lose your ability to work and must apply for disability benefits.
Faced with mounting medical bills, as well as the usual expenses for groceries and rent, you go to your local Social Security Administration office to secure desperately needed federal disability benefits.
You approach the counter, see a sign advising you to “Take a number, please,” and you comply. The receptionist calls out, “Number six?” You look at the slip of paper in your hand and realize you are number 1,136,849.
You ask the receptionist how long you’ll have to wait. She smiles broadly and cheerfully responds, “Thanks for stopping by! Your disability claim is important to us! The average wait time is currently 19 months and 22 days!” ...
Unfortunately, this nightmare scenario is based on a stark reality now faced by many disabled Americans. ...
When it was revealed that 200 veterans may have died in 2015 while waiting for care at an Arizona Veterans’ Administration hospital, Congress wasted no time scheduling hearings and proposing legislative fixes to address that problem. The SSA’s case backlog has grown for years and affects a much broader segment of the population, yet the outrage, if it exists at all, is muted. ...

Aug 17, 2015

Why Do So Many Republican Candidates For President Favor Cuts In Social Security?

     Today's opinion pieces:
  • Paul Krugman at the New York Times believes most Republican candidates for President support cuts to Social Security not because these cuts are popular with the Republican base (they aren't) but because big money donors support cuts in Social Security.
  • Tim Worstall at Forbes says that you don't have to be a bloated plutocrat to favor cuts in Social Security. In fact, retirement age should be raised to 80!
  • Ezra Klein at Vox believes that one of the major reasons that Donald Trump is popular with Republican voters is that Trump doesn't favor cuts in Social Security.