NCJ Number
173022
Journal
Judicature Volume: 80 Issue: 5 Dated: March-April 1997 Pages: 230-236
Date Published
1997
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Various U.S. circuit courts have reached different conclusions on issues relating to Social Security Administration (SSA) disability claims, possibly undermining SSA's efforts to implement a nationally uniform program.
Abstract
In the context of Social Security disability adjudications, courts and agencies often differ over the proper interpretation of the Social Security Act as well as the due process rights of those seeking disability benefits. The confrontations worsened in the early 1980s when the SSA refused to implement decisions of the courts of appeals that mandated the medical improvement standard, a policy the agency extended to other issue areas as well. In 1985 the SSA chose to adopt a new acquiescence policy to minimize future conflict with the judiciary. According to its revised policy, initial determinations would be bound by SSA rules, but administrative law judges and the Appeals Council would abide by circuit court decisions in cases where SSA rules conflicted with circuit precedent. Under the new policy, the agency would adopt a position of nonacquiescence to court decisions only if it intended to pursue appeals in Federal court. Although the issue of nonacquiescence has been resolved, problems associated with conflicting circuit court precedents apparently continue unabated. The analysis reported in this article assessed the extent to which circuit court differences in SSA-related decisionmaking exist. Data were obtained on 745 Social Security disability cases decided in the U.S. courts of appeals from 1982 through 1993. Findings show that the SSA is subjected to widely varying degrees of support among the circuits. The infrequency with which the U.S. Supreme Court reviews disability cases has meant that little has been done to bring uniformity to the standards or approaches of the circuits. Nonacquiescence will likely continue as agencies struggle to apply national policies while being subject to decentralized judicial oversight. 4 tables and 15 footnotes