After receiving a completed questionnaire from respondent and considering reports from doctors and other information, the state agency informed respondent by letter that it had made a tentative determination that his disability had ceased. The agency provided respondent with a statement of reasons and advised him that he could request reasonable time to submit additional information about his condition. In a written response, respondent disputed one characterization of his medical condition and indicated the state already had enough information to establish his disability.
The agency may arrange for an independent medical examination to resolve conflicting information. If the SSA accepts the agency determination, it gives written notification to the beneficiary of the reasons for the decision and of his right to de novo state agency reconsideration.
Upon acceptance by the SSA, benefits are terminated effective two months after the month in which recovery is found to have occurred.
If, after reconsideration by the state agency and SSA review, the decision remains adverse to the recipient, he is notified of his right to an evidentiary hearing before an SSA administrative law judge.
If an adverse decision results, the recipient may request discretionary review by the SSA Appeals Council, and finally may obtain judicial review. Retroactive adjustments are also made for overpayments.
A few years after respondent was first awarded disability benefits, he received and completed a questionnaire Page U. After considering the information contained therein and obtaining reports from his doctor and an independent medical consultant, the agency wrote respondent that it had tentatively determined that his disability had ceased in May,and advised him that he might request a reasonable time to furnish additional information.
In a reply letter, respondent disputed one characterization of his medical condition and indicated that the agency had enough evidence to establish his disability. The agency then made its final determination reaffirming its tentative decision. This determination was accepted by the SSA, which notified respondent in July that his benefits would end after that month and that he had a right to state agency reconsideration within six months.
Instead of requesting such reconsideration, respondent brought this action challenging the constitutionality of the procedures for terminating disability benefits and seeking reinstatement of benefits pending a hearing.
The District Court, relying in part on Goldberg v. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
An evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of Social Security disability payments, and the administrative procedures prescribed under the Act fully comport with due process. Resolution of the issue here involving the constitutional sufficiency of administrative procedures prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending review, requires consideration of three factors: Eligibility for disability payments is not based on financial need, and, although hardship may be imposed upon the erroneously terminated disability recipient, his need is likely less than the welfare recipient.
In view of other forms of government assistance available to the terminated disability recipient, there is less reason than in Goldberg to depart from the ordinary principle that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action.
The decision whether to discontinue disability benefits will normally turn upon "routine, standard, and unbiased medical repots by physician specialists," Richardson v.
In a disability situation, the potential value of an evidentiary hearing is thus substantially less than in the welfare context. The detailed questionnaire identifies with particularity the information relevant to the entitlement decision.
Information critical to the decision is derived directly from medical sources. Finally, prior to termination of benefits, the disability recipient or his representative is afforded full access to the information relied on by the state agency, is provided the reasons underlying its tentative assessment, and is given an opportunity to submit additional arguments and evidence.
The judicial model of an evidentiary hearing is neither a required, nor even the most effective, method of decisionmaking in all circumstances, and here, where the prescribed procedures not only provide the claimant with an effective process for asserting his claim prior to any administrative action, but also assure a right to an evidentiary hearing, as well as subsequent judicial review before the denial of his claim becomes final, there is no deprivation of procedural due process.Jul 24, · The three-point balancing test cited by the white paper as conclusive enough to justify the extrajudicial killing of an American comes from a Supreme Court case, Mathews v.
Eldridge. Search Results for 'researched regulation and court case' An Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case: Fisher v.
University Of Texas The Future of Admissions An Analysis of the Supreme Court Case. When domestic violence cases involve persons who have cases pending in the matrimonial court, the resource coordinator makes certain to inform the matrimonial court judge about findings of guilt or any other relevant developments.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals hit the nose on the head when it stated, "[w]e find no language in the fourth amendment suggesting that the right of the people to be secure in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' applies to all searches and seizures except civil-forfeiture seizures in drug cases.".
Mathews v. Eldridge established a case-by-case due process analysis that may create a right to appointed counsel in a civil proceeding.
set up." Under this area and the Judiciary Act of , the United States Supreme Court was made. The Act composed the Supreme Court, the government circuit courts and the elected region courts, set up the. The statute requires the juvenile court to authorize the minor's consent where the court determines that the abortion is in the minor's best interest and in cases where the minor has shown a pattern of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.