Social Security cases fall within the realm of administrative law. Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are allowed great discretion in their decisions by something called a “zone of choice.” The judge may reach any conclusion as long as it is based on “significant evidence.” Yet there are other rules which prohibit decisions with an inadequate basis in the record, or ignoring evidence.
In Buxton v. Halter, a federal court reversed the ALJ’s decision but stated “Substantial evidence is “ ‘more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ”Thus, the findings of the Social Security commissioner are not reversible by the courts if the judge based the decision on substantial evidence.. However, there are limits. An administrative law judge may not ignore plain evidence but must give it fair consideration. In Buxton v. Halter, the federal court reversed a judge’s denial because the judge made a decision without an adequate basis in the medical record and assuming medical facts that only a medical expert could propose. At the same time, the courts have made it clear that “The findings of [an ALJ] as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive…. In other words, on review of the Commissioner’s decision that a claimant is not totally disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the only issue reviewable by [the] court is whether the decision was based on substantial evidence. It matters not whether the court agrees with the judge’s decision or not.
It also doesn’t matter if there is evidence in the record that supports a different conclusion. If there is some evidence that points to disability and other evidence that points to not being disabled, the administrative law judge can arrive at either conclusion, as long as there is “substantial evidence” to support the decision.
This totally negates the myth that all the claimant has to do is tell the judge a good story, or explain why he needs disability benefits. The approval or denial of the claim will certainly rest on whether the claimant has presented “substantial” and objective evidence that he/she meets the rules of the Social Security Administration for disability. In the end, this falls upon the medical records and a reasonable interpretation of their contents.
I am afraid that many claimants fail to understand their burden of proof when going before an administrative law judge for a hearing.
As your advocates, our job in representing you is twofold: to find substantial evidence which supports a finding of disability, and to present such evidence in a way that the judge is comfortable in making an award of disability benefits.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles W. Forsythe, MS, is a co-founder of The Forsythe Firm in Huntsville, AL. Social Security disability counselors and representatives.
Comments
Post a Comment