• 05
  • August
    2011

Those applying for Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits know what a frustratingly long and potentially inconsistent process it can be. The inconsistent nature of the SSD approval/denial process has recently captured the attention of Congress.

In June, the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee sent a letter to Social Security Administration (SSA) Inspector General Patrick O'Carroll calling for the SSA to disclose details of the processes that judges use when determining whether to award benefits to applicants. The primary motivation behind requesting this information is the concern that individuals are being either wrongfully approved or denied when applying for disability due to the inconsistencies in the current determination process.

Committee members insist that they have "serious concerns about the degree and effectiveness of SSA's management oversight" and are accordingly demanding that the SSA undertake a number of investigative tasks, in order to better identify and remedy these problems. Some of the SSA's responsibilities in this matter now include:

•· Conducting a review of judges' workloads

•· Conducting a review of judges' adherence to determination policies and procedures

•· Disclosing the names of those judges who vary significantly from other judges in the number of awards they grant

•· Accounting for significant variation in approvals/denials process of individual judges

•· Outlining the management controls in place that enforce judges' adherence to SSA policies

•· Detailing the quality review system for judges' determinations

Hopefully the Committee's attention will continue to focus on the inconsistencies in the SSD process. Only by ensuring that the SSD process is clear, consistent and fair can those who deserve to receive benefits rest easily in the knowledge that the system will treat them with the consideration that they deserve.