What We Should Do about Social Security Disability: A Response to Richard J. Pierce, Jr

By Wolfe, Jeffrey S.; Glendening, Dale D. | Regulation, Spring 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

What We Should Do about Social Security Disability: A Response to Richard J. Pierce, Jr

Wolfe, Jeffrey S., Glendening, Dale D., Regulation

In an article in the Fall 2011 issue of Regulation, George Washington University law professor Richard J. Pierce, Jr. considers the rising cost of Social Security disability benefits and asks (in the words of his title), "What Should We Do about Social Security Disability?" He posits that the program's woes lie in its administrative law judges (ALJs), who hear appeals from initial Social Security Administration (SSA) determinations to deny benefits to individual applicants. He concludes that what needs to be done is "to abolish the ALJ-administered part of the disability decisionmaking process."

In his view, to quote an American idiom, judges are giving away the store. Pierce points to significant increases in the numbers of persons applying for and being adjudicated as "disabled" under the Social Security Act. He refers to statistics showing increases in the raw numbers of applications for Social Security disability benefits and notes a "28 percent" increase in the number of favorable decisions between 2007 and 2010, attributing this in large measure to de novo decisions by administrative law judges who are reversing underlying administrative denials. He asserts that judges are responsible for the all-but-wrongful award of billions in disability benefits.

We respectfully disagree. The Social Security Act itself and the outdated jurisprudence underlying the current hearings and appeals system are the problem. Thus Congress and the SSA, rather than administrative law judges, should be the focus of Pierce's criticism.

Social Security Disability

Disability determinations are initially made following a paper review by a federally funded "State Agency" (typically called "Disability Determination Services") present in each of the 50 states by agreements entered into with the SSA. These administrative determinations are made by state employees: disability examiners (DEs) supervised by medical professionals. These "determinations" (not "decisions" under governing regulation) are not a product of "hearings" as mischaracterized by Professor Pierce in his earlier article, but are instead unilateral considerations of documentary evidence supporting a claimant's application, tempered by additional medical development. The claimant does not have an opportunity to respond to the agency's findings or opinions, nor is the claimant generally asked to respond to discrepancies in the application. "Development" by the agency includes obtaining treatment records and, when there is a paucity of such information, sending the claimant to a medical examination at government expense to assess alleged mental or physical conditions ("impairments"). A federal reviewing body, the Disability Quality Branch, monitors this determination process, sometimes rejecting proposed favorable awards for reasons of "programmatic integrity."


The legal paradigm by which disability determinations are made and which governs later decisionmaking by administrative law judges-is a "5-step sequential evaluation." The S-step analysis looks to legal, medical, and vocational factors, with potentially favorable decisions made as a result of a defined medical condition (mental, physical, or both) or as a result of functional limitations arising out of an impairment or a combination of impairments. The decisionmaking standard is, however, ultimately a question of law: the judge makes findings of fact and law based on a legal analysis at each step of the 5-step sequential evaluation, all by a preponderance of the evidence.

The claims process is relatively straightforward. A claimant makes an initial application for disability benefits and, if denied, within 60 days seeks "reconsideration." If denied again, he or she may appeal-again, within a short 60-day window-requesting an in-person hearing before a federal administrative law judge. The hearing is the first opportunity a claimant has to present his or her case in person, as the initial and reconsidered determinations are essentially paper reviews.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

What We Should Do about Social Security Disability: A Response to Richard J. Pierce, Jr


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?