alt.social-security-disability

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:04:51 GMT, Puddin' Man
wrote:

>SSDI "pain" cases are ridiculously contentious. In any such action,
>there is "substantial evidence" on both sides. What you relate is
>true: they can ignore with impunity issues of "fact". It is one
>means by which they have institutionalized the bias evidenced in
>their decisions in "pain" cases. And I was fully aware of it,
>didn't need the lecture.

No extra charge.

>Now. Can anybody address the question as it relates to issues of
>"law"???? :-)

Sure. The *fact* that they don't delve into individual case facts to
weigh the evidence and instead follow the substantial evidence rule is
an issue of law.

There are cases in which the District judge *does* readjudicate a case
de novo, dig into all the medical reports, etc., arrive at a different
decision, and reverse the Commish. When this happens, SSA often
appeals to the Circuit Court, pointing out that the District judge
overstepped his bounds by assuming the burden of a trier of fact and
therefore violating this procedural "issue of law" that the courts
themselves have established.