alt.social-security-disability

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:39:47 GMT, Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:

>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.
>

The most frequently-violated legal issue in pain cases is of course
the Commissioner's failure to perform the analysis required by 20 CFR
.

/OP_Home/cfr20/404/