alt.social-security-disability

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:29:09 GMT, Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:53:49 -0500, Puddin' Man
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>I have a Social Security Disability case (based on "pain") in US Court of Appeals
>>and very recently denied.
>>
>>That case includes constitutional challenges (3) to certain Social Security
>>rules, practices, etc. Such challenges were not presented in any lower
>>court.
>>
>>The US Court of Appeals claims license to ignore such challenges:
>>
>>"Finally, we decline to consider the arguments Appellant raises for the first
>> time on appeal. See Flynn v. Chater, 107 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1997)
>> (argument first raised on appeal need not be considered unless manifest
>> injustice would otherwise result)."
>>
>>Flynn v. Chater involves an issue of "fact" raised on appeal:
>>
>>"On appeal, Flynn makes four arguments. First, Flynn contends that
>> the ALJ failed to make specific findings of fact regarding claimant’s
>> impairments.
>> Flynn concedes he raises this issue for the first time on appeal.
>> Ordinarily, issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be
>> considered unless the claimant can show that manifest injustice would
>> otherwise result"
>>
>>Question 1:
>>Does the US Court of Appeals have Carte Blanche to ignore with impunity
>>both issues of "fact" -and- issues of "law" that were not put before
>>the lower court?
>
>All judicial circuits have long held that that the Commissioner (prior
>to 1995, the Secretary), and not the court is the trier of fact and
>his findings of fact shall not be disturbed if they are supported by
>substantial evidence which is that evidence that is reasonable, even
>if the court would come to a different conclusion if the court were
>the trier of fact.
>
>The Commish uses the "weight of the evidence" rule.
>
>Compare the "weight of the evidence" with "substantial evidence"
>rules.
>
>. Weight of the Evidence
>“Weight of the evidence” is defined as the balance or preponderance of
>evidence; the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence
>to support one side of the issue rather than the other.
>
> Substantial Evidence
>“Substantial evidence” is defined as that evidence which, although
>less than a preponderance, nevertheless is sufficient to convince a
>reasonable mind of the credibility of a position taken on an issue,
>when no evidence on the opposing side clearly compels another finding
>or conclusion. Therefore, the “substantial evidence” rule requires
>less in support of a finding or conclusion than the “weight of the
>evidence” rule. Evidence on one side of an issue need not possess
>greater weight or be more convincing and credible to be “substantial.”
>
>So even if a court believes that the evidence does not satisfy the
>"weight of the evidence" rule, they have to accept the Commish's
>decision it the evidence satisfies the "substantial evidence" rule.

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.

I've read examples of it until my stomach turns.

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

>>Question 2:
>>Where can I find legal definitions of "manifest injustice"? If the
>>Social Security Admin. has been running an experimental program that
>>violates certain constitutional guarantees for 10 years, would that
>>qualify? As a personal civil action? As a class action?
>
>"Manifest injustice" as I understand the term as a non-lawyer goes
>even further than the substantial evidence rule. The court is saying
>that the Commissioner's decision has to be a total fuck-up before they
>will remand or reverse.
>
>manifest injustice:
> an outcome in a case that is plainly and obviously unjust >of an involuntary guilty plea constitutes manifest injustice.

Yes. In a criminal case, if one confesses whilst the thumb-screws
are exerting pressure and the genitals are drawing amperage, etc,
that constitutes "manifest injustice", 'tho they might require
an amperage measurement to admit it.

What about a civil case? Can anyone address that issue???? :-)

>If you are pursuing the issue of SSA using different experimental
>adjudicative schemes for 10 years, no atty. as far as I know has ever
>filed a suit to challenge it.

So what? Attorneys know where their bread is buttered. Sometimes
it takes a "Crazy Man" ...

>I think that we discussed this
>previously, and decided that because your back is against the wall,
>you might as well throw this issue into the mix too.

Not because my back is against the wall ('tho it is). Because I
choose to test in the US judicial arena some of the insanities
perpetrated by SSA and the US "Rubber-Stamp" courts.

Figuratively speaking, it's kinda like:

"Would they recognize and consider relevant constitutional issues if such
issues just happened to smack 'em in the face and knock 'em down 14 flights of
stairs???"

Thx,
P

"Law without Equity is no law at all: 'tis a form of jungle rule,
and is always supported directly or indirectly by force of arms."

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller