The Associated Press recently released a story about Social Security disability judges “improperly” approving disability cases over the last seven years, which has cost the American taxpayers $2 billion. This blog is not an attempt to justify these judges’ actions, but is intended to provide some context.
The story is based on a government report, which is expected to be released November 17, which highlights an Inspector General’s findings that about 4 percent of Administrative Law Judge’s improperly approved cases for people who were not disabled. The report claims that these judges had an 85 percent case approval rating in at least two of the last seven years.
It didn’t take long for the conservative movement to voice outrage over this report, which has not even officially been released yet.
“In failing to take meaningful disciplinary action at the Social Security Administration, even after the most egregious cases of mismanagement, taxpayers are left to wonder, who is looking after their tax dollars,” said U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California. Of course Issa failed to note that at least one-third of these judges have already been disciplined.
These judges who have approved cases without merit should be disciplined, but what about Social Security judges who are on the other side of things? This story by the Associated Press failed to mention extremely conservative judges who have approval ratings below 20 percent and in even some instances, below 10 percent. Are we to believe that 90 percent of disability applicants who go before these judges are not disabled? This is very unlikely.
If disability judges are called out for “improperly” approving disability cases, then the judges who “improperly” reject disability cases should be held to the same standard. To learn more about this story and to read the Associated Press’s article click here.
