Is this supposed to be an adversarial process?
At a senate hearing in June 2012, the president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges presented the senate committee with several proposals which they felt would help make the Social Security disability process more efficient and more effective. Perhaps the most controversial of these suggestions is that the process be treated as adversarial in nature. In other words, the Judges Association is suggesting that claims for disability be treated as a lawsuit against the government, and that the government be represented by attorneys much like a claimant can be.
It seems that the Judges Association is trying to create a conflict in a process which was not meant to be adversarial in nature. Federal regulations set forth criteria in which congress has determined the nature and scope of conditions which would qualify and individual to receive disability benefits. The administrative process allows for factual development of a claim to determine whether the criteria set forth by the Social Security Administration to protect disabled persons is met. The process is supposed to be one of fact gathering and analysis, rather than legal posturing and bickering.
When a claimant applies for disability benefits, it was not intended that they be required to fight against government attorneys to find out if they qualify under the criteria set forth by congress. In short, a claimant’s application for benefits should not be treated as lawsuit until there is a legal conflict. This would only serve to punish the people the program was meant to serve.
Furthermore, once it gets to Federal Court, the government is represented by attorneys. When a claim is denied by the Appeals Counsel, the next step for claimants and their attorneys is to file suit in Federal Court. At THIS stage, a legal conflict is created and it is appropriate that the interests of both sides be protected by counsel.
To be clear, requiring disabled people seeking the benefits offered by the government to fight the government is inconsistent with the fact finding nature of the administrative process. Why create a fight where none exists?
