SSA procedures weed out cheaters

Jonah Goldberg proposed in his opinion piece published April 3 that every Social Security disability recipient submit to “a medical test” to confirm disability. That statement assumes, incorrectly, that there is one medical test that can determine disability. There is no such dipstick.

Disability must be based on a medically determinable impairment, but the administration also must consider education, age and skill level if the impairment is not on a list of conditions deemed automatically disabling (found in Chapter 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations), or if the individual cannot return to past work.

Goldberg also failed to mention that there is, in fact, a regulatory procedure for reviewing individuals on Social Security disability benefits.

The SSA states on its website, found at www.ssa.gov: “We call this review a Continuing Disability Review (CDR). The law requires us to perform a medical CDR approximately every three years, unless we determine you have a condition that we expect will improve sooner than that. However, if you have a condition that is not expected to improve, we will still review your case, but not as often as every three years.”

More troubling though is Goldberg’s statement that “a huge proportion of claim injuries can’t be corroborated by a doctor.” This statement is patently false.

By statute an applicant for disability must provide proof that he or she has a “medically determinable physical or mental impairment which … has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”

At the first two levels of administrative review the Social Security Administration either sends the applicant for an evaluation by a physician or psychologist (chosen by the SSA), or a physician or psychologist employed by the SSA reviews all of the evidence in the file to determine whether the applicant meets the criteria for disability.

Quoting from a book regarding entitlements, Goldberg hints that doctors and psychologists cannot “disprove a patient’s claim that he or she is suffering from sad feelings or back pain.” All claims, including those of back pain, must be supported clinical and/or laboratory findings (such as X-rays). As for mental impairments, Goldberg’s premise ignores the fact that observed signs and symptoms, in addition to psychological tests, manifest psychological illnesses. Psychologists are trained to recognize feigned symptoms.

Social Security benefits prevent suffering and serious social and family burdens such as foreclosures, evictions and bankruptcies that result from the inability to work due to severe medical problems. Only individuals with the most significant disabilities are eligible for benefits.

In 2012 the SSA granted benefits only 52 percent of the time after a hearing before an administrative law judge. And contrary to Goldberg’s implication, the majority of Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries are 50 years or older.

There are many stories about how our country’s social safety net has benefited millions of American workers — workers who have paid into the system for decades. SSA also provides a small monthly benefit to disabled applicants who do not have a sufficient work history to be entitled to receive SSDI benefits.

Goldberg has impugned the integrity not only of disability applicants, but also of attorneys, Social Security examiners, administrative law judges, the United States district and circuit judges who review the administrative decision, and treating physicians and psychologists.

Findings and conclusions from well-respected think tanks such as the Government Accountability Office, the Center for American Progress and the National Academy of Social Insurance refute Goldberg’s assertions.

There are cheaters in every system, and the SSA has many procedures in place to prevent payment of disability benefits to applicants who are able to work.