When the Social Security Administration makes headline-grabbing news, that usually isn't a good thing these days. This is because, like with many topics, no one makes the nightly news for the good deeds they have done, but instead for alleged mistakes that have been made.
As some of our Los Angeles readers have probably seen by now, several administrative law judges with the Social Security Administration testified before the U.S. Congress recently in regards to their approval of disability claims. The reports indicate that at least one of the judges who testified has approved about 99 percent of the claims he reviewed since 2005. That percentage, apparently, was off-putting to several members of Congress.
Anyone who has gone through the process of seeking Social Security Disability benefits knows that there are quite a few requirements that need to be met, and that oftentimes the evaluation process includes an appeal of an initial rejection.
The current discussion in Congress, however, appears to miss the point that by the time a person's application has landed in front of a Social Security administrative law judge, the case is receiving its first review by a legally-trained person. That distinction can mean the difference between a denial and an approval.
Hopefully, the reports associated with this recent activity in Congress will also reflect the positive aspects of SSD benefits - like the fact that these monthly benefits help millions of Americans make ends meet when they otherwise would be in dire financial straits. Getting more SSD information is the only way some people will understand the importance of this social safety net.
Source: Yahoo! Finance, "Report: Social Security judges rubber-stamp claims," Stephen Ohlemacher, June 10, 2014