Judicial Review of Social Security Administration Action
|
| Aggrieved parties may seek judicial review of final Social Security Administration (SSA) decisions by filing a civil action in federal court. Generally, aggrieved parties must first exhaust their administrative remedies prior to initiating an action for judicial review. In juxtaposition to the administrative exhaustion rule, aggrieved parties may file a mandamus action to compel the performance of a duty owed by the SSA. The appropriateness of mandamus relief is based on considerations of 1) whether the party has any other adequate way to obtain the necessary relief, 2) whether the SSA has a clear duty to act as requested, and 3) whether the party is entitled to have the SSA so act.
Findings of fact made by the Commissioner of Social Security are examined under a "substantial evidence" standard of review. This means that there must be evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as supporting the findings. "Substantial" evidence does not rise to the level of a "preponderance" of the evidence, but it is more than a scintilla. The court is precluded from conducting a de novo examination and must only consider the evidence in the record.
Various circumstances will lead a court to a finding of reversible error. Given that the court is limited in its review to the record before it, one such circumstance where a finding of reversible error will result is if the SSA fails to fully develop the record. The record must include a complete explanation of the claim as well as specific and detailed findings concerning the SSA's decision. Additionally, when an individual appears pro se before the SSA, he should be provided with assistance to ensure a fully developed record.
Another example where reversible error exists is if the SSA applies the wrong weight to medical evidence. For instance, a treating physician's medical reports are to be accorded greater deference than the reports of examining physicians. Here, should the SSA give greater weight to the examining physician's report, the court will find a reversible error. Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. |