7.3 Case Law Flashcards
“Why is case law important in SSA disability cases?”
Answer: “Case law provides judicial interpretations of the Social Security Act and SSA regulations, which may guide decision-making.”
Explanation: “Federal court decisions can set precedents that affect how SSA policies are applied.”
What is the significance of Richardson v. Perales?
Answer: “It established that hearsay evidence, such as medical reports, can constitute substantial evidence in disability cases.”
Explanation: “Richardson clarified the evidentiary standards for SSA determinations.”
Source: Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971).
“What is the significance of Barnhart v. Thomas?”
Answer: “It upheld SSA’s sequential evaluation process and its application to determining RFC and job availability.”
Explanation: “Barnhart affirmed the framework for evaluating disability cases.”
Source: Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003).
“How does Clem v. Sullivan apply to disability determinations?”
Answer: “It highlighted the importance of vocational expert testimony in establishing the availability of other work in the national economy.”
Explanation: “This case emphasized the role of experts in SSA hearings.”
Source: Clem v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1990).
Case Scenario: In reviewing a claimant’s file, the ALJ gives more weight to a consultative examiner’s opinion than the treating physician’s. The claimant appeals, citing Richardson v. Perales.
Question: What precedent does Richardson v. Perales establish regarding medical evidence?
Answer: Richardson v. Perales establishes that consultative medical reports can constitute substantial evidence if supported by the record.
Legal Explanation: This case affirmed the admissibility of consultative reports as substantial evidence in SSA disability claims, provided the reports are consistent and well-supported.
Key Resource: Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) – Substantial evidence in disability cases.
Case Scenario: Jane’s claim for disability benefits is denied because the ALJ concludes she can perform past relevant work. Jane appeals, citing Barnhart v. Thomas, which supports the sequential evaluation process.
Question: How does Barnhart v. Thomas relate to SSA’s evaluation process?
Answer: Barnhart v. Thomas upheld SSA’s sequential evaluation process, emphasizing its structure for determining disability.
Legal Explanation: The case confirmed the five-step evaluation process as a valid framework for determining disability under the Social Security Act.
Key Resource: Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003) – Validity of the sequential evaluation process.
Case Law:
Precedents like Richardson v. Perales and Barnhart v. Thomas shape SSA decisions.
