Section 8: Federal Court Practice-Advance Cards Flashcards
Scenario:
Emma files a federal court appeal challenging SSA’s decision to deny her SSDI benefits. She argues that the court can make its own disability determination without remanding the case to SSA.
Question:
Can a federal court make a disability determination without remanding the case to SSA?
Answer:
Generally, no. Federal courts review SSA decisions for legal and procedural errors and may remand cases for further proceedings but typically do not make disability determinations.
Explanation:
Federal courts review whether SSA’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and complied with applicable laws. They rarely substitute their judgment for SSA’s.
Key Resource: 42 U.S.C. §405(g) – Judicial review and remands.
Key Takeaway:
Federal courts review SSA decisions for legal and procedural errors but usually remand cases for further action rather than making disability determinations.
Scenario:
John appeals his denial of benefits to federal court, arguing that new medical evidence proves his disability. The court states it cannot consider the new evidence.
Question:
Can federal courts consider new evidence not part of the administrative record?
Answer:
No, federal courts generally limit their review to the administrative record. New evidence may only be considered if the case is remanded under Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
Explanation:
New evidence is admissible only if it is material and there was good cause for not submitting it during the administrative process.
Key Resource: 42 U.S.C. §405(g) – Sentence Six remands for new evidence.
Key Takeaway:
Federal courts review only the administrative record unless the case is remanded under Sentence Six for new evidence.
Scenario:
Lisa files a federal court appeal after exhausting SSA’s internal appeals process. She misses the filing deadline and requests an extension.
Question:
What is the deadline for filing a federal court appeal, and can it be extended?
Answer:
The deadline is 60 days from the date the Appeals Council denial is received. Extensions are granted only if good cause is shown.
Explanation:
Claimants must file within 60 days of receiving the Appeals Council decision, with a presumed receipt date of five days after mailing.
Key Resource: 42 U.S.C. §405(g) – Filing deadlines.
Key Takeaway:
Federal court appeals must be filed within 60 days of receiving the Appeals Council decision, unless good cause for an extension is demonstrated.
Scenario:
Tom files a federal court appeal and requests that SSA pay his attorney’s fees. The court awards fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Question:
When can attorney’s fees be awarded under the EAJA?
Answer:
Attorney’s fees under the EAJA are awarded if the claimant prevails in the appeal and SSA’s position is found to lack substantial justification.
Explanation:
The EAJA allows for fee reimbursement to prevailing claimants when SSA’s denial of benefits was not substantially justified.
Key Resource: 28 U.S.C. §2412 – Equal Access to Justice Act.
Key Takeaway:
Attorney’s fees under the EAJA are awarded when the claimant prevails and SSA’s position lacks substantial justification.
Scenario:
What is the primary role of federal courts in SSA appeals?
Question:
Do federal courts reevaluate disability claims or review SSA’s decision-making process?
Answer:
Federal courts review SSA’s decision-making process to ensure compliance with the law and substantial evidence.
Explanation:
The court evaluates whether SSA’s decision is legally sound and supported by evidence but does not substitute its judgment for SSA’s.
Key Resource: 42 U.S.C. §405(g) – Judicial review standards.
Key Takeaway:
Federal courts review SSA’s decisions for legal compliance and substantial evidence, not to reevaluate claims.
Scenario:
What does “substantial evidence” mean in federal court reviews of SSA decisions?
Question:
How is “substantial evidence” defined in the context of SSA appeals?
Answer:
Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Explanation:
The substantial evidence standard is deferential to SSA, requiring more than a mere scintilla of evidence but less than preponderance.
Key Resource: Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) – Definition of substantial evidence.
Key Takeaway:
Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Scenario:
Emma’s federal court appeal identifies an ALJ error in evaluating her RFC. The court remands the case, instructing SSA to reconsider the RFC and vocational evidence.
Question:
What type of remand allows SSA to reconsider RFC and vocational evidence?
Answer:
A Sentence Four remand under 42 U.S.C. §405(g) allows SSA to reconsider RFC and vocational evidence as part of further proceedings.
Explanation:
Sentence Four remands occur when the court finds legal or procedural errors in SSA’s decision-making.
Key Resource: 42 U.S.C. §405(g) – Sentence Four remands.
Key Takeaway:
Sentence Four remands allow SSA to address legal or procedural errors identified by federal courts.
Scenario:
John’s federal court appeal argues that his ALJ hearing lacked a vocational expert (VE). The court remands the case, requiring VE testimony.
Question:
Why might the lack of VE testimony justify a remand?
Answer:
VE testimony is necessary when SSA determines whether significant jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.
Explanation:
The absence of VE testimony may lead to an incomplete evaluation of Step 5 in the disability determination process, warranting remand.
Key Resource: SSR 00-4p – VE testimony and job evidence.
Key Takeaway:
VE testimony is critical for evaluating Step 5 and may justify a remand if absent.
