|
''Richardson v. Perales'', 402 U.S. 389 (1971), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases. Among the questions considered was the propriety of using physicians' written reports generated from medical examinations of a disability claimant, and whether these could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding nondisability under the Social Security Act. == Issues == 1.) Do written reports by physicians who have examined a claimant for disability benefits under the Social Security Act constitute “substantial evidence”? 2.) Are such reports allowable to support a finding of non-disability? 3.) Are such reports hearsay under the rules of evidence in administrative law hearings? 4.) Is cross-examination of the authors of such reports allowable under the subpoena rules of administrative law? 5.) Does the failure of the claimant to exercise subpoena power, and call hostile witnesses for cross examination at a hearing constitute a violation of due process requirements? 6.) Are federal administrative law judges allowed to seek opinion evidence, or case advisement from neutral observers whom they hire, without the permission of the claimant? 7.) What is the status of “stacked hearsay,” where opinion reports are created based on other opinions about the claimant, but without examining the claimant? 8.) Is the Social Security Act to be interpreted liberally in matters of disability determination? 9.) Are Social Security disability benefits an entitlement subject to the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as delineated in Goldberg v. Kelly? 〔397 U.S. 254 (1970)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Richardson v. Perales」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|