With the seemingly high degree of deference given to the ALJ with regard to evidentiary matters in Social Security Disability Proceedings and the relatively broad credibility granted to the VE's testimony, the question bound to arise is whether an adequate level of fairness is afforded disability claimants.
The Courts have mandated that evidence not normally admissible in regular court proceedings could constitute substantial evidence in disability hearings. One of the justifications for this holding was that the disability hearings should be understandable for the layman claimant, but the Court could have hardly meant that relaxation of evidentiary rules in disability hearings was meant to relax any obligation of fairness owed to the disability claimant.
The Courts arguably would have been more concerned about an infringement of procedural due process afforded to disability claimants. But what has been perceived as a victory for disability claimants actually hinders the level of protection granted to the claimants from unqualified VEs or conclusions arrived at by mere extrapolations which are ipse dixit.
Subsequently, courts have interpreted the relaxed evidentiary standards in SSA proceedings to mean that heightened standards for vocational experts are not necessary. For example, in some cases, the Courts have declared that the VE's expertise establishes the necessary foundation for his testimony, and so, no additional foundation is necessary.
In some cases, the claimants have argued that the requirements for admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, established in by the case leading to the adoption of Rule 702 should apply to the testimony of the VE. However, certain Courts have determined that because the some Court cases have rested on the interpretation of Rule 702, the safeguard implications established, and subsequently extended to all expert testimony, did not govern the admissibility of evidence before the ALJ in SSA proceedings.
In some Social Security Disability cases, the Courts have held that although Rule 702 does not apply to SSA proceedings, the notion that VEs should use reliable methods does not depend on Rule 702 because the Social Security proceedings require every decision to be supported by substantial evidence.
Additionally, the Courts have pointed out that "[e]vidence is not 'substantial' if vital testimony has been conjured out of whole cloth." These cases suggest two propositions: first, Rule 702 and subsequently the safeguard implications of other cases do not apply; and second, the foundation requirements of the VE's expertise are not uniformly established. The interpretations of of some cases somehow seem flawed because a system that was meant to be informal to benefit the layman claimant should not be allowed to relax the level of fairness the system owes to the claimant.
For these reasons, it is of vital importance that the Social Security Disability claimant be represented by an experienced Social Security Disability Attorney who knows how to handle VE testimony.
Navigating your way through life is not always easy. Sometimes you're thrown a curve - often at themost inopportune time. When that happens contact Indiana Disability Attorney Nathaniel Hubley. More information about the Social Security Disability process can be found at http://www.hubleylaw.com or visiting the Social Security Administrations' website.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nathaniel_Hubley
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/7239290
No comments:
Post a Comment