Articles from prior issues of The Advocate

January/February, 1998

NADE Correspondence

nade

8564 Cullen Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
504-925-4615

November 21, 1997

Kenneth G. Apfel,
Commissioner Social Security Administration
P O Box 1585
Baltimore, MD 21235

Dear Mr. Apfel:

The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE) strongly endorses the proposed rules regarding the administrative review as published in the Federal Register September 25, 1997. In Congressional testimony and in correspondence with SSA, NADE has for several years advocated equal review of favorable and unfavorable disability decisions. We believe this is necessary in order to prevent conscious or unconscious bias on the part of decision makers whose decisions -- either favorable or unfavorable -- may be influenced by the likelihood of review.

Decisional consistency is significantly affected by the current review process which is more likely to target DDS allowances and ALJ denials. Just as we support initiatives to increase review of DDS denials, we support SSA’s efforts, through these regulations, to increase the number of favorable ALJ, Adjudication Officer and Senior Attorney decisions the Appeals Council will review on its own motion. To also include claims selected through the random and selective sampling techniques will significantly increase the number of claims reviewed and should markedly increase decisional consistency.

Ongoing training for all components will be needed to assure that these regulations are implemented appropriately and that there is consistent and sustained application of the concepts promulgated. In order to avoid undue delays in the review process, the reviewing components must be appropriately staffed to handle an increased workload. In addition, to assure consistency beyond the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council levels, SSA must aggressively review and challenge -- or acquiesce to -- unfavorable court decisions.

We believe Process Unification is the cornerstone of an improved disability program. It is essential that disability decisions are consistent throughout the country and at all levels of adjudication. These regulations, while not providing the whole answer to today’s inconsistency, are an important first step.

Sincerely,

Debi Gardiner
NADE President