Search the Shriver Center
Entire Site Poverty Law Library Clearinghouse Review

The Supreme Court has reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that upheld a district court opinion requiring the Social Security Administration to provide a disability benefits recipient with a pre-termination evidentiary hearing of the type required for welfare beneficiaries under Title IV of the Social Security Act.

At the outset, the Court examined the jurisdictional issue raised by Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975), and it concluded that the Secretary's denial of the request for benefits was a final decision with respect to that claim for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) jurisdiction over his constitutional claim. The Court explained that Section 405(g) consists of a waivable requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary be exhausted and a nonwaivable requirement that a claim for benefits shall have been presented to the Secretary. Since respondent presented such a claim, he met the non-waivablejurisdictional aspect of Section 405(g). Further, unlike Salfi, respondent's constitutional challenge "is entirely collateral to his substantive claim of entitlement." He raised "at least a colorable claim that because of his physical condition and dependency upon the disability benefits an erroneous termination would damage him in a way not recompensable through retroactive payment." Thus, unlike Salfi, a decision on his claim for other reasons or upholding it following termination would not answer his constitutional challenge. Thus, although he concededly did not exhaust his administrative remedies, the denial of his claim was sufficiently final to satisfy the statutory exhaustion requirement.

On the merits, the Court noted that its past decisions indicate that the specific dictates of due process require consideration of three factors: the private interest that will be affected by the official action; the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and the government's interest.

The private interest that would be adversely affected by an erroneous termination of disability benefits is not as serious as that in Goldberg v. Kelly, 379 U.S. 254 (1970), since the benefits here are not based on financial need. While recognizing the "torpidity of this administrative review process" and the potentially serious effect of termination, the court noted that a terminated recipient would have other forms of government assistance available where termination places him or his family below the subsistence level. "In view of these potential sources of temporary income, there is less reason here than in Goldberg to depart from the ordinary principle established by our decisions, that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action."

The Court also observed that a medical assessment of the worker's physical or mental impairment "is a more sharply focused and easily documented decision than the typical determination of welfare entitlement," and it concluded that, on the basis of the reliability and probative worth of written medical reports, "[t]he potential value of an evidentiary hearing, or even oral presentation to the decision-maker, is substantially less in this context than in Goldberg." In addition, prior to termination, the recipient is afforded full access to the information relied upon by the state agency, is supplied with reasons for the proposed action, and is given an opportunity to submit additional arguments and evidence.

Pre-termination hearings in all cases would entail fiscal and administrative burdens that "would not be insubstantial." But, more important, recognizing that the "judicial model of an evidentiary hearing is neither a required, nor even the most effective, method of decisionmaking in all circumstances." and where, as here, "the prescribed procedures not only provide the claimant with an effective process for asserting his claim prior to any administrative action, but also assure a right to an evidentiary hearing, as well as to subsequent judicial review before the denial of his claim becomes final," a pretermination evidentiary hearing is not required and the present administrative procedures fully comport with due process.