Strauss v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is one of those "of course" cases. Simply put, a federal court must find a person claiming disability benefits disabled before ordering the Commissioner to pay disability benefits. The legal principle is simple enough but bore repeating if only to emphasize that the courts have the power to order the payment of benefits.
What I find irritating is the failure of experienced attorneys to get the name of the parties correct. I have been involved in cases with the misnamed defendant. Chavez v. Department of HHS is one. (That opinion stands for the well-worn proposition that the Commissioner gets to tell the world what his regulations mean and the courts must respect that determination, unless plainly erroneous.) I didn't file that case, taking it on later in the game. But come on people, can we exercise just a little care out there?
The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing has represented the disabled since 1985 before the Social Security Administration, District Courts across the country, Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the United States Supreme Court. All rights reserved. Copyright 2018.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
The National Review Online ... The New York Times ... International Business Times ... Market Watch ... Dangle money in front o...
-
The question today is whether the often cited occupation of a call-out operator continues to exist in the national economy. Vocational e...
-
A memorandum disposition from the Ninth Circuit with a dissent should be published. Jones v. Kijakazi is one such case. Judge VanDyke is...
No comments:
Post a Comment