On June 14, 1983 the Times made its strongest statement yet. Although the Wall Street Journal reported, that "Disability-Review Program Eased Again By Reagan to Retain More Beneficiaries," the Times disagreed. In a blistering editorial - "Not Fair Enough for the Disabled" - it called the recent proposed "easing" of standards "too little and too late." The Times also stated Margaret Heckler "remains unwilling to follow up candid talk with straightforward reform."

The Times again noted that "in 1981, seizing on Congressional orders for a crackdown on malingerers, the Administration drastically narrowed its interpretation of eligibility rules to shrink the program's cost." Predictibly "the result is a continuing purge that forced hundreds of thousands of the crippled, schizophrenic and retarded to prove their inability to work by the new interpretation of the rules."

But even though "the political liabilities finally began to weigh heavy" - and despite the fact that "bills to require more human administration of the program are gathering force in Congress" - Margaret Heckler's actions had not lived up to "reports that she would preempt Congress on the fundamental burden-of-proof issue."

While the Times believed the announced changes were "sensible and construcive, it also believed "they don't go nearly far enough." Thus the Times believed "the stark question in this debacle is whether the Government has a right to let people become dependent on its support and then cut it off merely by reinterpreting the rules."

Now those under review contended "that at the least, Government should bear the burden of demonstrating improvements in their condition or some impropriety in the initial enrollment." This point of view was supported by "Federal judges...and proposed legislation would reinforce it." But Mrs. Heckler had only announced "that the matter remains under study," and "her spokesmen are already giving bureaucratic reasons for opposing a change." Noting that the administration's "reputation for fairness cannot be regained so cheaply," this editorial was followed on June 18 by a Times article titled "Judge Orders Review of Disability Cuts in 9 States."

Legal challenges to Social Security's policies had not been wiped out by the Supreme Court's last ruling. Social Security might have the right to unconscionably narrow its standards, but it still had to apply those standards. It could not just state that it preferred to terminate your benefits no matter what. At issue, again, was a medical improvement standard. Thus "Judge Orders Review..." began by noting that William Gray, "a Federal district judge," just issued a ruling "accusing the Social Security Administration of operating 'outside the law.'" He "ordered the Agency to stop cutting off benefits to disabled recipients in nine Western states unless it could be shown that they have improved medically."

Judge Gray ordered a preliminary injunction, and "certified the case as a class action suit extending to all states in the Ninth Circuit." These included California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. But Judge Gray "declined to make it a nationwide class action suit, saying he was unfamiliar with the situation in other regions." When asked for a response, "a Social Security Administration spokesman, Bob Faust, declined to say whether the agency would appeal." He did say "There is probably going to be a lengthy process."

In his ruling, Judge Gray cited the Administration's "announced policy of 'non-acquiescence' with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit." Non-acquiescence? A new word in the English language, and one with an incredible meaning.

In the past, Social Security might have denied disability benefits to a woman with multiple sclerosis because she was able to wash a dish. If the woman then sued in Federal court and won, the Administration had to change its policy. A legal precedent had been set, and Social Security had to follow it. Not only must Social Security grant her benefits, but it must grant every other person in like circumstances benefits. If the government wished to overturn the judge's ruling, it must enter an appeal.

But in "non-acquiescence," the government simply said the judge's ruling was wrong. Now if the woman sued and won, the government restored her benefits - period. It didn't change the policy that led to her suit. And, except in the case of very specifically worded class-action suits, it declined to appeal. Thus the government paid no legal fees. But thousands of people who'd been denied benefits for a reason now ruled "illegal" had to come up with the money to file individual lawsuits.

As the Times put it, the government "contended that its policies were lawful and the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the issue." Thus, Social Security had non-acquiesced "with decisions...that required the government to show that recipients had improved medically before it could cut off their benefits."

When I read this article, I wondered briefly what would have happened to me if I'd announced a policy of "non-acquiescence" with Social Security's termination of my case. What if I'd taken a gun and gone to my local office, demanding retroactive checks? Some people had gone this far. I'd read reports of armed men trying to kill Social Security personnel or Administrative Law Judges, and it was easy to see why.

Fortunately, the Times now had its own "non-acquiescence" policy for statements made by Administration spokespeople. On June 20, reporter John Corry reviewed a PBS documentary on the disability reviews. Entitled "TV: 'Disabled,' Budget-Cut Casualties," Corry's article noted, "'Disabled' touches...on a significant issue: the relationship between the Reagan Administration's promise to cut spending and the way in which such cases were reviewed. 'Disabled' suggests that fiscal policy, not medical and humanitarian reasons, determined the outcome of some reviews."

"Disabled..." featured interviews with field supervisors for the Social Security Administration. They said they felt "pressured to interpret the guidelines for disability payments more severely than before." Corry also noted that "two former Social Security administrative judges say the Washington bureaucracy tried to influence them," and that "they were expected to follow 'quotas.'"

The documentary included footage of a Senate hearing, in which "the deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration" tried to explain Social Security policies. But Corry concluded that "even the most sympathetic listener would find the explanation unintelligible." Still, the deputy commissioner - Paul B. Simmons - was about to try again. On June 14, the Times printed his rebuttal letter, "Disability Reviews: To Meet a Mandate Fairly and Humanely."

Unlike his Senate Hearing performance, Simmons' statements were not "unintelligible," they were merely "unfactual." Referring to the G.A.O. study as "hard evidence that as many as one in five on these rolls is ineligible," Simmons denied the charge that "this Administration 'drastically narrowed its interpretation of eligibility rules,'...In fact, the last substantive change in any rules affecting eligibility for this program was implemented in 1979."

This was a little like the sketch in Airplane, where a "spokesman" stood up and informed the passengers that there was nothing to worry about and the pilot was just fine, as his nose slowly grew longer and longer. Simmons must have added at least an inch with his statement that "this Administration has liberalized the rules and procedures."

Predictably, Simmons now blamed Congress for "any 'tightening' of any 'rule.'" He also blamed the disabled people whose benefits had been terminated for experiencing shock "upon being asked to reprove their eligibility after years of being ignored." After all, Simmons claimed, "the statutory strictness of the program" had been a matter of law since 1956. But enforcement "waned in the 1970's" leading to "the high ineligibility rates that triggered the 1980 Congressional crackdown."

Simmons now characterized Administration efforts as "strong" and "constructive." When I read Simmons' letter, I thought I didn't know what he planned to do with a nose that long, but whatever it was, he was trying to do it to the American public. His statement that Administration "reforms...are a good-faith effort to meet the mandate of the Congress as fairly and humanely as possible" was just a lie.

Now, I'd spent more than twice as long fighting for benefits as I had collecting. As the months passed and I waited for my Hearing decision, I found it impossible to believe that Social Security had any intention of showing "good faith." When my hearing decision finally came, I'd find it harder to believe than ever.

Years later, when I looked back over the disability news that came out as I waited, I saw that mine was a "textbook case" from start to finish. My disability would be considered non-permanent and "non-severe." My case would then hinge on the assessment of "residual functional capacity" form, filled out so long ago by the Mr. Harris I never met. Social Security regulations told my Judge to ignore the legal issue of medical improvement, and he seemed happy to comply. Administrative Law Judge Jones was one of those whose rate of denial kept his bosses happy.

Yes, Judge Jones would follow the regulations to the letter. He would use the "long-form" decision, scrupulously reporting on my medical evidence and then ignoring it. Consequently, the document I finally received would seem as schizophrenic as the former recipients of Social Security disability payments who were now out wandering the streets. At the end, Judge Jones would complete the cycle of Administrative abuse. He'd blame it all on me, and assert I was the liar.

On July 3, I received a determination from Social Security. Under the heading of "Summary and Evaluation of the Evidence" it read:

"Claimant alleges that she is disabled and unable to work due to multiple sclerosis.

"Claimant traveled to the hearing by bus and cab, presented a neat and clean appearance, was able to communicate and concentrate without difficulty, ambulated slowly with a cane and exhibited no signs of distress. It is noted that claimant did not appear to require a cane for ambulation and that she sat comfortably throughout the hearing. She testified that she is 36 years of age and lives with her 2 children and her father [sic]. It is noted that one of her children is 4 months old and that she breast feeds her infant.

"Claimant has a Masters Degree in fiction writing and was most recently employed from 1974 to August of 1978 as an assistant in a reading program. This is considered to be sedentary work. Prior to this, from 1969 through 1974, claimant worked at various office jobs as an administrative assistant or as a temporary typist. All of these positions are considered to be sedentary, as well.

"Claimant is able to care for her own personal needs and to do some housework including washing dishes, shopping and preparing meals. Her daily and social activities consist of caring for her 2 children, breast feeding her youngest child, watching television, reading to her son, and going for walks. She has a drivers license, does not drive, but is able to ride public transportation.

"Claimant testified that she is prevented from working due to fatigue, visual problems, headaches, and pain in her back and legs. She is treated 2 to 4 times a year by Dr. Goodman and her medications include aspirin which she takes daily. Claimant indicated that the aspirin is effective in relieving her pain. She also indicated that she at times ambulates with a cane and that she has not undergone physical therapy for 3 years. She has assessed residual functional capacity as being able to walk 2 to 3 blocks, stand for 10 minutes, sit for most of the day and lift, carry, handle, push and pull and reach for light objects.

"Claimant's friend testified at the hearing that she has known claimant for 2 years and that she visits claimant in her apartment. The friend stated that claimant is usually too tired to do anything and she has never seen her do any housework. Also testifying at the hearing was the grandfather of claimant's children. He stated that claimant visits 2 times a week [sic] and that he also has never seen claimant do any housework. He takes the children out and shops for claimant. He stated that she does not ambulate well.

"Claimant's medical history is as follows. About 8 to 10 years ago claimant noted that she had bouts of exhaustion and fatigue which lasted up to 6 weeks, a few times a year. She was worked-up at two hospitals and by many doctors but no definite diagnosis was made. In January of 1978 the claimant had her first bout with neurological symptoms. Her illness started as a premonition in her head as though something was going to happen, then 2 days later her left extremities became ataxic and she couldn't control them. She was admitted to the hospital for a month and a half and there again, no diagnosis was made, although they thought that it was some form of meningitis. She had seven lumbar punctures while there, but nothing was cultured from the spine [sic].

"Since her discharge, the ataxia of the left extremities came and went being very intermittent in its course. She still had some loss of vision however, which occurred about 2 years ago. This has prevented her from reading [sic]. She also had a bout with minimal aphasia and reversed letters while writing or typing. When she had an acute attack it was discovered that ACTH relieved the attack.

"In 1979, claimant was admitted to the Neurological Institute and was there for 2 weeks. At that institution, the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis was made [sic]. Since her discharge, she still had the bout of ataxia and her vision never returned to normal in the left eye.

"In a medical report from claimant's treating physician, Dr. Goodman, dated September, 1981, claimant's present symptoms were described as blurred vision, concentration difficulties, severe chronic fatigue, intermittent coordination difficulty on the left side, continued loss of heat/cold perceptions, in the right leg, and back, and leg pain. Clinical findings included intermittent lack of left hand coordination, intermittent weakness of left and right legs, vision of 20/80 in the left eye, and heat/cold perception difficulty in the left foot.

"In a brief letter from Dr. Goodman dated May 25, 1982, and a report dated May 25, 1982, it was stated that claimant has multiple sclerosis and that he had been treating claimant since September of 1977. Dr. Goodman stated that claimant continued to have blurred vision, visual acuity in the left eye was 20/80, there were concentration difficulties, severe chronic fatigue, intermittent coordination difficulty on the left side, weakness of both legs, and loss of heat/cold perception in the right leg.

"It was stated that claimant's major problem consisted of chronic fatigue. She had also been left with incoordination on the left side, particularly when she was tired. Claimant was advised that she had an untreatable illness which manifested itself in a number of symptoms that she would simply have to learn to live with. In treating claimant, it was essential for her to reduce her stress of her day to day living. She was to avoid infection, treat her severe fatigue by resting and maintain a schedule that would allow her to avoid sustained effort. From personal experience, the doctor felt that these requirements were inconsistent with claimant maintaining in a part-time job. In the 4 years that he had treated claimant, he had seen absolutely no improvement in her condition that would change that advice. In fact, he had seen no change in her condition at all.

"Dr. Goodman referred claimant to a Dr. Nathan, who initially saw claimant on January 25, 1979, and again on March 4 through March 10 when hospitalized at the Neurological Institute. In light of claimant's symptoms of chronic exhaustion, fatigue, ataxia and paretic gait, impaired vibration of the left upper extremity, confusion, increased headache and an abnormal cellular response in the spinal fluid, it was his impression that claimant had multiple sclerosis.

"On December 8, 1981, claimant underwent a consultative examination conducted by Dr. Koopchik, Upon neurological examination, claimant had a slightly ataxic gait, there was slight ataxia in finger to finger and finger to nose test on the left, and there were no atrophies or fibrillations. The deep reflexes were diminished generally with no pathological reflexes. The abdominals were absent. The sensory was normal and the cranial nerves were normal as well.

"Upon mental status examination, claimant was alert, cooperative and gave a good, clear, cogent history. Her memory was excellent, and her intellect was superior with no evidence of deterioration. Her affect was normal, cognition was good, and there were no delusions or hallucinations. It was Dr. Koopchik's impression that the claimant appeared to be in a fairly good remission of what was mostly a case of multiple sclerosis. However, this diagnosis could only be confirmed by her progress in the future. Therefore, the prognosis was guarded.

"In a request for medical advice dated April 7, 1981, Dr. Koopchik stated that claimant's impairment is not severe and it did not meet or equal any of the Listing of Impairments.

"On January 23, 1982, claimant's residual functional capacity was assessed as being able to sit for 6 hours, walk for 2 hours, stand for 4 hours and lift and carry up to 20 pounds, the capacity for almost the range of light work.

"Initially, it is clear that claimant has engaged in no substantial gainful activity from the date that benefits were ceased through the date of this decision.

"Secondly, it is also clear that claimant had been suffering from multiple sclerosis since 1978 [sic] and that it significantly affects her ability to perform work related functions such as prolonged standing, walking, lifting and carrying and therefore, it is found that claimant has a severe impairment.

"However, the claimant's impairment does not meet or equal any of the Listed Impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart A of the regulations.

"With respect to the claimant's residual functional capacity, based on all the relevant and credible medical evidence and on the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge finds that claimant retains the ability to do the full range of sedentary work. To begin, claimant's impairment has not hindered her from partaking in a wide range of daily activities, including the ability to care for her own personal needs, to prepare meals, to wash dishes, to shop, to read and watch television despite her blurred vision, to go for walks, to ride public transportation and most notably, to care for 2 young children, despite allegations of disabling fatigue. Moreover, claimant breast feeds her 4 month old child which likely contributes to her fatigue.

"Regarding the medical evidence, upon neurological examination, claimant had only slightly ataxic gait, there were no pathological reflexes, sensory was normal and the cranial nerves were normal. Mental status examination showed claimant to be alert, and cooperative, with an excellent memory, to be of superior intelligence, with no evidence of deterioration.

"It is noted that claimant is only treated 2 to 4 times a year and her medications include only aspirin. Claimant indicated that the aspirin is effective in relieving her pain. She herself assessed the residual functional capacity as being that for sedentary work, in that she stated that she could sit most of the day, walk 2 to 3 blocks, stand for 10 minutes and carry light objects.

"Regarding claimant's allegation of disabling fatigue, pain in her back and legs, and headache, upon physical examination, claimant was in no acute distress and at the hearing she exhibited no significant signs of distress. She sat comfortably during the entire hearing and although she ambulated with a cane, she did not appear to be dependent on the cane. She was able to communicate and concentrate without difficulty and was alert and responsive to questions put to her by the Administrative Law Judge. She did not appear to be fatigued in any manner. Claimant's physical manifestations simply were not consistent to the asserted degree of subjective symptoms. While she may be suffering some pain and fatigue, she is found to be not credible to the extent she alleges this condition to be disabling to her.

"Therefore, based on all the credible medical evidence, it is found that the claimant retains the capacity to do the full range of sedentary work, including the ability to sit for a full day, standing and walking on occasion and lift and carry up to 10 pounds.

"Since the claimant's past relevant work as an Administrative Assistant is considered to be sedentary work, it is clear that claimant could return to her past relevant work. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge makes a finding of 'not disabled.'"

Click here to move on to Section Twenty-Three

Click here to return to "Freebook" page