Recently, I represented a claimant afflicted with cancer who clearly met Social Security’s definition of disability – she had a medically determinable condition that precluded substantial gainful activity and her condition had lasted 12 consecutive months and was longstanding in nature.   The judge assigned to this case is a no-nonsense person who took no more than 5 minutes to conclude the hearing.

In the past, this judge had the practice of announcing his favorable decisions – in other words, he would tell my client “I am going to find you disabled and award benefits.”   This time, however, he closed the case without saying anything.   After the recording equipment was turned off, he asked my client to leave the room but asked me to stay.  He then explained that “I have been told by the chief judge that I am no longer allowed to announce when I am going to grant a case.  I think this is a ridiculous policy as your client and thousands like her have been waiting for years, but I can no longer announce my decisions.”

Although my judge did not explain the reasons for this change in policy, I suspect it has to do with the nature of Social Security hearings.  The Social Security Administration is an agency that is part of the executive branch of government, rather than the judicial branch.  As such, the procedures, including rules of evidence and trial procedures are not the same as the procedures used in judicial proceedings that you might find in a state or federal court.

In state and federal courts, you find baliffs and court personnel who provide security to judges.  In Social Security hearings, there is no formal security other than a sole security officer who performs a brief security check of claimants and witnesses when they enter the hearing office waiting room.

The Washington Post recently ran a story entitled Judges in Disability Cases Increasingly Face Violent Threats that discusses this problem.  According to this story, Social Security documented 80 threats to disability judges and staff over the past year.  No doubt some of these threats arose from a claimant’s frustration at the delays, while some may have come from claimants upset that their claims were denied.   I can only imagine the frustration of a claimant who waits 2 years to appear before a judge, and who feels rushed and disrespected by a busy and perhaps distracted judge, and who ends up with a denial notice that essentially calls that claimant a liar.

I know that many of the judges who I see regularly are equally frustrated at the lack of staff and resources to do their jobs.  Unlike state court judges who have some degree of control over the procedures in their courtrooms, Social Security judges are subject to the processes set by a very bureaucratic and often inefficient Social Security Administration.  In my experience the judges get most of the blame for delays but, in fact, are often the least culpable party.

Since Social Security already faces major budget problems, I suspect that the last thing Commissioner Astrue wants to hear is a call to use limited financial resources to hire more security personnel rather than hearing assistants or judges.   Obviously it is difficult to control truly unbalanced people, but I think that SSA could reduce the frustration levels among the vast majority of claimants simply by creating systems or policies that provide dates or date ranges in which decisions are forthcoming.  Even better, I would like to see SSA move towards a system where claimants could log in to a secure location to see status updates.

Universities of all size seem to be able to offer online information about the status of college applications, receipt of materials and expected dates of decisions – and just having this information available offers some comfort to anxious teenagers – I see no reason why Social Security cannot offer the same courtesy to the hardworking men and women who have paid into the Social Security system.