Richardson V. Perales

278 Words2 Pages
Richardson v. Perales 402 U.S. 389 (1971), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases. Among the questions considered was the propriety of using physicians' written reports generated from medical examinations of a disability claimant, and whether these could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding non-disability under the Social Security Act. Written reports by physicians who have examined claimant for disability insurance benefits under Social Security Act constitute 'substantial evidence' supporting a non-disability finding within the standard of § 205(g) of the Act, notwithstanding the reports' hearsay character, the absence of cross-examination (through claimant's failure to exercise his subpoena rights), and the directly opposing testimony by the claimant and his medical witness; and procedure followed under Act does not violate due process requirements. →final arg: conflated prosecutorial and adjudicatory rights. →Court said examiner does not act as counsel, but as fact-finder. →Court says P has due process rights; didn’t USE subpoena power to cross examine witness. **Lesson is due process is really only about opportunity to participate. →Differed from Wong case because it was NOT an adversarial proceeding; fact finding body not dealing with adversarial claims, so examiner roles were not in conflict. →**take home: If you want to make a due process claim, need to make the argument that it is an adversarial proceeding wherein prosecutorial and judicial roles are being conflated. Precedential force as related to the APA: If the two incorporate the same language, then the interpretation of one must be performed in light of the other since they have a common

More about Richardson V. Perales

Open Document