Richard A. Posner法官对职业专家在社会保障残疾听证会上的证词的批评,以及它如何影响伊利诺伊州,印第安纳州和威斯康星州的残疾索赔人

H. Rose
{"title":"Richard A. Posner法官对职业专家在社会保障残疾听证会上的证词的批评,以及它如何影响伊利诺伊州,印第安纳州和威斯康星州的残疾索赔人","authors":"H. Rose","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2926581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Millions of persons annually file claims for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. If their claims are denied, the claimants can pursue appeal hearings before administrative law judges. The key issue before the administrative law judges is frequently whether there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimants can perform, despite their medical problems. To answer this question in an individual case, the administrative law judge often elicits testimony from a vocational expert who, inter alia, estimates the numbers of particular jobs that exist in the economy. If an ALJ determines that there are a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform, the denial of the disability claim will be affirmed. The claimant can ultimately appeal the denial of the disability claim by the administrative law judge in the federal court system. \nJudge Richard A. Posner is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which hears appeals from federal district courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. In a series of appeals decisions involving Social Security disability claims from 2014 through 2016, Judge Posner criticized the reliability of the testimony of vocational experts when they estimate the numbers of particular jobs that exist in the economy. However, federal district court judges and magistrate judges in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have generally interpreted Judge Posner’s critique to be non-precedential and have not relied on it to reverse the denial of disability claims before them. \nThe purpose of this article is to describe Judge Posner’s critique of the testimony of vocational experts at Social Security disability hearings and to examine why this critique has had a limited effect on the decisions on disability claims in district courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"254 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judge Richard A. Posner's Critique of Testimony by Vocational Experts at Social Security Disability Hearings and How It Affects Disability Claimants in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin\",\"authors\":\"H. Rose\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2926581\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Millions of persons annually file claims for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. If their claims are denied, the claimants can pursue appeal hearings before administrative law judges. The key issue before the administrative law judges is frequently whether there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimants can perform, despite their medical problems. To answer this question in an individual case, the administrative law judge often elicits testimony from a vocational expert who, inter alia, estimates the numbers of particular jobs that exist in the economy. If an ALJ determines that there are a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform, the denial of the disability claim will be affirmed. The claimant can ultimately appeal the denial of the disability claim by the administrative law judge in the federal court system. \\nJudge Richard A. Posner is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which hears appeals from federal district courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. In a series of appeals decisions involving Social Security disability claims from 2014 through 2016, Judge Posner criticized the reliability of the testimony of vocational experts when they estimate the numbers of particular jobs that exist in the economy. However, federal district court judges and magistrate judges in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have generally interpreted Judge Posner’s critique to be non-precedential and have not relied on it to reverse the denial of disability claims before them. \\nThe purpose of this article is to describe Judge Posner’s critique of the testimony of vocational experts at Social Security disability hearings and to examine why this critique has had a limited effect on the decisions on disability claims in district courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.\",\"PeriodicalId\":233762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"254 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2926581\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2926581","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

每年有数百万人向社会保障局申请残疾津贴。如果他们的要求被拒绝,索赔人可以向行政法法官提起上诉听证会。行政法法官面临的关键问题往往是,尽管有健康问题,在国民经济中是否有大量的工作是索赔人可以从事的。为了在个别案件中回答这个问题,行政法法官往往请职业专家提供证词,这些专家除其他外,估计经济中存在的特定工作的数量。如果ALJ确定索赔人可以从事大量的工作,则会确认拒绝残疾索赔。索赔人最终可以对联邦法院系统的行政法法官对其残疾索赔的拒绝提出上诉。理查德·波斯纳(Richard a . Posner)法官是美国第七巡回上诉法院的法官,负责审理来自伊利诺伊州、印第安纳州和威斯康星州联邦地区法院的上诉。在2014年至2016年涉及社会保障残疾索赔的一系列上诉裁决中,波斯纳法官批评了职业专家在估计经济中存在的特定工作数量时证词的可靠性。然而,伊利诺斯州、印第安纳州和威斯康辛州的联邦地区法院法官和地方法官普遍将波斯纳法官的批评解释为没有先例,并没有依靠它来扭转他们面前对残疾索赔的拒绝。本文的目的是描述波斯纳法官对职业专家在社会保障残疾听证会上的证词的批评,并研究为什么这种批评对伊利诺伊州、印第安纳州和威斯康星州地区法院对残疾索赔的决定影响有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judge Richard A. Posner's Critique of Testimony by Vocational Experts at Social Security Disability Hearings and How It Affects Disability Claimants in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
Millions of persons annually file claims for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. If their claims are denied, the claimants can pursue appeal hearings before administrative law judges. The key issue before the administrative law judges is frequently whether there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimants can perform, despite their medical problems. To answer this question in an individual case, the administrative law judge often elicits testimony from a vocational expert who, inter alia, estimates the numbers of particular jobs that exist in the economy. If an ALJ determines that there are a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform, the denial of the disability claim will be affirmed. The claimant can ultimately appeal the denial of the disability claim by the administrative law judge in the federal court system. Judge Richard A. Posner is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which hears appeals from federal district courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. In a series of appeals decisions involving Social Security disability claims from 2014 through 2016, Judge Posner criticized the reliability of the testimony of vocational experts when they estimate the numbers of particular jobs that exist in the economy. However, federal district court judges and magistrate judges in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have generally interpreted Judge Posner’s critique to be non-precedential and have not relied on it to reverse the denial of disability claims before them. The purpose of this article is to describe Judge Posner’s critique of the testimony of vocational experts at Social Security disability hearings and to examine why this critique has had a limited effect on the decisions on disability claims in district courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信