Disability Law Blog

Social Security is Insurance, not an Investment

The Des Moines Register notices the difference:

The debate over Social Security might simmer down a little if everyone understood the program and started calling it by its formal name. It's Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI).

Note the word insurance.

Social Security is not a retirement-savings program and was never meant to be. It is insurance, and it's not just for retired people. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin reminded everyone of that last week when he asked how payments to disabled workers would be affected by President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security.

No one knows the answer, because plan specifics have not been unveiled.

Currently, about 6.7 million children and spouses of deceased workers are receiving survivors benefits from Social Security. About 7.9 million disabled workers and their families receive benefits.

About 33 million people receive retirement benefits, which are meant to insure against abject poverty in old age, not to provide total retirement luxury.

Because Social Security is an insurance program, it's nonsensical to speak of its "rate of return" as if it were an investment program.

The debate over privatization isn't about strengthening Social Security. It's about transforming it from an insurance program into a savings program.

That's a false choice. For a secure and comfortable retirement, people don't need one or the other. They need both. Security from insurance; comfort from savings.

Rice v. Barnhart, No. 03-3830, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. Sept. 14, 2004)

The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Michael S. Kanne, affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits. The claimant was 53 on her onset date, 55 less than 2 years later. The ALJ denied her claim at step 5, finding that she retained the RFC for medium work, apparently relying on the opinions of Drs. Bilinsky and Graham, state agency physicians:

The ALJ's residual functional capacity determination was consistent with the opinions of Drs. Bilinsky and Graham. The ALJ was entitled to rely upon their opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i); Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 2004). More importantly, there is no doctor's opinion contained in the record which indicated greater limitations than those found by the ALJ. Dr. Patel's oblique note that Rice could not "lift" and that sitting and walking for more than one-half hour worsened her pain is the only opinion arguably more restrictive than the ALJ's residual functional capacity conclusion.

But, as Circuit Judge Rovner's concurring opinion points out, the state agency doctors specifically limited the range of medium work the claimant could do:

The agency doctors opined that Rice could only occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. For medium work, a person must be capable of frequent stooping and crouching. Nonetheless, the agency doctors concluded, contrary to the agency’s own regulations, that Rice was capable of medium work, and the ALJ adopted this unsupported conclusion.

Despite this obvious error, Judge Rovner concurred in the judgment because of the claimant's Circuit Rule 30 violation (i.e. failure to include the ALJ's decision in the appellant's brief)! Lots of language exculpating the ALJ's failure to articulate good reasons for rejecting probative evidence. No mention of Social Security Rulings that place a higher burden on the ALJ regarding articulation, although those rulings were argued in the appellant's brief. Assuming her DLI was okay, this claimant might have gotten benefits with an RFC of light at 55. And Judge Rovner's concurrence suggests that there was enough in the decision to merit remand.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) Publishes Revised Listings for Skin Disorders

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has published revised Listings for skin disorders. The SSA notes the following changes:

1.    Revising the headings of the listings to put them in plain language;
2.    Revising the order of the listings and updating the diagnostic groupings to more logically group skin disorders;
3.    Adding listings for xeroderma pigmentosum and other genetic photosensitivity disorders;
4.    Adding a new listing for burns that do not meet the requirements of listing 1.08;
5.    Providing a more uniform and clearly defined statement of severity required for a listing-level skin disorder;
6.    Expanding the guidance in the introductory text to the listings;
7.    Making nonsubstantive editorial changes to the prior listings and introductory text; and
8.    Adding a skin disorders body system in part B of appendix 1 to provide a set of childhood skin disorder listings.

The listings are effective July 9, 2004.

Available in text and pdf.

69 FR 32260-32272 (June 9, 2004)