Richardson v. Perales , U. 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 nondisability under the Social Security Act.
Is cross-examination of the authors of such reports allowable under the subpoena rules of administrative law? Does the failure of the claimant to exercise subpoena power, and call hostile witnesses for cross examination at a hearing constitute a violation of due process requirements? Are federal administrative law judges allowed to seek opinion evidence, or case advisement from neutral observers whom they hire, without the permission of the claimant?
Is the Social Security Act to be interpreted liberally in matters of disability determination? Are Social Security disability benefits an entitlement subject to the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as delineated in Goldberg v. Subpoena of witnesses is within the jurisdiction and allowable under the rules of procedure in Social Security disability hearings.
It is within the jurisdiction of administrative law judges to hire outside case consultants or advisors to review the issues of the case and offer reports and testimony in the furtherance of resolution.
This is a practice that is advisable, in particular in those cases where the medical records and testimony are conflicting, or the medical issues are not clear. Social Security disability is different from welfare entitlements and does not require the same level of due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as the court delineated in Goldberg v.
