I just come across an interesting article, “Awarded Social Security Disability Benefits –errors in decisions”, written by a former examiner, definitely an insider in the social security agency.
The article revealed that the agency had committed mistakes in awarding benefits to some undeserving claimants. It said that “one-fifth of all individuals were awarded in error, while sixty percent who were denied benefits were, in fact, disabled and should have been awarded disability benefits.” The article also noted how the process of disability claims is often tilted in favor of certain people.
The article went on to describe the difficult procedure that claimants had to undergo from the initial steps of application and reconsideration to the resolution of the claim. However, in the end, they feel disappointed for failing to get the benefits they were expecting to receive. Instead, undeserving individuals often get the benefits.
The article lacked information when it failed to enumerate the errors allegedly committed. It merely pointed out that the problem lies in the final disposition of cases where the decision depends solely on the outcome of the hearing with the administrative law judge.
The article did not illuminate readers on the important issue of benefit claims. Instead, it supported the myth that first-time deserving claimants often are rejected despite the legitimacy of their claims.
Moreover, the article sounded like the complaint of a disgruntled former employee but without the essential information to support all the allegations. Important issues need facts. The article failed to sustain the interest of readers because it lacks many of the information it was supposed to reveal.
