Nearly  50% of those patients denied disability benefits by Administrative Law Judges in 2004, could have won disability benefits simply by moving to New Hampshire, Montana, Connecticut, or Rhode Island.

Information obtained via the Freedom of Information Act from the Social Security Administration reveals there is a wide divergence of judgment by Administrative Law Judges on the issue of who is, and who is not, disabled – depending on where you live.

If in 2004, you lived in Louisiana, California, Iowa, or Pennsylvania, you had a 48, 38, 37, and 36 percent chance of losing, respectively, a percent average of 40. 

On the other hand, if you lived in New Hampshire, Montana, Connecticut, or Rhode Island, you had a 20, 20, 19, and 12 percent chance of losing, respectively, a percent average of 18. 

In other words, there is a maximum of a 36% difference between Administrative Law Judge decisions (Louisiana vs. Rhode Island).   Using averages of percent denials between the 2 groups of the 4 highest and lowest denial states, it is 22.

Put in terms of individuals, based on the total cases decided in  Louisiana, California, Iowa, and Pennsylvania in 2004, then, out of the 67,328 cases decided in those 4 states, 26,931 patients were denied disability benefits by Administrative Law Judges.

But, if those same 67,328 individuals lived in New Hampshire, Montana, Connecticut, or Rhode Island in 2004, their chance of losing would be reduced to an average of 22%, which works out to 14,812 patients – a 45% difference between the highest and lowest denial states. 

In other words, 12,119 patients who were denied benefits in LA, CA, IO, or PA. would have been awarded disability benefits if they had lived in NH, MT, CT, or RI.

The huge gap in allowance and denial rates by state reveal the inequity and injustice of application of Social Security disability law.  When the same template is applied to all 50 states, well over 12,000  patients in 2004 were  denied disability benefits, and likely destined to destitution – the very condition the Social Security Act was enacted to prevent. 

The numbers tell the story:  Social Security disability is a fraud –a pretense which fails to provide the safety net the Act intended for thousands of individuals who are not able to work because they are too ill.  The obscenity is that this charade is being conducted with the claimants’ own money legally expropriated via taxation.

Credibility is the legal loophole which Administrative Law Judges are able to drive their denials through.  They simply say, “I don’t believe you or your treating doctor,” and pull out of context every statement  which is unfavorable to the case, ignoring overall medical problems stated by treating doctors. 

But, by law, Administrative Law Judges are not permitted to make medical judgments, simply because they are not qualified to do so; they must give treating physicians controlling weight . Yet, too many Administrative Law Judges insist on debunking treating physician opinions and making their own medical determinations.