- 2 days ago
A look at the Reagan administration's effort to remove tens of thousands of people from Social Security disability rolls.
Category
đź“ş
TVTranscript
00:01Major funding for Frontline is provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
00:05Additional funding is provided by this station and other public television stations nationwide.
00:10And by the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.
00:13For over 100 years providing worldwide business and personal insurance through independent agents and brokers.
00:21The Social Security Agency says it was looking for fraud.
00:25Result, 350,000 people were stripped of disability benefits.
00:31There's nothing nobody can do because the government has the upper hand.
00:36There are problems, I've acknowledged them, everybody can point to them.
00:39I think some of the problems are not as serious as some think and I think others are being remedied right now.
00:46Tonight on Frontline, how humane is our policy and process?
00:52Who decides disability?
00:55From the network of public television stations.
01:04A presentation of KCTS Seattle, WNET New York, WPBT Miami, WTVS Detroit and WGBH Boston.
01:14This is Frontline with Jessica Savage.
01:20You may remember this man, injured Vietnam War hero Roy Benavides.
01:27He received a Medal of Honor from President Reagan.
01:29Recently he was cut from the Social Security Disability Rolls.
01:33He testified before Congress today saying Social Security's cut off policies were, quote, callous and unfair.
01:39The Benavides case prompted the administration to announce it was changing its policies.
01:46Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler promised more people would retain their disability benefits.
01:52promised a temporary halt to reviews on some of the mentally disabled and promised Social Security would study its procedures.
01:59But what do all those promises mean to the hundreds of thousands of disabled citizens who are not Medal of Honor winners?
02:07Tonight, an investigation into the Social Security Disability program.
02:12A program begun over 25 years ago to ensure if a worker becomes disabled, he or she would not lose all income.
02:20And these are not worst case examples either.
02:23These stories were selected at random in several communities in this country.
02:28The report is called, Who Decides Disability?
02:31It is produced and directed for Frontline by Sherri Jones.
02:36After it, I'll be back with some questions for Secretary Heckler.
02:41This is Beianville Parish in North Louisiana.
02:4916,000 people live here.
02:51280 of them, less than 2%, receive monthly payments from Social Security
02:56because they've been judged too disabled to work.
02:59It's about the same percentage who receive disability benefits nationwide.
03:04The checks used to be something you could count on.
03:07Some people here are no longer sure.
03:10Earlene Walker is 45.
03:13She's received about $300 a month since she was hurt in a sawmill accident.
03:18Sometimes I just hate to go from there.
03:19I just don't know whether it's going to come to me.
03:25I'm so scared.
03:29The medical evidence in your case shows that you became able to do substantial gainful work in March of 1983.
03:37Although you have restriction of movement and back pain, you should be able to lift and carry 10-pound objects frequently and 20 pounds on occasion.
03:46You should be able to be on your feet for most of the work day.
03:50And that was it.
03:52Just like that?
03:53That was it.
03:54No appeal forms or nothing on the back.
03:56So there's nothing in there that tells you that you can disagree with this?
04:00Mm-mm.
04:03That they were just cutting me off.
04:04That was it.
04:07She was the second in her family to be cut.
04:09Her husband, disabled by heart disease, was first.
04:13He had to go to work because he got a letter stating that he was able to work.
04:17He didn't try to appeal.
04:18He said because to appeal, he said you'd have to buy a toll in the United States nearly.
04:23So he went on and got a job and seven months later he passed away on the job.
04:27But hard task.
04:28You still have some pain and stiffness in your back, but there has been no muscle deterioration or nerve damage due to this condition.
04:40You have had a number of surgeries on your stomach for an intestinal block.
04:45Calvin Beckham was injured in the oil fields.
04:47He was judged disabled in 1980.
04:49Although you may not be able to return to your past work as a laborer, which requires heavy lifting, you should be able to do a wide range of light work.
05:02Notice of disapproval claim, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration.
05:09Nobody has ever, I've never seen nobody's signature except the Social Security Administration on them.
05:18Nobody's name has ever been on them.
05:22Something to everybody that I know of, around here.
05:26Willard Cloud went to work during the Depression, when he was 13.
05:30He was hurt 16 years ago.
05:32Today he's riddled with arthritis too.
05:35So then Christmas Eve day, well, I got my final notice that I was cut off.
05:42So then whenever I went back to the doctor, well, I went back down to Social Work.
05:47I took it with me and he called Miss Davis up.
05:51And he asked her, he said, Lady, just what kind of work do you all have in mind for this man to do?
05:57She said, well, not to work over six hours a day and not to walk all the time, not to stand all the time, and not to pick up nothing, over 20 pounds.
06:07She said, Lady said, for would a man like this find a job like that?
06:11She said, that ain't our worry.
06:12This is the sort of work you find around the town of Castor in Behanville Parish.
06:19It's a logging town, a place where people start young, where the work's tough and dangerous.
06:25But you pay your taxes and pray the worst won't happen.
06:29It's a compact we've all made with the federal government.
06:32If you're ever judged too disabled to work, you're supposed to get some of your taxes back.
06:38This letter comes the 27th of April, 1982.
06:43It says, the law provides that an individual's disability period shall end if the person is able to do substantial gainful work.
06:52James Cloud is 33. He was crippled cutting pulpwood three years ago when a falling tree broke his back.
06:58He's received $280 a month.
07:02The medical evidence in your case shows that you became able to do substantial gainful work in April, 1982.
07:10I don't know what was so gainful that month that I became able to do this gainful work they're talking about.
07:19I don't even know that I went for an examination that month.
07:28My doctor said they know more about me than he did.
07:32Mr. Calvin Bickham.
07:37Yes, he is.
07:40Like most people on the disability rolls, Calvin Bickham has worked all his life as a laborer.
07:46He spent 20 years in Louisiana's oil fields and there first injured his back.
07:51Surgery left him with permanent nerve damage.
07:57He began receiving disability payments of $470 a month in 1980.
08:02Then, he was judged disabled because of all his ailments.
08:06Not just his back, but abdominal obstructions that have required five surgeries on his stomach and pain.
08:12How much pain have you been having?
08:14My back and my leg a lot.
08:16The physician who performed the last surgery, Dr. Weish Coleman, has told Bickham any work will only worsen his condition.
08:27But his case is one of 768,000 that have been pulled for investigation in the last two years, at a time when the administration was changing the rules.
08:36Mr. Bickham, are you hurting much in your back now?
08:39Right to where that scar is at. Going down to the right side.
08:42Right there. Right in there.
08:44That still gives you some pain.
08:46So, even though his doctor tells him his condition is no better, Bickham's letters tell him he no longer qualifies.
08:56Calvin Bickham is a file and an eight-digit number at Social Security Headquarters.
09:00But he fits a profile drawn up to save money, a profile of younger workers whose conditions may have improved and who have kept on the rolls would collect benefits for years in the future.
09:11So, his file was shipped to the Louisiana Disability Determination Service to be looked at again.
09:16Vocational rule 202.17 was indicated, the reason being that Mr. Bickham is between 45 and 49 years of age, which, that he did have the residual functional capacity to do light work, that he did have less than a high school education, and that the work he did had no transferable skills to another type of work.
09:43And the disability team correctly evaluated that decision to be through 202.17, which gave us a decision of not disabled.
09:56I did not find enough involvement to indicate a very severe problem, but I did not have x-rays of his back or his knee, and I assumed that they either had those available or may want to get them.
10:17Dr. Langford is a consultant examiner whose fees are paid by Social Security. Whatever medical evidence he provides carries a lot of weight.
10:25Dr. You can have a book full of doctor's reports saying that you're disabled at work.
10:32And I've got them.
10:35Here's one here.
10:37Who's this doctor from?
10:40Read that.
10:41Dr. Landry.
10:43That's the one that operated on my back.
10:45All right.
10:47Who's this one from?
10:50Well, that's the one I went to see about a job, and he looked at me and turned me down.
10:58He has no money, so he tries for jobs, and every time he's sent to another doctor for a physical.
11:04That's the one I went to South Louisiana, and he turned me down.
11:08Since Christmas, he's looked for work in the oil fields and applied to be night watchman at the local sawmill.
11:13And this is what he feels, he told me that I couldn't do nothing.
11:24I don't know how many more they want.
11:26The examination for the night watchman's job was here.
11:29I do all the physicals for Martin Timmer, but I do physicals for several other sawmills.
11:34They have a brick plant here in this area, and the requirements that these companies have given me,
11:40that they want an employee to be able to pass.
11:43Mr. Bickham couldn't pass for any of these companies that I know of.
11:47We are not an employment agency.
11:49We are not an insurance company.
11:51The point is that he does have, probably have the residual functional capacity to be a night watchman.
11:58Whether they hire him or not is not within the realm of Social Security Administration.
12:03Evidently, by applying for this position, Mr. Bickham indicates that he does think he has the,
12:09ability to perform that job.
12:12Hey, Mr. Bickham.
12:17Calvin Bickham has appealed his termination, and that appeal has been denied.
12:21He and his wife depend on the kindness of relatives, who let them live rent-free in a trailer they own.
12:28How you doing, Colonel?
12:29All right, how you here?
12:30Desperate, he turns to Charlie McBride.
12:32Once the chief aide to one of Louisiana's U.S. Senators, McBride grew up in Castor.
12:37He's the community's connection to Washington.
12:42Charlie, come on up and have a seat.
12:44Here, Mr. Bickham, come on over here and stand.
12:46I can't sit in that country.
12:47I'm going to sit in my back to this as well.
12:49All right, can you do that?
12:50When he's been home in the last year, any number of disability recipients stop to ask for help.
12:56And his advice to Bickham is to file a new application, even if that means seeing the same faces and hearing the same words once again.
13:05They said I could stand six hours a day and lift, I believe, 20 pounds occasionally.
13:15That's what they told you.
13:16They told me I could lift 20 pounds and stand about six hours.
13:21That's the same thing.
13:22That sounds about right.
13:23That sounds like the same thing.
13:25If you could sit, you could knit.
13:28I think what they meant to say.
13:30I just think sometimes they're just taking a sheet and just marking about half of it off.
13:35They'll send you to a doctor that don't know anything about your medical background.
13:41And he can care less.
13:44Yeah, yeah.
13:45I would say that all he's wanting is that check he's going to get for examining me.
13:50Something to care to the bank.
13:53First kid doctor, I went into his office.
13:55He comes in there with a little rubber hammer in his hand and a needle.
14:00He sticks you with the sharp point on it.
14:03Then he puts the needle part on his finger.
14:05So you tell me if you feel this, he sticks you.
14:08And if it feels dull, he puts the needle on top of it.
14:11He puts his finger on your arm.
14:12Well, a six-year-old kid could tell you if you're getting stuck when he ain't.
14:17And then he looks down, he looks in your ear.
14:20Well, I didn't have no ear trouble.
14:22And I didn't have no throat trouble.
14:24He takes you in your mouth.
14:26And then he turns you out.
14:27And he can't, he can't, that kind of examination.
14:30How long did that take?
14:31About 10 or 15 minutes.
14:33What it looks like to me, they, it ain't my health that they discriminate against.
14:39It's my age they're discriminating against.
14:41And you're how old?
14:4249.
14:43You're 49.
14:44You've seen him twice.
14:45I didn't recall that.
14:46These people I see one time and there's no actual contact with them other than that one visit.
14:56Do you remember Calvin Bickham's physical appearance?
14:59Can you describe that to me?
15:00I can't do that.
15:02I could not tell you anything about him other than what I have in the report.
15:09I'm sorry.
15:10Based on an exam Langford claims lasted an hour, he recommends that Bickham be examined further.
15:15But it's an opinion Calvin's neither seen nor heard.
15:19I am uncertain about the amount of involvement of the right shoulder and right knee.
15:23And these probably should be further evaluated by an orthopedist.
15:27And the fact is, the state agency didn't heed its own doctor's advice.
15:31Bickham wasn't sent to an orthopedic specialist.
15:33The problem with the GI tract seems to be under control at present.
15:36The agency didn't take the time for another exam before denying his new application.
15:41Okay, we did not obtain any other consultative examination.
15:46It's the reason being that Mr. Bickham was hospitalized subsequent to the examination by Dr. Langford.
15:56And we did get the objective findings that we needed from the hospital summaries.
16:03But that hospitalization was for his abdominal problems, not for his spinal and neurological problems.
16:10That's my understanding.
16:12Okay, I'm not familiar enough with the case to specifically outline everything that was in there.
16:20But there was a, it was determined that there was a sufficient amount of objective medical findings to indicate that he did have the residual functional capacity to perform Langford.
16:37It has been more than a year, and countless trips to Shreveport for examination.
16:42Since he was first terminated, he's been hospitalized twice.
16:45Yet Social Security still rules him able to work.
16:49So once again, he has appealed for a hearing before a judge.
16:53Command.
16:54And this time he knows he needs a lawyer.
16:57He turns to legal aid, to a paralegal whose disability caseload has tripled in the first five months of this year.
17:04Hi, Ms. Vickham.
17:07Uh, Ms. Vickham, this week while I was in the Social Security office, I did some checking on your file.
17:12And she learns what Langford has recommended, what the state agency ignored.
17:17Okay, when they sent you to Dr. Langford, um, he suggested that they consult, you know, send you to an orthopedic for, you know, a complete examination.
17:29Why didn't they send me a, uh, thing to go to the, uh, orthopedic doctor, is what I can't figure out.
17:36I've been this many months since I've been to, to the Social Security doctor, and they still hadn't, uh, sent me a letter to go to, uh, orthopedic doctor.
17:44Okay, well, you know, I really don't know the answer to that one.
17:49I've been fighting them a year now.
17:57Been fed off, been fed off, oh, about at least a year.
18:02And I don't think that's quite fair.
18:05The system's something wrong with you.
18:08Calvin Vickham is one of 368,000 people who's been told by Social Security they are no longer disabled.
18:15Across the country, from Castor, Louisiana, to Wilkesboro, Pennsylvania, half of those terminated have appealed.
18:24Tens of thousands await their day in court.
18:27Well, what was your first employment?
18:29My first employment was at Knightcraft.
18:34Knightcraft?
18:35Knightcraft.
18:36And what did you do there?
18:38That was, I was a single needle operator and a double needle.
18:45It's been called a system of sentence first, trial later.
18:48Okay.
18:49For Sarah Buck, this is the first chance to come face to face with someone who has the power to make a decision.
18:55To come face to face with one of Social Security's 780 administrative law judges.
19:01Yeah, I'm under Dr. Spilsbury.
19:04Has Dr. Spilsbury indicated to you what he thinks your condition is?
19:07Yes.
19:08And what has he said to you?
19:09He said that you have multiple cirrhosis.
19:14And did he explain to you what that condition involves?
19:17No, not really.
19:19He would prescribe medicine.
19:21And what kind of medicine has he prescribed?
19:23Right now, I'm on Darvacet.
19:26Darvacet?
19:27Darvacet.
19:28And how often do you take it?
19:29Only when needed.
19:31And when is that?
19:32And that's every six hours.
19:35And that's a painkiller.
19:37Right.
19:38Like Calvin Bickham, Sarah Buck's termination can be traced to the profile which targeted her younger age,
19:44and to policies that have changed, tightened since she was first found disabled.
19:49But she has a chance here.
19:51The judges are employees with Social Security.
19:54But they are unique.
19:56They have responsibility to build evidence in each case.
19:59And some of them, like Ainsworth Brown, call in vocational and medical experts to review and interpret the record.
20:07Well, rather than question, if you wouldn't mind, just hold your hands out in front for me.
20:12Do like this, like you're turning a light bulb real fast.
20:16Okay.
20:17How can you?
20:18Can it go away?
20:19Try it.
20:20Try it.
20:21Touch each finger to your thumb.
20:26And now try the other hand.
20:28Okay.
20:29Slow.
20:30I would agree with Dr. Spilsbury's diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.
20:33And I think it's been understated in the records, at least, the degree of impairment of the right arm and leg.
20:40At least since December of 82, there is persistent significant disorganization of motor functions involving two limbs, to use the jargon of the manual here.
20:56Right, 11.09.
20:57And I think she meets the criteria.
21:02She meets the listing.
21:04The multiple sclerosis listing, of course, is listing 11.09.
21:10Now, it refers you back to 11.04.
21:13Yeah.
21:14That's, I think, the area that you were zeroing in on.
21:16Right.
21:17Social Security decided Sarah's ailment was no longer disabling, even though her paralysis gets worse.
21:23But in this case, Brown develops the medical evidence more completely than the state agency.
21:28He solicits other facts, too, looking for proof of the effects of Sarah's illness.
21:34And he hears Sarah's daughter describe how she measures the seriousness of her mother's condition.
21:39I have to help her around the house.
21:41I have to do the wash, the cooking, sometimes the sewing, and watching the kids.
21:46Sometimes she cannot even dress herself.
21:49I have to dress her.
21:50I have to wash her hair, and sometimes I have to bath my mother.
21:55It is very hard, and I have to keep up with the family in a small home only of five rooms.
22:04And I have to keep things out of the way that she can walk.
22:08And my father helps, but there's nothing I can do, really.
22:18I have no further questions.
22:21Mr. Bruffay, I'd like to ask you to briefly summarize those factors that you would take into account in assessing the claimant's vocational capacity.
22:30She has always worked with her hands, and she has worked with things as opposed to people or data.
22:35And with the extreme clumsiness, I would not expect her to be able to satisfactorily meet the requirements of any employer in the performance of either gross or fine manipulative tasks.
22:51Judges have reversed 65% of the termination cases that have reached them in the last two years, putting people back on the rolls.
23:00The Social Security Administration is not happy with that reversal rate.
23:04So the decisions of judges who have high reversal rates, like Brown, are reviewed by headquarters.
23:11Where it's charged, he overreacts to the claimant's testimony.
23:14So I will be rendering a decision which should be in writing within about 30 days, concluding that she continues to be disabled.
23:23Because every one of Brown's opinions may be reviewed, it could be six months before Sarah Buck has a final decision.
23:33Social Security Disability is not just for the physically disabled, but for the mentally impaired.
23:38Eleanor Russo in Norristown, Pennsylvania is typical.
23:41Her file was reviewed, and because she functions well enough to make her way the two blocks between her home and a thrift shop run by the community center that helps her, she was deemed fit to work.
23:52Eleanor, we have a new register today. It's really not very different from the other one we have.
23:58It looks pretty much the same.
24:00Suppose we had a sale for six dollars and ten cents, what would you do?
24:06Six there, right? That's right.
24:09Uh, six dollars and ten cents?
24:12Now that's, that's not ten, that's a dollar.
24:16Oh, gee. So we'll correct it.
24:18Here, how about a sale for 75 cents?
24:22Oh, let me see, that would be, uh...
24:27Go ahead, I just pushed that.
24:29That's a new button that you don't have to be concerned with right now.
24:33You're just concerned with these buttons.
24:35Uh, over here, it would be right, baby?
24:37That's right.
24:3875?
24:39Huh.
24:40I'm confused.
24:41Take your time.
24:4270 cents.
24:43That's right, 70.
24:44And where's the five?
24:45That's right.
24:46Perfect.
24:47I did it?
24:48You did it.
24:49Oh.
24:50At Hedwig House, Eleanor is part of the move to take the mentally ill out of institutions
24:54and put them in communities where they're helped to help themselves.
24:58But the fact that these people are encouraged to take on simple tasks is interpreted in Social Security's new guidelines to mean they're able to hold a job.
25:05One federal court has ruled that policy unlawful.
25:06But the agency only complies with the court where the case was brought.
25:07So they have terminated 100,000 mentally disabled claimants nationwide, 14 of them at Hedwig House.
25:10to help themselves.
25:11But the fact that these people are encouraged
25:13to take on simple tasks
25:14is interpreted in Social Security's new guidelines
25:17to mean they're able to hold a job.
25:20One federal court has ruled that policy unlawful.
25:23But the agency only complies with the court
25:25where the case was brought.
25:27So they have terminated 100,000
25:29mentally disabled claimants nationwide,
25:3214 of them at Hedwig House.
25:36Eleanor, did they tell you
25:37why they took your disability from you?
25:40They told me I should go back to work.
25:43Did they tell you why you should go back?
25:45What was your reason for it?
25:46I got some kind of form paper in the mail
25:49that I had written in there,
25:51you're able to go back to work now.
25:54Your Social Security check will stop.
25:57Did they say why you were able?
25:59Did they give any reason?
26:00No, I didn't give no reason at all.
26:02When you went to the hearing,
26:03did you think that you would get it back
26:05or were you worried you wouldn't get it back?
26:07I had a thought I was going to get it back.
26:10See, you're lucky.
26:11I have a feeling I ain't going to get it back.
26:13That's the word I have.
26:13Oh, Merit.
26:14How do you think that?
26:15Because I feel that.
26:17It's like I say,
26:19if I would have went to this hearing
26:20with a paid lawyer
26:22and if I could afford to give a doctor
26:24a couple hundred bucks to go to the hearing,
26:27she's shaking her head,
26:28no, this is how I feel,
26:29to give a doctor a couple hundred bucks
26:30to speak it,
26:31I would feel more confident.
26:33Even though, you know,
26:34this legal aid lawyer I had,
26:36she says 90% chance that I'll win the case.
26:39I'm glad to hear you got it back.
26:41I'm still waiting.
26:42I was crying
26:42when I looked in the mailbox
26:44December the 3rd,
26:46no checking.
26:47Oh, my.
26:47Now what happened?
26:48Uh-oh.
26:49What's it knock me off then?
26:50Well, I took it pretty hard.
26:52Yeah.
26:53I was very lucky
26:54to get my disability back.
26:56Every day I look in the mail
26:58and I know no news in the mail.
27:02I'm worried.
27:03I'm worried about it
27:04until I hear it,
27:06until I find out.
27:12In the end,
27:14every decision affecting
27:15a mentally disabled claimant
27:16may well end up in Washington
27:18because the question
27:19of how Social Security
27:20is making its decisions,
27:22who it says is disabled
27:23and who is not,
27:24is at the core
27:25of a growing conflict
27:26with the courts
27:27and with the Congress.
27:31Jim Steitler
27:32and Merritt Reich
27:33were brought by
27:34Hedwig House in April
27:35to add their stories
27:36to the chorus of complaints
27:38coming from congressional districts
27:39across the country.
27:41Congress initially gave
27:42Social Security
27:43the order to review
27:44the disability roles
27:45for fraud,
27:46but this administration
27:47took that mandate
27:48and used it
27:49for its own budget goals.
27:51What happens
27:51to all these beneficiaries
27:53who are being denied
27:54in the meantime...
27:56As the consequences
27:56began to mount,
27:58Republican Senator John Hines
27:59of Pennsylvania
28:00convened a hearing
28:01to call for a halt
28:02to reviews
28:03of all the mentally impaired.
28:07Now, Jim won't be
28:09making a statement,
28:10so maybe you could
28:12give him some idea
28:13of how that will happen
28:14when he would speak
28:14for...
28:15Okay.
28:17The senator might...
28:19After Mr. Reich
28:22gives his statement,
28:23the senator might ask
28:24you some questions
28:25and then ask Mr. Reich
28:27some questions.
28:29And he'll ask you
28:30things like,
28:31how did you come
28:32to be terminated
28:33or when did you find out?
28:36What did you do then?
28:38And there's no right
28:40and wrong answers.
28:41You may say
28:41anything you please.
28:43It's not like a test.
28:45You just tell him
28:46whatever comes
28:47into your mind.
28:49And he won't mind
28:50if you take a minute
28:51to think before you answer.
28:54He's very nice.
28:56Are he going to be here?
28:57No, he won't be here.
28:59Just Senator Hines
29:00from Pennsylvania.
29:02You're senator
29:03from Pennsylvania.
29:05You have two senators
29:06and Senator Hines
29:07is one of them.
29:08Would you like to practice
29:10reading a statement?
29:11Yeah, all right.
29:12Before it's time
29:13to read it
29:13in front of everybody.
29:14It's very nerve-wracking
29:15to go before
29:16so many people
29:17and lights and cameras.
29:19All right.
29:23Well, this is my opinion
29:24of the injustice
29:26that has been done
29:27to a lot of
29:28mentally disabled people.
29:30I read in the newspaper
29:32that eight people
29:33killed themselves
29:35because of the unfair
29:36way
29:36that they were taken
29:37off the Social Security
29:38disability rolls.
29:41I suffer
29:42with severe depression
29:43and because of this
29:45injustice
29:45I have become worse.
29:47If it would not have been
29:48for my mom
29:50in Hedwig House
29:51I might have thought
29:52about killing myself also.
29:56Is that it?
29:59Another page you have.
30:00Mr. Reich.
30:02Yeah, Reich.
30:03Reich, yeah.
30:04Oh, my turn, okay.
30:13Well, this is my opinion,
30:16you know,
30:16of all the injustice
30:18that has been done
30:19to a lot of mentally
30:21disabled people.
30:22Well, it seems to me
30:23that a few people
30:25from Social Security
30:26said to us disabled people,
30:28it seems to me
30:28that they said
30:29either sink or swim.
30:32You know,
30:32like you're in a ship,
30:33you throw a guy overboard.
30:35Hey, if you swim, okay.
30:36If you sink,
30:37so what?
30:38Where am I at?
30:39Oh, yeah, and you know,
30:43it's like I say,
30:44it's hard for, you know,
30:46secure and normal people
30:48to find a job
30:50and to get a job
30:51and to hold a job.
30:51So how can anyone expect
30:53one who's mentally disabled
30:55to go out and get a job
30:56and to hold a job
30:57and succeed?
30:58Well, it's hard.
30:59It's really hard.
31:00And, you know,
31:01being disabled
31:02is a big strike
31:03against a person.
31:05Well, I guess that's it
31:06other than,
31:07I hope you have
31:10a lot of questions
31:11to ask me
31:11and I hope this does
31:13a lot of good.
31:14I just hope
31:16this does a lot of good.
31:17I think it will do
31:19some good.
31:19And I'm deeply
31:20appreciative to you.
31:20Well, like I said,
31:20if this does a lot of good,
31:21I'll thank you, too.
31:23Mr. Steitler,
31:25may I ask you
31:27for any remarks
31:29you care to make?
31:31I feel very hurt.
31:32I lost my security.
31:37And I agree
31:39I got it back.
31:43Did you go through
31:45a very difficult time
31:46when you lost
31:47your security?
31:48How difficult?
31:50How did you feel
31:52about that?
31:52I had to go
31:53through steps.
31:57So I had to get
32:00a lawyer
32:01because she was
32:03in Dallas
32:04and I had to
32:05get a
32:07I had to
32:10get up
32:11for welfare.
32:13Now, you are
32:14now back
32:15on Social Security?
32:16Yes.
32:17Now, Mr. Reisch
32:18is not yet
32:19back on Social Security.
32:20in the dark.
32:21Wait, wait, wait.
32:23I had a hearing
32:24about a month ago
32:25and I think
32:26I have to wait
32:26another month
32:28for the judge
32:29to send this
32:29written decision.
32:31So, I don't know.
32:32I just wait.
32:33You know, I wait.
32:33Despite the new
32:36moratorium on
32:37some reviews,
32:38Senator Hines
32:39is pressing
32:39to halt
32:40all mental reviews
32:41because many
32:42continue as before.
32:45State agencies
32:46decide disability
32:47under contract
32:48to Social Security.
32:49State examiners
32:50are measured
32:51by how many cases
32:52they turn out.
32:53Their decisions
32:54are judged
32:54by the feds.
32:55They face pressures
32:56of time and numbers
32:58and pressure
32:58to do what
32:59headquarters wants.
33:00So, the message
33:01was clear.
33:02Do what we want.
33:03Ceasing people.
33:05I think that's
33:06my estimation
33:07of what they want us
33:07to do.
33:08There have been times
33:09where we have
33:09gone ahead
33:10and allowed somebody.
33:12There was a case
33:13in Brooklyn
33:14in which a man
33:16had a cardiac condition.
33:17The case came in.
33:18We allowed the case.
33:20Went to the feds.
33:21They didn't like it.
33:22Came back to us again.
33:23We allowed him again.
33:24Went back to the feds.
33:26Came back again.
33:27Finally, the feds
33:28took it upon themselves
33:29to deny the claim.
33:31And they can
33:32under the new legislation
33:33if they finally say
33:35you have not done
33:36what we told you
33:36we'll do it for you.
33:38And subsequent to that
33:40the claimant died.
33:42And the feds
33:43called us and said
33:44we have a public
33:45relations problem
33:46you may want to
33:47look at this case again.
33:48The guidelines
33:49of course are just
33:50pieces of paper.
33:52But behind that
33:52basic definition
33:54of disability
33:55that everyone
33:56is familiar with
33:56from congress
33:57goes
33:58mountains
33:59mountains
33:59of interpretations
34:01of that definition.
34:03What does this
34:04really mean?
34:05Okay.
34:06In state agencies
34:07we have been told
34:09and we are
34:09this is repeatedly
34:11reinforced
34:12by returns
34:12we get quality
34:13assurance returns
34:14from headquarters
34:15that we are to
34:17interpret these
34:18regulations
34:18very strictly.
34:21Okay.
34:21Much more strictly
34:22than ten years ago
34:23when we started
34:24working there.
34:25they are paying
34:26me to make
34:26a decision
34:27according to
34:28the criteria
34:29that they
34:31are giving me.
34:33I don't think
34:34that decision
34:34is
34:35really has anything
34:39at all to do
34:39with whether or not
34:40someone can go out
34:41and find a job
34:42and if I sit there
34:43and think about
34:44that too often
34:45I'm not going to
34:46be making
34:46enough of the
34:48decisions
34:48or the right
34:49decisions.
34:50they keep
34:51telling us
34:51they want us
34:52to be humane
34:53and quality
34:54oriented
34:54you know
34:56that's the
34:57official line
34:58you know
34:59and the unofficial
35:00line is
35:00well
35:01you just write
35:02them up
35:02we'll sign
35:03them
35:03we've got
35:03to get
35:04these cases
35:04out of here.
35:05We have some
35:05concerns
35:06because they are
35:06under contract
35:07to the federal
35:08government
35:08New York's
35:09officials are
35:10alarmed at the
35:10actions legally
35:11required of them
35:12in the disability
35:13reviews.
35:14If properly
35:15carried out
35:15the eligibility
35:16review process
35:17could be fair
35:18to the disabled
35:19and to the
35:19American taxpayer
35:20as well
35:20but this is not
35:22what is happening
35:22instead as we've
35:24heard today
35:24and as you know
35:25eligibility standards
35:26are being misapplied
35:27and unfair procedures
35:28followed in a
35:29single-minded pursuit
35:30to save federal
35:31dollars at any
35:32human cost.
35:33I represent a state
35:33that is doing
35:34exactly what SSA
35:35told me to do
35:36in carrying out
35:38my responsibilities
35:39and I think
35:40it's wrong
35:41and so
35:42the course
35:43that we chose
35:44was to sue
35:45the federal government
35:46and say
35:47you ought not
35:48to force us
35:48to carry out
35:49these policies
35:50which we think
35:50are wrong.
35:55New York's
35:56suit against
35:56the federal government
35:57asked that the
35:58agency change
35:59its policy
35:59toward the
36:00mentally disabled
36:01but the suit
36:02is more than
36:02disagreement
36:03with those practices
36:04it's about money
36:05for those who
36:07were thrown off
36:07the disability rolls
36:08go somewhere
36:09and someone pays
36:11as more and more
36:12are terminated
36:12or refused
36:13they end up
36:14in state hospitals
36:15or in city shelters
36:16for the homeless
36:17over the last
36:18say two years
36:21our population
36:21has risen
36:23300 percent
36:23even as much
36:25as 18 months ago
36:26almost everyone
36:27we took through
36:28the system
36:28although it took
36:29a long time
36:30they were eventually
36:31put on
36:32some kind of program
36:33they did get
36:34some kind of support
36:35someone in order
36:37to qualify
36:38for SSI now
36:39or for disability
36:40would have to be
36:41so bad off
36:42that they should
36:42be in a hospital
36:43and of course
36:45if they're in a hospital
36:46and they're not
36:46eligible for benefits
36:47that's catch
36:5022
36:50New York
36:53says disability
36:53terminations
36:54will cost the state
36:55200 million dollars
36:56a year
36:57for each of the next
36:58five years
36:58a halt to some
37:00of those reviews
37:00may ease the burden
37:01but the larger
37:02problem continues
37:03at this point
37:05it's just a
37:05continuing battle
37:06when they're denied
37:07at the hearing level
37:07we just start
37:08all over again
37:08takes a long time
37:10but we keep
37:13going at it
37:13otherwise
37:14they stay here
37:15they're out
37:16in the streets
37:16in and out
37:18of the shelters
37:19in and out
37:20of doorways
37:21ride the trains
37:23stand on the
37:25bread lines
37:25all the things
37:27they've been used
37:27to doing
37:28if this is one
37:34measure of the
37:35disability reviews
37:36the general accounting
37:37office has found
37:38many others
37:39nationwide
37:39the current
37:42adjudicative climate
37:43involving medical
37:44impairment
37:45seems to be one
37:46of deny
37:46deny
37:47deny
37:48in a highly
37:49critical report
37:50the GAO
37:51challenges the way
37:52decisions are made
37:53in the state
37:53agencies
37:54called the
37:55DDSs
37:56we found
37:57many individuals
37:57who had their
37:58benefits terminated
37:59despite having
38:00severe impairments
38:01and in our
38:01opinion
38:02having little
38:03or no capability
38:04to function
38:04in a competitive
38:05work environment
38:06we found
38:07inadequate
38:07development
38:08and use
38:08of existing
38:09medical evidence
38:10resulting in
38:11an over-reliance
38:12and a misuse
38:13of consultative
38:14examinations
38:15and we found
38:16insufficient
38:16psychiatric resources
38:18in most of
38:18the DDSs
38:19we get allegations
38:21from the examiners
38:22that the doctors
38:23aren't making
38:24really thorough
38:24reviews of these
38:26because their
38:26workload is
38:27very heavy
38:28and at one
38:30of the DDSs
38:31we went to
38:31they said
38:32if all their
38:32physicians
38:33were on hand
38:34optimally
38:35they would have
38:3515 minutes
38:36to review a case
38:38and usually
38:39that's not the
38:39case for all
38:40the doctors
38:40are on hand
38:41so in effect
38:43what you have
38:44is you're having
38:44non-technical
38:45examiners
38:46making decisions
38:47and non-technically
38:48qualified physicians
38:49also
38:50participating
38:51in the decision
38:52they agree
38:54there should be
38:54a halt
38:54to reviews
38:55of all the
38:55mentally impaired
38:56until procedures
38:57change
38:58in other words
38:58I think what
38:59they need to do
38:59is take more
39:00of a responsibility
39:00for those people
39:01that are on the
39:02rolls than they
39:02have
39:03and give them
39:04the benefit
39:05of the doubt
39:06sometime
39:06a major change
39:07of attitude
39:07here
39:07I think it
39:09will take
39:09a change
39:10in attitude
39:11I'm asking
39:14that you join
39:14me
39:15in reducing
39:16direct federal
39:17spending
39:17by 41.4
39:20billion dollars
39:21in fiscal year
39:221982
39:23the attitude
39:25reflected in
39:26the disability
39:26reviews
39:27seems different
39:28from the promises
39:28that accompanied
39:29President Reagan's
39:301981 pledge
39:31to cut the budget
39:32we will continue
39:34to fulfill
39:35the obligations
39:35that spring
39:36from our
39:37national conscience
39:38those who
39:39through no fault
39:40of their own
39:40must depend
39:41on the rest of us
39:42the poverty stricken
39:44the disabled
39:45the elderly
39:46all those
39:47with true need
39:48can rest assured
39:50that the social
39:50safety net
39:52of programs
39:52they depend on
39:53are exempt
39:55from any cuts
39:56the real implications
39:57of sweeping
39:58political promises
39:59are often overlooked
40:00Congress had asked
40:02to review
40:02the disability rolls
40:03for fraud
40:04and expected savings
40:05of 10 million dollars
40:06but the administration
40:07was planning
40:08to use those
40:08reviews for much more
40:10social security
40:11devised policy changes
40:13meaning many fewer
40:14would qualify
40:15and the disability budget
40:16would be cut
40:17by 3.4 billion
40:19this then
40:20is our proposal
40:21America's new beginning
40:23a program
40:23for economic recovery
40:24and if everyone
40:26seemed to agree
40:27on the choices
40:28that were made
40:28in the budget cuts
40:29the initial euphoria
40:31has waned
40:31in the face
40:32of the facts
40:33as these social security
40:35documents show
40:36reviewing disability
40:37was viewed
40:38from the beginning
40:38not so much
40:39as a tool
40:40to ferret out fraud
40:41but as a revenue item
40:42in the economic recovery
40:43cases were targeted
40:45for the amount
40:46of money
40:46they would save
40:47when the senate
40:48realized
40:48the enormity
40:49of the plan
40:49it rejected
40:50what was proposed
40:51the agency
40:54pressed forward
40:55anyway
40:55Paul Simmons
40:56is social security's
40:57deputy commissioner
40:58for policy
40:59his agency
41:00has reviewed
41:00the rolls
41:01and already
41:02cut 200 times
41:03more than
41:04congress expected
41:04and it has
41:06tightened guidelines
41:06for disability
41:07through internal
41:08rulings
41:09escaping public
41:10comment
41:10or congressional
41:11consent
41:12so relations
41:13are increasingly
41:14strained
41:15as Simmons
41:15accidentally
41:16confirmed
41:17the hearing
41:28of the U.S.
41:29Committee on Aging
41:30will come to order
41:30yesterday
41:34our committee
41:35heard
41:36very powerful
41:37testimony
41:38from a variety
41:38of sources
41:39which adds up
41:41to the conclusion
41:41that the social security
41:42disability reviews
41:43of mentally
41:44disabled beneficiaries
41:45have systematically
41:47terminated benefits
41:49for individuals
41:49who can't
41:50possibly work
41:51and therefore
41:52meet the statutory
41:53definition of disability
41:54this morning
41:56the committee
41:57will hear the
41:57administration's
41:58response
41:59we hope you can
42:00shed some light
42:01on what has become
42:03an era
42:03of darkness
42:05for many of the
42:06mentally disabled
42:07please proceed
42:07thank you very much
42:09Mr. Chairman
42:09as you say
42:10we do have to
42:11shed light
42:11on this subject
42:12and some of the
42:14light that's been
42:15coming out
42:15of various
42:16and sundry hearings
42:17that have happened
42:17is less than
42:18illuminating
42:19but there's a lot
42:20of misinformation
42:20that is clouding
42:21the kind of
42:22creative national
42:23debate
42:23that I think
42:23we should have
42:24on what it is
42:25we're going to do
42:26about this
42:27program
42:28and yesterday's
42:29hearings
42:30for example
42:30the GAO
42:31testified
42:32that it had found
42:33that our own
42:33administrative law
42:34judges
42:35are reversing
42:3591%
42:36of all mental
42:37impairment cases
42:38that reach them
42:39and then the GAO
42:40went on to say
42:41that this is
42:42proof positive
42:43that the program
42:43is unfair
42:44to the mentally
42:45impaired
42:45now the GAO
42:46witness to his
42:47credit said
42:47that this number
42:48was quite startling
42:49but it was startling
42:50to us too
42:50because it doesn't
42:51exist
42:51they read the
42:52wrong table
42:53there is no
42:54difference in the
42:55reversal rates
42:56that we know of
42:56between mentally
42:57impaired cases
42:58and the physically
42:59impaired cases
43:00among our
43:00ALJs
43:01the number
43:01just does not
43:02exist
43:02last May
43:03last May
43:03you told
43:05Senator Cohen
43:05and his
43:06hearing
43:06government
43:07operations
43:07I quote
43:08in the
43:09vast majority
43:10of cases
43:10the reason
43:11people are
43:12being taken
43:12off the
43:13rolls
43:14is not
43:14because
43:15there are
43:15deficiencies
43:16in the
43:16process
43:17but because
43:18they are
43:18not
43:19disabled
43:19under the
43:20terms
43:20of the
43:21law
43:21would you
43:22stand by
43:23the statement
43:24that you
43:24made
43:24then
43:24I
43:25you mean
43:26the
43:27statement
43:27that the
43:28vast majority
43:28are being
43:29taken off
43:29properly
43:30or should
43:30not be
43:31on the
43:31rolls
43:31in the
43:32first place
43:32I would
43:32stand by
43:32that part
43:33of the
43:33statement
43:33but I
43:34understand
43:34a lot
43:35more
43:35about
43:35the
43:35program
43:36now
43:36particularly
43:36the
43:37mentally
43:37impaired
43:37part of the
43:38program
43:38since we
43:39have been
43:39concentrating
43:40on that
43:40over the
43:40past
43:41several
43:41months
43:41and I
43:42would say
43:42that there
43:43are aspects
43:44inevitably
43:45in our
43:45view of
43:46what you
43:47are committing
43:48yourself to
43:49because what
43:49you're saying
43:50is that
43:52the vast
43:53majority
43:53of the
43:54mentally
43:55impaired
43:55being
43:57taken
43:57off
43:58the rolls
43:58would be
43:59taken off
43:59the rolls
44:00not because
44:01they're
44:02deficiencies
44:02in the
44:03process
44:03but because
44:04they are
44:04not
44:04disabled
44:05under the
44:06terms
44:06of the
44:06law
44:07now if
44:07that is
44:07your
44:08point
44:08of view
44:08I challenge
44:09you
44:09I mean
44:10if we
44:10want to
44:10talk
44:10numbers
44:11I mean
44:1291%
44:13was mentioned
44:14yesterday
44:14our judges
44:15are overturning
44:15cases 9 out
44:16of 10 times
44:17therefore the
44:17system is wrong
44:18that's not
44:19true
44:19there are a lot
44:20of numbers
44:20that aren't
44:21true
44:21there are a lot
44:21of perceptions
44:22what's the
44:22right number
44:23I don't know
44:23what the right
44:24number is
44:24how can you
44:25make the
44:25statement that
44:26the vast
44:27majority of
44:29because if
44:31you accept
44:31the premise
44:32that about
44:32one in five
44:33people on
44:34the rolls
44:34are not
44:35disabled
44:35and therefore
44:36the rest
44:37of them
44:37are and
44:38if you
44:38are approaching
44:39numbers that
44:40show that
44:41that is
44:41probably
44:41correct
44:42then you
44:42can say
44:42that the
44:42majority
44:43are being
44:44taken off
44:45are being
44:45taken off
44:45legitimately
44:46we have
44:46never said
44:47that there
44:47are no
44:47mistakes
44:48in this
44:48program
44:48we have
44:49never said
44:49that we
44:50didn't want
44:50to improve
44:50the program
44:51make it
44:51more humane
44:52but any
44:53big government
44:54program
44:54any private
44:55disability
44:55insurance
44:56program
44:56you can
44:56look into
44:57you may
44:57find problems
44:58there are
44:58bigger
44:59policy
44:59problems
45:00around any
45:01and all
45:01of these
45:02programs
45:02we can't
45:02solve them
45:03all
45:03but we
45:04can do
45:04our best
45:05to make
45:05sure
45:05that our
45:06program
45:06is doing
45:07its job
45:07and doing
45:08it humanely
45:08and fairly
45:09and treating
45:09the people
45:10well
45:11and treating
45:12the taxpayer
45:12responsibly
45:13despite
45:14despite the
45:14promises
45:15in the last
45:15year
45:16to re-examine
45:16its
45:16policies
45:17social
45:18security
45:18procedures
45:19remain
45:19mostly
45:19in place
45:20almost
45:21half
45:21of those
45:21reviewed
45:22are still
45:22terminated
45:23and
45:23administrative
45:24law
45:24judges
45:25who persist
45:25in high
45:26reversal
45:26rates
45:26are
45:27targeted
45:27for
45:27constant
45:28review
45:28judge
45:29Clayton
45:29Dietrich
45:30of Hartford
45:30the inference
45:31they draw
45:31is there's
45:32got to be
45:32something
45:32wrong
45:33with me
45:33as a judge
45:34if I
45:35don't arrive
45:35at the
45:35same
45:36conclusion
45:36that
45:36bureaucrats
45:37did
45:37in turning
45:38these
45:38people
45:38down
45:38well
45:39the way
45:39it works
45:40is this
45:40they'll say
45:41the national
45:42average
45:42is that
45:43reversals
45:44are about
45:4450%
45:45and the
45:46inference
45:47is that
45:47you're
45:47supposed
45:48not to
45:48grant
45:49more than
45:5050%
45:50of cases
45:51regardless
45:51of what
45:51the merits
45:52are
45:52now this
45:53is impossible
45:53because
45:54you shouldn't
45:54be thinking
45:55about what
45:56the score
45:56is
45:56you should
45:57be looking
45:57at each
45:57case
45:58separately
45:58and
45:59giving a
46:00person
46:00or denying
46:00a person
46:01the benefits
46:01based on
46:02the evidence
46:03in the case
46:04and not
46:04based on
46:05what the
46:05scoreboard
46:06is
46:06with the
46:06bureaucrats
46:07at social
46:08security
46:08headquarters
46:09Dietrich
46:10retired
46:10from social
46:11security
46:11in December
46:12tired
46:12he said
46:13of fighting
46:14the constant
46:14battles
46:14with the
46:15agency
46:15Judge
46:16Jacob
46:17Preeties
46:17retired
46:18then too
46:18distressed
46:19with what
46:19he calls
46:20the assembly
46:20line
46:21approach
46:21to justice
46:22and
46:23quotas
46:24were
46:24euphemistically
46:24called
46:25goals
46:25now
46:27so
46:27you think
46:28you were
46:29dealing
46:29quotas
46:29oh
46:30yeah
46:30I
46:30believe
46:30so
46:31except
46:32the
46:32administration
46:33termed
46:33them
46:33goals
46:34but
46:34we're
46:35talking
46:35about
46:35the
46:35same
46:36thing
46:36really
46:36only
46:37congress
46:38under our
46:38constitution
46:39and our
46:40democracy
46:40can make
46:41laws
46:41and when
46:42they make
46:43a law
46:43if somebody
46:43wants to
46:44change it
46:44they should
46:45go back
46:45and explain
46:46to the
46:46elected
46:47officials
46:47why it
46:48should be
46:49changed
46:49and if
46:49they agree
46:50they change
46:50it
46:50now if
46:51you change
46:52it
46:52deliberately
46:53by interpreting
46:54it too
46:54strictly
46:55then you're
46:57changing the
46:57law
46:57and if
46:58you do
46:58it and say
46:58well and
46:59they said
46:59well how did
47:00you
47:00that's our
47:00policy
47:01that's the
47:02reason I call
47:02policy
47:03illegal law
47:03social security
47:05has ordered
47:06its judges
47:06to follow
47:07yet another
47:07policy
47:08what the
47:09agency
47:09calls
47:09non-acquiescence
47:10with decisions
47:11of the federal
47:12courts
47:12in instruction
47:13sent to every
47:14judge
47:15the agency
47:15makes clear
47:16that if it
47:17disagrees with
47:17a lower court
47:18opinion
47:18favorable to
47:19claimants
47:20social security's
47:21rules are to
47:22supersede the
47:23court
47:23except in
47:24the specific
47:25case
47:25it's the
47:48agency people
47:49like
47:49william dunsmuir
47:50must still
47:50rely on
47:51even though
47:52social security
47:53is ignoring
47:53at least
47:54six federal
47:54court rulings
47:55that might
47:56have changed
47:56the decision
47:57in his case
47:58look for any
47:59work
47:59no sir
48:01why is that
48:02mr dunsmuir
48:02i don't feel like
48:03i'm able
48:03dunsmuir
48:05worked for
48:0627 years
48:07as a parking
48:07garage attendant
48:08breathing carbon
48:09monoxide
48:10he was judged
48:11mentally disabled
48:12in 1981
48:13then
48:14the policies
48:15changed
48:15so when his
48:16file was reviewed
48:17he was told
48:18he could go back
48:19to his old job
48:20even though his
48:21iq had dropped
48:21from 102 to 77
48:23since the first
48:24judgment was made
48:25who does the
48:25shopping for you
48:26and your wife
48:27my wife
48:28you never go
48:30to the store
48:30with her
48:31once in a while
48:33i go for a ride
48:34and sit in the car
48:34you mean you
48:35won't go in the
48:36store
48:36very very subtle
48:39why
48:40i don't know
48:41that's what i say
48:43i can't i can't
48:44figure out what
48:44my trouble is
48:45for years
48:45i met people
48:46got along
48:49wonderful
48:50and all of a sudden
48:51i just
48:51you just what sir
48:53i just
48:54i don't know
48:55i can't talk to
48:56anybody anymore
48:56without getting
48:57nervous and
48:57scared
48:58my mind plays
49:01tricks on me
49:02have you been
49:07having any
49:08suicidal thoughts
49:09in the recent
49:09past
49:10i think about
49:14a doctor
49:15but not
49:15i don't like
49:24living
49:24but i
49:25die
49:26it's worse
49:26like
49:27the record
49:31indicates
49:31that
49:32he's
49:32he's
49:33staying
49:33staying
49:34indoors
49:35he's avoiding
49:36people
49:36cannot stand
49:37to be
49:37with people
49:37and around
49:38people
49:38has
49:40tremendous
49:41amount
49:41of anxiety
49:41gets
49:42headaches
49:42the
49:42multiple
49:43somatic
49:43complaints
49:44the fact
49:45that he
49:45has been
49:46chronically
49:46exposed
49:47to carbon
49:47monoxide
49:47for 27
49:48years
49:48should not
49:49be ignored
49:49and in his
49:53best interest
49:53i would
49:53really
49:54recommend
49:56that that
49:56be pursued
49:57further
49:57than just
49:59a cursory
50:00neurological
50:00examination
50:01and frankly
50:03i think
50:03he needs
50:03hospitalization
50:04he should
50:05be really
50:06placed on
50:06medications
50:07and if
50:08he can't
50:09tolerate
50:09medications
50:10he is one
50:12of the few
50:12people
50:13that i have
50:14ever
50:14volunteered
50:15the recommendation
50:16that he should be
50:17considered for
50:17electroshock therapy
50:18judge brown
50:21reversed
50:22william
50:22dunsmuir's
50:23termination
50:23but he still
50:25waits for a
50:25headquarters decision
50:26in his case
50:27merit reich
50:29was reinstated
50:30by a judge
50:31the administration's
50:32temporary exemption
50:33of some of the
50:34mentally disabled
50:35might have applied
50:36to him
50:36or to william
50:37dunsmuir
50:38but not to
50:41eleanor russo
50:41what about
50:42those like her
50:43even social
50:44securities
50:45consultants
50:46reported
50:46she was
50:47mentally
50:47retarded
50:47and she
50:48was terminated
50:49anyway
50:49and what
50:53about
50:53sarah buck
50:54told
50:55she could
50:55go back
50:56to work
50:56even though
50:57social security
50:58didn't establish
50:59that her condition
50:59had improved
51:00and calvin
51:03bickham
51:04he was denied
51:05a second time
51:06because social
51:06security
51:07didn't follow
51:07its own
51:08doctor's advice
51:09his new
51:10hearing is
51:10scheduled
51:10next week
51:11it had been
51:12for the church
51:13out there
51:13us going to
51:14church all
51:15time
51:15it would've
51:15tore us
51:16up
51:16you know
51:16it would
51:17broke
51:17the home
51:17up
51:17it'd break
51:18the homes
51:18up
51:18going through
51:20something like
51:20this all
51:20the time
51:21it would
51:21almost take
51:22your
51:22belief
51:24away
51:25from
51:25your
51:26religion
51:27i guess
51:28is what
51:28you call it
51:29the way
51:30you were
51:30believed
51:32all your
51:32life
51:33but
51:35i still
51:36have
51:36confidence
51:37and i've
51:40never
51:40give up
51:41so
51:45it'll
51:46work
51:46somehow
51:47i don't
51:48know how
51:48but it
51:48will work
51:50in the end
51:51truth
51:52will win
51:52the truth
51:53will win
51:53out
51:54with me
52:03now from
52:03washington
52:03is the
52:04secretary
52:04of health
52:04and human
52:05services
52:05margaret heckler
52:06secretary heckler
52:08you've seen the
52:08documentary and
52:09there was more
52:10testimony today
52:10in congress
52:12will there be
52:13any announced
52:14changes coming
52:15up in policy
52:16or procedure
52:17i have
52:19announced very
52:20major changes
52:20on june 7th
52:22in terms of the
52:22disability review
52:23program
52:23as a member
52:24of congress
52:25i was
52:26of course
52:27concerned
52:27about the
52:28information from
52:29the carter
52:29administration
52:30that there were
52:31major abuses
52:32in the program
52:32in the sense
52:33that many
52:34who are on
52:34the rolls
52:35were
52:35ineligible
52:36and that
52:37there should
52:37be a review
52:38i voted
52:39for the review
52:39on that basis
52:40but i
52:41feel very
52:42strongly
52:42that
52:43anyone who
52:45has been
52:45unfairly denied
52:46benefits
52:47should
52:48use
52:48their right
52:49to reapply
52:50and they do
52:51have that right
52:52and i will
52:52insist upon it
52:53the administration
52:53is predicting
52:54a savings
52:55of 4.1 billion
52:56in this program
52:57by 86
52:57where do the
52:59numbers come
53:00from
53:00this initially
53:01was supposed
53:02to be a means
53:02of weeding
53:03out fraud
53:04critics have
53:05charged that
53:06now perhaps
53:07is something
53:07of a money
53:08saving venture
53:09it's not a
53:10revenue
53:10issue
53:11it is a
53:12people issue
53:12a fairness
53:13issue
53:13an equity
53:14issue
53:15it is also
53:15an issue
53:16that out
53:17of a program
53:17that's costing
53:1818 billion
53:18dollars that
53:19became very
53:19loose in the
53:2070s
53:20according to
53:21the gao
53:22and the
53:22carter
53:22administration
53:23a program
53:24that required
53:24review
53:25and i think
53:26the review
53:26must be carried
53:27on in a very
53:28humane
53:29fair way
53:30to truly help
53:31the disabled
53:32who are entitled
53:33to benefits
53:33there are fewer
53:34people on the
53:35rolls now
53:35than any time
53:36since 1978
53:37may i ask you
53:38are you implying
53:39that there is
53:39still fraud
53:40to be weeded
53:41out in the
53:41social security
53:42disability program
53:43i would say
53:44that fraud
53:45is not the
53:46correct term
53:46it's really
53:47the ineligible
53:48allocation
53:49of very very
53:50important funds
53:51for those
53:52who do not
53:53fit the definition
53:54in the law
53:54of disability
53:55on the topic
53:56of laws
53:57across the country
53:58federal judges
53:59have ordered
53:59the agency
54:00to stop
54:01cutting benefits
54:02they're saying
54:03that first
54:03you must show
54:04medical proof
54:05that those
54:06people who are
54:07being cut
54:08have mentally
54:09or physically
54:10improved
54:11will you
54:12comply with
54:12this
54:13well there
54:14are federal
54:14courts
54:15deciding
54:16virtually every
54:17opinion
54:17on all sides
54:19of cases
54:19and until the
54:20supreme court
54:20rules of course
54:21you don't have
54:22a definitive
54:22case
54:22a federal
54:23district court
54:24ruled on
54:24Friday
54:25that the
54:25agency should
54:26stop denying
54:27benefits
54:28in nine states
54:29until medical
54:29proof is offered
54:30that the
54:31claimant's
54:31condition
54:32has improved
54:33will you
54:34comply with
54:34that ruling
54:35or will you
54:35appeal
54:36well
54:36I must say
54:37that at
54:38this point
54:39I think
54:40that the
54:40issues of
54:41lawsuits
54:41will be
54:42handled
54:42in the
54:42courts
54:43but I
54:44believe
54:44that we
54:45are
54:45following
54:46a review
54:46process
54:47that is
54:48going to
54:48be updated
54:49and made
54:50as fair
54:50as possible
54:51so that
54:51means you
54:51let me
54:52just say
54:53this
54:53I
54:54personally
54:54believe
54:54that the
54:55review
54:55that we
54:55are putting
54:56into place
54:56will guarantee
54:58fairness
54:58to both
54:59the disabled
55:00as well
55:02as the
55:03American
55:03public
55:03who pay
55:04the taxes
55:05and are
55:05part of
55:06this
55:06system
55:06so with
55:07regard
55:07to those
55:08nine states
55:08then you
55:09will just
55:09ignore what
55:09the federal
55:10judge has
55:10done
55:10unless the
55:11supreme
55:11court
55:11acts
55:12I
55:13think
55:13that
55:13the
55:13nine
55:14states
55:14or the
55:15specific
55:16case
55:17law
55:17will depend
55:18on a variety
55:20of rulings
55:20in other
55:20states
55:21as well
55:21our general
55:22counsel
55:22will look
55:23at rulings
55:23and handle
55:24the legal
55:25issue
55:25and of course
55:26we will
55:26review that
55:27right now
55:28I'm thinking
55:28about people
55:29I'm thinking
55:29about establishing
55:30a fair
55:31process
55:31and I
55:32believe
55:32that what
55:33we've done
55:33thus far
55:34is fair
55:35it will
55:35remove
55:36the most
55:36difficult
55:37cases
55:37and secondly
55:38I'm calling
55:39for a review
55:39face-to-face
55:40hearings
55:41not only
55:42at the outset
55:42but a
55:43reconsideration
55:44and I'm also
55:45calling for a
55:45top-to-bottom
55:46review of all
55:47standards
55:48medical
55:48and mental
55:49secretary
55:50secretary
55:50heckler
55:51thank you
55:51very much
55:52for being
55:52with us
55:52thank you
55:53the administration
55:56insists it is
55:56doing all it
55:57can to design
55:58a fair review
55:58process
55:59but in some
56:00states
56:00federal courts
56:01are finding
56:01the current
56:02process
56:02to be illegal
56:03and as you
56:04have heard
56:04now from
56:04the secretary
56:05this evening
56:05the administration
56:07has not yet
56:08decided
56:08if it will
56:09comply
56:09or appeal
56:10meanwhile
56:11the reviews
56:11go on
56:12and the people
56:13wait for
56:13decisions
56:14next week
56:16we go to
56:17the hottest
56:17war in the
56:18smallest country
56:18in central
56:19america
56:19and we call
56:20this program
56:20crossfire
56:21el salvador
56:22i'm jessica
56:24savage
56:49for a transcript
57:06of this program
57:07please send
57:07four dollars
57:08to frontline
57:09box three two two
57:10boston massachusetts
57:12oh two one three four
57:13frontline is produced
57:15for the documentary
57:16consortium
57:17by wgbh boston
57:18which is solely
57:19responsible for its
57:20content
57:21major funding for
57:22frontline was provided
57:23by the corporation
57:24for public broadcasting
57:26additional funding
57:27was provided by this
57:28station and other
57:29public television stations
57:30nationwide
57:31and by the chubb group
57:32of insurance companies
57:33for over 100 years
57:35providing worldwide
57:36business and personal
57:37insurance through
57:38independent agents
57:39and brokers
57:40for video cassette
57:43information about
57:44frontline
57:44write to
57:45pbs video
57:47box 8092
57:48washington dc
57:5020024
57:52pbs video
Recommended
57:55
|
Up next
1:25
54:16
0:40
45:23
44:50
57:53
56:09
57:56
57:14
56:53
57:16
58:05
58:03
1:00:34
57:47
57:54
57:45
Be the first to comment