MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE

1
MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE

• government interests v. private interests

2
Social Security Administration

• Established in 1935 during the Great Depression
  under President Franklin Roosevelt in an effort
  to promote greater economic security for the
  elderly
• social insurance, to those who paid into the
  system, instead of social welfare
• pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing
  income after retirement

3
Soup kitchen during Great Depression
4
Depression-era family
5
President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security
Act

• "We can never insure one hundred percent of the
  population against one hundred percent of the
  hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have
  tried to frame a law which will give some measure
  of protection to the average citizen and to his
  family against the loss of a job and against
  poverty-ridden old age."

6
Disability

• Disability insurance added to the Social Security
  program in 1954
• Pays benefits to workers who are unable to work
  due to a medical condition, either physical or
  mental
• To qualify for benefits, the worker must have
  worked in jobs covered by Social Security and
  must have a medical condition that meets Social
  Security's definition of disability.

7
Disability cont.

• SSs definition of disability an individual
  must be unable to engage in any "Substantial
  Gainful Activity" (SGA) due to any medically
  determinable physical or mental impairment(s)
  which can be expected to result in death or which
  has lasted or can be expected to last for a
  continuous period of not less than 12 months. In
  addition to being unable to perform his or her
  previous work, the person cannot, considering
  age, education, and work experience, engage in
  any other kind of SGA that exists in the national
  economy .
• Eligibility for monthly disability benefits
  begins five months after SS determines the onset
  of disability.
• Disability benefits stop if SS decides that the
  recipients medical condition has improved to the
  point that the recipient is no longer disabled.

8
Reconsideration/appeals procedure

• After an individual files a Social Security
  disability claim, the case is sent to a
  disability examiner at the Disability
  Determination agency in the individuals state.
• The examiner, working with a doctor, makes the
  initial decision on the claim. If the claim is
  denied and the individual requests
  reconsideration, the case is then sent to another
  disability examiner at the Disability
  Determination agency, where it goes through much
  the same process.
• If a claim is denied at reconsideration, the
  claimant may then request a hearing. At this
  point, the case is sent to an Administrative Law
  Judge who works for Social Security.
• The Administrative Law Judge makes an independent
  decision upon the claim.
• An appeal of the ALJs decision goes to the
  Appeals Council.
• After being denied by the Appeals Council, the
  claimant can file a civil action in the United
  States District Court, requesting review of
  Social Security's decision.

9
In United States law, adopted from English Law,
due process (more fully due process of law) is
the principle that the government must respect
all of a person's legal rights instead of just
some or most of those legal rights when the
government deprives a person of life, liberty, or
property.
What is Due Process?

• Due process has also been frequently interpreted
  as placing limitations on laws and legal
  proceedings, in order for judges instead of
  legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness,
  justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation
  is analogous to the concepts of natural justice
  and procedural justice used in various other
  jurisdictions.

10
MATTEWS v. ELDRIDGE424 U.S. 319 (1976)

• R esolution of the issue whether the
  administrative procedures provided here are
  constitutionally sufficient requires analysis of
  the governmental and private interests that are
  affected. 424 U.S. at 334

11
GOLDBERG v. KELLY 424 U.S. 254 (1970)

• Goldberg was decided 6 years prior to Matthews.
• In Goldberg, the situation was similar to that in
  Mathews except that the benefits at issue were
  welfare instead of disability
• The Court in Goldberg held that the extent to
  which procedural due process must be afforded to
  the recipient is influenced by the extent to
  which he may be condemned to suffer grievous
  loss. 397 U.S. at 262-263

12
Goldberg holding

• Because of the individuals overpowering need in
  this unique situation not to be wrongly deprived
  of assistance, the court found that to satisfy
  due process the recipient was entitled to a full
  evidentiary hearing prior to termination of
  benefits

13
Shift on Supreme Court

• Goldberg 1970
• Majority Brennan, Douglas, Harlan, White,
  Marshall
• Minority Burger, Stewart, Black
• Mathews 1976
• Majority Powell, Burger, Stewart, White,
  Blackmun, Rehnquist
• Minority Brennan, Marshall

14
Mathews FACTS

• George Eldridge was first awarded disability
  benefits following an evidentiary hearing in June
  of 1968.
• He was found permanently disabled due to chronic
  anxiety and back strain, and was subsequently
  diagnosed with diabetes.
• He was advised that the award of disability
  benefits would be reviewed in June 1969
• In February 1970, it was determined that his
  disability had ceased and his benefits were
  terminated.

15
FACTS continued...

• Eldridge requested a reconsideration hearing in
  April 1970.
• In August 1970, through his lawyer Donald Earls,
  he filed suit in district court seeking a hearing
  before termination of benefits.
• The district court ordered that payment of
  disability benefits be continued during the
  pendency of his claim.
• In March 1971 he was granted an evidentiary
  hearing. The hearing officer determined that his
  disability had not ceased and ordered his
  benefits continued.
• Time elapsed between the decision that no longer
  disabled and the evidentiary hearing? 18 months.

16
FACTS continued...

• In March 1972, the state again reviewed Mr.
  Eldridges eligibility in the form of a mailed
  questionnaire.
• Mr. Eldridge indicated on the questionnaire that
  his disability had not ceased provided medical
  sources in corroboration.
• The state obtained medical reports from his
  physicians and psychiatrist. Based on that, the
  state again determined that his disability had
  ceased as of May 72.
• Notification of the decision was sent to Mr.
  Eldridge.
• He was advised of the agencys reasoning, and
  given an opportunity to submit any additional
  information.

17
DISTRICT COURT

• the legal criterion for Title II disability
  benefits is whether the beneficiary continues to
  be unable to engage in substantial gainful
  activity . . . and to cut off payments
  erroneously may create a loss as grievous as that
  which concerned the Supreme Court in the cases of
  welfare and old age beneficiaries.
• In light of a prior hearing being required in
  cases of interests which are seemingly less
  substantial than receiving disability benefits
  this court can find no basis for considering
  disability payments such an unusual situation as
  to require a lesser due process standard.

18
FACTS continued...

• Mr. Eldridge replied to the agency indicating
  that they already had enough evidence to find
  that his condition was the same.
• The state agency then made the FINAL
  determination that he ceased to be disabled in
  May 1972.
• The Social Security Administration notified him
  in July 1972 that his disability benefits would
  stop at the end of July.
• The notification advised him that he could seek
  reconsideration of the determination within six
  months.
• Mr. Eldridge filed suit against the Secretary of
  Health, Education and Welfare, which oversees the
  Social Security Administration, challenging the
  constitutionality of its administrative
  procedures.

19
GREIVOUS LOSS...

• Mr. Eldridge was a widower with dependant
  children.
• Carl E. McAfee, Attorney for Mr. Eldridge the
  hardships that Mr. Eldridge and his family
  suffered without his benefits were very evident.
• Mr. Eldridges house was foreclosed and all of
  his furniture was repossessed.

20
Supreme Court

• In Mathews, the Supreme Court expanded the
  balancing test it used in Goldberg v. Kelly to
  include three factors.

21
Supreme Court

• 1) The private interest that will be affected by
  the governments action
• 2) The risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
  interest through the procedures used and the
  probable value, if any, of additional or
  substitute procedural safeguards
• 3) The governments interest, including the
  function involved and the fiscal and
  administrative burdens that the additional or
  substitute procedural requirement would entail

22
Distinguished from Goldberg

• The Court in Eldridge distinguished the facts
  from Goldberg on the basis that a determination
  on disability is an objective medical decision
  made by a team consisting of a physician and
  non-medical person specifically trained in
  disability evaluation, and based on unbiased
  medical reports. 424 U.S. at 344. Whereas a
  determination of need for welfare is not as
  sharply focused and easily documented.

23
But...

• But the Court itself recognized that the
  decision is not purely a question of the accuracy
  of a medical diagnosis since the ultimate issue
  which the state agency must resolve is whether in
  light of the particular workers age, education,
  and work experience he cannot engage in any
  substantial gainful work which exists in the
  national economy...

24
Written Presentation Enough?

• The court reconciles this contradiction by
  stating that these characteristics are
  amendable to effective written presentation.
• But even just considering objective medical
  evidence can be cumbersome. The American Medical
  Association labeled disability an elusive
  concept. Amicus Br. 12.

25
Distinguished from Goldberg II

• The Court also distinguished welfare benefits
  from disability benefits. It found that
  eligibility for disability benefits, in contrast
  to welfare benefits, is not based on financial
  need. Because of this, the Court found that the
  disabled workers need is likely to be less than
  that of a welfare recipient. The Court also
  suggested that because a person whose disability
  benefits have been cut off could still go on
  welfare, the need for a pre-hearing is not as
  great.

26
Reliable?

• Mr. Eldridges case emphasized the
  non-reliability of the termination procedures.
• Mr. Eldridges case had already been reversed
  multiple times.
• Even after the Supreme Courts decision, Mr.
  Eldridges benefits WERE eventually restored. The
  difference was that he was forced to live without
  the benefits during the pendency of his case.

27
Reversal Rate

• According to the Amicus Brief filed on behalf of
  the Plaintiff, in 1973 58.6 of all appealed
  decisions terminating Social Security disability
  benefits were reversed following evidentiary
  hearings.
• According to Respondents Brief, appealed
  reconsideration decisions were reversed at a rate
  of 3.3.

28
58.6? OR 3.3?

• Bare statistics rarely provide a satisfactory
  measure of the fairness of a decisionmaking
  process. Their adequacy is especially suspect
  here since the administrative review system is
  operated on an open file basis.
• In this context the value of reversal rate
  statistics as one means of evaluating the
  adequacy of the pretermination process is
  diminished. Thus, although we view such
  information as relevant, it is certainly not
  controlling in this case.

29
The Court reversed the lower court, because
procedures in place were sufficient to satisfy
due process, and the state of persons receiving
disability benefits was typically not as serious
as that of welfare recipients.
Mathews v. Eldridge was a landmark decision that
established the analytical framework for
procedural due process issues.

• Justice Powell delivered the Opinion.

• Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration
  or decision of this case.

• Justice Brennan delivered the dissenting opinion
  with whom Justice Marshall concurs.

30
The Supreme Court Decision

• Fundamental requirement of due process is
  opportunity to be heard at meaningful time and in
  meaningful manner. 
• Evidentiary hearing is not required prior to
  termination of social security disability
  benefits - present administrative procedures
  terminations fully comport with due process.
• Degree of potential deprivation.
• Financial cost alone- is not controlling weight
  in determining whether due process requires
  particular procedural safeguard prior to some
  administrative decision.
• Government's interest-is factor which must be
  weighed.
• The nature of the hearing must be commensurate
  with the interest affected, taking into account
  the states administrative needs All courts must
  now employ the Mathews balancing test to
  determine the type of procedures that are
  required by due process when a governmental
  action would deprive an individual of a
  constitutionally protected liberty or property
  interest.

31
       What is the balancing test?

• The Court in Mathews, noting that due process was
  flexible and called for such procedural
  protections as the particular situation demands,
  set forth a three-part test for analyzing
  procedural due process issues like the
  constitutional sufficiency of administrative
  procedures prior to the initial termination of
  benefits and pending review.

32

• Formulation

• If XYgtZ
• which means the current protection for the due
  process is not enough
• If XYltZ
• Which means just the contrary

Z
Y
X
X private interest that will be affected by
official action
Y the risk of erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used and the
probable value, if any, of additional or
substitute procedural safeguards
Z government's interest, including function
involved and fiscal and administrative burdens
that additional or substitute procedural
requirements would entail
33
- That is As property may probably be infringed
upon by the inappropriate action of the
government, which is not providing a hearing
before the termination of his interests.  -
Suppose that the loss of interests of A will
probably be about 5,000,000, because no hearing
is provided. That means the percentage of the
government to make mistakes on such issues will
grow 2 percentages higher. Meanwhile, if the
government offers the prior hearing for everyone
which will cost them more than 100,000 per
person, in this circumstance, the process of
prior hearing does not meet the satisfaction of
the due process of law which is written in the
Constitution.
Formulation cont.
34
Comments on the balancing test
It seems to me that the Court has tried, through
the balancing test in Mathews, to help create a
more predictable environment for plaintiffs to
evaluate their chances of success in litigation.
The Court has created a set of criteria to
consider and to balance one against the other in
a fact-based approach to problem solving case by
case. This is the heart of the common law method,
and a balancing test is uniquely well suited to
calibrate and reconcile competing interests. The
words due process alone do not provide
sufficient guidance for adjudication of claims
relating to entitlements or other matters. If for
some reason the balancing test is challenged as
no longer suited to the conditions facing
society, and if that challenge is supported by
sufficient empirical data, I am certain the Court
would reconsider the test.
Lydia Lazar
35
Carl E. McAfee ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

• the facts just were what they were, and you
  cant change those facts, but for some reason the
  Supreme Court decided the way they did, maybe
  they saw the process independent of the facts, I
  dont know . . . .
• the hardships that Mr. Eldridge and his family
  suffered without his benefits were very evident,
  and the fact that every time he WAS given an
  opportunity to be heard his benefits were
  reinstated . . . it just reinforced his argument.

36
Justice Brennans dissenting opinion
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion
in Richardson v. Wright, I agree with the
District Court and the Court of Appeals that,
prior to termination of benefits, Eldridge must
be afforded an evidentiary hearing of the type
required for welfare beneficiaries under Title IV
of the Social Security Act. I would add that the
Court's consideration that a discontinuance of
disability benefits may cause the recipient to
suffer only a limited deprivation is no argument.
It is speculative. Moreover, the very legislative
determination to provide disability benefits,
without any prerequisite determination of need in
fact, presumes a need by the recipient which is
not this Court's function to denigrate. It is
also no argument that a worker, who has been
placed in the untenable position of having been
denied disability benefits, may still seek other
forms of public assistance.
37

• The due process of law

• The phrase due process of law has been
  mentioned twice in the constitution, in the Fifth
  and Fourteenth Amendments.  These two Amendments
  can be said to be the vital ones of the Bill of
  Rights.

• A long history

• Significant position

No unanimous opinion

• And theres no definite rules which can be
  appropriately apply to the cases that are
  concerned about the due process of law. 

38
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

• No person shall be held to answer for a
  capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
  presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
  in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
  in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
  War or public danger nor shall any person be
  subject for the same offense to be twice put in
  jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled
  in any criminal case to be a witness against
  himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
  property, without due process of law nor shall
  private property be taken for public use, without
  just compensation.

39
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution
40
The Court has kept using the balancing test
established in Mathews v. Eldridge

• Lassister v. Department of Social Service,452 U.
  S.18(1981)
• Schweker v. Mc Clure, 456 U. S. 188(1982)
• Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 
  U. S. 532(1985)
• Wallkers v. National Association of Radiation Su
  rvioes. 473 U. S. 305(1985)

In the 1990s, the Supreme Court in the Doehrs
case articulated the balancing test which made it
quite tenable.

• The contexts are different. Mathews is about
  Social Security benefits. Doehrs is about the
  possibility of private damage. In the former
  case, the actor of the relinquishment is the
  executive branch, while in the later one, its
  the court.

• In Mathews, the Court denied the need of a
  prior hearing by using the balancing test, while
  in Doehr, the Court held that it is
  unconstitutional to not provide a prior hearing
  according to the balancing test.

41
The positive value of the balancing test
Application of Mathews v. Eldridge

• In California v. Sanders (1977) the Supreme Court
  noted that a decision denying judicial
  jurisdiction in Eldridge would effectively have
  closed the federal forum to the adjudication of
  reasonable constitutional claims. Thus Eldridge
  merely adhered to the well-established principle
  that when constitutional questions are in issue,
  the availability of judicial review is presumed.

• Objective and transparent

• A reflection of change

• Critics and Suspicion of the balancing test

• 1. The suspicion of the balancing test.
• 2. The uncertainty of the application of it.
• 3. Possible challenge poses on the nature of the
  Constitution.

42
Comparative Cases
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S.209
Where a new prison policy provided notice to an
inmate of the basis for the inmates
consideration for Supermax placement and a fair
opportunity for rebuttal without witnesses, with
multiple levels of review during which the inmate
could object and review 30days after placement,
the policy satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause.
 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S.507              
Although the Government was authorized to detain
a citizen-detainee who was allegedly an enemy
combatant, he was entitled to a meaningful
opportunity to contest the factual basis for that
detention before a neutral decision maker.
City of Los Angeles v. David 538 U.S. 715
A 30day delay in holding a towing fee
payment-recovery hearing did not violate due
process because it was unlikely to spawn
significant factual errors, and it reflected no
more than a routine delay substantially required
by administrative needs.
43
Comparative Cases Cont.
Am.Mfrs.Mut.Ins.Co v. Sullivan, 526
U.S.40,60 Workers compensation procedure
allowing insures to withhold payment of medical
expenses pending review to determine if they were
reasonable and necessary did not violate
Fourteenth Amendment because insurers were not
state actors. Medina v. California, 505 U.S.
437, 443 The Due Process Clause required only the
most basic procedural safeguards, and the States
procedural was constitutionally adequate to
prevent an incompetent defendant from standing
trial. Santo sky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745,767 A
statutes preponderance of evidence standard for
terminating petitioners parental rights was
found to be unconstitutional, and a clear and
convincing standard was necessary to protect
petitioners due process rights.   Corey v. Dept
of Land Conservation Dev., 212 Ore. App.
536 Oregon is free, by statute, to require more
than the minimum procedural safeguards that a
government agency must provide.
44
FIN

• Happy Turkey Day!
• Thats all folks!