"Standard Social Security Administrative Psychiatric Disability Denial Notices May be Constitutionally Defective"

"The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Stieberger v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1997), that a district court had jurisdiction to review a determination by the Social Security Administration (SSA) that an unrepresented, mentally ill claimant did not lack adequate comprehension of an SSA notice regarding denial of disability benefits. Theresa Stieberger, a 67-year-old woman with a long history of mental illness, had been receiving benefits under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program administered by the SSA. She failed to file a timely appeal in response to an SSA decision denying her further benefits. She subsequently argued before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that she had good cause for missing the deadline because of her mental illness. The ALJ, however, ruled that her mental incapacity did not prevent her from complying with deadlines for requests for administrative review of the denial of her benefits. When Stieberger sought relief in District Court, the court concluded that she had not raised a constitutional issue and it dismissed the complaint. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded.

The Second Circuit joined the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, all of which have found notices of administrative appellate time limits constitutionally defective when received by persons toom mentally ill to understand the notice. The Second Circuit noted that it would permit due process claims 'only upon a particularized allegation of mental impairment plausible of sufficient severity to impair comprehension" (134 F.3d at 40-41). A mere 'generalized allegation....that the claimant was too confused to understand available administrative remedies' would not invoke federal court jurisdiction. Regarding the procedure fo review by a district court, the Second Circuit said, 'the SSA should be enlisted to make an initial determination, subject to traditional judicial review to determine if an adverse decision is supported by substantial evidence' (134 F.3d at 41)." [J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol 26, No 3, 1998: p. 514-515]