Document: 467 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 2249 81 L.Ed.2d 88 Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitionerv.Leon S. DAY et al. No. 82-1371 Supreme Court the United States Argued Dec. 5, 1983. Decided May 22, 1984. Syllabus The Social Security Act (Act) implementing regulations provide a four-step process for administrative review adjudication disputed disability benefit claims under Title II Act. First, state agency determines whether claimant has date it began or ceased. Second, if is dissatisfied with that determination, he may request de novo reconsideration in some cases full evidentiary hearing. Third, receives an adverse entitled to hearing by law judge. Finally, judge's decision, appeal Appeals Council Department Services (HHS). Respondents brought action Federal District on behalf statewide class claimants Vermont, seeking declaratory injunctive relief from delays encountered steps two three allegedly violated their right 42 U.S.C. § 405(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V) within reasonable time. Holding more than 90 days making determinations, granting request, were unreasonable claimants' statutory rights, issued injunction favor requiring HHS future issue determinations requests reconsideration, conduct hearings hearings, pay interim benefits any who did not receive determination 180 request. affirmed. Held: Court's constituted unwarranted judicial intrusion into pervasively regulated area II. legislative history shows Congress, striking balance between need timely ensure accuracy consistency such face heavy workloads limited resources, concluded mandatory deadlines are inconsistent Act's primary objectives. In light Congress' continuing concern would subordinate quality timeliness, its recent efforts hardly could have been contemplated courts should authority impose judicially very Congress repeatedly rejected. Pp. 111-118. 685 F.2d 19 (2 Cir.1982), vacated remanded. J. Paul McGrath, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Richard H. Munzing, Springfield, Vt., respondents. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented validity requires adjudicate all Act, 401 seq., according established noncompliance those deadlines. 2 * was passed 1935. 49 Stat. 622, as amended, seq. Among other things, provides payment insurance whose prevents them pursuing gainful employment. 423.1 Disability also payable Supplemental Income (SSI) program XVI 76 197, 1381. programs administered Titles "are size extent difficult comprehend." Richardson v. Perales, 402 389, 399, 91 1420, 1426, 28 842 (1971). Approximately million filed these fiscal year 1983.2 Over 320,000 must be heard 800 judges each year.3 To facilitate orderly sympathetic administration II, unusually protective claims. ceased.4 421(a); 20 CFR 404.1503 (1983). determination. This involves claim agency, §§ 404.907-404.921. Additional evidence submitted at this stage, either order agency. statute Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). 405(b); 404.929-404.961 decision ALJ, take (HHS).5 404.967-404.983. These four exhaust claimant's remedies. Thereafter, seek federal district court. 405(g). 3 action, named plaintiffs sought above. initiated Leon Day November 1978 after his terminated suffered substantial obtaining securing before ALJ.6 After suffering similar delays, Amedie Maurais intervened action.7 On June 14, 1979, certified consisting of: 4 "All present Vermont residents secure who, following initial defendant no exists, experience delay scheduling and/or issuance decisions reconsiderations fair hearings." App. Pet. Cert. 12a, n. 1. 5 &#16&#160Vz

Category: 1