A Key Decision on SSA Disability Determination

On June 21, 2013, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed a trial judge’s decision to preclude reference to a Social Security Administration (SSA) disability determination during a personal injury trial.  The decision states, “An SSA disability determination is of dubious probative value in a personal injury action” because:

• With “due regard for the beneficent purpose of the legislation,” Administrative Law Judges in SSA disability claim hearings are advised to show leniency in establishing the claimant’s disability (whereas a personal injury matter requires the plaintiff to bear the burden of proving his/her disability);
• The jury could give inappropriate weight to the SSA disability determination, due to the SSA’s being a government agency, despite the questionable efficacy of that determination with respect to causation; and
• SSA disability determinations are periodically reviewed and subject to overturn, but a jury cannot be asked to reverse its decision years later based on these SSA reviews.

In short, the processes for determining disability for the SSA and in a trial are fundamentally different, and therefore, the conclusions from the former are unreliable in context of the latter.  A key difference is the attribution of disability to a specific accident.  The trial judge responded to the plaintiff’s appeal by aptly noting:

And what this case involves is plaintiff’s claim that she suffered a permanent injury as a result of this accident that resulted in her inability to work.  Those are the issues that this jury needs to determine based on the evidence presented here, not evidence of determination that was made by…[the SSA] that did not have the benefit of the evidence that might have suggested that this disability is not – or was not caused by this accident [emphasis added].

It is important to understand that “disability” can be defined differently depending on the venue in which one finds oneself.  Plaintiff’s counsel in the above matter stated that “the best evidence” that the plaintiff couldn’t go back to work was that the SSA had decided she was disabled; but is the SSA’s process the “best” way to determine disability?  Who can best determine whether an individual is disabled, or unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity due to impairment?  Does the SSA or others determining disability do enough to distinguish between impairment, a medical concept, and disability, a largely psychosocial concept?

For more on this critical distinction, visit our CEU articles on disability vs. impairment.

Prescription Painkiller Addiction – A Public Health Issue

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the prevalence of overdoses on prescription painkillers (opioids) – drugs available to us through our doctors’ offices and pharmacies – is a “public health epidemic” in the United States.  The CDC reports some alarming statistics:

• In 2010, 12 million Americans (age 12 or older) reported nonmedical use of prescription painkillers in the past year
• Nearly 15,000 people die every year due to overdosing on prescription painkillers
• Between 1999 and 2010, painkiller prescriptions increased by 300%

Everyday Health, a provider of health information, notes that the problem is worsening.  In 2009, more than 475,000 people were admitted to emergency rooms due to painkiller abuse – reportedly five times the number of people admitted for the same reason five years earlier.  Moreover, opioids are now much stronger and dependence is more likely.

“The question is whether we’re in more pain over that period,” notes Nicholas Kardaras, Ph.D., an addiction specialist.  “But I really don’t think we are,” he adds. 

We’ve written about chronic pain before, as it’s a significant player in absenteeism and other workplace issues.  This prescribing trend could certainly compound pain-related worker issues.  But what’s being done to curb the trend?  Several measures have been suggested, including

• Devoting more time to training in opioid addiction issues in medical school
• Extra vigilance from prescribing doctors in evaluating patients for the possibility of addiction
• Prescription Monitoring Programs for physicians and pharmacists

Tell us what you think - how do you see this phenomenon as affecting workers?  Is it just those with chronic pain who are susceptible to opioid addiction?  Are the recommendations listed above realistic and/or sufficient for fixing the problem?

Educational Effort: How Employers Can Benefit

Why are some individuals more capable than others?  One reason, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, is that the achievement gap between individuals begins early in life.

The Federal Reserve Bank?  What knowledge could they possibly have of this situation?

It turns out that this particular Reserve Bank has been conducting a longitudinal study of early childhood development.  The study tracked 123 low-income families since the 1960s.  Children were randomly selected either to be in a control group (no special schooling), or to attend a high-quality program with well-trained teachers and receive weekly home visits.

As we might guess, the outcomes are dramatic.  The study shows that the benefit-cost ratio is $16 for every $1 spent.  The bottom line is that when children are prepared for school, they are more likely to be productive in the workplace as adults.  So what should employers do?  The answers seems clear: 

1. Hire employees who have had pre-kindergarten schooling, and
2. Support by advocacy (i.e., by voting and participating in the local education conversation) the implementation of early childhood programs.

But, say the employers, they don’t have the time for these non-business ideas.  But, say the researcher, they cannot afford not to be involved.  The benefits are $16 to $1 to hire and support the preparation of the best.  What do you think?  Is it realistic for employers to investigate a prospective employee’s pre-schooling?  If not, is it worth the effort for employers to advocate for quality early education programs today to provide future employers with a capable, high-achieving applicant pool?