Rigors of the Poor House

Tonight, having finally addressed the basics of hyperlink, DACR's nascent Blog cites an excellent tenet in SSA adjudication, often ignored or overlooked. This comes from one of our favorite websites involving SSA Disability Representation, David Traver's Connect .

The site features an important but often overlooked tenet, one advocates as well as adjudicators would do well keeping in mind...

The Social Security Act has a moral purpose and should be liberally interpreted in favor of claimants. Conklin v. Celebrezze, 319 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1963). ". . . [T]he regulations should be liberally applied in favor of beneficiaries." Dugan v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 1384, 1389 (7th Cir. 1992) quoting Wyatt v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2003). "That [the Social Security Act] should be liberally construed in favor of those seeking its benefits can not be doubted." Carroll v. Social Sec. Bd., 128 F.2d 876 (7th Cir. 1942) citing Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640-645, 57 S.Ct. 904 (1937), et seq. Where the question is a close one, the doubt should be liberally construed in favor of the social security claimant. All doubts of interpretation are to be resolved in favor of coverage. “The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near.” Helvering, at 641.