|
| |
October 6
|
| |
1975
|
| |
February 24
|
| |
1976
|
| |
F David Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, v George H Eldridge
|
| |
424
|
| |
319
|
| |
96 SCt 893 47 LEd2d 18
|
| |
Grant of certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals, 492 F2d 1230
|
| |
Due process does not require a Goldberg-type hearing prior to the termination of social security disability benefits on the ground that the worker is no longer disabled
|
| |
1975-1981
|
| |
Powell
|
| |
Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist
|
| |
Brennan
|
| |
Marshall
|
| |
Stevens
|
| |
US Const Amend XIV
|
'', , is a case in which the
United States Supreme Court held that individuals have a statutorily granted property right in social security benefits, that the termination of those benefits implicates
Due Process , but that the termination of
Social Security benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing. The case is important in the development of
American Administrative Law .
In determining the amount of process due, the court should weigh three factors:
# The interests of the individual in retaining their property, and the injury threatened by the official action
#The costs and administrative burden of the additional process, and the interests of the government in efficient adjudication
#The risk of error through the procedures used and probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;
Social security benefits are a statutorily created property right implicating
Due Process .
Termination of social security benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing.
The SSA terminated Eldridge's social security benefits through its normal procedures. However, Eldridge was not provided with a hearing before the termination of his benefits in which he could argue for a continuation of the benefits. He sued, even though he had not exhausted his post-termination administrative remedies. The district court held that the termination was unconstitutional, and the court of appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no pre-termination hearing was required.
