Case Summary
Eldridge was given social security disability benefits in 1968 as a result of injuries associated to work. Four years after being awarded the benefits, a state agency evaluated the information provided by the physicians of the beneficiary and responses given by Eldridge to a questionnaire (Mathews v. Eldridge, n.d) . After the review, the agency determined that the disability related benefits offered to Eldridge were to be terminated. The beneficiary was given the chance to request for a reconsideration of the agency’s decision (Mathews v. Eldridge, n.d) . Instead, Eldridge opted to sue the agency in a federal court where he questioned the validity of the constitutional steps followed in social security disability benefits awarding.
According to him, the due process needs a hearing before termination such as that of Goldberg v. Kelly in 1970 which needed a pre-termination hearing. However, Matthews who was the United States secretary of health at the time did not agree with Eldridge. Matthews stipulated that the needed administrative procedures and regulations were followed (Mathews v. Eldridge, n.d) . He also argued that the decision made was determined founded on the fact that decisions on disability benefits depend on the medical evidence presented while those related to welfare benefits depend on financial requirements.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Prosecutor View
This lawsuit presented by Eldridge was appropriate despite the fact that it did not make use of all the existing administrative ways before presenting a lawsuit. A hearing prior termination of the benefits just like the one needed for welfare beneficiaries would be appropriate for this case. The idea that stopping disability benefits is just but a limited denial is a speculation. The beneficiary could experience extreme financial difficulties because of the agency’s decision to terminate the disability benefits (Mathews v. Eldridge, n.d) .
The claim by the court that terminating the disability benefits would not affect a person in the same way as in terminating welfare benefits is speculative. Considering Eldridge’s situation, terminating the benefits could have resulted into financial hardships and other issues such as inability to meet basic needs. Therefore, disability benefits can be claimed just like a right to property that deserves protection from the constitution (Mathews v. Eldridge, n.d) . In addition, an employee who is placed in a position of being refused disability benefits can look for other ways of public help in solving the issue.
Defense View
Due process is a concept that is flexible and the required procedures depend on each specific situation. In order to establish the sufficiency of a procedure based on the constitution, the court must consider private interests of the problem, risk associated to an erroneous denial of the interest and the state’s interest (Mathews v. Eldridge, n.d) . In Eldridge’s case, losing disability benefits is not a big burden as compared to losing social welfare benefits.
The respondent had not been deprived of the due process of procedures when he was denied an evidentiary hearing before terminating his disability benefits. The due process had been fulfilled because the respondent was not in a desperate and serious situation like that of a welfare beneficiary. In addition, the due process clause found in the Fifth Amendment does not demand for a hearing presenting evidence before terminating benefits (Mathews v. Eldridge, n.d) .
Therefore, Goldberg is not determining in this case. In addition, decisions on disability benefits usually depend on routine and medical examinations that are not biased and therefore an evidence hearing before termination is of little value compared to a welfare benefits situation. In addition, there exists different procedural protections such as medical reports, questionnaires and accessibility of information used by the government agency to ensure that the due process was implemented (Mathews v. Eldridge, n.d) . Having a hearing for each termination situation can result to too much administrative burden on the state too.
Reference
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/319/
