US Supreme Court Decision Today Re: Disability

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-763

The US Supreme Court today reversed a lower court ruling regarding a persons eligibility for disability benefits if that person was previous employed and could still perform that job - IF IT STILL EXISTED.

This case involves a woman who worked as an elevator operator. She has what she believes, and apparently others do as well, physical disabilities that prevent her from working at jobs available today. See, her job disappeared when they put new elevators in the building.

The decision today says she is not considered disabled because she could still at least work at a job that no longer exists. It has nothing to do with the availability of similar jobs available in the national economy. She is not disabled because she could still probably do an obsolete job.

Any thoughts on this?

another link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3379178,00.html

(Once again, I searched and hope this is not a dupe)

the SS DI requirement of being unable to perform any job in the US economy.

She conceeds that she can perform the job.

She conceeds that the jobs do exist in the economy - just not that many.

That loses on its face - SSDI just is not unemployment ins.

But should the situation depress her into a clinical depression that can not be cured with drugs and which prevents work, she has a shot.

basically, if she had not applied for and accepted this elevator job, she would probably be eligible for disability benefits.

Isn't that somehow twisted?

I dare anyone to go out and search for and find and become employed as an elevator operator. An elevator operator with heart and back ailments.

On the face of it..........

She wasn't applying for unemployment insurance. She was stating that she was unable to perform any current jobs in the national economy other than probably sitting in a chair in an elevator pushing numbered buttons.

This case would not have gone to the US SC if it had no merit. This is not some lazy slob trying to get free money.

so what does this lady do now? Sure apply for jobs but until then what? Eat dog food? Hold out her hat?

Social Security is only what, 45 percent of her pay. Would it kill our economy to help this poor woman? NO, it wouldn't.

The Court was unanimous in stating that SSI clearly establishes a two part test:

1. An individual's physical or mental impairment must render him "unable to do his previous work."
2. The impairment must also preclude him from engaging in any other kind of substantial gainful work.

I think the decision is correct, if unfortunate. My suggestion would be eliminate the first part of the test, which the court can't do or add "unless previous work no longer exists in substantial numbers."

Though how often do entire types of work completely disappear?

The appeals court agreed that if the previous work doesn't exist in substantial numbers in the national economy, then it shouldn't apply.

This whole thing reminds me of when Reagan told the unemployed to vote with their feet. Sure, you can walk 2000 miles for a minimum wage job, but is that feasible.