Abstract
The Eighth Circuit directly addressed this issue in Passmore v. Astrue and joined the group of circuits that follow the "qualified right" approach, which maintains that a social security claimant does not have an absolute right to cross-examine reporting physicians. In doing so, however, the Eighth Circuit relied on long-held assumptions, and its judgment may warrant re-evaluation to ensure that the rights of social security claimants are best protected. The circuit split on this issue is reflective of competing values that are practically inevitable in light of the tension between efficiency and justice, and both approaches will be evaluated in terms of judicial reasoning and policy. The rise of the administrative state presents daunting challenges in terms of cost and administration, but this should not deter the courts from stepping in to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected. The growth, overwhelming complexity, and extensive reach of the administrative state should not deter scrutiny but provide all the more reason to fiercely scrutinize its procedures in light of the guarantees of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
Recommended Citation
Bradley S. Dixon,
There but for the Grace of God Go I: The Right of Cross-Examination in Social Security Disability Hearings,
74 Mo. L. Rev.
(2009)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol74/iss3/19