IS STARE DECISIS FUNCTIONALLY DEAD AT SSA HEARINGS LEVEL

When navigating a Social Security Disability (SSD) claim, you may come across two legal terms that sound complicated but can greatly affect your case: stare decisis and res judicata. In simple terms, stare decisis means “the decision stands” - courts follow legal precedents from previous cases when deciding new ones.

Res judicata, on the other hand, means “the matter has already been judged” once a case has been finally decided, it generally can’t be brought again.

It is important to understand the differences between these two legal concepts because SSDI and SSI claimants often face multiple applications, appeals and hearings over time. So, in theory, these principles should create fairness and consistency either by following established legal rules (stare decisis) or by honoring final decisions (res judicata). Unfortunately, in practice and in reality, Social Security decision-making almost always lacks that consistency. Similar cases can be decided differently and prior rulings are not always given the weight one might expect, especially in light of these legal principles for fairness.

What is the bottom line? While these doctrines sound like safeguards for predictability, claimants in the SSDI or SSI process should be prepared for a reality that outcomes can vary, even when the facts and issues appear nearly identical.

1. Administrative Res Judicata vs. Stare Decisis

The SSA acknowledges administrative res judicata, not classical stare decisis, as a binding mechanism when a prior ALJ or Appeals Council (AC) decision becomes final. Under Drummond and HALLEX policy, subsequent adjudicators must adopt prior RFC and evaluation findings unless there is new or material evidence or changed law.

2. Persistent Inconsistency in ALJ Decisions

A. Government Reports Undermine Consistency

A GAO report found huge disparities: between 1986–1996, Disability Determination Services (DDS) approved 30–43% of cases, while ALJs approved 60–75%, thereby implying decisions depended more on the adjudicator than the claimant condition.

More recently, appeals courts remanded about 45% of SSA cases, indicating continued inconsistency and inadequate quality control.

Senate hearings revealed striking problems in some ALJ offices: extremely fast caseload processing with serious cutting-and-pasting, cursory hearings lasting minutes, and failure to address key medical evidence.

5. Conclusion

Stare Decisis at the ALJ Level is Functionally Ineffective

References

TRAC and GAO reports on SSA inconsistencies and remands

Legal precedent including Drummond, Earley

ALJ approval‑rate disparities from practitioner reportsAdditional Reading

Drummond v. Commissioner: foundational res judicata binding principle for same claimant.

HALLEX I-5-4-62 (Drummond implementation rules) and I-2-4-40 (new law exceptions).

GAO and SSA internal reports: demonstrate long-standing inconsistency and remand graph.

Recommendation on consistency improvement.

Need help with your case?We offer free consultations. Visit www.socialsecuritydisabilitylaw.net

or call Christopher Pinger-Borgia or David B. Gottesmann, Esq. at (305) 562-7333.