SOCIAL SECURITY ORDERS JUDGES TO FOLLOW POLICY, NOT COURT RULINGS.

Byline: Robert Pear The New York Times

In a move that could delay or deny benefits for tens of thousands of people, the Social Security Administration has told its judges that they should, in most cases, disregard federal court precedents if those rulings conflict with agency policies.

The order, issued as the agency faces a huge backlog of disputed claims, has drawn protests from federal courts, members of Congress and agency employees.

Moreover, it is being compared to positions taken in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration, which said it was bound only by Supreme Court decisions and did not have to ``acquiesce'' in decisions of lower courts that contradicted its reading of the Social Security law. Democrats denounced the Reagan administration's practice as lawless, and the administration took a more moderate position after Congress made clear that it disapproved of the practice. This week, the House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing to examine the practice.

The Social Security agency recently told its administrative law judges, who rule on claims for benefits, that they might face remedial training and ``disciplinary action'' if they did not follow the agency's policies or if their productivity was considered too low.

``An administrative law judge is bound to follow agency policy even if, in the administrative law judge's opinion, the policy is contrary to law,'' the agency said in a confidential memorandum to its judges. A copy of the memorandum was obtained from a Social Security employee who disagrees with its conclusions.

In practice, the directive means that some people who file claims will be less likely to obtain benefits because the agency's policies are often stricter than the court decisions.

The disputes often involve evaluating pain. A person, for example, complains of excruciating pain, but doctors cannot fully explain its cause with X-rays or other ``objective medical evidence.'' In thousands of cases, Social Security officials have given such complaints less weight than courts have said they should in deciding whether to award or continue benefits. At issue are benefits under the Social Security Disability Insurance Program and Supplemental Security Income, which is for the needy elderly, disabled and blind.

Likewise, a claimant's doctor might find disability in a 58-year-old man who has had a heart attack and has chronic respiratory problems. Government doctors might say the man could still work. But courts often conclude that the treating doctor's opinion is entitled to much more weight than the Social Security Administration gave it.

Social Security officials said they could not operate a uniform nationwide program if they had to follow the potentially conflicting decisions of various courts around the country.

``Administrative law judges can decide facts, but not the law,'' said a spokesman for the agency, Philip Gambino. ``They have to apply the law as written in our regulations and policies.''

But Ronald Bernoski, acting president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, which represents Social Security judges, said he and his colleagues in the organization had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and should not be required to disregard court decisions.

In a recent policy statement, the Social Security Administration reserved the right to accept or reject decisions from federal appeals courts as precedents in other cases that raise the same legal issues in the same judicial circuit.

When the agency disagrees with a court's interpretation of the law, the new statement says, ``Social Security Administration decision makers will continue to be bound by SSA's nationwide policy rather than the court's holding,'' unless the Social Security commissioner voluntarily chooses to accept the court ruling as a precedent.

Bernoski, who presides over hearings in Milwaukee, said the agency's action threatened the independence of the 1,042 Social Security judges across the country.

The Clinton administration says it will apply the final decision of a federal appeals court to a plaintiff in the specific case decided by the court. But the administration says administrative law judges should not follow the decision as a precedent in other cases, unless the Social Security commissioner has accepted it by issuing a formal notice of ``acquiescence.''

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis, recently admonished the Clinton administration on that issue.