Alcoholism is not a disease for Social Security

I love Congress and titles it give to laws it sometimes generates.  Some law are given title that on reading it, everyone would say what a good idea, sounds like a good law etc.  An example is the "Senior Citizens Right to Work Act".  Who could be against such a law?

When it was signed into law in 1996, it amended the Social Security Act.  It amended the Act, not by allowing retired or disabled seniors to work more and not suffer a reduction in benefits, no this amendment eliminated drug addiction and/or alcoholism as a basis for finding someone disabled, no matter how disabled that person may be.  Although challenged, the law has been found constitutional by several appellate courts, so it is a law that must be dealt with when a claimant has a substance problem and is applying for disability benefits from the social security administration.

In other venues, alcoholism is under stood to be a disease.  "The modern disease theory of alcoholism states that problem drinking is sometimes caused by a disease of the brain, characterized by altered brain structure and function. The American Medical Association (AMA) had declared that alcoholism was an illness in 1956. In 1991, The AMA further endorsed the dual classification of alcoholism by the International Classification of Diseases under both psychiatric and medical sections."  Wikipedia

The "Senior Citizens Right to Work Act removes from coverage of the act all claims where the impairment results from alcoholism when alcoholism is material to a finding of disability.

Does that mean that all people who are impaired because of alcoholism not file for benefits from social security?  Absolutely not, alcoholism may be a hurdle, but it is not always a complete roadblock.

A claimant with this issue must establish disability on basis of some other condition without consideration given to the effect of the alcoholism.

In  normal case, it is tried as if there was not alcohol in issue.  If there is a possibility that the claimant may be disabled, then the issue becomes one of severance, i.e. would the claimant still be disabled if the effect of the alcohol use was not considered.

The claimant has fought with alcoholism for years.  He has been in and out of treatment.  All treatment, consultations with abuse counselors have failed.  Claimant may sincerely want to be free of alcohol use, but unfortunately for him it is a disease and the disease is winning.  He can't quit and he can't work.

In 15 to 20% of these cases involving chronic alcoholics, the drinking has caused damage to the body.  It is common to have a claimant who is an alcoholic who suffers from hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis of the liver .  That individual, even if he stopped drinking still has a disability.  Put another way, if the claimant would still be found disabled if he stopped using alcohol, he is entitled to benefits.  A claimant suffering with hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis either or both can be a basis for an award, because even though alcohol may have had something to do with the impairments, each not stands on their own, without consideration to the present use of alcohol.

These are difficult cases.  My heart goes out to the person who cannot control his drinking and cannot function in society because of it.  Some obtain benefits, and hopefully, with the help of a representative payee, at least get off the street.