Individual Claims to Social Benefits, II

Since officers who conduct hearings in benefit procedures are given so much latitude and are so free from any leading-strings of a court process, it is of the essence not only that they possess a judicial attitude of mind but that they be keenly alive to the social implications of their work. In 1929, the New York Industrial Survey Commission wrote: “Referees are in every essential judicial officers; and they should be, so far as is humanly possible, above suspicion of improper practices, political or otherwise. They should be persons of mature judgment and be skilled in law—not alone the Compensation law—for they touch many and various points of law not comprehended within the language of the Compensation law. They should be trained in the value of evidence, and they should know the rules of evidence even though they are not obliged to apply them in compensation hearings.†It is safe to speculate that if the above had been written in 1941, it would have contained more emphasis on the social viewpoint needed by referees. They must realize that on them depends to a large extent the difficulties accompanying denial of benefits which not only may cause serious hardship to individuals but may even have repercussions of the utmost importance in the community at large. Thus referees conducting hearings are supposed to have a kind of partisanship toward the law, in that they must constantly remember that its aim is to secure payments to all qualified claimants, not merely to decide the merits of a dispute between two opposing parties. Nevertheless, an attitude which is supposed to resolve doubts in favor of a claimant as required by the compensation law does not negate a judicial frame of mind in deciding the merits of a disputed claim.