1. In the case Mathews v. Eldridge (424 U.S. 319 [1976]), Justice Powell stated that the issue involved was whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that there be an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing before the termination of Social Security benefits. Powell assumes that the sole function of due process procedural requirements is to promote accurate decision making, and much of his discussion is taken up with ascertaining and explaining the different mechanisms that are in place to assure accurate decision making short of an evidentiary hearing, He begins by stating the need to balance the governmental and private interests affected by administrative decisions, and the underlying assumption is that accurate decision making serves both sets of interests. Powell finds that in cases such as the one at hand, the principals for benefits termination are clearly set forth and can be boiled down to the fact that the worker is no longer disabled or has returned to work. The benefits in this case were terminated based on a determination that the recipient was no longer disabled. This can be considered an issue of fact, and the means of arriving at that fact are therefore at issue. Powell sees the implementation of due process procedural requirements as the way to satisfy the finding of fact and to balance the interests of both governmental and private interests. He does not appear to have been compelled by Roth, which indicated that a prior hearing must be provided before an employee is discharged from a tenured government job.
2. The type of "interest balancing" indicated by the formula is difficult to quantify in an objective fashion, and so it becomes an exercise in subjective analysis of what is meant by an "increased burden" on the government and whether that increased burden is greater or lesser than the accuracy that affects the interests of the claimant. While the formula may be intellectually cohere...