The Mathews vs. Eldridge Case: A Review of the Significance of Due Process.

In my opinion of the case Mathews vs. Eldridge was a valid claim in such that Mr. Eldridge wanted to be heard and felt as if his social security benefits had been unjustly terminated. In review of the case it is found that the Mathews vs. Eldridge case established a new precedence in deciding if due process is appropriated. The result of the case was that there should be a balance between “the interests affected and the administrative burden.” (www.invisipress.com).
Mr. George Eldridge had been a Social Security beneficiary from June of 1968 up until July of 1972. His original Social Security disability benefits were noted as being because of back strain and chronic anxiety, later Mr. Eldridge contended in a written reply to the administration, after being told his benefits were to become terminated, that he had spinal arthritis and that there was enough formal documentation to determine disability benefits presented at earlier dates. The agency proceeded to terminate his benefits and informed him that he had the right to file a rebuttal within six months to be heard for reconsideration. Mr Eldridge did not do so; though Mr. Eldridge had been offered a post-termination procedure in which an oral evidentiary hearing was to be included, he instead chose to bring suit and argued that Fifth Amendment Rights had been violated. The suit claimed that Mr. Eldridge’s benefits had been terminated in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment which states that: due process of law is “A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be