424 U.S. 319 (1976)
-Worker notified by mail that state planning to terminate disability benefits. Worker contended that his failure to have a pre-termination hearing violated his DP rights.
-Court said that the “fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’”. This case deals with what process was due.
-Three elements of balancing test:
-The court thought disability payments of lesser importance than welfare payments. The private interest that will be affected by the action—length of deprivation of benefits.
(3) The likelihood or not of additional procedure improving the decision against how burdensome to the government to provide that procedure.
-Does the government need to provide a post-termination hearing for disability benefits?
-Government only needs to provide post-termination hearing when social security benefits are terminated.
-Court says deprivation in this case would likely be less substantial than in Goldberg, and thus it is sufficient to follow the principle “that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action.” Held that “All that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to ‘the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard,’ to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case.