Not sure what you think those "clerks" are doing to prevent people from receiving benefits except what the law requires. Now, perhaps you believe the law is too stringent and that decisions should be based on only a treating doctor's opinion that someone is "disabled", and not on a legal definition that attempts to provide parity and equal treatment, albeit falling short. Then there would be even more variance in who is found disabled and who is not, and no doubt there would be unscrupulous doctors who would sign any document, for a price.

I have no doubt that there are many many ways to simplify the disability process and make it easy for anyone to get approved. But there does have to be some fiscal responsibility as well; this is not a bottomless pit of money. And lots of people who apply for disability benefits are just not that sick or injured, but they get the same evaluation that the seriously ill and injured cases get because that is due process.

And it is really hard to compare conditions and decide that someone is disabled. Is a deaf person more or less disabled than a spinal cord injury victim; is a Down Syndrome adult more or less disabled than a person with cancer who has to undergo 6 months of treatment and then can go back to work? Having a standardized definition makes the process the same across the board. Of course there are local differences. Residents of Alaska have more snow plows and 4 wheel drive cars than residents of Florida who have many beach chairs and towels. There will always be the human (employee) factor in determining disability.