Daniel A. Bernath

Attorney at Law 

Member US Supreme Court~California Supreme Court Bars

                                   15532 SW Pacific Hwy         C1B   #101                             

                                                   Tigard OR 97224

                          (503) 639 6666  ussyorktown@comcast.net

                                          Thursday, December 18, 2008

                      Dedicated to helping the disabled

To ALJ Haack

 I object to your treatment of my client at her hearing on December 16, 2008.  Firstly, you were late for work and we all had to wait for you.  (You were also late when you held a hearing for another client in Astoria and we all had to wait for you.)  I think that you therefore lack a sense of simple courtesy to these simply people who had had to wait for 3 years of disability and poverty before they get a hearing date from your Agency.
 Thereafter, you stated that old evidence, which you could have asked for and which was redundant was demanded from you.  (if you see something is not in the file that you would like to see you merely need to send me an email at the address above or telephone me.  I will stop whatever I am doing and will meet your request)  I supplied this old and redundant evidence to you and then you improperly began to quiz me about my theory of the case; you again went well beyond your limits authority to “conduct” the hearing.
 You then stated that your 1pm hearing would not take place and therefore we would continue the hearing to 1pm so that Dr. Rullman could read  the old evidence.  Dr. Rullman was sitting a few feet from me and hear you say that as clearly as I did.
 I told you that I had a medical condition that requires self-catheterization and that I did not bring the equipment to Portland I would have to drive to Tigard to catherterize and return.  You did not make any accommodation for my 90% veterans service connected disability and merely told me to be back at 1 p.m.   As I drove back to Tigard and my catheters you had some assistant telephone me and tell me that “Dr. Rullman can’t stay till 1pm and we’re going to reschedule sometime in  January.”  I told that assistant that my clients were somewhere waiting in Portland for 1pm and I could not tell them of the cancelled hearing.  Your assistant merely said, “I was only told to tell you this.”
   My clients thus waiting in your lobby until about 1pm when they were finally told that the hearing had been cancelled.  I find all of this unacceptable.  Again, you have the duty to “conduct” the hearing.  You have no authority to inquiry as to my theory of the case or to act like a school teach to a pupil if I do something differently as an attorney than you would but you can’t control this apparently.  In the future I will remind you and refuse to assist you when you attempt to intimidate me.
 My client and her husband came from Estacata.  I have been a judge and an arbitrator.  The way to handle that hearing was to permit me to ask my client questions and then you could ask questions and then she would be released to return to her home to suffer her pain.  You would already have witnessed her demeanor and if you had further questions you could have telephoned her.  We could have taken Dr. Rullman’s testimony at any time and not troubled these poor suffering people any further by having them WAIT for a new hearing date and then undergo the ordeal of coming downtown again and making their pained journey into your lobby and hearing room.
 Chief Administrative Law Castaudo requires that you provide 500 to 700 defensible cases per year.  As a citizen and a tax payer I agree with Chief Judge Castaudo.  I don’t see how your indefensible collateral punitive activities against myself, other attorneys and other claimants will permit you to reach that very reasonable goal.
 I have been informed and there is empirical evidence that you ‘cherry pick’ medical experts to have Dr. Rullman testify often because he rarely, if ever, finds a claimant disabled; only that they suffer from ‘moderate’ impairments.  I have addressed that earlier and note that even though the Notice of Hearing did not state his name that I was again ambushed by him again as I walked into the hearing room and saw him sitting there with his customary smirk.
 A third party would view this as an attempt to intimidate me because of my execution of my duties as an advocate.  As such recuse yourself from all further cases where I am the attorney. 
 
Respectfully,
 
Daniel A. Bernath