Judge Linda Haack adversarial hearing

It was inappropriate of you to call me a liar in front of Dr. Rullman, VE Ayerza, my client and the court reporter.

To review; your support staff sent me a “Notice” but did not give Notice that Dr. Rullman was to testify. Your support staff did not send me Notice that VE Ayarza would testify (although a generic Notice was included that “A” vocational expert would testify.)

Looking down from your desk you could see at counsel’s table there was a CD produced by the ODAR regarding my client and the hearing today. When you asked if I had seen the contents of the disk I of course said no because it was just presented to me upon the opening of the hearing and because I had faxed new documents to ODAR on a date after the date on the CD in front of me. I was honest in my answer and I have never lied to you.

You told me that it is the office procedure to send such CDs out in a timely manner. This, even though faced with several instances where the office staff has failed to do its duty in this regard. We used to joke that ODAR was like it was run by the Marx Brothers when I worked there and now that you have many new people with the very experienced clerks retiring I must say that it has fallen even further.

Your statement that I was lying is inappropriate and contrary to Social Security regulations that the hearings be informal and non-adversarial.

Hearings under the Social Security Act are non-adversarial: at least in theory, the government is not supposed to struggle mightily against the payment of benefits to the medically disabled. Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, 463 F.2d 38, 43 (2d Cir.1972), cited in, e.g., Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 941 (9th Cir.1982).

We have long required ALJs in Social Security cases "to scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts," regardless of whether the applicant is represented by counsel. Thompson, 665 F.2d at 941; Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1983).

Carl L. WIENKE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner, of the Social Security
Administration, Defendant-Appellee 110 F.3d 72 (1997 9th Cir.)

It added nothing to the agencies duty to of determination of disability of my client and was purely gratuitous on your part. I would hope that in the future you would refrain from such incorrect and inappropriate comments.