Judge Say sent back to school by Social Security Appeals Council

• Judge Say doesn't understand the basic right of Notice and Opportunity to be Heard.  (Please do this assignment over again Judge Say)
  The Appeals council notes that claimant did not appear at the time and place set for the hearing.  The claimant's representative (appeared and was told by the SSA contract security officer that no such hearing was set for that date) and thereafter Daniel A. Bernath told SSA that he had not received official 20 days written Notice of hearing as required by law.  Attorney Daniel A. Bernath appeared at the time and place set for the hearing but was not allowed to present claimant's case, because the claimant had not been scheduled for the hearing, per the hearing staff.  Realizing that as hearing had been scheduled called attorney Daniel Bernath on his cell phone after he departed from the hearing office to explain the mistake but the rep did not return because of traffic and distance to the hearing office 
  (Are you following this?  Says the Appeals Council, the Social Security ODAR's employees, under the direction of Chief Judge Say SCREWED UP and then later on Judge Say Screwed up.) 
  
  "The Appeals Council notes that the Portland SSA ODAR, under the direction of Chief Judge Say gave Daniel A. Bernath incorrect and incomplete information about the claimant's scheduled hearing."
  
  Attorney for claimant, Daniel A. Bernath, Esq. alleges that claimant was denied a hearing.  Claimant wished to appear at a hearing.  Claimant did not waive his right to a hearing.  (Claimant did not) waive his right to a hearing or requested Judge Say decide the case on the basis of the evidence already in the record. 
  
  THEREFORE because
   
• the hearing was held without the the claimant's knowledge who had not asked Judge Say to decide on the basis of the evidence and
• attorney Bernath was given incorrect information when he arrived at the hearing,
   AN ERROR OF LAW BY JUDGE SAY HAS BEEN COMMITTED!
  
  THEREFORE, Judge Say will offer the claimant an opportunity for hearing, take any further action needed to complete the record and issue a new decision.  (said another way; Judge Say, DO THIS ASSIGNMENT OVER AGAIN AND DO IT RIGHT THIS TIME)
  
  Signed  Administrative Appeals Judge J
          Administrative Appeals Judge H
   

• Richard A. Say ruled that a woman who has 6 seizures a week is able to work.  The Appeals Council said...Do this over again Judge Say but do it correctly this time...

From Appeals Council to Judge Richard A.Say-do this assignment over again correctly;
(The Appeals Council vacates the hearing decision of (AL Judge Say) and remands the case to an ALJ for resolution of the following {errors of Judge Say} issues:

•  The record (which Say is responsible for developing) is unclear and contains insufficient evidence regarding the nature and severity of claimant's allegations of memory and stress interfering with her ability to work.  Consultative examiner AP MD indicated that neuropsychological testing would be needed to pursue her allegation of memory problems.  A mental status exam by TE MD indicated that claimant had poor encodement and repetition and recall.  Claimant reported ongoing seizure problems due to stress

Therefore, (Judge Say) further evidence is warranted to obtain neuropsychological testing.

•  In addition, your hearing decision indicates that the opinions of Dr M and PA TB are given little weight because there were no clinical records to support these opinions. 
   

Therefore, (Judge Say) further development (by you) to obtain the treatment records of Dr M and PA TB is warranted in accordance with 20 CFR 404.1512.(e)(1), 416.912.(e)(1)

• Upon remand, Judge Say you will:

1. obtain additional evidence concerning claimant's seizure disorder and alleged memory impairment in order to complete the administrative record in accordance with the regulatory standards regarding consultative examinations and existing medical evidence (20 CFR 404.1512-1513 and 416.912-913)  Judge Say, the additional evidence should include a consultative psychological examination with a neuropsychological testing and medical source statements about what the claimant can still do despite the impairment.
2. further testing, obtain evidence from a medical expert to clarify the nature and severity of claimant's impairment (20 CFR 404.1527(f) and 416.927(f) and Social Security Ruling 96-6p)
3. Give further consideration to the claimant's maximum residual function capacity and provide appropriate rationale with specific reference to evidence of record in support of the assessed limitations (20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945 and Social Security Ruling 96-8p)
   
   (translation;  Judge Say, you did a half assed job.
    Do it over the right way now.  

Judge Say keeps making the same mistakes over and over again.  2nd time Dan Bernath has overturned judge Say's ruling;

"Judge Say found that claimant retained the capacity to perform a limited range of light work, reduced by postural, manipulative, and nonexertional limitations including the need to avoid working with numbers.  Judge Say further found that claimant could perform her past relevant work as a cashier.  In an audit of the hearing recording the claimant is heard to testify that she cannot 'figure out change at a grocery store.'  At the hearing the vocational expert testified that in a convenience store, although the cash register would do the calculations, usually the cashier still need to count the change.  Upon questioning by attorney Daniel A. Bernath, the vocation expert further testified that a person unable to count money would be precluded from a job of cashier.  the finding by Judge Say that claimant could work as a cashier IS INCONSISTENT with the finding that the claimant was to avoid working with numbers."

In treatment notes Lawrence Neveill MD assessed the claimant with mild neurocognitive impairment and that claimant 'does write things down more in order not to forget.'  Further consideration by Judge Say of the severity and effects of claimant's mental impairments is warranted by Judge Say.

In compliance with the above, Judge Say will offer the claimant an opportunity for (another) hearing, take any further action needed to complete the record and issue a new decision.