Administrative Law Judge Dan R. Hyatt R. Hyatt
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review

17th Floor ODS Tower

601 SW Second Avenue

Portland OR 97204-9701

Re:

Dear ALJ :

This memo is submitted by claimant by and through claimant’s counsel. You have requested where in the medical records of claimant, his claim meets the requirements of Step Two. Decisions by ALJ’s summarize it as follows:

I must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is “severe” or a combination of impairments that I “severe” 20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” ‘with the meaning of the regulations if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities.

An impairment or combination of impairment is “not severe” when medical and other evidence establish only a slight abnormality or combination of slight abnormalities that would have more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. (20 CFR 404.1521 and 416.921; Social Security Rulings (SSR) 85-28, 96-3p, and 96-4p. If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, (the claimant) is not disabled.

Objection Number One:

I am attorney at law, admitted to practice before the California Supreme Court and all Courts of the State of California. I was admitted December 4, 1984. (California Supreme Court certificate attached).

WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE - “Any writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories shall not be discoverable under any circumstances." Code Civ. Proc., ‹ 2018, subd.(c).

"The work product of an attorney is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery (in this case, the United States Social Security Administration) in preparing that party's claim or defense or will result in an injustice."

I also am admitted to the 9th United States Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court bar. Federal authority is in accord:

The Supreme Court first recognized this privilege more than 30 years ago in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), holding that an attorney must "work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel" and be free to "assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference." This privilege was later incorporated into Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Here, I have read the medical records of claimant and I have thus formed an impression, conclusion, opinion or legal research on whether claimant meets “Step Two” of the Social Security analysis. You are asking that I thereafter provide you with a memorandum outlining how claimant meets Step Two.

I have submitted all medical records regarding this claimant to you by way of your office staff at ODAR therefore there is no unfair prejudice to the Social Security Administration to learn my opinion regarding the evidence the government already has. You have stated that you are using this request so that I will be prepared for a hearing. I am a lawyer and have been since 1984 (I also have been found to be competent to practice law by the Oregon Bar Association as I passed their three day exam). As such, there is no finding by the US District Court that not giving SSA my impression, conclusion, opinion or legal research that the Commissioner of Social Security who decides Step Two and others would work an unfair prejudice to the Social Security Administration, the administrative law judge or the Commissioner of Social Security. Furthermore there is no compelling need to violate claimant’s privilege to attorney work-product.

Objection Number Two

A Social Security Administrative Law Judge does not have statutory, constitutional authority or inherent power to regulate the practice of law or to give such an order. The Social Security Act, regulations, POMs, HALLEX, acquiescence decisions, orders from the Appeals Council to Administrative Law Judges, etc., is several thousands of pages and has been accumulating over the decades. There is no such authority granted to an Administrative Law Judge to make such an order and such an order is only enforced by the often administered threat of postponing a hearing for up to 5 months and five times each postponement.

Indeed, Social Security regulations and the case law directs that ALJs give claimants and their representatives “broad latitude” in presenting their case. HALLEX I 2-6-60 Therefore the spirit of Social Security Disability adjudication surely does not require nor permit that this additional step which is not approved by the Social Security Commissioner. It therefore is not constitutional, nor proper under any law, regulation or rule.

Making a vague order with no standards, that is not in writing and thus not reviewable by a higher court with a life or death penalty (e.g., 16,000 claimants have died while waiting for a hearing-postponing their hearing increases the chances that SSA will pay no benefits if a SSI claimant dies or a SSDI claimant dies without heirs or a substituted party) is in direct violation of the black letter order to ALJs to grant “wide latitude”.

A Social Security Administrative Law Judge does not have supervisory authority over a representative other than to regulate the hearing. A US District Court judge, a US Constitution Article III judge, in contrast, by regulation and law has supervisory authority over attorneys who appear in his court.

As there are regulations which clearly state what an ALJ can do and nothing in the rules and regulations that permit them to make local rules for their hearing room only, this authority to draft a memo regarding the representatives impressions of the case and its evidence is ultra vires on the part of the ALJ Dan R. Hyatt

Objection Number Three

This order violates the United States Reduction in Paperwork Act. Judge has instructed attorney Daniel Bernath that he should “spend hours” reading the medical records and thereafter write a memorandum, divulging what he has read in the medical records of a claimant and submit this memorandum to Judge or the hearing would be postponed as claimant is “not prepared.” As such, this Order also violates

44 USC § 3507 which states;

Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation

(a) An agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless in advance of the adoption or revision of the collection of information—

(1) the agency has—

(A) conducted the review established under section 3506 (c)(1);

(B) evaluated the public comments received under section 3506 (c)(2);

(C) submitted to the Director the certification required under section 3506 (c)(3), the proposed collection of information, copies of pertinent statutory authority, regulations, and other related materials as the Director may specify; and

(D) published a notice in the Federal Register—

(i) stating that the agency has made such submission; and

(ii) setting forth—

(I) a title for the collection of information;

(II) a summary of the collection of information;

(III) a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;

(IV) a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;

(V) an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and

(VI) notice that comments may be submitted to the agency and Director;

(2) the Director has approved the proposed collection of information or approval has been inferred, under the provisions of this section; and

(3) the agency has obtained from the Director a control number to be displayed upon the collection of information.

As the Social Security Administration has completely ignored the so called “Reduction in Paperwork Act”, the order by Judge should be overturned.

For the Agency to make such a sweeping Rule, requiring attorneys and claimants to additional "hours and hours" into a Social Security Disability claim requires several steps; steps that Dan R. Hyatt R. Hyatt is ignored.  First, for example, the Agency must propose Rule making, must permit public comment.  Must provide Notice and must provide time to react to the Agency's proposed rule.  Dan R. Hyatt R. Hyatt has again simply ignored his oath to support and defend the laws of the United States and has become a "law" onto himself to the detriment of anyone inflicted with him in their journey to obtain the Social Security benefits they deserve (and their representatives)

Without waiving any privilege and without waiving any objection but merely to permit this matter to go forward after the two to three year wait from application, I would like to direct the Social Security Administration ALJ’s attention to medical records in the file already before the Agency;

 

I am always pleased to cooperate with the Social Security Administration but I cannot violate my client’s right to the attorney work-product privilege without a US District judge’s order.

Respectfully,

 

Daniel A. Bernath

Daniel A. Bernath

Attorney at Law

PS, Dan R. Hyatt asked, "Did your attorney tell you...."  the attorney objected and ALJ demanded that the claimant reveal the confidential attorney-client communication.

 

 

 

Dan R.Hyatt
is a member of the Oregon Bar. 
He must be a member of the bar to be eligible to be an administrative law judge. 
He currently is employed by the Social Security Administration as an administrative law judge out of the Portland Oregon ODAR.

Official Documents--Dan Hyatt takes "government property, has a problem with interracial couples", exposes secret social security numbers to strangers of claimants, calls an attorney "an asshole", calls another attorney "a moron", Dan Hyatt is a "bald faced liar", misrepresents that he is a US District Court judge, uses intimidation, anger and verbal abuse against helpless Social Security disabled claimants, threatens disabled US veteran with assault, say privileged documents.


The following are complaints to the Oregon State Bar
or other privileged documents: