Dan R. Hyatt

Office of Disability Adjudication and Review

17th Floor ODS Tower

601 SW Second Avenue

Portland OR 97204-9701

 

To Dan R. Hyatt :

 

 

During the hearing of January 8, 2008 you stated to me, “You‘re a moron.” (this occurred after the recorder was off but witnessed by two contract employees of Social Security).

 

I replied that I was “not a moron.” That “a moron could not have graduated from law school in less than two years and have graduated in the top 25% of his class, as I had and therefore you are wrong.”

 

You said in effect that I was a liar.

 

According to Wikipedia, a “Moron” is a person with a mental age between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. “It was also applied to people with an IQ of 51-70.”

I enclosed by law school transcripts from American Bar Association accredited law school Southwestern University in Los Angeles. You will see that I entered law school on 7.5.1982 and my degree of juris doctor was earned on 6.84...less than two years. Furthermore, the last two months were working as a lawyer intern at a law office so therefore I obtained my law degree from an ABA approved school in about 22 months.

Furthermore, I placed seventh in my class of law students, putting me in the top 25% (I was in the top 5% during my first year).

Also, when I took the California Bar Exam, only about one third of people who sat for the exam passed it; it was known as the hardest bar exam that the California Bar Association ever wrote.

As I said to you at the hearing, I spend an hour a day on continuing education. I have every book on Social Security published by James Publishing (from my count, 9 books) and they fill a bookshelf. I have the outdated DOT used by all VE’s who appear at Portland ODAR and I also have the 2007 update to the DOT (that no VE has yet to refer to in a hearing) I have attended by way of tape, the Valderbilt Law Schools seminar of Presenting Pain in Social Security Disability. I have attended the 2004 Oregon State Bar Seminar held by attorney Wilborn and Graf with speakers ALJ Tielens and Terrill.

 

You also said that when I was a “legal assistant” (my official job title) at the Social Security Office of Hearings and Appeals that I was a mere “photo copier.“ I received an award for my work and was nominated for another award for my work when I decided to return to private law practice and it shows that I had many duties. I recall specifically meeting with you about adding exhibits to the files in your office, drafting notices on your behalf, drafting correspondence on your behalf. You might have given the work to my supervisor, who then gave the work to me, but I was clearly a legal assistant and that assistance was to you and all 9 ALJs. I enclose a list of my duties at OHA (now ODAR) and can not locate the word “copier” in it.

I also enclose the text of the award nomination, “routinely displays leadership” “shows a unique quality of dedication as a Federal Servant to the customers of Social Security” His people skills and professionalism are superior and he is able to handle both complex and sensitive tasks in a courteous manner.” “He is always ready and willing to go the extra effort in doing a job well done. I trust him completely in processing his work assignments.”

I see the conflict with you my view of what a ALJ does in this process and what an advocate does in this process. It is similar but not identical. I review the evidence for proof that my client is disabled. I anticipate discrepancies and learn the reason of them so that I may present that theory to the ALJ. I must say that my attorney work product and preparation for Social Security clients is working out spectacularly as I continue to hit home run after home run. Again, it might not be the way you would advocate but it is my method and it is highly successfully in obtaining my clients their disability benefits.

For you to demand that I go through the record and summarize it for you, when you have done the same thing yourself as an ALJ could be viewed as unwarranted government interference with my representation of my clients and mere harassment. I prepare for the hearing in my own way and it is extremely effective as my record for Fully Favorables demonstrates.

You have attempted to tell me in front of my clients, repeatedly, that I am unprepared and sometimes you have even attempted to tell them that “you deserve a better lawyer.” I note that you have done the same thing with other attorneys in front of their clients. This can be seen only as your attempt to interfere with the attorney client relationship, as a Social Security Administration employee urging the claimant to give up their right to representation. As such, as I have warned you, it is a breach of your ethical duty. (And postpone the hearing repeatedly when you “discover” flaws in my attempts to please you.”)

I have warned my clients in advance that you have said such things to me and other attorneys in the past and it is your attempts to intimidate. In the last 3 or 4 attempts by yourself to have my client fire me, I have given them the option and ALL of them state that they want me to continue as their attorney because they see how hard I am working on their behalf and how effective I am as an attorney at law.

 

On the slightest pretext, you have repeatedly postponed a hearing once began after hours of preparation with my client. While this is merely annoying to me, it is devastating to the Social Security claimant and their family. After becoming disabled two years earlier they are destitute and might soon have to live on the street. You do this, again, in the government’s quest to get my client to fire her attorney and not be represented by the attorney of the claimant’s choice or with no attorney. As I have told you before, this is a government attorney unethically urging a citizen to give up a fundamental right and is thus a clear breach of your ethical duties.

I have read the trial briefs and appeal briefs when attorney Lowry filed suit against you. From the facts of that case, you use the same techniques to intimidate counsel there as you do with me while telling me repeatedly, “what are you going to do about it?” It appears (after the 9th Circuit decision in the Lowry v. et al. case) that as Social Security has no mechanism in place at the moment to terminate or discipline a rogue ALJ that there is currently no risk of discipline or termination and therefore that you to act in the manner described herein and in the Lowry v. et al. lawsuit. I would certainly hope that you are not using the lives and desperation of these claimants to entertain yourself. But again, I urge you to look to the plight of these desperate claimants and permit these cases to go forward.

 

If you have something to say to me then meet me before the hearing in the presence of the court reporter. This would be evidence that you are not trying to urge the claimant to give up her fundamental right to counsel. Meeting before the hearing, with the court reporter present, appears to be standard procedure with other judges who disagree with something counsel has done. For you to use my client is an audience to say falsely that I am unprepared and “the worst lawyer I‘ve ever seen“, is a transparent attempt for the government to take away the right of the client for representation.

 

I look forward to a long term working relationship with you. I expect that I shall continue to represent clients before ODAR in Portland until my age of 66 in 8 years and as I went from zero clients to 300 clients in two years, I expect that by the end of this year I will have 500 clients. I shall therefore be in your courtroom probably 2 to 5 times a month.

I note that our backgrounds have many similarities and hope that you will come to respect me as I respect you. Again, I would be glad to meet with you over a pizza, coffee or at your office so that we can work together to speed up this process.

As you called me a moron and idiot in front of VE Hanoch Livneh PhD, I have sent him a copy of this so that he will learn my true background.

 

Respectfully,

Daniel A. Bernath

Daniel A. Bernath

Attorney at Law

 

 

 

Cc: Congressman Wu

Congressman Blumenauer

Senator Wyden

Senator Smith

PhD Hanoch Livneh

 

# I am a disabled US Navy service connected veteran rated at 90%. I must use a cane to ambulate because I tend to fall over. I also can’t read my handwriting very well and move much more slowly than before my impairment became severe. Also, when the recorder was off, you told me to get out of the courtroom and I endeavored to comply with your wishes. As you know, I have a bookcase on wheels, a separate brief case for client’s files and all the contents were spread upon the counsel desk. I was putting all these items away and placing the brief case on top of the book case with wheels when you again ordered me to leave or “I’ll call in Tim to throw you out.” Tim is the 300 pound plus contract guard in the ODAR office. SSA has a duty to comply with ADA and permit me time to egress from a hearing at my best speed and not have me physically “thrown out.”

 

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: