From
Ludwig v. Astrue, an opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued today, quoting from a letter sent by a Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to an attorney who was representing Mr. Ludwig:
Shortly after your client’s hearing . . . a special agent with the F.B.I. informed me that, earlier, he had observed Mr. Ludwig in the parking lot walking with normal gait and station; and when he observed Mr. Ludwig walking inside of the Federal Courthouse (where our hearing was held) he was walking with an exaggerated limp (which I also observed as he left the hearing room).
Should you wish to inquire further, [the special agent] can be reached at the F.B.I. office at:
101 12th Ave
#329
Fairbanks, AK, 99701
The attorney asked either that no weight be given to this ex parte statement or that a new hearing be held. The ALJ did not schedule a new hearing and issued a decision denying the claim, saying that he had not assigned "significant weight" to the ex parte statement of the FBI agent.
The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new hearing, saying that "The judge should have refused to hear the ex parte communication. Ordinarily, if someone says to a judge, 'Judge, you know that case you heard this morning?', a judge responds, 'Don’t tell me anything about it. I can’t listen to evidence out of court.'" I thought that was well understood even by non-lawyers.
I've got three questions:
- How did this case get to the Court of Appeals? The Appeals Council or the District Court should have remanded the case in a heartbeat.
- Why was Social Security defending this at the District Court level much less at the Court of Appeals?
- Does that FBI agent's supervisor know that he made an ex parte contact with an ALJ? I was under the impression that most FBI agents were attorneys. Don't they know better than to do something like this?
People wonder about why we need so many levels of review of Social Security cases and then you see something like this.
Update: I should have read to the end. The Court of Appeals affirmed this travesty as harmless error. I cannot believe it. This is wrong. There is no reason for anyone at Social Security to feel anything but shame over this win.