1 / 31

Chapter 4

Chapter 4. Part II. Limitations on Hearings. How Much Process is Due? History. Old days - Not much APA - 1945 - Strong bias in favor of hearings 1955 (Warren Court) - hearing required before deportation Congress changes that by statute 1970 Goldberg

hammett-barr
Télécharger la présentation

Chapter 4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 4 Part II

  2. Limitations on Hearings

  3. How Much Process is Due?History • Old days - Not much • APA - 1945 - Strong bias in favor of hearings • 1955 (Warren Court) - hearing required before deportation • Congress changes that by statute • 1970 Goldberg • Notion of a constitutionally required hearing before a benefit is terminated

  4. Matthews v. Eldridge (1976)

  5. Social Security DisabilityBasic Procedure Drill - I • Get a form the Social Security office • What is the illness, the work history, the doc? • SSI orders records • A doc at SSI at Disability Determination Service - run by state as contractor - makes a determination • Sends to regional office • Regional office pays, QA, or denies • Ask for reconsideration • This is all done with records

  6. Social Security DisabilityBasic Procedure drill - II • At the state level, the examiner can call the patient's doc • At the fed level, the expert is bound by the patient's doc • Most problems arise because of poor documentation • Applicants can submit new info and get a new evaluation • After denial, you can ask for a hearing before ALJ • At the hearing stage, you ask for an expedited review if the case is clear • ALJ's decision is final • At this point you can appeal to the federal courts • Positive decisions are retroactive - critical DP point • Generates the money to pay the attorney as well

  7. Volume of Claims • How many claims does SSA decide every year? • How big is the disability system (SSD)? • Why is this important background for Matthews v. Eldridge? • Think about what this process looks like from the perspective of a disabled person tying to get benefits, or trying to avoid having benefits cancelled • Will they usually have benefit of counsel?

  8. Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) • Why does SSD require periodic review of benefits? • When does SSD provide an oral hearing? • What if the claimant is successful at the hearing? • How long can this take? • Why does the Court find this is less critical than in Goldberg?

  9. What does plaintiff want? • What data is used for making disability determinations? • Who would be the witnesses and how is their information collected? • Does the claimant's testimony matter? • How does this change the equities of Goldberg? • Why is the administrative decisionmaker less prone to make errors in this case than in Goldberg?

  10. The Mathews Factors • First, one must consider the private interest that will be affected by the official action. (V) • Second, one must consider the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest under the required procedures and the likely reduction of that risk by requiring more or different procedures. (P) • Third, one must consider the government's interest in using the required procedures, as opposed to more or different procedures. (C)

  11. The Mathews Factors as a Cost Benefit Analysis • C = P x V • (C)ost = (P)robability of increased accuracy versus (V)alue of the benefit • How would you apply these factors to the Matthews case? • Does plaintiff get his pre-termination hearing? • What about other administrative decisions?

  12. De minimis Test • Some deprivations are too insignificant to trigger a right to a hearing • Putting a cop on paid sick leave did not trigger due process • Otherwise the courts will be in every employment action • We will see this again with 1983 actions

  13. Matthews as a the End of the Warren Court • How is Matthews different from the ideal of due process in Goldberg? • How does it differ from the notion that every one gets criminal due process rights, including counsel? • Would we do better in criminal law if we were forced to recognize costs and benefits? • Could you afford first class criminal defense?

  14. Alternative Remedies • Due process is not the only remedy for many actions • Contracts with the government are not property but are agreements governed by contract law. • Unger v. National Residents Matching Program • Failing to admit resident after signing the match contract did not trigger a hearing, but would support a breach of contract action. • Does you client really need a hearing, or do you have a contract action? • Which is better?

  15. Any Pre-Action Hearing Rights after Matthews? • Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) • Firing a teacher • Applying the Matthews factors, how do you argue that an informal pre-termination hearing is required • How is this different from Matthews itself as regards to the ability to cure problems with a post-termination hearing?

  16. Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) • Who did the guard work for? • Why did this make his arrest for marijuana possession a particular problem? • Did he get any due process prior to this suspension from the workplace? • What was the importance of the decision by an "independent body" and what was the body? • What are the limits of this opinion? • Why does this being a temporary suspension matter?

  17. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) • High school student suspended from school • What due process did the court require? • What was the Mathews analysis?

  18. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) • School paddling case • What due process did the court require? • What was the Mathews analysis? • How does the analysis differ from Goss? • Why? • Do we still paddle students? • Why not? • Is hauling them to jail more protective of their rights?

  19. Board of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) • Academic suspension case for a medical student • What due process did the court require? • What was the Mathews analysis? • Would this analysis differ if this had been a disciplinary suspension?

  20. Law School Disciple and Due Process • In Mathews terms, what are the issues in providing due process for academic issues? • How does this differ for a disciplinary suspension? • How do we tell whether it is an academic or disciplinary issue? • What about plagiarism? Cheating? • Why is the Mathews basis for treating academic and disciplinary issues differently? • What is the role of special expertise and deference?

  21. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004) • The ordinary mechanism that we use for balancing such serious competing interests, and for determining the procedures that are necessary to ensure that a citizen is not "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," U. S. Const., Amdt. 5, is the test that we articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge. Mathews dictates that the process due in any given instance is determined by weighing "the private interest that will be affected by the official action" against the Government's asserted interest, "including the function involved" and the burdens the Government would face in providing greater process. The Mathews calculus then contemplates a judicious balancing of these concerns, through an analysis of "the risk of an erroneous deprivation" of the private interest if the process were reduced and the "probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/hamdi.htm (at 65)

  22. Stopped Here

  23. Bias in Administrative Hearings

  24. What does a Right to an Impartial Judge Mean? • What are sources of bias? • How is the analysis different for agencies than for Article III courts? • What does separation of functions mean? • How does it reduce potential bias? • We will see how this argument lead to the central panel of ALJs in LA.

  25. The Problem of Proof of Bias • We will see more about this in the chapter on judicial review • The core problem is that you cannot judge bias by only looking at the record, but the courts are unwilling to allow discovery into the motives of the judges • It would be like getting to depose an Article III judge as part of the appeal of a summary judgment.

  26. Exception to the Requirement of Separation of Functions for the Heads of Agencies • 554(d) • This subsection does not apply - • ... • (C) to the agency or a member or members of the body comprising the agency.

  27. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) • State medical licensing board • What were the functions? • What did the doc request? • Why did the court find that it was not necessary to separate them? • The Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental importance of the need for an unbiased decisiondecision maker, but it found that the mere combination of investigatory, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory functions in the same entity did not necessarily make the entity biased in adjudicating. • Why would an independent ALJ be a particular problem for these cases?

  28. Disqualifying an Administrative Law Decisionmaker for Bias • What is the United States Supreme Court standard? • “irrevocably closed mind” • What does it take to show this? • What happened in Texaco, Inc. v. FTC, 336 F.2d 754 (D.C. Cir. 1964)? • Would generalized statements, such as the FCC chair deploring advertising to children, meet the standard? • What is the Doctrine of Necessity?

  29. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. FTC, 467 F.2d 67 (10th Cir. 1972) • Kennecott owned a small coal company, then bought a big one - Peabody • FTC investigated this as an antitrust violation • A commissioner gave an interview and explained that the agency saw Kennecott as removing itself as a competitor. • Kennecott claimed this showed bias • The court said no, but warned the agency to be more careful

  30. Pillsbury Co. v. FTC, 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1966) • Who was meddling in the FTC case? • What did Senator Kefauver say? • What was a hearing like with Kefauver? • Did the Senator have an alter-ego? • What did the court find? • What is allowed for pending cases? • What is the analysis if it had been the president? • How does this change the issues?

  31. Ex Parte Communication Review • Why do ex parte communications impinge the rights of the regulated party? • Does it matter whether they come from inside or outside the agency? • How can the harm be cured? • 5 U.S.C. §557(d) — placing the ex parte communication in the record and affording the parties a chance to respond to it.

More Related