10/23/2005 13:58 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson	002
WESTMORELAND, PATTERSON, MOSELEY & HINSON, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CARL E. WESTMORELAND*'	BRADLEY O. PYLES	201 SECOND STREET, SUITE 115C
RUDOLPH N. PATTERSON	DIANE M. FLYNN	POST OFFICE BOX 1797
J.WAYNE MOSELEY	WM. J. CAMP	MACON, GEORGIA 312024797
THOMAS H. HINSON	JEFFREY YAZINSKI	478/745-1651 800/6884651
ROXANNE M. HINSON	CARMEL W. SANDERS	FAX 478/7454754
THOMAS W. HERMAN	WILLIAM C. HEARD		
SHELLEY DAVIDSON	JAMES E. PATTERSON	OFFICES ALSO IN WARNER ROBINS
   	October 23, 2005	AND ALBANY
*OF COUNSEL
FAX NO. 410-966-2830
The Honorable Jo Anne Barnhart
Commissioner
Social Security Administration
P.O. Box 17703
Baltimore, MD 21235-7703.
Submitted to: regulations@ssa.gov
Re:     Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Administrative Review Process for Adjudicating Initial Disability Claims, 70 Fed. Reg. 43591 July 27, 2005).
Dear Commissioner Barnhart:
Below are comments of the lawyers of Westmoreland, Patterson, Moseley and Hinson on the above-referenced Social Security Administration (SSA) proposed rules. We have been handling Social Security cases of all types for almost 40 years. We have done business with many, many district offices and hearing sites. When Supplemental Security Income cases began in 1974 we started handling those types of cases also. We have seen many changes come and go. We have worked with you and previous commissioners in an effort to improve the process in every way.
Unfortunately some commissioners have been motivated to make changes in the system because of political pressures rather than a real need. Ultimately, those types of decisions cause unnecessary delay and expense to the system and hardship to the claimants. I concluded after many years of experience and observation that we needed the Social Security Administration to be independent of political intervention. The recent legislation doing this and establishing you as the commissioner of this independent body has proven we were right.
The example of what you have been able to do with the Appeals Council is perfect to show what a person with your skills can do, if left alone and given the time to accomplish the desired result [in this case expediting the processing of the work load].

10/23/2005 13:59 FAX 4787451754        Westmoreland Patterson	003
From what we hear, it is obvious your management style has resulted in expediting the process time at the Appeals Council, without significant changes in the regulations dealing with those appeals. I hope the numbers I hear are correct, in the reduced time necessary for the Appeals Council to receive, process and issue a decision. The review I heard went like this:
In fiscal year 2002 the processing time at the Appeals Council was 408 days, as compared to fiscal year 2005, when it only took 242 days. As of September 2005 the processing time is now a terrific 196 days.
We are not aware of any commissioner or anyone else within SSA who has made such important and dramatic changes in processing time at any level.
If management restructuring under your leadership is working this well now, would not it be better to continue this outstanding improvement at all levels of the social security process? I believe you have shown without equivocation that "accountability" is what has been missing. By requiring all work to be done as prescribed, timely and correctly, you have proven a major overall of the disability process is not what is needed. You have proven there are many good employees within the agency. They just needed leadership that required them to do their job.
What internal management changes are needed? When a hearing is to be held before an ALJ. We try to secure a copy of the file as soon as possible. The files have not been developed by the agency. The files come to OHA in total disarray and valuable time by OHA personnel is used putting the 6-part folder in order. A review of the file shows very little work has been done and usually the only agency evidence is a form completed by the 1st or 2nd level person and is minimal quality at best. There are very brief answers to the medical and vocational assessments. There are no factual statements to support denials.
The medical/vocational assessments could better be referred to as trash rather than something to be relied on by an adjudicator. These RFC form refer to terminal cancer as something that will get well within 12 months and sick people weighing 80 pounds can lift and carry 50 pounds frequently or occasionally all day long. Does this type of review increase the processing time? I believe President Bush would find that this could partially answer his questions.
What happens before the claimant sees an ALJ? The claimant goes to the Field Office and files a claim. The claimant submits medical records and the Field Office seeks to help him/her get records from the medical sources. A claimant

14:00 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson	004
usually does not have an attorney or representative at this point. The only helper is a claims representative from SSA who has about 20 to 30 other things to do for other claimants. They are truly miracle workers with more work than they can do.
An attorney or representative usually is hired after the claim is denied the 2nd time. From this point on we know why the ALJ hearing is going to be vastly different from the process up to this point. Someone now has the time to develop the file.
Should we compromise the de novo hearing? No! Someone trained in the law and with experience in trying cases should be retained to assess credibility, ask questions, help claimants remember information that is incredibly important, but no one has ever asked the question. Remember cases are not decided based on medical evidence alone, but a combination of medical evidence, vocational evidence, time requirements, and truthfulness just to name a few of the elements.
Before I discuss the proposed changes, I would like to encourage you to apply the strict rules of accountability to all of your employees first, then, if that does not work go to the revision proposed. Go to district offices yourself and see what a gigantic workload your employees carry every day. They are truly overloaded. Social Security needs more workers in the field.
We congratulate you on the progress you have made as Commissioner. I have enjoyed working with you and your staff on these particular matters for almost 5 years.
If it is decided to proceed with these proposed rules, rather than set bench marks of acceptable job performance and accept no less from all employees we would like to take this time to comment on those proposed rules.
Increasing efficiency and production of the SSA employees, while trying to provide claimants with a fair and impartial process for the administration of applications is difficult Virtually all of your field employees do more than a 1-2 step functional job. They need help In the offices and even though it cost money to hire employees, increased efficiency and accuracy saves money.
We urge the continued strengthening of the due process de novo hearing, rather than decreasing the same. These need to be heard by a fair and impartial ALJ. Complaints against an ALJ or an attorney should be investigated quickly and thoroughly with a response to the complainant within 30 days. This would greatly diffuse the idea that nothing is done with a complaint. A bad apple can in fact create a bad situation and reputation for all concerned.

10/23/2005 14:00 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson	005
Let me state that I have had the opportunity to travel around the country and I have visited many DOs and OHAs. I can honestly say the taxpayers get their money's worth from most of these employees. You know better than I, that one bad employee can make a whole office look bad. There are some offices in dire need of more help. The program is almost 25% larger now than 20 years ago and you have to do the job with 25% less employees.
We hope the final revision will place emphasis on claimants and not solely on expediency. It should not be forgotten claimants are real people- with real disabilities, who, in addition to their illnesses, may not be educated enough to understand and perform to the desired level of the proposed regulation changes. Many claimants cannot read or write and do not even have the capacity to cooperate and comply with the request of their own attorney. We hope consideration will be given to the fact that many claimants are not represented and will do not have the mental and/or physical capacity to comply with the existing or proposed requirements.
We refer you to the recent comments sent to you by ABA President Michael S. Greco on September 28, 2005. President Greco restated the ABA's support of the Social Security program and its leadership. However, he did point out several suggestions that the ABA has previously made that would assist the public's need to understand this process:
a.	Educate the medical community about the eligibility criteria used in the
Disability program and nature of medical evidence needed;
b.	Urged SSA to consult treating sources, compensate them adequately
For providing relevant medical information and give special weight to
Report from treating physicians;
c.      That the process be improve and that all professionals be held to the highest standards;
d.	Improve SSA communication with claimants and their representatives;
e.	Quick disability determinations (QDD);
e.	Face to face interview with a decision-maker (RO) who could explain
f.	The process and provide claimant with an opportunity to submit
further evidence;
g.	The ABA recently adopted policy against closing the record prior to the
Hearing when the appeal is for Medicare benefits, rule changes to the
Black Lung program that would prevent an ALJ from reopening the
record or admitting additional evidence at the hearing level for good
cause shown;
h.       The ABA recognizes that SSA wants ethical representatives and
attorneys representing a claimant seeking disability benefits. The ABA has shown clearly by its actions and letters such as President Greco's that the proposed regulations will encourage a conflict between ethical

10/23/2005 14:01 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson
attorneys and the professional rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed to practice. As he said: "The current regulations on this issue well serve the agency, the claimant, and the claimant's legal counsel, and we urge that they be retained."
See p. 5 of his letter dated September 27, 2005. This is in reference to requiring the attorney to yield and supply all information that SSA "thinks" might be relevant and important and how often would this be requested.
Please remember the ALJ and claimant or attorney has no way of investigating the "bought evidence" [whether it appears from the agency side or the claimant's side]. There have been instances where doctors who had lost their license were doing consultative exams for DDS. There are times when there appears to be no medical evidence to support the disability language rendered by the government doctors or claimant's doctors. The ALJ and claimant's lawyer do this job for the administration.
All of this has to be sorted out by a neutral ALJ. THIS IS THE GREAT PART ABOUT A DE NOVO HEARING. BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND CLAIMANT ENTER THE SCENE WITH NO PRESUMPTION FOR OR AGAINST THEM. The law and evidence control everyone.
The ALJ must act impartially. Isn't that what the APA and Commissioner assures us?
The agency has on occasions used 'VOCATIONAL EXPERTS" who had no job, no office and did nothing but be a professional witness for SSA. These types of experts make thousands of dollars, testifying every day of many weeks. They are not vocational placement advisers. They are paid professional witnesses who have one master they must keep happy--SSA.
We need independent ALJs, vocational experts and medical sources. It is an old says but still true: "The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of the truth".
We are not accusing anyone of bias. I am proud of the SSA. There is no other business and certainly no other part of the government that does the job they do and operate on less than 1% of its income.
However, in this case, I believe the proposed rules miss the target. They are dealing with the unluckiest people in America. The Disabled. They are broken spirited and/or just plain broke. The need an oasis. That oasis is a fair system that allows them to appear before an ALJ who is not constrained in any way, but to seek the truth as to their claim. Not a system, that requires Hugh

10/23/2005 14:02 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson	007
expenditures of money they do not have to do things such as pay someone to interpret medical records and type them in" 12 point font".
We should not seek ways to subvert the needs of unfortunate people who have lost their greatest asset--their good health. To deny them assistance in proving their claim, to deny them the right to correct a mistake in a previous claim by denying them the right to re-open a previously denied claim or to deny them equal access to decision makers at all levels is contrary to laws and conscience of this country and our oaths we took when we became lawyers and public servants.
The current system, beginning at the hearing level should be preserved with some corrections. These corrections do not include the reduction of the ALJ's discretion or ability to assist a claimant if assistance is needed. There is a point in time to "dose the record", BUT the ALJ should continue to have the discretion to allow new and material evidence, be it for or against the claimant.
I will stop here. Yes, I am passionate about this. When you have seen people lose everything, including their life, or that of a mother, father, son or daughter because of a "regulation" or absence of an independent authority that could have made the difference in living or dying, then you will understand the need of a structured process that possess the ability to act with independence and fairness as the law is applied.
THE NEW RULES;
1. 405.101-110   This proposed rule to establish a Quick Disability
Determination process through which State agencies will expedite
initial determinations for claimants who are clearly disabled is an
excellent concept. This initiative with the corresponding emphasis on impartial
decision-making by ALJs should lead to an improved process.
2. 405.10   The proposed rule to create a Federal Expert Unit (FEU) to
augment and strengthen medical and vocational expertise for disability
adjudicators at all levels of the disability determination process.
We support the concept of providing officials and ALJs with highly qualified impartial experts who will present their independent interpretations and conclusions of medical and vocational evidence for the adjudicator to consider. While it makes sense to provide a pool of qualified impartial medical and vocational experts to assist the adjudicators due to the limited number of experts available through out the country, everyone is concerned that the proposed creation of the Federal Expert Unit (FEU) could limit the discretion of

10/23/2005 14:03 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson	008
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) by requiring them to call experts or even worse, to call certain experts. From experience, our lawyers and others we know have found there is a potential for such "official" experts to function less as impartial experts than as employed government experts, who, might see their role as being tied to a perceived government position, particularly if they are trained and paid by the agency-  Should you determine to go forward with the proposed unit, many believe the following should be addressed before implementation:
Qualifications- how will FEU members' qualifications, procedures for certification, and the body that will do the certification be established? These tasks should be the subject of full disclosure and allow for the opportunity for all interested parties to comment on these issues before adoption. Currently, we believe too many of the "experts" have no current professional "hands on" experience and also do not perform as unbiased expert witnesses.
Membership selectionWill all experts have to meet certain qualifications and Will the FEU have a limited membership? Will it be open to any willing, and qualified provider? All the requirements for selection should be clearly identified at the earliest possible date. Would all FEU persons testify by video/phone? Will the FEU person be assigned to a geographic location or be a national expert only?
Selection of an expert for a particular case- The decision whether an expert(s) is needed and what type(s) should be totally within the discretion of the adjudicator (RO??) or ALJ with procedures left for the claimant to object to any selected experts) chosen or refusal to call one. Further, the selection of experts from this list should not preclude the presentation of other experts by claimant.
Opportunity for additional expert testimonyThe proposed rule specifies that experts will have to be certified. Is this rule intended to foreclose the claimant from presenting testimony or evidence from another certified member of the unit, or other outside qualified professionals. Will the rules of evidence require a Daubert exam of the FEU and/or claimant's expert before testimony? (See the US court system's treatment of scientific and other expert testimony under the standards set for by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc.r 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1933). Daubert announced a four-part test to determine admissibility of an expert witness's testimony. It asks:
 Is the witness an expert in the sense of having credentials or experience?

10/23/2005 14:03 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson	009
 Does the testimony have a basis in fact?
 Is it relevant and reliable?
 Are there other factors that bear upon the question of admissibility?
Relationship with the Decision Review Board (DRB)- Should the same FEU teams be subject to testify or assist the DRB? In the private world this would be seen as a conflict or would give the appearance of impropriety. This process if adopted must be above reproach.
CompensationThere is no problem in securing the number of FEU teams needed if you follow the current procedure. The medical portion should not be completed by a medical source and/or do an examination of a person unless they and the claimant speak the same language or in the alternative have an interpreter present at the times of the meeting. The reasons for this are obvious. Would any severely ill person want a doctor if they could not communicate with him or her? Would a conscientious doctor want to be legally responsible for the health and treatment of a patient if they had no way of communicating?
3.	The rule would eliminate the State agency reconsideration step in
the appeals process.
Removal of this step is a progressive move.
4.	405.201-230 The rules would establish federal "Reviewing Officials"
to review State agency initial determinations upon the request of
claimants.
We understand the rationale for eliminating reconsideration at the state level and substituting a review by a federal Reviewing Officer (RO) is intended to provide more accurate and consistent decisions, and agree that attorneys are more suited to this position. However, we believe the role of the RO as a decision maker between the initial decision level and the ALJ hearing needs to be thought out more carefully. While it is important to allocate additional resources to this phase of the process, the effort here should be to consolidate the ALJ hearing as the single administrative de novo step.
The proposed rules seem to envision the RO as a sort of intermediate decision maker, in effect a substitute for the abandoned reconsideration stage. The RO should be given the resources and authority necessary to develop records and move claims quickly, especially in those cases where benefits could be granted without a full administrative hearing. It is our understanding the SSA's position is to oppose creating an adversarial action. To use the term "counselor" etc. causes one to envision the return of the "government representative" concept vs. the "Reviewing Officer". Counselor implies someone who is there to take a position, while the Reviewing Officer implies someone

10/23/2005 14:04 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson	010
who is going to review and try to accommodate the purpose. This is an entitlement/benefits program and not litigation, The claimant is making a claim for a benefit they have paid for with weekly deductions from their checks. This was never envisioned as a "us vs. them" proceeding.
We also note that the RO is required to have a qualified expert from the FEU evaluate the evidence if the reviewing official disagrees with the state agency's determination of disability. The RO should be given the authority to process the claim at his/her discretion without the use of a qualified expert from the FEU. If the issue is dear to the RO, waiting for the expert to be available is a waste of time.
5. 405.315 This rule would preserve the right of claimants to request and be provided a de novo hearing, which will be conducted by an administrative law judge.
We strongly support preserving the de novo hearings provided by an ALJ as an essential part of a fair administrative procedure. We are, however, opposed to the requirement that the ALJ "provide an explanation as to why the administrative law judge agrees or disagrees with the rational articulate in the reviewing officer's decision." Proposed Regulation 405.370(a). No rule or regulation should give the appearance of SSA trying to control the outcome of a claim.
Our concern about imposing a specific requirement that the ALJ respond to the specific rationale of the RO (other than that inherent in the judicial evaluation of the evidence) is grounded in the nature of a de novo hearing and the efficient use of judicial time. Any ALJ order issued pursuant to this section necessarily would contain a cogent rationale, an evaluation of the evidence, and specific reasons for the ALJ's decision that ordinarily would explain any differences with the RO. To require the ALJ to devote additional time to identifying and cataloguing the differences In evidence, particularly when the administrative record has not been carefully constructed, is an unnecessary burden when a primary goal of the process is to provide speedy adjudication.
To the extent that the ALJ's specific review of that official's work is also expected to provide quality management or similar information, it is inconsistent with the role of ALJ in hearing and deciding cases based on the evidence and the law cases, and an inappropriate consideration in a judicial opinion. It further confuses and dilutes the purpose of the hearing, which is to determine whether the claimant is eligible or entitled to receive benefits in accordance with the APA and not to determine if an employee is performing his/her job functions.

10/23/2005 14:05 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson
6. 405.373 This rule would close the record after the administrative law judge issues a decision, but allow for the consideration of new and material evidence under certain limited circumstances.
The proposed rules contain some overly complex requirements concerning the submission of evidence and closing of the record at the ALJ hearing. For example, evidence must be submitted at least 20 days before the hearing-with limited exceptions left to the discretion of the ALJ. Submission of evidence after the hearing is also left to the discretion of the ALJ.  Finally, evidence obtained after the hearing, even if it relates to an unforeseen change in medical condition that occurred after the hearing, must be submitted within 10 days of receiving the decision, with no "good cause" exception. (Unless the case is selected for review by the DRB and in that instance the claimant must submit the evidence and provide an explanation of good cause to the DRB within 10 days of receiving the ALJ's decision proposed rules at page 43597) And there is also a strict 10-day rule for objecting to the time and place of the hearing and the issues to be decided on appeal. This is unreasonable and very prejudicial to the claimant. At the present time, even though most evidence is filed by the date of the hearing or shortly thereafter, there are still many dated materials that are mailed or received later than 10 days from the date shown on the material. There is another problem for the claimant/attorney as found in the new required information to be included in the ALJ decision.
Proposed 405.371 provides that if the ALJ decision is not "the final decision" the decision will explain that the DRB has taken review of the claim. When is all of this action going to take place? It is reasonable to believe that it will create timeliness action if the ALJ has to submit every decision made to the DRB? Is there any other way to explain this section except it requires the ALJ to get permission to issue a FINAL DECISION? Is this to say the ALJ must get approval from the DRB before issuing the "fair and impartial" decision guaranteed by the APA? Are there members of SSA who still believe the APA does not apply to social security hearings or SSA administrative law judges?
We are concerned that these rules mark a departure from the current rules and practice that provide for acceptance into the record any and all evidence offered at the hearing. We agree with the concern expressed that in practice they may provide an unintended trap for claimants. This could especially be the case for unrepresented claimants. Claimants should not be restricted from submitting any relevant evidence at any time. The current regulations dealing with "reopening" are sufficient and should be retained as currently written. These give the ALJ the discretion necessary to avoid frivolous actions.
The comments to be made here should be that the acceptance of evidence into the record and the determination of when the record should be closed should be
10

10/23/2005 14:06 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson	012
within the discretion of the ALJ. This then preserves the issue for appeal. Also we must address the need to provide for reopening of prior decisions as is the law & regulation now. We must also address the requirement that the claimant and/or the attorney must transcribe documents etc to the "...fullest extent practicable" and "...must use type face no smaller than 12 point font". Proposed 405.333. This section could be interpreted by some to require entire medical charts, doctor's notes etc to be transcribed and typed before submission. This is not only an impossible task, but it also opens the door for exorbitant expense and "misinterpretation" of the original facts in those records.
9.  405.601-630   Reopening and revising determination and decisions
Since "reopening and redeterminations" take place throughout the entire process of an application we must address those issue. The proposed rules provide Social Security will remove the one (1) year and (4) years rules that allow them to reopen or redetermine a determination or decision within one (1) year of the date of the notice of the initial determination for any reason" and (4) years for good cause. These rules are to be changed to delete "... new and material evidence..." as a basis or finding good cause to reopen and that evidence filed, but not considered will not be a basis for reopening.
Sec. 405.605 Conditions for reopening.
(c) We will not find good cause to reopen the determination or decision if the only reason for reopening is:
(1) A change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling..., or
(2) The existence of new evidence that was not considered in making the
determination or decision.
The process of reopening and redetermination is and should be present throughout the entire process. WHY? BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE. When we refer to people we are referring to the claimant and also those who are involved in the adjudication process as well as the lowest clerk. Everyone is subject to making a mistake and the record should be reopened for the correction of error for the benefit of a sick, disabled and/or dying person.
We submit that Claimants are real people. Medical science is not perfect. Corrected and/or discovered diseases or impairments after an unfavorable decision are not unusual. This is a critical issue for a severely impaired individual seeking benefits including Medicare and/or Medicaid. The personnel of SSA at all levels are real people and can make an honest mistake that needs correcting. Shouldn't SSA/OHA employees and claimants be treated fairly, if one or the other makes a mistake or misplaces that causes an improper judgment to be made?
11

10/23/2005 14:06 FAX 4787451754	Westmoreland Patterson	013
 In other administrative proceedings does not the government allow reopening for new and material evidence in cases before other federal agencies such as: OSHA, EPA, VA, CHRO, OWCP, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, FEDERAL COAL MINDERS HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS. Surely there are others. Why disallow social security claimants this right, when medical cooperation by medical sources is not enforceable nor is medical science so exact that all evidence is available at the time of adjudication? Should there be a difference in the rules when they are applied to the individual rather than the government or big corporations? This is not fair to people with severe impairments and we voice our disapproval of such discrimination.
7. 405.401-450 The rule would gradually shift certain Appeals Council functions to a newly established Decision Review Board.
We disagree that it is not working. The numbers and results of the actions taken by the current Commissioner show without equivocation that the Appeals Council can and does work. A reduction from 408 processing days to 196 days achieve in approximately 3 years shows it works.
Elimination of the Appeals Council has the potential to lead to large disruption in the federal courts. It will not help any claimant time wise. If it is felt that something must be done then provide that a claimant can appeal directly to he federal court if the appeals council has not acted on the request to review within 90 days of filing. We do not understand how the new process would better benefit those claimants, since the Appeals Council currently reverses 25% of the cases reviewed.
Would it not be better to continue this outstanding improvement, rather than "dumping" all denials on the federal courts? At a minimum the rule should allow some claimants to seek federal court review sooner.
If, it is concluded to abandon the Appeals Council (which everyone outside of the agency seems to oppose) would not a better alternative be to allow the denied claimants to also have the privilege of appealing to the DRB? The DRB should be in a better position to allow, remand or deny the cases. These comments do not address the perceived major reason for remand by SSA from the federal courts is the withdrawal due to concern for precedent. Most of these remands are voluntary. As to reversals, we think this issue needs to be separated from remands. Getting to federal court sooner is not necessarily a good thing due to the expense involved to the claimant and to the government.
12

10/23/2005 14:07 FAX 4787451754         Westmoreland Patterson
These comments also do not address the blatant discrimination of allowing the government access to the DRB, but denying the same access to the disabled claimants, who receive unfavorable decisions from the ALJs.
First, this may Impose hardships on some beneficiaries, particularly those totally disabled and dying, who are unrepresented, by requiring they appeal to federal court about any decisions with which they disagree. This would also place an added burden on the federal courts.
Second, if the Appeals Council is eliminated, the role of the DRB should come into clearer focus. We support limiting the scope of any review of ALJ decisions to clear errors of law or lack of substantial evidence. We also appreciate that the process is not to be used to target individual ALJs, and commend this provision. But, it must be noted that the claimant's appeal right (except for requests to review a dismissal of a request for a hearing), or the method by which the cases are selected, the limiting of issues, and that claimant submissions are all discretionary with the DRB. Disallowing claimants access to the DRB is totally unfair and discriminatory.
There is also a potential concern about the relationship between the adjudicative function and the management function of the DRB. We understand that for quality control purposes it may be necessary to focus limited resources on error prone cases, or problematic policies, however, there is a risk that cases will be identified and selected based on the individual personnel involved (Reviewing Official, Expert or ALJ), and this may undermine the independent role of the adjudicator and ALJs. Also, it is not clear whether the DRB will function as an appellate review panel that implements its decisions by developing case law, or whether the review, and case decisions, are intended primarily for identifying issues that will be implemented though administrative changes or directions to the Review Official or the Expert Unit, or other internal mechanisms.
9. The rules would propose to strengthen in-line and end-of-line quality review mechanisms at the State agency, reviewing official, hearing, and Decision Review Board levels of the disability determination process.
We appreciate that the process is not to be used to target individual ALJs, and commend this provision, but we remain concerned that an unintended consequence of the DRB process could be to compromise the status of the ALJ as an independent decision maker.
We support having a system for receiving and evaluating complaints or allegations of misconduct by ALJs, but this should be a separate process, under the jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
13

10/23/2005 14:08 FAX 4787451754

Westmoreland Patterson

015

The emphasis should be on fair and impartial ALJs who conduct due process hearings in accordance with the APA.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations. Sincerely,
Westmoreland, Patterson, Moseley &. Hinson

By: Rudolph N. Patterson

Rnp/s
New Hearing Rules Doc. No. 804009

14