Source: http://www.dol.gov/brb/References/reference_works/bla/bldesk/BD04-C2.HTM
Timestamp: 2014-09-22 16:15:27
Document Index: 89050843

Matched Legal Cases: ['§725', '§725', '§725', '§725', '§923', '§556', '§725', '§725', '§725']

BD04-C2
C.	FULL AND FAIR HEARING
2. CONDUCT OF HEARING; DUE PROCESS
The conduct of the hearing is within the sound discretion of the adjudication officer. He or she is not bound by formal rules of evidence or procedure, except as provided for in Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§725.455-725.460. Hearings under the Act, however, are limited to contested issues of law or fact raised before, or identified by, the district director. 20 C.F.R. §§725.455(a), 725.463(a); see Thornton v. Director, OWCP, 8 BLR 1-277 (1985); Stidham v. Cabot Coal Co., 7 BLR 1-97 (1984); see also Chaffins v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-431 (1984). The adjudication officer may consider a new issue only if such issue was not reasonably ascertainable by the parties at the time the claim was before the district director. 20 C.F.R. §725.463(b).
At the hearing, the adjudication officer is required to inquire fully into the matters at issue and to receive into evidence, upon motion, all testimony and documents that are relevant and material to the claim. 20 C.F.R. §725.455(b); see also 30 U.S.C. §923(b). The adjudication officer is obliged, above all, to insure a full and fair hearing on all the issues presented. The elements of a full and fair hearing include the opportunity to present a claim or defense by way of argument, proof and cross-examination of witnesses with knowledge of the evidence to be presented at the hearing, the witnesses to be heard, and the contentions of the opposing party. Laughlin v. Director, OWCP, 1 BLR 1-488, 1-493 (1978); see 5 U.S.C. §556(d).
A party's right to due process must be scrupulously preserved throughout the adjudicatory proceedings. A fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard, Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914), to ensure a fair disposition of the case. In some cases, due process may require that a de novo hearing, or additional hearing on a specific issue, be held. Procedural due process requires proper and adequate notification of proceedings. Parties must also be allowed to fairly respond to evidence, and present their own cause in full. Failure to avail oneself of the opportunity to be heard, however, may result in a waiver of the right to review, and does not constitute a denial of due process.
Allegations of unfair or prejudicial conduct on the part of the adjudication officer have been raised on appeal. The Board, however, has rejected such claims in the absence of a clear showing of prejudice. Arthur Murray Studios of Wash., Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 458 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1972); see e.g., Sykes v. Itmann Coal Co., 2 BLR 1-1089 (1980); Rocchetti v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., 1 BLR 1-812 (1978); Sanders v. Consolidation Coal Co., 1 BLR 1-193 (1977). Charges of bias or prejudice, or lack of judicial temperament on the part of the adjudication officer are not to be made lightly, should be supported by concrete evidence, and should be made as early in the adjudication process as is feasible. Marcus v. Director, OWCP, 548 F.2d 1044, 1050 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Zamora v. C. F. & I. Steel Corp., 7 BLR 1-568 (1984); see also 20 C.F.R. §725.352.
In cases where the issue concerns solely the existence and/or the amount of an overpayment, however, no oral hearing is required before the district director begins recoupment of the overpayment. See Burnette v. Director, OWCP, 14 BLR 1-151 (1990).
[failure of party to present evidence on issue constitutes waiver of right to be aggrieved by adverse decision and seek review; its not denial of due process] Martin v. Island Creek Coal Co., 2 BLR 1-276 (1979); Reale v. Barnes & Tucker Co., 1 BLR 1-333 (1977).
[Ninth Circuit held it proper for court to question witnesses to clarify questions and develop facts as long as its done in non-prejudicial fashion and court does not become personally over involved] United States v. Landoff, 591 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1978).
[contention that speech problem at formal hearing impeded ability to testify rejected; Board noted that adjudicator afforded lay representative great latitude and that transcript did not indicate any mental infirmity; if no formal objection raised to witness's mental qualifications and record reveals response to questions, failure of adjudicator to explore witness's mental capacity not error] Elswick v. Eastern Asso. Coal Corp., 2 BLR 1-1016 (1980).
[contention of denial of fair hearing because both attorneys did not stand equal distance from claimant while he testified rejected; although claimant hard of hearing and Director's counsel allowed to move closer to claimant, nothing indicated harassment, intimidation or prejudice] Casias v. Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-438, 1-445 (1983).
[fundamental fairness was violated resulting in prejudicial error where issue parties agreed not to litigate considered by adjudicator] Derry v. Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-553, 1-555 (1983).
[adjudicator properly resolved confusion caused by district director's failure to act on request for medical examination of claimant by permitting development of additional evidence] Lefler v. Freeman United Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-579, 1-580-581 (1983).
[due process requires remand to reopen record where employer never received copy of report admitted at hearing and adjudicator seemed unaware when record closed] Pendleton v. United States Steel Corp., 6 BLR 1-815, 1-819 (1985).
[adjudicator's finding that claimant's unreasonable refusal to submit to medical testing constituted violation of opposing party's due process rights affirmed] Goines v. Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-897, 1-901-902 (1984).
[due process violated where adjudicator declined to grant employer 30 day period to respond to evidence submitted pursuant to Section 725.456(b) before record closed] Baggett v. Island Creek Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-1311, 1-1314 (1984); see Horn v. Jewell Ridge Coal Corp., 6 BLR 1-933, 1-936-937 (1984).
[no abuse of discretion in denying employer's request for continuance of hearing for independent review and verification of autopsy slides where employer failed to secure evidence in timely manner] Witt v. Dean Jones Coal Co., 7 BLR 1-21, 1-23 (1984); cf. Kislak v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co., 2 BLR 1-249 (1979).
[error to conduct hearing without issues specified due to lack of statement of contested issues, never submitted] Stidham v. Cabot Coal Co., 7 BLR 1-97, 1-101 (1984).
[denial of due process where adjudicator substituted personal knowledge and experience in place of hearing testimony, incorrectly accused claimant's counsel of asking leading questions and impeded examination of witnesses] Hutnick v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-326, 1-328 (1984).
[due process and efficient administration of Act require Director to resolve responsible operator issue in preliminary proceeding, see 20 C.F.R. §725.410(d),and/or proceed against all putative responsible operators at every stage of adjudication; entitlement against one employer does not bind any other operator not a party] Crabtree v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 7 BLR 1-354, 1-356-357 (1984).
[procedural due process requires interested parties be notified of pendency of action and afforded opportunity to present objections; here fundamental fairness required by due process afforded employer where provided copy of post-hearing autopsy and allowed a thirty-day response period] Gladden v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 7 BLR 1-577, 1-579 (1984).
[no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of previous denials of claim where denials given no weight] Clifford v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-817, 1-819 (1985).
[closing of record not abuse of discretion where held open for ten months to allow Director to submit x-ray rereading and Director had failed to do so] Amorose v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-899, 1-900 (1985); Oggero v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-860, 1-865 n.4 (1985).
[adjudicator may provide for further development of evidence where evidence on an issue incomplete, 20 C.F.R. §725.456(e)] King v. Cannelton Industries, 8 BLR 1-146, 1-148 (1985).
[contention that claimant prejudiced because decision not issued within twenty days rejected before decisions in Underhill, 4 BLR 1-62, and Van Nest, 3 BLR 1-526, issued; case not affected and no prejudice shown] Worrell v. Consolidation Coal Co., 8 BLR 1-158, 1-162 (1985); Williams v. Black Diamond Coal Mining Co., 6 BLR 1-188, 1-191 (1983).
[request for de novo hearing properly denied where original adjudicator unavailable as credibility of lay witnesses not crucial] Berka v. North American Coal Corp., 8 BLR 1-183, 1-184 (1985); cf. White v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-348, 1-351 (1984); Strantz v. Director, OWCP, 3 BLR 1-431 (1981).
The Board, in vacating the administrative law judge's denial of benefits and remanding the case for a hearing