Opinion ID: 2326824
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: OAH Proceedings

Text: DOES claims examiner Vernell Dodd made an initial determination disqualifying Ms. Vilche from receiving unemployment compensation benefits for a specified period in the future because she willfully and knowingly failed to disclose [her] earnings. See D.C.Code § 51-119(e)(1) (2001) (section of the Unemployment Compensation Act prescribing penalties for knowingly fail[ing] to disclose a material fact). Ms. Dodd also issued Notices of Determination of Overpayment requiring Ms. Vilche to repay $6,358 in benefits that she had wrongfully received. Exercising her appeal rights, Ms. Vilche requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to dispute those determinations. Ms. Vilche and her attorney, as well as two claims examiners from DOES, Monica Madison and Ms. Dodd, attended a scheduled hearing on November 3, 2004. According to DOES, this was one of the first occasions on which the newly-established Office of Administrative Hearings reviewed an initial determination in an unemployment compensation case. See D.C.Code § 2-1831.03(b)(1) (2007 Supp.) (authorizing OAH, as of October 1, 2004, to review determinations made by DOES in unemployment compensation cases). Early in the proceeding, the ALJ informed Ms. Dodd that, as the claims examiner who made the initial determination, she was not allowed to give testimony about the deliberative process that she went through in making her decision. However, the ALJ offered Ms. Madison the opportunity to explain to this court why the determination was made and how it was made. Ms. Madison began to testify but was interrupted when she offered exhibits that had not been disclosed to Ms. Vilche in advance of the hearing. The ALJ postponed the hearing for one week so that Ms. Vilche and her counsel would have time to review the exhibits. When the hearing reconvened on November 10, Ms. Dodd was present but explained that Ms. Madison had been unavoidably delayed. After waiting 12 minutes to start the hearing, the ALJ determined that [t]he representative from [DOES] who is responsible for presenting this case is not present. . . . [Ms. Dodd] can't offer testimony [because she is] . . . the claims examiner in this case. . . . Therefore, [DOES] cannot carry the burden which they have to carry to demonstrate that there was an overpayment to Ms. Vilche . . . [and] the determination is going to be reversed. On December 9, 2004, the ALJ issued a written final order ruling that Ms. Vilche is not ineligible for benefits for the period September 12, 2004 through September 10, 2005 and she is not liable for alleged overpayments of $6358. DOES promptly filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, which was denied. Attached to the motion of DOES was an affidavit from Ms. Dodd, who stated that on November 10 she informed the ALJ that it was I who knew the case and was prepared to go forward and present the case. The Administrative Law Judge declined to allow me to proceed. The ALJ denied a new trial because DOES ha[d] already been given two chances to come to a scheduled hearing and litigate this matter. The ALJ also rejected DOES's argument that she should not have precluded Ms. Dodd from prosecuting and testifying at the second hearing. The administrative judge explained that the claims examiner is a neutral adjudicator deciding the facts and applying the law and cannot prosecute or testify in an appellate hearing in the same case.