Opinion ID: 689909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Post-hearing Physician Interrogatories

Text: 34 The ALJ propounded interrogatories to Dr. Morrison after the hearing to evaluate Chamberlain's mental ability. The ALJ informed Chamberlain's attorney of the interrogatories and gave him ten days to object to the questions or propose his own. The attorney replied that he did not waive his right to cross examine Dr. Morrison if a fully favorable decision could not be reached. The district court found this reply unreasonable since the attorney wished to postpone any cross-examination until after the ALJ made his decision. 35 On appeal, Chamberlain contends that the ALJ erred in not advising him of his right to request a supplemental hearing. This argument is not well taken. Due process is served when a claimant and his attorney are given the opportunity to cross-examine and subpoena individuals giving post-hearing reports. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). It is the responsibility of the claimant and his attorney to provide the opportunity for the cross-examination. Id. The ALJ is not required to inform the claimant's attorney of the claimant's right to cross-examine the post-hearing witness. Coffin v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1206, 1212 (8th Cir.1990). [I]f the claimant's attorney fails to object to the post-hearing reports or remains silent when the opportunity to request cross-examination arises, the right to cross-examination is waived. Id. Therefore, the district court was correct in holding that the right to cross-examine Dr. Morrison was waived.