Opinion ID: 2644933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Pro Se Bias

Text: The twelfth issue concerns the ALJ’s alleged bias against Onysko as a pro se litigant. Onysko argues that the ALJ found his testimony less credible than other witnesses due to the form of his questions. This ignores much of what the ALJ found. In addition to his criticism of Onysko’s leading questions, the ALJ observed that he “argue[d] with witnesses who did not agree with his phrasing of events . . . [his] questions were . . . sometimes infused with extreme characterizations of events and descriptions of circumstances . . . [and he] misrepresent[ed] . . . certain events - 12 - within the record.” Admin. R. at 2870-71. Onysko, however, ignores that the ALJ found him especially credible “with respect to his professional and technical knowledge,” id. at 2871, and assisted in putting on his case. More to the point, Onysko has not cited any authority that the ALJ’s credibility determination was based on improper factors.