Opinion ID: 3000064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ALJ’s Refusal to Preclude Dr. Hutson from

Text: Testifying as a Medical Expert Keith contends that the selection of Dr. Hutson as an expert as well as the ALJ’s subsequent denial of his requests that another expert be appointed, demonstrate bias. We quickly dispatch Keith’s argument that the initial selection of Dr. Hutson establishes bias, before turning our discussion to the implications of the ALJ’s rulings denying Keith’s requests. The Code of Federal Regulations expressly permits an ALJ to employ a medical expert to review the evidence and render an opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments and whether those impairments meet or equal any Listings when making a disability determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. See also Social Security Ruling 86-8 (PPS-123: The Sequential Evaluation Process) and SSA Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law Manual § I-2-5-34(A), When to Obtain ME Opinion, available at http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-02/ I-2-5-34.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2006). Rather than simply permitting an ALJ to select the medical expert of his choice, Social Security Administration procedures dictate that medical experts of like specialties be selected on a rotating basis from a roster maintained by each of the Administration’s Regional Offices. See SSA Hearing, Appeals and Litigation Law Manual § I-2-5-36(D), Selecting a Medical Expert, available at http://www.ssa.gov/ OP_Home/hallex/I-02/I-2-5-36.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2006). We have found no evidence in the record, and Keith does not point to any, that suggests that the ALJ failed to follow the Social Security Administration’s No. 05-2527 13 established procedures in the case before us.11 Absent such evidence, we fail to see how Dr. Hutson’s selection raises even the appearance of bias. Keith next contends that excluding Dr. Hutson from testifying would have been proper, and that the ALJ’s refusal to do so and appoint a new expert is indicative of bias. When seeking to establish judicial bias in this manner, however, Keith bears a heavy burden. See Marozsan v. United States, 90 F.3d 1284, 1290 (7th Cir. 1996). For our precedent is clear: “[b]ias cannot be inferred from a mere pattern of rulings by a judicial officer, but requires evidence that the officer had it in for the party for reasons unrelated to the officer’s view of the law . . . .” McLaughlin v. Union Oil Co., 869 F.2d 1039, 1047 (7th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). See also Marozsan v. United States, 90 F.3d at 1290 (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”) (emphasis added). In each of his two pre-hearing written objections to Dr. Hutson’s selection, Keith requested the assignment of a new medical expert because, according to Keith, we had expressed concern over “[Dr. Hutson’s] testimony, attitude toward [him,] and general demeanor” in our prior order remanding his case. See Keith v. Massanari, 17 Fed. Appx. 478 (7th Cir. 2001) (unpublished order). In response, the ALJ noted that “[he] ha[d] reviewed the Judgment of 11 To the contrary, the only evidence in the record on this issue—the ALJ’s written response to Keith’s initial request that another expert be selected, wherein the ALJ explains that “Medical [experts] are selected randomly based on their specialty and availability”—suggests that the Social Security Administration’s established procedures were followed and that Dr. Hutson’s selection was the product of chance rather than bias. 14 No. 05-2527 the Seventh Circuit referenced by the claimant . . . and [found] no support for the claim the Court was con- cerned with Dr. Hutson’s attitude or general demeanor.” Moreover, he noted that Keith neglected to offer any additional facts supporting the allegation that Dr. Hutson was prejudiced against him and unable to provide fair and accurate testimony. In light of Keith’s failure to produce any credible evidence in support of his allegations, we refuse to find the ALJ’s denial of his request demonstrative of bias.