Opinion ID: 2644933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Onysko’s Witnesses

Text: As to the tenth issue, Onysko alleges that “[t]he ALJ . . . dismissed the testimony of all of Onysko’s witnesses.” Id. at 35. This argument is based on a misreading of the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ said he was not going to discuss the testimony of each of Onysko’s witnesses: “Before moving on to the background of [Onysko’s] work history, however, I here note my reasoning for omitting from the following background discussion the testimony of some of the witnesses called by [Onysko] in this case.” Admin. R. at 2832. In particular, and as to the witnesses Onysko offered to establish his abilities as an engineer and the nature of the problems - 11 - he discovered at Pheasant Meadows and Slate Canyon, the ALJ wrote: “Although considered, I do not discuss this testimony as I ultimately find other witnesses’ testimony is sufficient to establish [Onysko’s] technical expertise and gives merit to [his] allegations of having engaged in protected activity.” Id. at 2833. The decision not to discuss the testimony of each witness is different from dismissing their testimony.