Opinion ID: 386207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: a full and fair hearing

Text: 31 At the outset, we wish to make it clear that we recognize that under the provisions of the appropriate statutes, the governmental policy is to provide protection to millions of wage earners under varying circumstances, and that when claims of disability arise, the policy strongly favors prompt handling and disposition of the claims. It is understandable, therefore, that the agency representatives properly wish to avoid unnecessary delays in reaching and deciding these cases, of which there are hundreds of thousands each year. See Easley v. Finch, 431 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1970). We note that in the three cases in which we heard oral arguments at the same sitting of this Court, the hearings before the administrative law judge consumed 30 minutes, 35 minutes, and 51 minutes respectively. We do not criticize the conduct of the three administrative law judges on the ground that any one of them intended to be unfair or intended to establish a record of the number of cases that would be disposed of in a single day. Moreover, we recognize that the presence of counsel in these three cases would inevitably have extended the length of the hearings and thus have delayed the disposition of other cases waiting to be tried. Nevertheless, recognizing that these claimants individually were to be gravely affected in their economic lives for the period of their entitlement, we must consider the hearings in light of some of the requirements normally recognized in deciding cases involving problems of such moment. 32 Mrs. Clark, as it appears in the record, seems to have been functionally illiterate. In the language of the illiterate person she started her testimony by saying: Everything wrong with me. She ended it by saying: From my head to my feet you got everything. I hurt. Any lawyer prepared for a hearing of this kind would realize that the statement of such subjective matters by the claimant would be the kind of evidence that most required supporting testimony by family or friends. Although the inquiry by the administrative law judge brought forth answers that Mrs. Clark suffered from headaches continuously and that she coughed all the time and that she suffered pain constantly, his opinion indicated that he disregarded this evidence, coming as it did solely from her, on credibility grounds. 33 Counsel also might reasonably have been expected to develop from the claimant the manner in which the pain of which she complained affected her performance of any gainful occupation. The failure to stress these facts led the ALJ into making a determination bearing on his resolution of the credibility issue as to pain against the claimant that is clearly without support in the record. He stated: Her description of her social and leisure activities was also inconsistent with an individual in severe pain. The only record evidence dealing with Mrs. Clark's social and leisure activities were the following: 34 Q: All right. As a result of all these problems you've got, do you have trouble walking now? 35 A: I have trouble. 36 Q: What can you do, and what can't you do? 37 A: What ... what ... 38 Q: Well can you walk on level ground pretty good? 39 A: I ... I walk, but my feet hurt. They're real sore about on the bottom. Legs hurt, too. 40 Q: So you can't walk very far. 41 A: Not far. Then I get out of breath, too. I get short-winded. 42 Q: You get short of breath? OK. How about just standing? Is that a problem for you? 43 A: I don't just stand. I try to ... 44 Q: Not long? 45 A: ... set down or lay down now. Q: OK 46 A: It hurt. 47 Q: How about sitting? Is that any problem for you? 48 A: Not when I keep my feets up. 49 Q: All right. 50 A: I got a thing I keep my feets on at home. He told me ... 51 Q: A little stool or something that you put your feet up on? 52 A: That's right, or the coffee table. 53 Q: How about using your hands and arms and shoulders? Is that any problem for you? 54 A: Unless'n I'm hanging out clothes is a problem, but just using them ... 55 Q: Do you do your own clothes ... wash your own clothes, hang them up? 56 A: No. My daughter do it. We went and got the washing machine that stay below me. I don't have a washer. 57 Q: OK. Can you take care of your personal needs? That is, dress yourself, bathe, comb your hair and so on? 58 A: I can dress myself, but my daughter do my hair when I do it that way. 59 Q: Uh-huh. And who does the housework there? 60 A: Shirley. My daughter. 61 Q: Your daughter? 62 A: Got the two children, and Junior, too, when he there. They do all the mopping and all. 63 Q: Uh-huh. How do you spend your days now? What do you do since you're not working? 64 A: Set around the house. Look at those walls. 65 Q: Don't get out any? 66 A: Only Sunday. I go to church. 67 Q: OK. 68 A: Got nowhere to go. That's (INAUDIBLE). 69 Q: Do you ever do any visiting of your relatives or friends? 70 A: I go to my momma's sometimes when my son will take me. 71 Q: These headaches that you have ... do you have them all the time? 72 A: I have them all the time. 73 Q: All right. Do you have to rest much during the day? 74 A: Yes, sir. 75 Q: About how much of your time do you spend resting? 76 A: Just about all day. I ain't got nothing else to do. 77 The ALJ might have well discounted Mrs. Clark's testimony as to the degree of pain from which she suffered, but clearly not on the ground that her description of her social and leisure activities was also inconsistent with an individual in severe pain. It is difficult to see how anybody could have described any social or leisure activities more consistent with severe pain than those described by the claimant here. 78 Another area in which it is plain that counsel would almost inevitably have aided the claimant, is in the matter of the hypothetical questions put to the vocational expert by the administrative law judge. In the second hypothetical question, the vocational expert was asked to consider that in view of (Dr. Mauldin's) diagnosis, that she has these functional capacities. She can lift 50 pounds occasionally and 20 pounds frequently. She can stand and walk at least four out of eight hours. She can sit and work as much as six out of eight hours. The basis for this assumption in the hypothetical question was a report by Dr. John P. Mauldin of the Atlanta Health Evaluation Center. It does not appear anywhere in the record that these functional capacities stated in Dr. Mauldin's report were based on any tests made of the claimant by him. A lawyer would, of course, examine Mrs. Clark as to whether she had been required to lift a weight of 50 pounds or if she had undergone any tests before him to determine whether she could stand and walk at least four out of eight hours or sit and work as much as six out of eight hours. 79 Finally, it was clear that the claimant was not notified that she had the right to cross-examine the vocational expert at all. Such questioning as conducted by a lawyer would, it seems in light of her testimony about a constant cough, have almost required that he ask of the expert whether having a constant cough would reduce the likelihood of her being available for performing the duties of a short order cook or a cafeteria line worker, both of which jobs he stated were open for one of her capabilities. 80 It is inconceivable that a person complaining of the constant headaches and coughing as did Mrs. Clark, would not have a private physician examine her with a view towards supporting her evidence in this regard. Counsel would at least have made it plain to her that her case would be much strengthened if she had an up to date physical examination by a physician of her choice, rather than a report made by a doctor several years previously. We recognize, of course, that a privately selected physician might not find a clinical basis for supporting Mrs. Clark's asserted physical problem. However, on this record we conclude that the plaintiff did not receive a full and fair hearing and that she was prejudiced by lack of counsel. 81 The judgment is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.