Opinion ID: 200738
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pre-Termination Opportunity to be Heard

Text: 33 The Due Process Clause requires an opportunity to be heard ... at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). In general, the state must provide some kind of hearing before depriving an individual of a protected property interest. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990). This hearing need not be elaborate. Rather, where more comprehensive post-termination procedures are available, the pre-termination hearing need only provide an initial check against mistaken decisions. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487. We find that an independent medical examination may serve as such an initial check and, coupled with adequate post-deprivation procedures, provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 34 Mard argues that recognizing a medical examination as a constitutionally adequate pre-termination check against erroneous decision making would run counter to the rationale that forms the basis of the hearing requirement, a rationale that emphasizes the need to alert the ultimate decisionmaker to disputes of fact and provide a hedge against erroneous decisions. We are not persuaded by this argument. Where a decision to terminate benefits turns on an evaluation of medical evidence, an examining physician is well qualified to resolve factual disputes about the injured firefighter's continued incapacity and to evaluate the appropriateness or necessity of terminating his or her injured on duty status. See Basciano v. Herkimer, 605 F.2d 605, 610 (2d Cir.1978) (medical examination and review by City Medical Board provided adequate due process prior to determining eligibility for accident disability retirement benefits); Danese v. Knox, 827 F.Supp. 185, 195 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (medical examination conducted by Port Authority doctors provided an adequate initial check against erroneous determination that police officer was ineligible for line of duty sick leave). 35 Town-designated physicians serve as independent evaluators who base their opinions on the medical evidence before them, including evidence provided by the employee. See Basciano, 605 F.2d at 610 (when evaluating eligibility for disability retirement benefits, the responsibility of city-appointed physicians was to make a medical judgment, not to function as adversaries or advocates); American Board of Independent Medical Examiners, Guidelines of Ethical Conduct (Physicians shall ... [r]each conclusions that are based on facts and sound medical knowledge and shall [n]ever accept a fee for services which are dependent upon writing a report favorable to the referral service.), available at http://www. abime.org/abime/content/cime/m — guidelines. asp? site=4. As the Second Circuit has explained, where a decision turns on the evaluation of medical evidence, a pretermination hearing before the ultimate administrative decision maker presumably would require the resolution of conflicting medical opinions by lay administrators and would be unlikely to result in a more reliable decision. Basciano, 605 F.2d at 611. See also Mathews, 424 U.S. at 343-44, 96 S.Ct. 893 (because the decision to revoke Social Security disability benefits will turn, in most cases, upon routine, standard, unbiased medical reports by physician specialists concerning a subject whom they have personally examined, the added value of a pre-termination hearing before the administrative decision maker is less than in the usual case of welfare entitlement)(internal citation and quotations marks omitted). By affording the injured firefighter an opportunity to present her medical records and discuss her injury with the examining physician, an independent medical examination serves as a constitutionally adequate initial check against an erroneous determination that a firefighter is physically capable of returning to active duty. See Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542-43, 105 S.Ct. 1487. 36 The adequacy of this kind of limited, pre-termination hearing rests in part upon the availability of more rigorous post-deprivation procedures. As the Supreme Court explained in Loudermill, the existence of post-termination procedures is relevant to the necessary scope of pretermination procedures. Id. at 547 n. 12, 105 S.Ct. 1487 (holding that a limited pretermination hearing was sufficient where it was followed by a more comprehensive post-termination hearing). Mard does not challenge the grievance procedures available to her under the collective bargaining agreement, and we have not been presented with any evidence suggesting that these procedures were insufficient for due process purposes. Thus, the Town did not violate Mard's due process rights by providing an independent medical examination rather than a more formal administrative hearing prior to its decision to terminate her benefits.