Opinion ID: 546982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ALJ's Duties

Text: 16 The ALJ has a duty to adequately protect a pro se claimant's rights by ensuring that all of the relevant facts [are] sufficiently developed and considered. Hankerson v. Harris, 636 F.2d 893, 895 (2d Cir.1980). While the administrative hearing is not designed to be adversarial, Donato v. Secretary of the Dep't of Health & Human Serv., 721 F.2d 414, 418 (2d Cir.1983), when the claimant is unrepresented, the ALJ is under a heightened duty  'to scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts,'  Echevarria, 685 F.2d at 755 (quoting Hankerson, 636 F.2d at 895). 17 The scant record herein, which consists of a thirteen-page transcript, reveals a host of lost opportunities to explore the facts. For example, when the ALJ asked Cruz when his asthma began, Cruz answered, Four years that I've had the attacks, constantly. The ALJ failed to probe into the frequency and severity of his attacks. Later, the ALJ asked Cruz if he ever went to the emergency room because of his asthma, and Cruz answered that he had. The ALJ did not explore what circumstances had triggered Cruz's attacks, how often he had been treated or when he had last visited the emergency room. Instead, the ALJ only asked at which hospital Cruz had been treated, and yet did not seek to obtain those hospital records. Further, the ALJ never inquired as to whether the nature of Cruz's asthma had changed over the years. Although we do not at all suggest that the ALJ was indifferent to Cruz's condition, it is our view that he did not adequately fulfill his affirmative obligation to assist this pro se claimant in developing [his] case. Eiden v. Secretary of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 616 F.2d 63, 65 (2d Cir.1980). 18