Court Opinion

ID: 9456229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:46:28.025104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:54.119899
License: Public Domain

SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
There was evidence before the Examiner from which he might readily have concluded that the claimant, Stone, was disabled and entitled to the benefits of the Act. There was other evidence from which he could and did conclude the opposite. Ordinarily, courts must uphold the Examiner’s conclusion if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). The underlying postulate is that the Examiner has weighed the evidence and made his judgment with an impartial mind.
The Examiner’s own opinion, however, leaves me with the distinct feeling that he approached this claim with a jaundiced eye. He threw into the scales of judgment the fact that the claimant, a veteran of thirty-five years of work in coal mines, and quite understandably a sufferer from emphysema and silicosis, happened to be a cigarette smoker. He opined that this smoking habit
* * * is a rather strange way to treat his alleged shortness of breath and silicosis, and consequently the undersigned feels that claimant is largely responsible for such discomfort as he actually does feel, and that he ought not to be rewarded for nourishing a harmful habit. (Emphasis added.)
*367The wisdom of the smoking habit generally, or in this instance, is not an issue, nor is it material that smoking may have contributed to or aggravated Stone’s condition. The Hearing Examiner assumed a presumptuous role when he undertook to carry his crusading zeal against cigarette smoking into this case. If a juror on voir dire were to disclose such strong sentiments he would certainly be disqualified for cause.
There was no occasion to inject a moral judgment on smoking into the decisional process, or to talk of reward or punishment. My brethren agree that the quoted remarks were “unnecessary and irrelevant” but express the view (which is no more than a hope) that these comments were not prejudicial. It is no answer to say that there was evidence from which a finding could be made against the claimant; the really significant fact for the present purpose is that the evidence also permitted a conclusion upholding his claim. The choice lay with the Examiner, and the claimant was entitled to his unbiased decision. Since one cannot say with any degree of certainty that the bias voiced by the Hearing Examiner was not prejudicial, the appellant is entitled at the least to a hearing before an Examiner with a mind unclouded by “unnecessary and irrelevant” prepossessions.
This is not a situation in which the hearing examiner is accused of prejudice in the conduct of the proceedings and there is speculation as to what impact, if any, this had on his ultimate decision. See Bethlehem Steel Co. v. N. L. R. B., 74 App.D.C. 52, 120 F.2d 641, 653 (1941). Here the Examiner’s explicit statement in the decision denying disability benefits demonstrates clear and unequivocal bias in the evaluation of the claim. What the Fifth Circuit said in Alabama Roofing & Metal Co. v. N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 965, 967 (5th Cir. 1964), is apt here: “* * * petitioner, as a matter of due process, was entitled to a hearing before an impartial trial examiner.”
I would reverse with instructions to remand to the Social Security Administration for a new hearing before another examiner.*

 I trust that it is not amiss to note that I am not a smoker and deplore the habit. Nevertheless I think that smokers too are entitled to justice.