Adversarial actions by an ALJ include but are not limited to;

Insulting the claimant’s representative/attorney by stating in front of claimant that the representative/attorney is not doing a good enough job, needs more education, is acting unconscionably,

Giving legal advise to a represented claimant,

Cutting off a line of questioning by claimant’s representative/attorney even though they have the right to “broad latitude” in questioning witnesses

Attempting to drive a wedge between claimant and claimant’s chosen representative by stating such things as, “you deserve an attorney who would do XXX and your attorney isn’t doing XXX” or asking the claimant’s representative “what is THE REAL alleged onset date” rather than allow testimony.

Scolding the claimant and/or scolding the claimant’s representative,

Wearing a black robe (HALLEX does not state that an ALJ should wear a robe and the purchase of a black robe with personal funds clearly causes anxiety to the claimant and is thus in violation of the rule that the proceedings be non-adversarial);

Sitting at a desk elevated from the claimant,

Conducting an administrative law hearing in a borrowed U.S. District Court courtroom with the Great Seal of the United States District Court appearing over the shoulder of the Social Security Administrative Agency’s ALJ thus giving the false impression that the ALJ is a U.S. District Judge (proceedings before the U.S. District Court are adversarial).

Showing animus or prejudice of the facts toward claimant are suggested by comments by the ALJ at the hearing together with highly irregular hearing procedures such as harshness, harassments and delays at the hearing….combined with other evidence.

For the ALJ to act adversarial in this and other ways is a violation of claimant’s United States Constitutional Right to Due Process. Claimant will adopt any answer suggested by the ALJ no matter how vague or how lacking in foundation when the hearing is improperly adversarial because claimant merely wants the hearing to come to an end as quickly as possible rather than be permitted to present a full and accurate record.

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), Mathews v. Elrdidge 424 US 319 (1976)

The United States Supreme Court has also ordered that claimant be given full opportunity to present evidence, conduct cross-examination of all witnesses and challenge any fact at issue before the decision maker. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)

"The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914).

The hearing must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) … these principles require that a recipient have timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a [397 U.S. 254, 268] proposed termination, and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally.

****