Rosa v. Bowen
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
677 F. Supp. 782 (1988)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Mirta Rosa (plaintiff) was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. Rosa filed for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (defendant) denied her application. The Appeals Council of the Department of Health and Human Services granted the plaintiff a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ heard the case in less than one hour. The transcript showed the ALJ’s primary concern was expediency. The ALJ denied all of the plaintiff’s procedural requests in an impatient and irritated manner. The ALJ also harassed the plaintiff’s attorney to finish his presentation. At certain points, the ALJ ordered the attorney to finish within certain time limits. The ALJ also improperly measured the seriousness of the plaintiff’s condition based on his own mother’s illnesses. In an attempt to conclude the hearing, the ALJ offered to make a finding of disability in exchange for the plaintiff choosing a later disability onset date. After the hearing, the ALJ recommended the Appeals Council deny the plaintiff disability benefits. The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ’s conclusion. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the ALJ denied her due process and her statutory right to a hearing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sarokin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
