Social Security Administration, Office of Hearing and Appeals v. Anyel
United States Merit Systems Protection Board
58 M.S.P.R. 261 (1993)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
In 1991, the Social Security Administration Office of Hearing and Appeals (SSA) (plaintiff) proposed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (the board) that Anyel (defendant), an administrative-law judge (ALJ), be removed according to 5 U.S.C. § 7521. The SSA brought two charges against Anyel, claiming that in less than a year’s time (1) Anyel had failed to demonstrate adequate competence, knowledge, and judgment, resulting in reversible adjudicatory errors in over 74 percent of the cases reviewed and (2) she failed to fully develop records for pro se claimants and extend them rights to representation in their hearings. Adjudicatory errors were noted in 186 out of 211 of Anyel’s cases that were reviewed; 156 of them involved cases in which claimants did present new evidence on appeal. After conducting a hearing, the board’s chief ALJ recommended that Anyel be suspended for 90 days after finding that although the SSA had failed to show good cause needed to substantiate action for the first charge, it had shown good cause by a preponderance of the evidence as to the second charge. Both parties filed exceptions to the chief ALJ’s recommendation, and an amicus curiae brief was filed for the board to determine whether the SSA had shown good cause for Anyel’s removal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
