Social Security Ruling, SSR 13-1p; Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes for Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), 6168-6171 [2013-01833]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
6168
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Notices
concerning the securities of Law
Enforcement Associates Corp. because it
has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended March 31, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Matrixx
Resource Holdings, Inc. because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended March 31, 2007.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Mortgage
Assistance Center Corp. because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended March 31, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Sino
Shipping Holdings, Inc. because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended March 31, 2010.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Sonnen
Corp. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
March 31, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Superior Oil
& Gas Co. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
September 30, 2010.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Tekoil &
Gas Corp. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
September 30, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Trend
Mining Co. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
June 30, 2007.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Unico, Inc.
because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended May 31,
2010.
The Commission is of the opinion that
the public interest and the protection of
investors require a suspension of trading
in the securities of the above-listed
companies.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to
Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, that trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Jan 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
is suspended for the period from 9:30
a.m. EST on January 25, 2013, through
11:59 p.m. EST on February 7, 2013.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
Social Security Ruling, SSR 13–1p;
Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes for
Addressing Allegations of Unfairness,
Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct,
or Discrimination by Administrative
Law Judges (ALJs)
[FR Doc. 2013–01963 Filed 1–25–13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
[Docket No. SSA 2012–0071]
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Social Security Ruling
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Public Availability of Social Security
Administration Fiscal Year (FY) 2012
Service Contract Inventory
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Public Availability of
FY 2012 Service Contract Inventories.
ACTION:
In accordance with Section
743 of Division C of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111–117), we are publishing this notice
to advise the public of the availability
of the FY 2012 Service Contract
inventory. This inventory provides
information on FY 2012 service contract
actions over $25,000. We organized the
information by function to show how
contracted resources are distributed
throughout the agency. We developed
the inventory in accordance with
guidance issued on November 5, 2010
by the Office of Management and
Budget’s Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP). OFPP’s guidance is
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/procurement/
memo/service-contract-inventoriesguidance-11052010.pdf. You can access
the inventory and summary of the
inventory on our homepage at the
following link: https://
www.socialsecurity.gov/sci.
SUMMARY:
Paul
Martin, Executive Officer, Office of
Budget, Social Security Administration,
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21235–6401. Phone (410) 965–0387,
email Paul.J.Martin@ssa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: January 18, 2013.
Michael G. Gallagher,
Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance
and Management.
[FR Doc. 2013–01826 Filed 1–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In accordance with 20 CFR
402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social
Security gives notice of Social Security
Ruling, SSR–13–Xp. This Ruling
explains the three separate vehicles we
have for addressing complaints of
unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias,
misconduct, or discrimination by an
administrative law judge (ALJ). First,
the Ruling describes the procedures that
the Office of Disability Adjudication
and Review’s (ODAR) Appeals Council
follows when it receives such
allegations in the context of claim
adjudication. Next, the Ruling describes
how ODAR’s Division of Quality Service
reviews or investigates such complaints
outside of the claim adjudication
process to determine whether ODAR
should take any administrative or
disciplinary action with respect to the
ALJ. Finally, the Ruling describes how
the public may file with us complaints
of discrimination based on race, color,
national origin (including English
language ability), religion, sex, sexual
orientation, age, disability, or in
retaliation for having previously filed a
civil rights complaint against the
agency. This Ruling supersedes our
prior Notice of Procedures: Social
Security Administration Procedures
Concerning Allegations of Bias or
Misconduct by Administrative Law
Judges, 57 FR 49186 (October 30, 1992).
DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rainbow Forbes, Appeals Officer, Office
of Disability Adjudication and Review,
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1400, Falls
Church, VA 22041, 703–605–7100.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although
we are not required to do so pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are
publishing this SSR in accordance with
20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Through SSRs, we make available to
the public precedential decisions
relating to the Federal old-age,
survivors, disability, supplemental
security income, special veterans
benefits, and black lung benefits
programs. SSRs may be based on
determinations or decisions made at all
SUMMARY:
[Docket No. SSA–2013–0001]
AGENCY:
(SSR).
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Notices
levels of administrative adjudication,
Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s
decisions, opinions of the Office of the
General Counsel, or other
interpretations of the law and
regulations.
Although SSRs do not have the same
force and effect as statutes or
regulations, they are binding on all of
our components. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
This SSR will be in effect until we
publish a notice in the Federal Register
that rescinds it, or publish a new SSR
that replaces or modifies it.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—
Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social
Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004,
Social Security—Survivors Insurance;
96.006—Supplemental Security Income)
Dated: January 23, 2013.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Policy Interpretation Ruling
Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes
for Addressing Allegations of
Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias,
Misconduct, or Discrimination by
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).
Purpose: This Ruling clarifies the
three separate processes we have for
addressing allegations of unfairness,
prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct,
or discrimination by an ALJ.
Citations (Authority): Sections 205(b),
809(a), and 1631(c) of the Social
Security Act, as amended; Regulations
No. 4, subpart J, sections 404.940,
404.967, 404.969, and 404.970,
Regulations No. 5, subpart A, sections
405.25 and 405.30, and Regulations No.
16, subpart P, sections 416.1440,
416.1440, 416.1467, 416.1469, and
416.1470.
Background: Statements and actions
by our adjudicators that display
unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias,
misconduct, or discrimination
undermine public trust and confidence
in our administrative process. Our ALJs
perform an essential role in ensuring
that our administrative process is fair to
claimants by conducting de novo,
informal, non-adversarial hearings and
issuing decisions for claimants who are
dissatisfied with our determinations in
claims arising under the Social Security
Act. All adjudicators, including our
ALJs, must fulfill their duties with
fairness and impartiality. We have three
separate processes to guard against
unfairness in our hearing process: (1)
The Appeals Council review process,
under which we review hearing
decisions in accordance with 20 CFR
404.969, 404.970, 416.1469 and
416.1470, to ensure that ALJs fairly and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Jan 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
impartially consider claims for benefits;
(2) the Division of Quality Service’s ALJ
complaint investigation process; and (3)
the civil rights investigation process for
allegations of discrimination involving
unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias
based on race, color, national origin
(including English language ability),
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age,
disability, or in retaliation for having
previously filed a civil rights complaint.
These three processes operate separately
from one another and have different
focuses. Claimants, parties, and the
public may avail themselves of any or
all three of the processes, as applicable,
and all three processes may occur
concurrently.
In this Ruling, we explain these three
different processes and emphasize that:
1. The Appeals Council has authority
under 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 to
act when a party is dissatisfied with a
hearing decision or dismissal of a
hearing request. Even when a party does
not request review, the Appeals Council
may initiate review under 20 CFR
404.969 and 416.1469. The Appeals
Council considers allegations of
unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias
by ALJs under the standards for review
in 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470. The
Appeals Council may also consider
objections from a party stating why a
new hearing should be held before
another ALJ pursuant to 20 CFR 404.940
and 416.1440. In evaluating such
allegations, the Appeals Council
considers only the evidence contained
in the claimant’s administrative record.
The Appeals Council’s process is the
only process set forth herein that allows
a claimant to obtain a remedy on the
claim for benefits.
2. The Division of Quality Service
may review and, if warranted,
investigate any complaints against an
ALJ, including allegations of unfairness,
prejudice, partiality, bias, or
misconduct. Under this process, the
Division of Quality Service evaluates
allegations to determine whether it is
necessary to recommend administrative
or disciplinary action against an ALJ.
3. Individuals who allege
discrimination based on their race,
color, national origin (including English
language ability), religion, sex, sexual
orientation, age, disability, or in
retaliation for having previously filed a
civil rights complaint, may also file a
separate discrimination complaint with
us using our civil rights complaint
process.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6169
Policy Interpretation
Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice,
Partiality, Bias, or Misconduct
Evaluated in the Appeals Council
Claims Review Process
The ALJ’s decision is subject to
Appeals Council review under 20 CFR
404.970 and 416.1470 if the claimant or
other party or his or her representative
timely requests review of the ALJ’s
decision. The Appeals Council may also
review the ALJ’s decision on its own
motion under 20 CFR 404.969 and
416.1469.
The Appeals Council will grant a
party’s request for review and issue a
decision or remand a case when:
• There appears to be an abuse of
discretion by the ALJ;
• There is an error of law;
• The action, findings or conclusions
of the ALJ are not supported by
substantial evidence;
• There is a broad policy or
procedural issue that may affect the
general public interest; or
• There is new and material evidence
submitted that relates to the period on
or before the ALJ’s hearing decision, and
review of the case shows that the ALJ’s
actions, findings or conclusions are
contrary to the weight of the evidence
currently of record.
Under our regulations, an ALJ must
not conduct a hearing if he or she is
prejudiced or partial with respect to any
party or has any interest in the matter
pending for decision. A claimant or
other party to the hearing who objects
to the ALJ who will conduct the hearing
must notify the ALJ at his or her earliest
opportunity. The ALJ will then decide
whether to proceed with the hearing or
to withdraw. If the ALJ does not
withdraw, the claimant or other party to
the hearing may, after the hearing,
present objections to the Appeals
Council as to reasons why the hearing
decision should be revised or a new
hearing should be held before another
ALJ.
If, in conjunction with a request for
review, the Appeals Council receives an
allegation of ALJ unfairness, prejudice,
partiality, or bias, the Appeals Council
will review the claimant’s allegations
and hearing decision under the abuse of
discretion standard. We will find an
abuse of discretion when an ALJ’s
action is erroneous and without any
rational basis, or is clearly not justified
under the particular circumstances of
the case, such as where there has been
an improper exercise, or a failure to
exercise, administrative authority. For
example, if the record shows that the
ALJ failed to conduct a full and fair
hearing by refusing to allow the
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
6170
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
claimant to testify or cross-examine
witnesses, we will find that an abuse of
discretion has occurred. An abuse of
discretion may also occur where there is
a failure to follow procedures required
by law.
An ALJ also abuses his or her
discretion if the evidence in the record
shows that the ALJ failed to recuse
himself or herself from a case in which
he or she was prejudiced or partial with
respect to a particular claim or claimant,
or had an interest in the matter pending
for decision. In this instance, we will
remand the case to another ALJ for a
new hearing or revise the ALJ’s decision
pursuant to 20 CFR 404.940 and
416.1440.
In considering allegations of
unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias
by the ALJ, the Appeals Council reviews
information in the claimant’s
administrative record to determine
whether to consider the alleged actions
an abuse of discretion. The Appeals
Council relies solely on information in
the administrative record in
determining this issue. The Appeals
Council does not otherwise investigate
the allegations or consider information
or evidence that is not a part of the
administrative record.
After reviewing the administrative
record to evaluate the allegation of
unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias
by the ALJ under the abuse of discretion
standard, the Appeals Council will send
the claimant a notice, order, or decision
explaining that it has considered the
allegation under the abuse of discretion
standard and stating whether it found
an abuse of discretion. The sole remedy
the Appeals Council may provide to the
claimant is a decision or a remand for
further administrative action on the
particular claim for benefits under
review. When the Appeals Council
issues its notice, order, or decision
describing its action on the request for
review, this concludes its role in the
appellate review process. Such action
does not involve a referral to the
Division of Quality Services, nor does it
constitute disciplinary action against an
ALJ.
If the Appeals Council receives an
allegation that falls outside its
jurisdiction, such as an allegation that
an ALJ violated personnel regulations or
policies, the Appeals Council will
process the request for review and
acknowledge the allegation.1 The
1 For example, the Appeals Council does not use
ethics or personnel rules to determine whether an
ALJ abused his or her discretion. All employees,
including our ALJs, must comply with the
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635) and SSA’s
Standards of Conduct and Annual Personnel
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Jan 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Appeals Council will then refer the
allegation to the Division of Quality
Service. Similarly, if the Appeals
Council receives an allegation about
another issue that is beyond the scope
of its authority, such as an allegation
that an ALJ shows ‘‘general bias’’ or a
pattern of bias or misconduct against a
group or particular category of
claimants, the Appeals Council will
process the request for review and
acknowledge the allegation in the
notice, order, or decision. The Appeals
Council will refer the allegation to the
Division of Quality Service. Possible
examples of allegations that the Appeals
Council will not refer to the Division of
Quality Service include, ‘‘the ALJ is
biased against me [individually]’’ and
‘‘the ALJ is prejudiced because she did
not find me disabled.’’ Possible
examples of allegations that the Appeals
Council will refer to the Division of
Quality Service include, ‘‘the ALJ is
biased against claimants who receive
workers compensation benefits or
unemployment benefits’’ and ‘‘the ALJ
shows prejudice toward women.’’
Additionally, the Appeals Council
may identify ALJ conduct that it
determines warrants referral to the
Division of Quality Service even if a
claimant has not alleged it or filed a
request for review with the Appeals
Council. If the Appeals Council makes
such a referral, it will clearly identify
and refer the conduct to the Division of
Quality Service. The Appeals Council
will not reference any referral to the
Division of Quality Service in a notice,
order, or decision.
ALJ Complaint Investigation Process
Through the Division of Quality Service
We also may receive allegations and
complaints about ALJ conduct directly
from claimants and other sources,
outside of the scope of Appeals Council
review. For example, in addition to
receiving complaints from individual
claimants, we may also receive
complaints from witnesses at a hearing,
claimant representatives, agency
personnel such as those in our Office of
the Inspector General (OIG), Members of
Congress, and the Federal courts.
Within the Office of Disability
Adjudication Review (ODAR), the
Division of Quality Service collects,
reviews, and if warranted, investigates
all allegations and complaints,
including allegations referred by the
Appeals Council under the process
described above. The Division of
Quality Service is responsible for
Reminders, but these rules are not considered
during the Appeals Council’s review of an ALJ’s
decision on a disability benefits claim.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
receiving, tracking, and monitoring
complaints that it receives.
This ALJ complaint investigation
process is not an additional or
alternative way to appeal the decision or
dismissal on a claim for benefits. Filing
a complaint using this process does not
substitute for requesting review by the
Appeals Council within the time frames
set out in our regulations. If an
individual wants to make a formal
complaint about a particular ALJ
(whether or not that complaint is
associated with a particular claim for
benefits) and request that management
officials investigate the ALJ’s conduct,
the individual must file the complaint
with the Division of Quality Service.
When the Division of Quality Service
receives a complaint about an ALJ from
a claimant or member of the public, it
will acknowledge receipt of the
complaint in writing and make
reasonable efforts to do so within 60
days from the date it receives the
complaint. However, the Division of
Quality Service will not acknowledge
complaints referred by the Appeals
Council or other agency components. If
an ODAR Regional Office receives a
complaint from a claimant or member of
the public about an ALJ, the Regional
Office will acknowledge receipt of the
complaint in writing and make
reasonable efforts to do so within 60
days from the date it receives the
complaint. The ODAR Regional Offices
will also notify the Division of Quality
Service that they received the
complaint.
In order for the Division of Quality
Service to review or investigate a
complaint, the complaint must be filed
in writing by the claimant, another party
to the hearing, the claimant’s
representative, someone authorized to
act on the claimant’s or other party’s
behalf, or another individual who was
present at the claimant’s hearing
(collectively, the complainant). If we
receive the complaint from someone
other than the individuals listed above,
we will notify that individual that we
will not review it. To ensure that we can
obtain any necessary information in a
timely manner, we must receive the
complaint within 180 days of either the
date of the action complained of, or the
date the complainant became aware of
such conduct. The complaint should
contain specific information about the
conduct, including where and when it
occurred, and whether there were any
witnesses. If we do not receive this
information, we will inform the
complainant of the insufficiency of
information, and give him or her 30
days from the date of the notice to
supply additional information.
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
The Division of Quality Service (or its
designee) will review all complaints
that it receives. A review includes an
audit of the hearing recording if
available, and an examination of the
complaint, the hearing decision, and
any other relevant documentation. If the
Division of Quality Service’s review
indicates an investigation is
unnecessary, we will close out the
complaint and forward it to the
appropriate ODAR Regional Office.2 If
the Division of Quality Service
determines that an investigation is
necessary, the Division of Quality
Service will forward the complaint to
the appropriate Regional Chief
Administrative Law Judge (RCALJ). At
the beginning of the investigation, the
RCALJ (or his or her designee) will
notify the ALJ, give him or her a copy
of the complaint, and provide him or
her with an opportunity to respond to
the complaint. In addition to auditing
the hearing recording and examining the
complaint, the hearing decision, and
any other relevant documentation, an
investigation may include contacting
any witnesses who have information
related to the complaint. Following the
investigation, the appropriate RCALJ
will prepare a report for the Division of
Quality Service’s review containing
findings and recommending any
necessary action regarding the ALJ.
Such action could include counseling,
training, mentoring, or disciplinary
action. Once a review or investigation is
complete, we will notify the
complainant that we processed the
complaint. However, we will also
explain that the Privacy Act prevents us
from disclosing whether there was an
investigation and whether we took any
action against the ALJ who is the subject
of the complaint.
The Division of Quality Service will
use the same process described above to
review or investigate complaints
alleging ‘‘general bias’’ as well as those
alleging a pattern of ALJ bias or
misconduct against a group of
claimants, or a particular category of
claimants. In addition, the Division of
Quality Service will monitor individual
complaints that it receives to identify
any patterns of alleged ALJ bias or
misconduct against a group of
claimants, or a particular category of
claimants, for further investigation. If
we substantiate these complaints, we
2 The ODAR Regional Office or DQS will notify
the ALJ pursuant to our contractual obligations. Our
current contract governing notification with the
Association of Administrative Law Judges,
International Federation of Professional and
Technical Engineers, AFL–CIO became effective on
August 31, 2001.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Jan 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
will take appropriate action as described
in this Ruling.
We may also find after a review or
investigation the complaint is
unsubstantiated, and we will take no
action with respect to the ALJ. Our
findings or actions in the Division of
Quality Service ALJ complaint
investigation process do not constitute
findings on a claim for benefits under
the Social Security Act. Rather, they
represent an action committed to agency
discretion by law and are not subject to
judicial review.
Investigation of Allegations of
Discrimination Under Our Civil Rights
Complaint Process
A person who was a party to a hearing
may file a discrimination complaint
with us alleging discrimination in our
hearing process based on race, color,
national origin (including English
language ability), religion, sex, sexual
orientation, age, disability or in
retaliation for having previously filed a
civil rights complaint. Currently, our
Office of the General Counsel has the
responsibility to investigate and decide
complaints that individuals file under
this process. A person who was a party
to a hearing may file a discrimination
complaint under our civil rights
investigation process in addition to
filing a request for Appeals Council
review or filing a complaint with the
Division of Quality Service.
An individual may file a
discrimination complaint alleging
discrimination by an ALJ by using Form
SSA–437–BK (available at https://
www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ssa437.pdf); however, an individual is not
required to use this form and may make
a complaint with a letter that contains
the same information. The
discrimination complaint must be filed
within 180 days of the alleged
discriminatory action unless we find
there is good cause for late filing. Form
SSA–437–BK provides:
‘‘If you disagree with a decision that was
made on a claim you filed for benefits, you
must appeal that decision according to the
procedure described in the notice of appeal
rights that accompanied the decision. If you
believe the decision was based on
discrimination, you may file a complaint of
discrimination using this form, but even if
we find that you were discriminated against,
that would not mean that the decision on
your claim for benefits would change. A
decision can still be a correct application of
the law even if the decision-maker was
biased. The only way to get the benefits
decision changed is to file an appeal of that
decision.’’
After we receive an allegation of
discrimination involving an ALJ based
on the categories discussed above, the
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6171
Division of Quality Service (or its
designee) will assist the Office of the
General Counsel or its designee in its
review of the allegation of
discrimination. The Division of Quality
Service will prepare a copy of its
findings and supporting documents. We
will use the facts and documents
stemming from the Division of Quality
Service’s investigation to make a finding
of discrimination or non-discrimination.
We should issue a decision within
180 days of receiving the complaint. We
may dismiss complaints for a lack of
jurisdiction, such as those that allege
discrimination based solely on a denial
of benefits under SSA’s program law
and not on race, color, national origin
(including English language ability),
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age,
disability or in retaliation for having
previously filed a civil rights complaint.
We will also dismiss complaints
alleging discrimination on bases other
than those identified in the complaint
form or letter.
Within 30 days after a complainant
receives our decision, he or she may
request reconsideration of our decision
on or dismissal of his or her civil rights
complaint, and we should issue a
reconsideration decision within 60 days
of receiving a request for
reconsideration.
Effective Date: This SSR is effective
on February 28, 2013.
[FR Doc. 2013–01833 Filed 1–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 8167]
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: INTERNational
Connections
Notice of request for public
comment and submission to OMB of
proposed collection of information.
ACTION:
The Department of State has
submitted the information collection
described below to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we
are requesting comments on this
collection from all interested
individuals and organizations. The
purpose of this Notice is to allow 30
days for public comment.
DATES: Submit comments directly to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) up to February 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Direct comments to the
Department of State Desk Officer in the
Office of Information and Regulatory
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6168-6171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01833]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Docket No. SSA 2012-0071]
Social Security Ruling, SSR 13-1p; Titles II and XVI: Agency
Processes for Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice,
Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law
Judges (ALJs)
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling (SSR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR-13-Xp. This
Ruling explains the three separate vehicles we have for addressing
complaints of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or
discrimination by an administrative law judge (ALJ). First, the Ruling
describes the procedures that the Office of Disability Adjudication and
Review's (ODAR) Appeals Council follows when it receives such
allegations in the context of claim adjudication. Next, the Ruling
describes how ODAR's Division of Quality Service reviews or
investigates such complaints outside of the claim adjudication process
to determine whether ODAR should take any administrative or
disciplinary action with respect to the ALJ. Finally, the Ruling
describes how the public may file with us complaints of discrimination
based on race, color, national origin (including English language
ability), religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in
retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint
against the agency. This Ruling supersedes our prior Notice of
Procedures: Social Security Administration Procedures Concerning
Allegations of Bias or Misconduct by Administrative Law Judges, 57 FR
49186 (October 30, 1992).
DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rainbow Forbes, Appeals Officer,
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite
1400, Falls Church, VA 22041, 703-605-7100.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although we are not required to do so
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this SSR
in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Through SSRs, we make available to the public precedential
decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability,
supplemental security income, special veterans benefits, and black lung
benefits programs. SSRs may be based on determinations or decisions
made at all
[[Page 6169]]
levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions,
Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General
Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although SSRs do not have the same force and effect as statutes or
regulations, they are binding on all of our components. 20 CFR
402.35(b)(1).
This SSR will be in effect until we publish a notice in the Federal
Register that rescinds it, or publish a new SSR that replaces or
modifies it.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Program Nos. 96.001, Social
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security--Retirement
Insurance; 96.004, Social Security--Survivors Insurance; 96.006--
Supplemental Security Income)
Dated: January 23, 2013.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Policy Interpretation Ruling
Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes for Addressing Allegations of
Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination
by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).
Purpose: This Ruling clarifies the three separate processes we have
for addressing allegations of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias,
misconduct, or discrimination by an ALJ.
Citations (Authority): Sections 205(b), 809(a), and 1631(c) of the
Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart J, sections
404.940, 404.967, 404.969, and 404.970, Regulations No. 5, subpart A,
sections 405.25 and 405.30, and Regulations No. 16, subpart P, sections
416.1440, 416.1440, 416.1467, 416.1469, and 416.1470.
Background: Statements and actions by our adjudicators that display
unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or discrimination
undermine public trust and confidence in our administrative process.
Our ALJs perform an essential role in ensuring that our administrative
process is fair to claimants by conducting de novo, informal, non-
adversarial hearings and issuing decisions for claimants who are
dissatisfied with our determinations in claims arising under the Social
Security Act. All adjudicators, including our ALJs, must fulfill their
duties with fairness and impartiality. We have three separate processes
to guard against unfairness in our hearing process: (1) The Appeals
Council review process, under which we review hearing decisions in
accordance with 20 CFR 404.969, 404.970, 416.1469 and 416.1470, to
ensure that ALJs fairly and impartially consider claims for benefits;
(2) the Division of Quality Service's ALJ complaint investigation
process; and (3) the civil rights investigation process for allegations
of discrimination involving unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias
based on race, color, national origin (including English language
ability), religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in
retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint. These
three processes operate separately from one another and have different
focuses. Claimants, parties, and the public may avail themselves of any
or all three of the processes, as applicable, and all three processes
may occur concurrently.
In this Ruling, we explain these three different processes and
emphasize that:
1. The Appeals Council has authority under 20 CFR 404.970 and
416.1470 to act when a party is dissatisfied with a hearing decision or
dismissal of a hearing request. Even when a party does not request
review, the Appeals Council may initiate review under 20 CFR 404.969
and 416.1469. The Appeals Council considers allegations of unfairness,
prejudice, partiality, or bias by ALJs under the standards for review
in 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470. The Appeals Council may also consider
objections from a party stating why a new hearing should be held before
another ALJ pursuant to 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440. In evaluating such
allegations, the Appeals Council considers only the evidence contained
in the claimant's administrative record. The Appeals Council's process
is the only process set forth herein that allows a claimant to obtain a
remedy on the claim for benefits.
2. The Division of Quality Service may review and, if warranted,
investigate any complaints against an ALJ, including allegations of
unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, or misconduct. Under this
process, the Division of Quality Service evaluates allegations to
determine whether it is necessary to recommend administrative or
disciplinary action against an ALJ.
3. Individuals who allege discrimination based on their race,
color, national origin (including English language ability), religion,
sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in retaliation for having
previously filed a civil rights complaint, may also file a separate
discrimination complaint with us using our civil rights complaint
process.
Policy Interpretation
Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, or Misconduct
Evaluated in the Appeals Council Claims Review Process
The ALJ's decision is subject to Appeals Council review under 20
CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 if the claimant or other party or his or her
representative timely requests review of the ALJ's decision. The
Appeals Council may also review the ALJ's decision on its own motion
under 20 CFR 404.969 and 416.1469.
The Appeals Council will grant a party's request for review and
issue a decision or remand a case when:
There appears to be an abuse of discretion by the ALJ;
There is an error of law;
The action, findings or conclusions of the ALJ are not
supported by substantial evidence;
There is a broad policy or procedural issue that may
affect the general public interest; or
There is new and material evidence submitted that relates
to the period on or before the ALJ's hearing decision, and review of
the case shows that the ALJ's actions, findings or conclusions are
contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record.
Under our regulations, an ALJ must not conduct a hearing if he or
she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party or has any
interest in the matter pending for decision. A claimant or other party
to the hearing who objects to the ALJ who will conduct the hearing must
notify the ALJ at his or her earliest opportunity. The ALJ will then
decide whether to proceed with the hearing or to withdraw. If the ALJ
does not withdraw, the claimant or other party to the hearing may,
after the hearing, present objections to the Appeals Council as to
reasons why the hearing decision should be revised or a new hearing
should be held before another ALJ.
If, in conjunction with a request for review, the Appeals Council
receives an allegation of ALJ unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or
bias, the Appeals Council will review the claimant's allegations and
hearing decision under the abuse of discretion standard. We will find
an abuse of discretion when an ALJ's action is erroneous and without
any rational basis, or is clearly not justified under the particular
circumstances of the case, such as where there has been an improper
exercise, or a failure to exercise, administrative authority. For
example, if the record shows that the ALJ failed to conduct a full and
fair hearing by refusing to allow the
[[Page 6170]]
claimant to testify or cross-examine witnesses, we will find that an
abuse of discretion has occurred. An abuse of discretion may also occur
where there is a failure to follow procedures required by law.
An ALJ also abuses his or her discretion if the evidence in the
record shows that the ALJ failed to recuse himself or herself from a
case in which he or she was prejudiced or partial with respect to a
particular claim or claimant, or had an interest in the matter pending
for decision. In this instance, we will remand the case to another ALJ
for a new hearing or revise the ALJ's decision pursuant to 20 CFR
404.940 and 416.1440.
In considering allegations of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or
bias by the ALJ, the Appeals Council reviews information in the
claimant's administrative record to determine whether to consider the
alleged actions an abuse of discretion. The Appeals Council relies
solely on information in the administrative record in determining this
issue. The Appeals Council does not otherwise investigate the
allegations or consider information or evidence that is not a part of
the administrative record.
After reviewing the administrative record to evaluate the
allegation of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias by the ALJ
under the abuse of discretion standard, the Appeals Council will send
the claimant a notice, order, or decision explaining that it has
considered the allegation under the abuse of discretion standard and
stating whether it found an abuse of discretion. The sole remedy the
Appeals Council may provide to the claimant is a decision or a remand
for further administrative action on the particular claim for benefits
under review. When the Appeals Council issues its notice, order, or
decision describing its action on the request for review, this
concludes its role in the appellate review process. Such action does
not involve a referral to the Division of Quality Services, nor does it
constitute disciplinary action against an ALJ.
If the Appeals Council receives an allegation that falls outside
its jurisdiction, such as an allegation that an ALJ violated personnel
regulations or policies, the Appeals Council will process the request
for review and acknowledge the allegation.\1\ The Appeals Council will
then refer the allegation to the Division of Quality Service.
Similarly, if the Appeals Council receives an allegation about another
issue that is beyond the scope of its authority, such as an allegation
that an ALJ shows ``general bias'' or a pattern of bias or misconduct
against a group or particular category of claimants, the Appeals
Council will process the request for review and acknowledge the
allegation in the notice, order, or decision. The Appeals Council will
refer the allegation to the Division of Quality Service. Possible
examples of allegations that the Appeals Council will not refer to the
Division of Quality Service include, ``the ALJ is biased against me
[individually]'' and ``the ALJ is prejudiced because she did not find
me disabled.'' Possible examples of allegations that the Appeals
Council will refer to the Division of Quality Service include, ``the
ALJ is biased against claimants who receive workers compensation
benefits or unemployment benefits'' and ``the ALJ shows prejudice
toward women.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, the Appeals Council does not use ethics or
personnel rules to determine whether an ALJ abused his or her
discretion. All employees, including our ALJs, must comply with the
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
(5 CFR part 2635) and SSA's Standards of Conduct and Annual
Personnel Reminders, but these rules are not considered during the
Appeals Council's review of an ALJ's decision on a disability
benefits claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Appeals Council may identify ALJ conduct that it
determines warrants referral to the Division of Quality Service even if
a claimant has not alleged it or filed a request for review with the
Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council makes such a referral, it will
clearly identify and refer the conduct to the Division of Quality
Service. The Appeals Council will not reference any referral to the
Division of Quality Service in a notice, order, or decision.
ALJ Complaint Investigation Process Through the Division of Quality
Service
We also may receive allegations and complaints about ALJ conduct
directly from claimants and other sources, outside of the scope of
Appeals Council review. For example, in addition to receiving
complaints from individual claimants, we may also receive complaints
from witnesses at a hearing, claimant representatives, agency personnel
such as those in our Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Members of
Congress, and the Federal courts. Within the Office of Disability
Adjudication Review (ODAR), the Division of Quality Service collects,
reviews, and if warranted, investigates all allegations and complaints,
including allegations referred by the Appeals Council under the process
described above. The Division of Quality Service is responsible for
receiving, tracking, and monitoring complaints that it receives.
This ALJ complaint investigation process is not an additional or
alternative way to appeal the decision or dismissal on a claim for
benefits. Filing a complaint using this process does not substitute for
requesting review by the Appeals Council within the time frames set out
in our regulations. If an individual wants to make a formal complaint
about a particular ALJ (whether or not that complaint is associated
with a particular claim for benefits) and request that management
officials investigate the ALJ's conduct, the individual must file the
complaint with the Division of Quality Service.
When the Division of Quality Service receives a complaint about an
ALJ from a claimant or member of the public, it will acknowledge
receipt of the complaint in writing and make reasonable efforts to do
so within 60 days from the date it receives the complaint. However, the
Division of Quality Service will not acknowledge complaints referred by
the Appeals Council or other agency components. If an ODAR Regional
Office receives a complaint from a claimant or member of the public
about an ALJ, the Regional Office will acknowledge receipt of the
complaint in writing and make reasonable efforts to do so within 60
days from the date it receives the complaint. The ODAR Regional Offices
will also notify the Division of Quality Service that they received the
complaint.
In order for the Division of Quality Service to review or
investigate a complaint, the complaint must be filed in writing by the
claimant, another party to the hearing, the claimant's representative,
someone authorized to act on the claimant's or other party's behalf, or
another individual who was present at the claimant's hearing
(collectively, the complainant). If we receive the complaint from
someone other than the individuals listed above, we will notify that
individual that we will not review it. To ensure that we can obtain any
necessary information in a timely manner, we must receive the complaint
within 180 days of either the date of the action complained of, or the
date the complainant became aware of such conduct. The complaint should
contain specific information about the conduct, including where and
when it occurred, and whether there were any witnesses. If we do not
receive this information, we will inform the complainant of the
insufficiency of information, and give him or her 30 days from the date
of the notice to supply additional information.
[[Page 6171]]
The Division of Quality Service (or its designee) will review all
complaints that it receives. A review includes an audit of the hearing
recording if available, and an examination of the complaint, the
hearing decision, and any other relevant documentation. If the Division
of Quality Service's review indicates an investigation is unnecessary,
we will close out the complaint and forward it to the appropriate ODAR
Regional Office.\2\ If the Division of Quality Service determines that
an investigation is necessary, the Division of Quality Service will
forward the complaint to the appropriate Regional Chief Administrative
Law Judge (RCALJ). At the beginning of the investigation, the RCALJ (or
his or her designee) will notify the ALJ, give him or her a copy of the
complaint, and provide him or her with an opportunity to respond to the
complaint. In addition to auditing the hearing recording and examining
the complaint, the hearing decision, and any other relevant
documentation, an investigation may include contacting any witnesses
who have information related to the complaint. Following the
investigation, the appropriate RCALJ will prepare a report for the
Division of Quality Service's review containing findings and
recommending any necessary action regarding the ALJ. Such action could
include counseling, training, mentoring, or disciplinary action. Once a
review or investigation is complete, we will notify the complainant
that we processed the complaint. However, we will also explain that the
Privacy Act prevents us from disclosing whether there was an
investigation and whether we took any action against the ALJ who is the
subject of the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ODAR Regional Office or DQS will notify the ALJ pursuant
to our contractual obligations. Our current contract governing
notification with the Association of Administrative Law Judges,
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO became effective on August 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Division of Quality Service will use the same process described
above to review or investigate complaints alleging ``general bias'' as
well as those alleging a pattern of ALJ bias or misconduct against a
group of claimants, or a particular category of claimants. In addition,
the Division of Quality Service will monitor individual complaints that
it receives to identify any patterns of alleged ALJ bias or misconduct
against a group of claimants, or a particular category of claimants,
for further investigation. If we substantiate these complaints, we will
take appropriate action as described in this Ruling.
We may also find after a review or investigation the complaint is
unsubstantiated, and we will take no action with respect to the ALJ.
Our findings or actions in the Division of Quality Service ALJ
complaint investigation process do not constitute findings on a claim
for benefits under the Social Security Act. Rather, they represent an
action committed to agency discretion by law and are not subject to
judicial review.
Investigation of Allegations of Discrimination Under Our Civil Rights
Complaint Process
A person who was a party to a hearing may file a discrimination
complaint with us alleging discrimination in our hearing process based
on race, color, national origin (including English language ability),
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or in retaliation
for having previously filed a civil rights complaint. Currently, our
Office of the General Counsel has the responsibility to investigate and
decide complaints that individuals file under this process. A person
who was a party to a hearing may file a discrimination complaint under
our civil rights investigation process in addition to filing a request
for Appeals Council review or filing a complaint with the Division of
Quality Service.
An individual may file a discrimination complaint alleging
discrimination by an ALJ by using Form SSA-437-BK (available at https://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ssa-437.pdf); however, an individual is
not required to use this form and may make a complaint with a letter
that contains the same information. The discrimination complaint must
be filed within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action unless we
find there is good cause for late filing. Form SSA-437-BK provides:
``If you disagree with a decision that was made on a claim you
filed for benefits, you must appeal that decision according to the
procedure described in the notice of appeal rights that accompanied
the decision. If you believe the decision was based on
discrimination, you may file a complaint of discrimination using
this form, but even if we find that you were discriminated against,
that would not mean that the decision on your claim for benefits
would change. A decision can still be a correct application of the
law even if the decision-maker was biased. The only way to get the
benefits decision changed is to file an appeal of that decision.''
After we receive an allegation of discrimination involving an ALJ
based on the categories discussed above, the Division of Quality
Service (or its designee) will assist the Office of the General Counsel
or its designee in its review of the allegation of discrimination. The
Division of Quality Service will prepare a copy of its findings and
supporting documents. We will use the facts and documents stemming from
the Division of Quality Service's investigation to make a finding of
discrimination or non-discrimination.
We should issue a decision within 180 days of receiving the
complaint. We may dismiss complaints for a lack of jurisdiction, such
as those that allege discrimination based solely on a denial of
benefits under SSA's program law and not on race, color, national
origin (including English language ability), religion, sex, sexual
orientation, age, disability or in retaliation for having previously
filed a civil rights complaint. We will also dismiss complaints
alleging discrimination on bases other than those identified in the
complaint form or letter.
Within 30 days after a complainant receives our decision, he or she
may request reconsideration of our decision on or dismissal of his or
her civil rights complaint, and we should issue a reconsideration
decision within 60 days of receiving a request for reconsideration.
Effective Date: This SSR is effective on February 28, 2013.
[FR Doc. 2013-01833 Filed 1-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
