Mamrol v. Astrue - ED Pa. - June 9, 2008
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0646P.pdf
Where there was little contemporaneous evidence about the date of onset of the claimant's disability - multiple sclerosis - the ALJ should have consulted a medical advisor, under the factors set out in SSR 83-20 and the decisions in Walton v. Halter, 243 F3d 703 (3d Cir. 2001) and Newell v. Commissioner, 347 F3d 541 (3d Cir. 2003).
Citing Newell, the court refused to draw negative inferences from claimant's infrequent or irregular doctor visits without first considering her explanations, which in this case satisfied the court.
Monday, June 16, 2008
child abuse - founded/indicated reports - right to expungement hearing
K.R. v. DPW - Commonwealth Court - June 4, 2008
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2060CD07_6-4-08.pdf
It was proper for DPW to deny a hearing on a request for expungement of an "indicated report of abuse and enter an determination based on findings in a related dependency case, which was the basis for a "founded" report of abuse. DPW may rely on the factual findings of the trial court in a dependency adjudication to dismiss an appeal for a request for expungement.
An administrative hearing in a later expungement case would be an improper collateral attack on the factual findings in the dependency adjudication, in which proceeding the alleged abuser has a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. "Due process does not require an administrative [expungement] hearing, as the material facts found in the dependency proceeding cannot be disputed."
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2060CD07_6-4-08.pdf
It was proper for DPW to deny a hearing on a request for expungement of an "indicated report of abuse and enter an determination based on findings in a related dependency case, which was the basis for a "founded" report of abuse. DPW may rely on the factual findings of the trial court in a dependency adjudication to dismiss an appeal for a request for expungement.
An administrative hearing in a later expungement case would be an improper collateral attack on the factual findings in the dependency adjudication, in which proceeding the alleged abuser has a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. "Due process does not require an administrative [expungement] hearing, as the material facts found in the dependency proceeding cannot be disputed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)