This was a Social Security Disability Hearing. With a good attorney and a very valid illness with ton's of valid documentation--this judge not only denied the case--he did it wrongfully and fraudulently--really. His unfavorable report clearly stated all wrong and inaccurate information. About 95% of the information was either wrong or not even mentioned. It's a case that cannot be overlooked. This judge really needs to be checked. And I mean at the highest level. He is doing this to many people. Bottom line, he is a fraud. He making real people of whom are valid and very sick--he's ruining their lives and making them lose their hard earned benefits.
Personal Injury Lawyer
I am sorry this happened to you. It is frustrating. Your attorney can appeal within 60 days of the decision.
Please be advised my answers to questions does not constitute legal advise and you should not rely on it, due to the fact that we have never met, I have not been aprised of the facts in you case nor have I reviewed any documents.
Social Security Lawyers
Your attorney - or you - can ask for the Appeals Council to review the Judge's decision. The request has to be filed within 60 days of your denial, so the sooner the better. You should be able to get the form from your attorney or your local SS office. Good luck.
5 lawyers agree
Estate Planning Attorney
File an appeal. You may also want to file additional documentation to support your appeal such as additional medical clarification from a physician and/or letters from yourself or family members. You may have other good sources as well. Good luck!
Disclaimer: This is not intended as legal advice and sets up no attorney/client relationship.
Car / Auto Accident Lawyer
Judicial Immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from lawsuits brought against them for judicial actions, no matter how incompetent, negligent, or malicious such conduct might be, even if this conduct is in violation of statutes.
For example, a judge may not be the subject of a slander or libel suit for statements made about someone during a trial, even if the defamatory statements had nothing to do with the trial at hand. Nor may a judge's clerk be sued for negligence in failing to deliver materials to the judge.
The purpose of judicial immunity is twofold: it encourages judges to act in a "fair and just" manner, without regard to the possible extrinsic harms their acts may cause outside of the scope of their judicial work. It protects government workers from harassment from those whose interests they might negatively affect.
Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent."
Note, however, that, while the judiciary may be immune from lawsuits involving their actions, they may still be subject to criminal prosecutions. For example, when West Virginia judge Troisi became irritated with a rude defendant, he stepped down from the bench, took off his robe, and bit the defendant on the nose. He spent five days in jail and was put on probation.
Historically, judicial immunity was associated with the English common law idea that "the King can do no wrong." (Compare Sovereign immunity.) Judges, the King's delegates for dispensing justice, accordingly "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King.
The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Howard Roitman, Esq. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
1 lawyer agrees