## Facts

- Mirta Rosa, a 50-year-old woman, worked steadily until August 12, 1982, when she was hospitalized with rectal bleeding, abdominal cramps, and weakness and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus.
- Rosa applied for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income on December 20, 1982; the agency denied her applications.
- In prior judicial review, the District Court remanded for further administrative proceedings; the Appeals Council then remanded to an ALJ for a new hearing.
- The ALJ conducted the remand hearing on September 5, 1986; it lasted slightly less than one hour.
- The hearing record reflected the ALJ’s repeated focus on expediency, including imposing arbitrary time limits on counsel and curtailing counsel’s efforts to present and develop evidence.
- The ALJ relied on extra-record, anecdotal comparisons to his mother’s illnesses when evaluating the seriousness of Rosa’s conditions.
- The ALJ attempted to condition a favorable disability finding on Rosa’s acceptance of a later disability onset date.
- The ALJ issued a recommended decision finding Rosa not disabled; the Appeals Council adopted that decision, and Rosa again sought judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether the ALJ’s conduct at the remand hearing denied Rosa her statutory right under the Social Security Act to a full and fair hearing and violated due process.
2. Whether the agency’s non-disability determination was supported by substantial evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

## Decision

- The court held that the remand hearing was fundamentally unfair and procedurally defective, violating Rosa’s statutory right to a full and fair hearing and due process.
- The court vacated the Secretary’s decision and remanded for a fair hearing.
- Because the hearing defects were dispositive, the court did not reach the substantial-evidence challenge to the disability determination.

## Legal Principles

- Social Security claimants are entitled to a meaningful evidentiary hearing; a hearing that exists in form but prevents effective presentation and development of the case violates the Act’s hearing requirement.
- An ALJ must act as an impartial adjudicator; coercive bargaining over material adjudicative determinations (including onset date) is inconsistent with neutrality and a fair hearing.
- Disability determinations must rest on the evidentiary record; reliance on personal experiences or extra-record medical assumptions is improper.
- Arbitrary time restrictions, impatience that curtails examination or presentation, and denial of reasonable procedural requests can cumulatively deprive a claimant of due process and require vacatur and remand.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the denial of benefits and remanded because the ALJ’s conduct—including curtailing counsel, relying on extra-record impressions, and pressuring an onset-date concession—deprived the claimant of the statutory right to a full and fair hearing and due process.


Rosa v. Bowen, 677 F. Supp. 782 (D.N.J. 1988)