## Facts

- The Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of Hearings and Appeals filed a complaint under 5 U.S.C. § 7521 seeking removal of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Helen Anyel.
- SSA alleged two charges: (1) inadequate professional competence, legal knowledge, and judgment shown by a high rate of significant adjudicatory error; and (2) frequent failure to adequately extend the right to representation to pro se claimants at hearings.
- SSA’s quality review examined 211 of Anyel’s cases and identified adjudicatory errors in 186; SSA characterized more than 74% of reviewed cases as containing reversible adjudicatory errors, with many reversals involving new evidence submitted on appeal.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) found no good cause on Charge I, sustained Charge II by preponderant evidence, and recommended a 90-day suspension rather than removal.
- Both parties filed exceptions; an ALJ organization filed an amicus brief.
- On Board review, Anyel challenged, among other matters, limits placed on discovery concerning the agency’s methodology and data supporting its error-rate allegations.

## Issues

1. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7521, may an agency establish “good cause” to discipline an ALJ based on a high rate of significant adjudicatory error, and what showing is required?
2. Whether the CALJ’s discovery rulings improperly constrained the ALJ’s ability to test the agency’s error-rate evidence, requiring remand for further proceedings.
3. Whether the unresolved evidentiary and procedural issues affecting Charge I required reconsideration of the appropriate penalty in light of both charges.

## Decision

- The MSPB held that, as a matter of law, a high rate of significant adjudicatory error may constitute “good cause” to discipline an ALJ under 5 U.S.C. § 7521 if properly proven.
- The MSPB concluded the CALJ erred in rulings on certain discovery requests central to the agency’s error-rate case.
- Because those discovery errors left an inadequate record to resolve the merits and select an appropriate penalty, the MSPB vacated the recommended disposition and remanded to the CALJ for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under 5 U.S.C. § 7521, an ALJ may be disciplined only for “good cause” established and determined by the MSPB on the record after an opportunity for a hearing.
- Error-rate evidence is not categorically improper in ALJ-discipline cases; sufficiently significant and supported adjudicatory errors may demonstrate lack of competence, legal knowledge, or judgment amounting to good cause.
- When an agency relies on statistical or aggregate error-rate proof, fairness requires meaningful access to discovery needed to evaluate and challenge the agency’s review methodology, underlying data, and the characterization of errors as “significant.”
- Limiting discovery in a manner that prevents an ALJ from testing the foundation of the agency’s performance allegations can require remand because it undermines the adequacy of the record for determining good cause and penalty.

## Conclusion

The MSPB ruled that high rates of significant adjudicatory error can support good-cause discipline of an ALJ under § 7521, but remanded because flawed discovery rulings prevented a full and fair development of the record needed to decide the merits and any appropriate sanction.


Soc. Sec. Admin., Off. of Hearings & Appeals v. Anyel, 58 M.S.P.R. 261 (1993)