Eve B GodfreyOdar Office, Administrative Law Judge
For the 2010 *fiscal year, Judge Eve B Godfrey has disposed 412 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. Out of those 412 dispostions, 75 were dismissed, 146 were approved and 191 were denied. This means that the percentage of depositions that Judge Eve B Godfrey has approved in SAN DIEGO for the 2010 fiscal year is 15%. The information below for Judge Eve B Godfrey was last updated on 12/01/2022.
|Eve B Godfrey||No Stats for FY2011|
|All ALJs in SAN DIEGO||20%||40%||40%|
|All ALJs in CALIFORNIA||19%||45%||35%|
|All ALJs in the Nation||18%||45%||38%|
My hearing with Judge Godfrey was not recent. It was on June 25, 2010.
I am filing a complaint with SSA/ODAR of bias on the part of this ALJ. I have been going through the Appeals Council process, and it has become clear that her decision was so clearly biased against me. I feel it is my responsibility to report this, even though I am already terrified of having to be in front of her again if they remand my case. I get panic attacks when I think about the last hearing and having to potentially see her again. She systematically destroyed what little faith I had left in this process.
In her Decision, she repeatedly misused and misstated facts in order to support what appears to be a pre-conceived decision on her part. If her decision was correct, why did she have to misstate my doctor’s opinion in order to discredit his opinion? Why did she have to misstate my testimony on the same topic in order to discredit my credibility, too? Why did she misstate almost every single statement in evidence about my mental health in order to lessen the severity of my conditions? What was done to me is a disgrace to what I hope is a decent system of SSDI hearings. She should have been able to clearly use the facts available to her to support her conclusion; however, she was unable to do that and instead just twisted things to fit her decision.
Her decision read more like a defense attorney’s brief, having to twist the facts to support a case that’s pretty unsupportable; however, I thought this part of the process was supposed to be one where the facts used in the decision accurately represent those as actually stated in the record. NOT “FACTS” TWISTED TO MEAN SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY SAY IN THE RECORD!
Total disgrace to humanity. Miserable, yells at everyone, zero respect for other people, including Hearings staff, representatives, claimants, probably even yells at the evening news anchor.