Lamar W Davis, Portland me , Maine Odar Office, Administrative Law Judge
For the 2010 *fiscal year, Judge Lamar W Davis has disposed 586 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA. Out of those 586 dispostions, 98 were dismissed, 314 were approved and 174 were denied. This means that the percentage of depositions that Judge Lamar W Davis has approved in PITTSBURGH for the 2010 fiscal year is 20%. The information below for Judge Lamar W Davis was last updated on 12/01/2022.
AVERAGE STATISTICS
| Office | *Fiscal Year | Total Depositions | Total Decisions | Total Denials | Total Awards | Cases Dismissed | Cases Approved | Cases Denied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PITTSBURGH | 2010 | 586 | 488 | 174 | 314 | 17% | 54% | 30% |
| PITTSBURGH | 2012 | 527 | 409 | 153 | 256 | 22% | 49% | 29% |
| PITTSBURGH | 2015 | 160 | 123 | 55 | 68 | 23% | 43% | 34% |
| PITTSBURGH | 2014 | 542 | 445 | 175 | 270 | 18% | 50% | 32% |
| PITTSBURGH | 2013 | 520 | 422 | 173 | 249 | 19% | 48% | 33% |
| PITTSBURGH | 2011 | 662 | 547 | 225 | 322 | 17% | 49% | 34% |
| PITTSBURGH | 2016 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0% | 50% | 50% |
| PORTLAND ME | 2016 | 371 | 309 | 117 | 192 | 17% | 52% | 32% |
| PORTLAND ME | 2017 | 255 | 203 | 82 | 121 | 20% | 47% | 32% |
AVERAGE TIME
| Dismissed | Approved | Denied | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lamar W Davis | No Stats for FY2017 | ||
| All ALJs in PITTSBURGH | 17% | 37% | 46% |
| All ALJs in PENNSYLVANIA | 19% | 42% | 40% |
| All ALJs in the Nation | 18% | 45% | 38% |
1 Comment
This was, by far, the worst experience of my life (including the negligence of another driver who caused the automobile accident that led to my condition).
This ALJ did nothing short of being condescending toward me throughout the hearing (given that I represented myself—pro se). He tried to control the entire hearing and did not allow me sufficient opportunity to elaborate on points I tried to make. He went so far as to try to cast doubt on my testimony—essentially accusing me of lying, which he stated as hie “opined” in his decision.
He called forth a vocational expert who deemed there were no jobs in the national market that I would be capable of doing. Yet, he contradicted himself in the ruling, then opined again about my condition “malingering,” as he didn’t feel it was legitimate.
Apparently, he is incapable of feeling anything.
Fast forward—>six years later…
After appeals escalating to the U.S. District Court (a step below the Supreme Court), as a pro se litigant, I was awarded a summary judgment, which negated the ALJ’s decision and reverted the case back to a different ALJ.
Despite some of the “official record”—including critical pages of the transcript from my initial ALJ hearing—mysteriously being blank with no known whereabouts of the originals from the SS Administration (ODAR), the newly assigned ALJ had already meticulously reviewed the case and, without my need to further testify, swiftly and judiciously approved the claim.
I had required several extensions to file because I had to do all the groundwork myself while constantly undergoing different treatments for my back pain. I ultimately required a two-level artificial disc replacement in the cervical spine (c 5-6 and c 6-7), bilateral reconstructive hip surgery, and left rotator cuff/biceps tendon reconstruction/repair.
I don’t normally wish any bad karma on anyone, but in this particular case, I am willing to make an exception because of the profiling and poor judgment which caused a whole lot of otherwise unnecessary pain and stress in my life.
Personally, I have been vindicated. Now, I hope this particular ALJ sees this comment, remembers the case, and “feels” every bit of the hardship he has caused. But, he is apparently incapable