1 based on 2 reviews


  1. TJAW says:

    Beware of so-called “credibility determinations” made by ALJs, who are also found to be “less than credible”. Administrative Law Judge William C Thompson, Jr., has been found to substitute his own medical opinion for that of qualified physicians. Further, ALJ Thompson has been found to refuse to follow instructions of the Appeals Council when a case is remanded to him. In 2012, Federal Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney cited numerous errors and abuses of power by ALJ Thompson in John Oliveri v. Michael J. Astrue (Case Number 2:11-1634 CKD; see https://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20121030_0014845.ECA.htm/qx). The actions of ALJ Thompson were found to be so egregious that when Judge Delaney remanded the case to SSA, she ordered that it be sent to another Administrative Law Judge- a vote of “no confidence” in William C Thompson, Jr.

  2. CS Thomas says:

    20 Code of Federal Regulations § 404.941(b): “We may conduct a pre-hearing case review if- (1) Additional evidence is submitted; (2) There is an indication that additional evidence is available; (3) There is a change in the law or regulation; or (4) There is an error in the file or some other indication that the prior determination may be revised.”

    Administrative Law Judge William C Thompson, Jr., uses the Initial Agency Examinations to characterize the non-severity of claimants’ stated impairments. Then, upon receipt of claimants’ medical records from claimant treating physicians, the ALJ uses said medical records to mischaracterize the claimant, based on the Initial Agency Examination. By so doing, it becomes clear that the ALJ makes such determinations in the absence of [C]urrent medical records. The [C]urrent medical records are not reviewed by the same Agency Physicians. Rather, ALJ Thompson argues that he reviewed the medical records and found them to be lacking.

    The determination process appears to be flawed, where there is [I]nsufficient time for an ALJ to receive additional medical record evidence, either during or after the Hearing, and where the process itself is used to “lock in” a sequence of events where the initial finding of “non-disability diagnosis” from the Initial Examining Physicians becomes immune from scrutiny and comparison through “legal trickery” where the ALJ “uses the inefficiency of their own internal process to hamper 3rd party medical record opinion and declare the Initial Examining Physician determinations to be [S]ubstantial Evidence for which the claimant is denied disability status.” This has national implications due to the number of disability applications filed with the Agency each year, and is a possible Constitutional violation of the 14th Amendment that guarantees all citizens the right to Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law.

  3. Run ZRC says:

    I filed an original application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on January 14, 2005. Two years later, the SSA requested medical documentation and received over 200 pages of medical records from the Department of Veterans Affairs. These records were supposed to be processed by the medical doctors of the Social Security Disability Determination Service (DDS). Instead, the records were mishandled by SSA employee T. Rupp on February 8, 2007, by marking the records “No DDS Development of the Medical Record is Necessary”, which meant that the records were sent to the Adjudication Unit without qualified physician review, opinion, and updating of SSA’s internal claimant process files and agency client tracking database claim for benefits, and a hearing was held six weeks later on March 23, 2007 in the absence of any medical certification by DDS (the SSA Determination Unit) of the required second set of claimant’s treating physician records (2 years’ worth of claimant’s treating physicians VA medical records) for adjudication and evaluation by Administrative Law Judge William C Thompson, Jr., who did not request a continuance so that the medical records could be properly evaluated, but instead took it upon himself, who is not a physician, to make a determination without qualifying physician opinions regarding the records (in effect, practicing medicine without a license).

    On appeal in federal district court, Daniel P. Talbert, a Social Security Attorney, further concealed the fact that the required second set of claimant’s treating physician medical records were never processed and reviewed by qualified SSA medical staff. ALJ Thompson and Daniel Talbert both mischaracterized my actions in filing a claim for benefits, and both sought to juxtapose the initial medical record (initial 15-minute consultative exam by Social Security contract physicians) and reports from the DDS medical records in place of qualified physician opinions by SSA Determination Unit for the second set of required reports (2 years’ worth of claimant’s treating physicians VA medical records) to be created and provided to the Adjudication Unit for opinion and a decision. The second set of records and reports are absent, and in the absence of these reports, the ALJ STEPPED INTO THE SHOES OF THE DETERMINATION UNIT (DDS) WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, COMPLETING THEIR WORK AND IN SO DOING, CRAFTED HIS OWN RECORD REPORTS, THEN EVALUATED THEM FOR FAIRNESS, THEN, BASED ON THE NOW “COMPLETE” RECORD, DECIDED THAT THE CLAIMANT DID NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR DISABILITY BASED ON THE SUBJECTIVE REPORTS HE CREATED AND LATER DETERMINED WERE DEFECTIVE OR INCONGRUANT, E.G., NOT MEETING THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR DISABILITY STATUS, THEN LATER RULING ON HIS OWN MEDICAL OPINION- DENYING THE CLAIMANT DISABILITY BENEFITS.

    T. Rupp, ALJ Thompson, and Daniel Talbert are all SSA employees who caused or contributed to the mishandling of my medical records, and the act of publicly humiliating me by posting my private, sensitive, and confidential medical record data on the Internet, which is now prominently displayed upon typing my name in a search engine. These abuses occurred at the Office of Adjudication in Stockton, California, Office of the General Counsel in San Francisco, California, and at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Fresno, California.

  4. Talbert says:

    Several crtical cases have erupted lately; a likely response from the higher courts “becoming wise” about some ALJ’s and their rather “dodgy medical record development,” fully developed in haste when necessary, regardless of whether or not comprehensive diligence is present, then simply finding against you, forcing you to either go away or waste agency and judicial time and effort to show just how far the rabbit hole goes on this “special medical docket and greater weight technique reasoning and conclusion making.”

    DONALD CATHEY, Plaintiff,
    No. 1:10-cv-01562-LJO-BAM.
    United States District Court, E.D. California.
    May 10, 2012.

    Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 11-35216
    v. ý D.C. No. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 6:09-cv-00748-**
    Defendant-Appellee. þ
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted
    March 9, 2012—Portland, Oregon
    Filed June 14, 2012
    Before: William A. Fletcher, Raymond C. Fisher and
    Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge Fisher

  5. Anonymous says:

    Judge Thompson is the worst in the system. When a case is remanded back to him by the Appeals Panel because his decision is not supported by the evidence, he searches for information on his own and submits inaccurate information as if it is a fact, when it is not. I have several severe disabilities and Judge Thompson has made biased remarks in his decisions regarding some of my doctors, and also said he doesn’t give any weight to the reports of my neurosurgeon, who just happens to be the Chief of Surgery at one of our local hospitals, and is well respected throughout California. Who is Judge Thompson that he can just disregard medical evidence and reports at his own whim? Then after introducing his own evidence, after we already had the hearing, denied us the right to dispute what he said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *