Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

In Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971), the Supreme Court, in considering the hearing and review procedures under the Social Security Act, 'accept[ed] the proposition[ ] ... that procedural due process is applicable to the adjudicative administrative proceeding involving 'the differing rules of fair play, which through the years, have become associated with differing types of proceedings.' ' [citation omitted]. The Court equated the Social Security Act procedures with those of the Administrative Procedure Act, which expressly entitles a party, inter alia, 'to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.' 5 U.S.C. Sec . 556(d) (1982), quoted in Richardson, 402 U.S. at 409, 91 S.Ct. at 1431.

Although the Court held that examining physician reports adverse to claimant supplied before the hearing could be used as 'substantial evidence' even though the reports were hearsay and the physicians were not present at the hearing, the Court carefully qualified its holding by approving such admission 'when the claimant has not exercised his right to subpoena the reporting physician and thereby provide himself with the opportunity for cross-examination of the physician.' ...

Register or login to access full content