Clifford FLATFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit1996Docket #1234531
93 F.3d 1296 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22050 1996 WL 483030

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

3 min read

tl;dr: A Social Security claimant challenged an ALJ’s refusal to subpoena a medical expert for cross-examination. The court held that due process does not grant an absolute right to cross-examination in administrative hearings; rather, the ALJ has discretion to allow it when reasonably necessary.

Legal Significance: The case establishes that in administrative adjudications, procedural due process is satisfied by providing an opportunity for cross-examination only when necessary for a full and fair hearing, balancing private interests, risk of error, and government burden, rather than granting an absolute right.

Clifford FLATFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Clifford Flatford applied for Social Security disability benefits. After his claim was reopened, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sought a post-hearing opinion from a non-local cardiologist, Dr. Saunders, through written interrogatories. Flatford’s attorney was provided the responses at the hearing and requested a supplemental hearing to cross-examine Dr. Saunders, arguing that written questions were inadequate. The ALJ denied the request, stating a subpoena was not “necessary for fundamental fairness” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.950(d) and that the information could be obtained through further interrogatories. The ALJ edited and omitted some of the claimant’s subsequent interrogatories. Despite repeated requests for cross-examination due to allegedly unresponsive answers and the ALJ’s edits, the ALJ refused to issue a subpoena. Relying in part on Dr. Saunders’ written opinions, the ALJ found Flatford not disabled. The district court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. Flatford appealed, arguing an absolute due process right to cross-examine the author of a post-hearing report.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment grant a Social Security disability claimant an absolute right to subpoena and cross-examine a medical advisor who submits post-hearing evidence, or may an Administrative Law Judge exercise discretion in granting such a request?

The court held that a claimant does not have an absolute due Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fug

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment grant a Social Security disability claimant an absolute right to subpoena and cross-examine a medical advisor who submits post-hearing evidence, or may an Administrative Law Judge exercise discretion in granting such a request?

Conclusion

This case solidifies the principle that procedural due process in administrative hearings Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis

Legal Rule

A social security claimant does not have an absolute due process right Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse ci

Legal Analysis

The court rejected Flatford's argument that *Richardson v. Perales*, 402 U.S. 389 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A Social Security claimant does not have an absolute due process
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit a

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial