determine if an individual is malingering or lying about their symptoms. the ssa oig. determines the agency stands alone with not using the mmpi with others finding it a useful tool. academics and the medical community at large. i hope today's findings encourage others to take a hard look at this program and support

much-needed reforms for this program that last year supported almost 11 million americans with $137 billion of american taxpayer money. i have closed with one remark. if you work somewhere in the federal government today, i would hope if you're seeing fraud, if you're seeing manipulation, if you're seeing things that are not right, that you will follow the lead of these four courageous women in bringing it to the attention of senator levin's subcommittee, permanent subcommittee on investigations or my office. with that, senator carper, i thank you. >> thank you so much. i'm going to go out of order to ask senator levin who chairs the subcommittee under which this investigation has taken place and ask him just to make a statement. i will make a short statement after that. then we'll turn to our witnesses. senator levin? >> thank you very much, senator

carper and first let me commend senator coburn for his leadership and his and his staff's hard work in uncovering the abuses that are the subject of today's hearing. i also want to thank senator carper for supporting this investigative effort and for having his subcommittee hold this hearing today. this investigation began at the permanent subcommittee on investigations which i chair when senator coburn was our ranking republican member and then senator mccain became our ranking republican member and that is now his position on our subcommittee. our subcommittee rules provide that the ranking minority members may initiate an inquiry. it is an unusual rule. it is a very important rule and it almost guaranties that this subcommittee will abbey partisan subcommittee and that is true of a number of our other rules as well but it's our tradition now as well, it is not just the

rules, that we participate and work together in a bipartisan way and that our staffs work together on investigations and that's what happened here. for the first year of the minority-led two-year investigation our subcommittee staffs worked together on document requests, conducted joint interviews and dug into the facts. in the second year of the investigation when senator coburn became ranking minority member of the full committee which he is now, the joint report being released today was drafted and so this report is a prime example of a bipartisan congressional oversight effort. it is the entire vision has been and we're now very happy and proud that senator mccain is our ranking republican and we're working together on many, many, ongoing investigations. senator coburn has already describe what this investigation has uncovered. a case study of conduct that is abusive, fraudulent,

long-standing and intolerable. the case study shows how one lawyer living in kentucky, eric conn, engaged in a raft of improper practices to obtain disability benefits for thousands of claimants, taking advantage of federal disability programs that were designed to help the most vulnerable among us. his improper practices included manufacturing boilerplate medical forms, misusing waivers to submit claims that should have gone elsewhere, employing suspect doctors willing to conduct cursory medical exams, and sign virtually any form that they put in front of them and colluding with administrative law judges on procedures that beak the rules and improperly favored his clients. evidence of inappropriate collusion between mr. conn and one of the administrative law judges deciding the disability cases is particularly striking. administrative law judge david daugherty use ad range of techniques to quickly award

benefits in large numbers of the conn cases. they included his improperly assigning the conn cases to himself, secretly informing mr. conn what cases he would decide and what documentation should be submitted, accepting boilerplate medical forms, relying on conclusory medical opinions to reverse prior benefit denials. skipping hearings. churning out short, poor quality decisions. in addition, the chief administrative law judge in the regional office, charles anders, failed to act on complaints that too many of the conn cases were going to administrative law judge daugherty and allowed conn cases to receive favorable scheduling compared to other cases. after a negative media report on mr. conn, tarnished the reputation of his office and only after that report, chief administrative law judge anders did something else. he teamed up with mr. conn to discredit the social security

employee that they believed had blown the whistle. in addition to improper practices, the evidence exposes the inept, almost nonexistent oversight by social security officials that allowed the abuses to continue for years. repeatedly, lower level social security employees and administrative law judges warned senior personnel about the improper cases assignments. mr. conn's outsized influence over the office, and mishandling of his cases by administrative law judge daugherty but nothing was done to stop it. decisive action was taken only after the abusive practices were exposed in the media and "the wall street journal" article that has been mentioned by dr. coburn. the report being released today documents how the individuals involved in the abuses profited from them. mr. conn was paid millions of dollars in attorneys fees becoming as dr. coburn said in 2010, the third highest paid

disability lawyer at the social security administration with fees totaling almost $4 million. the doctor who provided the medical opinions, justifying benefit awards were also well-paid and since 2006 just five of them split $2 million in fees paid by mr. conn. judge daugherty, never explained the origins of multiple cash deposits to his family bank accounts totaling $96,000. so where are we today? administrative law judge daugherty was placed on leave by the social security administration in 2011. then retired and is no longer deciding disability cases. last month judge anders was also placed an administrative leave and is undergoing a review to determine whether he should lose his job. eric conn is still going strong, representing thousands of disability claimants and reaping millions of dollars in attorney fees. even opened a new office in

beverly. there is no accountability yet for his actions. maybe this investigation and this hearing and our report will begin that process. this investigation did not reach a conclusion about whether the benefits awarded to all mr. conn's claimants were wrong. there are too many claimants to generalize. nor is the report intended to denigrate the dedicated and honest professionals that keep our disability programs going despite limited resources and back-breaking caseloads. remember this investigation was launched because some of the social security administration's hard-working employees blew the whistle on the misconduct that they observed. those federal employees will testify today as will two former members of mr. conn's office who also helped blow the whistle. these are core rage just

witnesses. our first panel is an extraordinary panel. our nation is in your debt. the point of this hearing is not to attack our disability programs which play a critical role in the lives of many americans but to spotlight the abusive conduct of a group of legal, medical, and judicial professionals exploiting these programs. also the purpose is to press the need for greater oversight in the agencies and by this congress. you can have greater efficiency and we must always have great efficiency. we can't tolerate fraud. we also recommend a number of measures to prevent similar abuses in the future. again i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for pitching in the way you have. also to senator coburn and his staff, again, for spearheading this investigation. thank you. >> my thanks to both you and to dr. coburn for those introductory statements. much longer than usual.

you usually don't hear a chairman of the committee or subcommittee or the ranking member give a statement of that length. this is an extraordinary investigation. it has taken several years to do. painstaking, huge amount of effort and i'm grateful to those who led that, who led that charge. i said earlier that as we try to grapple with our nation's fiscal woes three, essentially three things we need to do. one we need to look at our entitlement programs, to ask what steps we need to take in order to save the money for entitlement programs to save the programs for our children and our grandchildren. and how do we do so in a way that is sensitive to the least of these in our society? that we don't hurt poor people or old people or deserving people. number two, we need tax reform, tax reforms that generate some revenues for deficit reduction.

third thing we need to do is a culture change, from a culture of spendthrift to a culture of thrift and an approach where we everything we do requires the government to say how we get a better result for the less money or same amount of money. just as we need a culture of thrift we also need a culture that says there's zero tolerance for fraud. there's zero tolerance for dishonesty. there is zero tolerance for wasting taxpayers money in order to benefit a relative handful. and, entitlement spending in this country amounts to over half of what we spend. social security is a big part of that. most of the people who receive social security, almost everybody, at least for the regular social security retirement benefits deserve that. they worked and they earned them. we want to make sure that the moneys that are spent in this social security disability program, dr. coburn just said

we'll run out of money in about a year-and-a-half. how do we make sure that we stop wasting money there. we direct money to the places where it is most needed. we originally hoped to have four panels here before us. the fourth panel is not here. as we know the government is in a shutdown. we hope to hear from the social security administration, some of their top folks. they have asked to be excused and to have a chance to come back later this month. as soon as the government is back open for business, we expect to schedule a second hearing and would like the social security administration to come in and tell us what are we doing nationally throughout the program, throughout the country in order to address these kind of problems that have been uncovered. we look forward to that hearing. we're not going away on this. this is a problem. it is a big problem. i would like to say i'm a native west virginian. what i heard here today is not make me proud, particularly proud of some of the things that

happened in my native state. whatever state that we're from, this kind of thing, if true, can not be tolerated and we have to use our dead-best efforts to make sure it stops n this case, our first panel of witnesses, the old saying harry truman said the buck stops here. in the case of these witnesses the buck stopped with all of you. a number of us on this panel pray regularly. among the things we pray for is wisdom to know to do the right thing and we pray for the strength and courage to be able to do what we know is the right thing and what y'all have done, what you have done is not an easy thing to do. it is the right thing to do. and from whatever source you drew your courage, your strength, hopefully you will be an example for the rest of us and to enable us and those who might be following this proceeding today. but we want to thank you for, for being here, citizens and

federal employees who bring forward evidence, an indication of potential violations of the law are one of the most important ways federal agencies, inspector generals, congress can address waste, fraud and abuse. without each of you this hearing would not have been possible. so thank you for putting such a high value on public interest and our nation's interest enabling us to examine these issues. i want to briefly introduce each of you. we'll administer an oath of office and invite you to go ahead with your statements. senator mccain, let me just say, i yield to you, as ranking member of the subcommittee if you would like to make a short statement. let me just stop right now. i should have asked if you like to make a brief statement. go right ahead, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm looking forward to hear from the witnesses. >> thank you so much. that was brief. we're not always that brief here. our first witness is sara carver, senior case technician

at the u.s. social security administration. she works at the huntington, west virginia office. your review. she is here before the committee describe disclosures about the operations in the huntington office. miss carver appears in personal capacity. not representing the views of the social security administration. miss carver, welcome. thank you for joining us. our next witness is jennifer l. griffith. former master docket clerk of the u.s. social security administration where she worked at the huntington, west virginia office. she is also here before our committee to describe her experiences in disclosures about the operations of that office. miss griffith appears today in a personal capacity and is not representing the views of the social security administration. miss griffin, welcome, thank you for joining us. next is jamie slone. miss slone is a resident of pikeville, kentucky.

she appears today to share her observations and experiences as an employee of the eric c. conn law firm from 2006 to i believe 2012. and we want to thank you you for again appearing before our panel today. thank you so much. finally, melinda l. martin, former employee of the conn law firm. miss martin is an employee at the eric c. conn law firm. i'm not sure for how long. i'm sure you will cover that in your testimony. we're grateful to you for making time to come all the way to testify before us today. the next thing before you testify though, is i'm going to ask each of you if you will to stand and i'm going to ask you to stand and raise your right hand please. do you swear that the testimony you will give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god?

please be seated. thank you. miss carver, if you would like to proceed. your entire testimony will be made part of the record. you're welcome to summarize if you wish, please proceed, and welcome. >> chairman carper, senator coburn, members of the committee, good afternoon. my name is sara carver. in september 2000 one i joined the social security administration office of disability and review called odar begining a 12-year career at the agency. over the course of my employment with the administration i've held the position of a senior case technician, sct. in 2006 in addition to my duties an sct i was elected to the position of afge, 3610 union steward for the huntington, west virginia, odar prior to my employment i was paralegal in

the private sector for 13 years, eight of which i primarily focused on representation of claimants seeking social security disability benefits. i'm a graduate from marshall university with a degree in legal studies. from 2001 to 2006 i routinely received performance awards for the quality and production of my work in the huntington odar office. however, in 2006 those awards came to an bankrupt stop when greg hall became the hearing office director, hod. coincidentally i had been voicing my concerns what i perceived as improper processing of social security claims in the huntington office. not only did i report my concerns to mr. hall, i also reported them to other members of the huntington management team throughout the years. these members consist of arthur

weathers by. kathy gofort, stacey clarkson, jerry meade, john paterson and carry rhee rowland and chief paul anders. i'm currently still employed as sct at huntington office despite retaliatory actions against me by several members of management. i reported to management on numerous occasions what i perceived as inappropriate actions involving huntington odar management and ald daugherty and representative eric c. conn. in may 2007 i sent an email to greg hodge justification of hearing requests dates of alg daugherty on fully favorable dispositions. i discussed serious evidence which would substantiate the overt favoritism of mr. conn's claimants and management's continuous sweeping things under the rug with regards to daugherty and conn.

in that email i directly warned my managers and i quote, the eric conn situation is going to bite this office in the but one day. i further questioned management to open their eyes to the daugherty and conn issues and change the way conn's cases were handled before it became an outside issue. instead of any corrective action being taken, the situation only escalated. i continued reporting to management for several years thereafter before i took my concerns out of the office. as a result of my multiple disclosures, i have suffered tremendously. management has been allowed to harass, intimidate, open press, stalk, discipline, ostracize, monitor, and make my life as miserable as possible for the last seven years. knowing that a private investigator was hired to follow

me has been very traumatizing. i still fear for my safety and the safety of my family. also knowing that employees have been terminated for their association with me has left me with such a burdensome feeling. perhaps i should mention that at this point that the agency has asked me to inform you that i am here testifying in my personal, not official capacity. and that the agency does not sanction my testimony. every employee in the huntington, west virginia, odar, including management is considered a public servant and is held to a higher standard of conduct. management officials and judges are no exception. where's the accountability in this agency? why does the agency promote and reward management for this activity? agency production goals and benchmarks are important, however, they should not

diminish the importance of the quality of work we perform for the american people. changes need to be made in the agency to not only allow for timely processing of claims without sacrificing quality but also, as important, a system needs to be put in place and monitored by an outside source to insure agency leaders and claimant representatives are held accountable for failing to follow the laws, regulations and agency policies. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> miss carver, thank you so much. miss griffin. >> [inaudible] >> make sure, there you go. >> chairman carper, senator coburn, members of the committee. good afternoon. i'm jennifer griffin and wife, mother of two and student as

former employee of the huntington, west virginia case review. i'm humbled to appear before you today. october has always been a special month for me. it was this date in 1997 my son was born, 12 years ago in the month of october i began my career with odar. >> 16th birthday, is that right? >> yes it is. >> give him our best, thank you. tell him we thank you for sharing his mom. >> during my employment i was master docket clerk and case technician. beginning in late 2005 or early 2006, on too many occasions to count my group supervisor, cathy gofor the began to call me into her office and issue verbal reprimands on cases docketed, and completely or not docketed timely. i was unable to answer her questions and had no idea what was causing the docketing issues. in an attempt to determine what

was occurring i began to run various reports on a daily basis and keep track of cases i docketed each day. i determined in fact that the docketing issues were occurring because a l.j. david daugherty was assigning cases to himself at the master docket level before i was ever aware that the case had been transmitted to huntington odar. cpms, the agency's computerized you docketing system provided no safeguards at that time to display who made the improper assignments. i brought to this attention of miss gofourth and administrative law judge paul anders, thinking my discovery would explain an alleviate the issues that appeared to be mistakes on my part. instead it was the beginning of the end of my career. i began to question how a l.j.. if they were not assigned to alj how were they aware they were in

the office. it is simple. he had prior knowledge. alj daugherty did not simply take cases from master docket without proper docketing assign and self-scheduled extensive of the quantities of mr. conn's cases awarded them in favorable sham hearings. in 2007 other area attorneys complained that conn was receiving preferential treatment from alj daugherty and scheduling ages. i forwarded individuals to speak with miss gofourth and mr. hall. soon after he stopped holding hearings for mr. conn's claimants. for extended period all the cases were decided favorably on the record without hearings 100% approval. miss gofourth and mr. hall increased their efforts to stop my reporting. i decided to make each notification in writing an include my union representative. i felt i was doing the right thing. i simply wanted retaliation to stop and do my job fully without the constant threat of reprimand. instead as my reporting of alj

daugherty misappropriation of eric conn increased, investigations and retaliation by odar management increased. they would time every action i took during the day, including how long i spent in the bathroom. in october of 2007 after enduring multiple investigations and verbal and written reprimands miss gofourth told me her goal by ind. year to make sure i was no longer employed there and there was nothing i could do about it. after years of attempting to get huntington odar management to correct misappropriation of cases by alj daugherty for eric conn it was clear to me things were never going to change. the constant retaliation severely affected my health and family. my physician advised me to leave the employment before huntington odar before it killed me and i left. i saw the agency complaint with the office of inspector general 2009. they did not contact my until april of 2011 apparently because of rumored "wall street journal" investigation. the oig called me regarding my complaint and i cooperated

fully. in addition to my cooperation with the oig i have had the great fortune to cooperate with this investigation and speak with committee staff as well as participate in the article written by dame men palletta for "the wall street journal" i filed a complaint with the office of special counsel regarding my forced resignation from odar after claims before the protection board settled it and requested by agency i have agreed not to seek employment with the social security administration for five years. in act of 2011 sarah and i found attorneys to sue mr. conn and alj daugherty on behalf of the united states an we are continuing to pursue that case in hopes through it we will be able to obtain compensation from them for the american taxpayers. each time i spoke with someone i was asked what i thought could be done to prevent this type of situation from occurring and what could be done to fix it. there are not nearly enough safeguards to built in the to catch the type of fraud occur here. as long as financial incentives to produce large numbers of disability decisions exist there will be managers willing to subvert the system to meet those

goals and receive compensation n my experience the primary concern of the management i worked for was quantity with little to no regard for quality. my family has not been the same since my employment with huntington odar. financially we will never have the same amount of security we have at that time. we suffered loss and probably will continue to do so but i can look at my children with a clear conscience, to know whatever happens from this and whether any meaningful action takes place i did everything possible to make sure the american public knew about it. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> miss griffin, thank you very, very much for the statement and for joining us today and for this journey of the last several years. >> thank you. >> miss slone, welcome and you're recognized to make your statement, thank you. >> my name is jamie slone. i'm 36 years old and i live in pikeville, kentucky. i'm married and have four children. i worked for the eric conn law firm from september 2006 to march 16th 2012. one of my responsibilities at the firm was to field calls from

the administrative law judge david b. daugherty. each month judge daugherty called and gave the following information for 30 to 50 social security disability claimants represented by eric conn. first name, last name, the claimant's social security number, and either mental or physical. i create ad list of these claimants which was known throughout the office as the monthly db list. once the list was created, another employee called each claimant on the db list to schedule an exam with the doctor. during my tenure at the firm, jessica newman was primarily responsible for scheduling claimants, depending whether judge daugherty indicated mental or physical for the claimant, miss newman scheduled a claimant to see a certain doctor to provide an opinion on the claimant ace alleged disability. when the medical opinions were completed, judge daugherty sent a bar code to the fir to attach to the reports which were used to up load the reports into the ssa electronic file system.

after six to eight weeks, judge daugherty issued a decision approving the claimant for disability benefits on the record without holding a hearing. if you have any questions i would be happy to answer. thank you. >> thank you, miss slone. finally miss martin, meese proceed. welcome. >> thank you. >> would you make sure your mic is on, thank you. >> my name is melinda hicks. formerly melinda martin. i was married in june 2012. i have worked at eric conn law firm from january 2006 until february 2012. my responsibility as the firm ranged from receptionist to several different supervising positions to assisting management of the office. during my time at the firm i did witness several inappropriate acts between eric conn and some administrative law judges from the huntington, west virginia, hearing office. i previously submitted an affidavit which outlines the relationship between mr. conn and some of those judges that i saw during my time working at his office. if you have any questions, i'm ready to answer those. >> all right. miss martin.

thank you. this is, this is not a, a trial. this is a committee hearing. this is an opportunity for us to try to get to the truth. i think it was thomas jefferson said, the american people know the truth they won't make a mistake. and so what we're trying to do today, garner as much more of the truth as we can. . .

between the judge and an attorney. it was something that was very noticeable from the day, within days of my employment, and it just increased. it was, and it was done in such openness. and it wasn't something that was, that was going on behind the scene. i mean, we had office statisti statistics, and as jennifer mentioned, as those statistics became available to us in a system to where we were able to view these reports, it became more apparent because you could see the mass numbers of federal decisions going out. this was something that really come to light whenever this electronic folder came out. because you could just see the

massive amount of numbers. and the other thing that kind of astonished me, even after this investigation started, management was still polling -- and again, this is in my personal opinion, management was still polling visa cases out of hearing request dates, and was still allowing -- at one point before, and it happened also on several occasions, once judge daugherty helped the meet their monthly goals, because we have monthly disposition goals, they would bank these decisions. on, these were decisions of people who were waiting for them to come in the mail, and they would bank these for the own numerical purpose, and hold them before sending them out the next month. and they were all eric conn cases. i mean, there would be 50

sitting, all favorable, on the record, eric conn decision. management would allow them to put him in a wbc which basically means is with the judge providing the color, they had been written two weeks ago. and all favorable, just sitting there for the next month. so in my view, management was just a part of this as the individual that were actually, you know, speed all right. is a great overview. thank you. any idea how may people worked at the huntington office, social secured office in huntington? dozens of people? >> at one time i believe we had about 60. >> in that office, maybe other satellite offices, maybe in the law office of mr. conn, other people had to know something was going on? >> absolutely.

>> had to know. but before you have somehow stepped up, she'll encourage you and are here today. it sounds like some of you have been through very, very difficult times. what was it that compelled you to stand up to say this is wrong, and somebody needs to say something and do something? what compelled you, ms. martin, we'll just ask everybody that question. what compelled you to do this? >> i'm not really sure. i actually probably would've been too scared to get myself, but i had actually spoke to another turning in the area just about what was going on. and he actually contacted someone for me. that made it a little easier for me to be able to do. >> all right, thank you. ms. slone? >> actually speak i know it's not an easy thing to do.

what was it that compelled you and give you the courage to do a? >> melinda had initially taken the first step for speaking to someone about the problems within the office. then i was approached to cooperate and answer some questions, and give my insight to things involved at the law firm. and i mean, there wasn't any question. i just cooperated. >> a watery with an? was inspector general? >> at first it was your staff, the staff here, the subcommittee. and then also the oig. >> all right, thank you. ms. griffith, same question, please. >> i don't really know. i left in 2007 and walked away from it, until 2009. and in 2009 i began to see things in a medium that was put out by mr. conn, and some of the

things. who i walked away but somehow i was met again, and ready to take that next step to do something. and i filed a complaint with the oig fraud division at that time. and then just sort of, nothing really happened for a while, and then i was contacted by mr. -- or communicated with the committee, and worked with them to bring it out. i think you just have to have a certain level of anger over what you see to, to get you to have the first contact. >> same question, ms. carver, what compelled you to step forward? >> i agree with jennifer as far as the anchor. we initially started reporting this together -- as far as the anger. i was the union rep, and she initially came to me because of the disciplinary problems that

she was having with their supervisors to him whenever i would have one on one talks with our office management, it was apparent that that's not what they wanted to hear. and at a point where they started retaliating and doing things, not only to her but to me, i really truly believe that triggered something inside of me that, you know, i'm a fighter when it comes to doing the right thing. and i just kept doing it to the point where i couldn't, i couldn't stop now. you know, and i'm there as a union representative to help and to set an example and that's what i was trying to do. >> and i think you have come you all have. before we go to dr. coburn i would asking in this incident might statement be made part of the record. dr. coburn, please. >> jennifer, i'm going to go through the list of questions if

you can answer them fairly rapidly forming i think you probably have the answers to them. in your mind. how long did you work at the huntington office? >> from 2001-2007. >> you were a master docket clerk? >> for the latter half of my employment but i initially was a senior technician. >> okay. were cases the sign only by the master docket clerk, or were judges allowed to assign cases themselves the? at that time the master docket clerk worse build one assigning cases unless of course something was brought to attention by supervisor and then the supervisor would assign a traditionally it was a master docket clerk. >> the reason they didn't want judges assigning cases on the master docket clerk? >> to avoid judge shopping or favoritism. >> once a case was assigned to judge was it typical for the case to then be reassigned to another judge? >> it was not supposed be assigned to another judge. >> you talk about some the problems you had when judge

daugherty was going into the computer system, see pms, and assign himself cases. that was some of your conflict that you are supposed to support over that really was not your fault. is that the only way you can manipulate the system? are the other ways you can manipulate the system, someone could still cheat the system to a? >> there are numerous ways our lives that was when i was there. i been gone for a while but at the time of the something is changed significantly. the goal, the numerical goal make it a priority to sort up sort things around. so, for example, if you have a case in one status for too long that could be an issue. you want to make sure your processing things family. you consider change status out of the case and then change it back or move it to a different status without really ever doing anything to that case. >> so you meet the number's but you can really do anything?

>> a century, yes. >> sarah, -- essentially, yes. >> sarah, let me finish with jennifer again. jennifer, you turn to exhibit 26, that's in that big book in 20. this is an e-mail you wrote on september 11, 2007, 2 great hall, a hearing office director was the topic in charge of the huntington office at that time. in it you express serious frustration. you let him know that you are quitting. you wrote, i'm aware that while i was out of the office judge daugherty felt it was necessary to take away some more cases that were assigned to another judge and place them in his new. i take it that this wasn't the first time this happened to? >> no. this had begun approximate a year, a year and a half prior. >> why did that make you so

upset? >> because every time a case would disappear, or group of cases would disappear off the master docket clerk, then my supervisor was coming to me for donations as to why. if i'm not performing my job to the fullest capacity, and i will receive an acceptable forms if i wish and i have no chance for promotion or anything else. and it had taken me a long time to figure out what caused this. because there was no clear way to determine what happened. and it had escalated to a point of almost constant, you know, altercations spent how long do you think judge daugherty was doing the? >> by my estimation, it began after the default process -- >> which was -- >> 2005 when we started that. >> how many times to remember this happening, that he would reassign cases? >> i don't think i can count

that. it was every month. he would do it speak 50, ma 60, 100 on? >> yet, sometimes 50 cases missing off of my penniless or sometimes it might be five, you know, you docket daily and it would just, there would be cases disappearing every day. sometimes every week spent in a mill you also wrote george doherty does many things like this every month. when i find them i make management aware of it. nothing is ever done about it. what did you tell your managers and what was their response to? >> at a certain point in time after verbal notifications it became clear to me they were not going to do anything. so i started making written notifications including names and social security number of these case that he took off the docket that i became aware of. that continue to mid-to-late 2005 although it up until i left in 2007. >> to your knowledge was judge daugherty ever disciplined for what he did? >> not to my knowledge. >> and that's a violation of the

rules insights osha's 30? >> that's my understanding. >> with the cases from always from one particular? >> i'm not aware of him doing it for any other office other than eric conn's office. >> ms. carver, you notice any of the same problems. can you describe your role in the office specifically as to what jennifer has talked about? >> jennifer was receiving disciplinary reprimands, verbal and in writing, denied at first she was denied for me, a union representative to even be present when they were verbally, what they said was counseling. but then it escalated to the verbally counseling, they would always put it in writing.

it was a battle with management to even let me be present. so that's when i kind of got involved with not only management, i mean, but even with like my outside union president and vice president and chief steward. and i began talking with management, and also keeping things in writing, based on what conversations that we had. >> before we talk about judge doris decisions, understand the office joke was that if you're looking for judge daugherty, don't look in his office. is that troop? >> that's true. >> that was an observation not by you but by several of the people in the huntington office? >> yes. there were several occasions would have to go next door or management would call him on his cell phone because there were people waiting in the hearing room for him and he was usually up the coffee shop at a holiday inn across the street. street. >> did anyone at huntington management know about judge daugherty's time and attendance

problems of? >> yes. not only did other aljs report it, i reported it approximately probably two or three times. >> was anything done about it? >> no. >> i can finish with her but i have more. it's now been about two and a half years since the problem with huntington's osha's get office became known publicly. have you witnessed any retribution recently for those who are still trying to speak out? >> just spent would you describe that, please? >> there has been, well, i'll give you a really good example. one of the employees who reported to the oig that the private investigator was hired to have me followed, she went from being one of the top employees, as far as production

and our work up, in the country. i mean, she was number one, number two in work up, and often held management with projects that weren't even, i mean they were management type projects, to being suspended for two weeks. she was also reprimanded for bringing the word up, the word diversity of in one of her office evaluations. several employees that participated were also -- we were now being charged with a wall. i had a police officer call my work, and my 16 year-old daughter had been in a car accident and i had verbally went and got approval from management and received it, and left the office back country. however, when i came back i was

charged with awol, and that was the beginning, and was still occurring despite any type of medical certification that employees are receiving from their physician. management is getting themselves the right to decide whether not your condition is serious, and denying employees leave. and this is happening every day. i mean, you could speak with anybody in management. you know, in our office right now. that did not happen before this investigation. >> each judge would have some support staff working with them including those helping draft decision. can you describe judge daugherty's extent of which was helped by staff? >> we had, when he was holding hearings or other

representatives, they would write the decisions. these are paralegal writers. they would write the decision and they were told that -- we had one writer specifically who said that, you know, there's not enough information for me to write this favorable decision, that there's not substantial evidence in the file. and she was told by a supervisor that if she did not write this decision that she would be held insubordinate. >> we've heard from many judges that alj hearings can take as long as an hour or more. when judge daugherty would hold hearings for mr. kotz clients, how long would it take? >> about 10 minutes, if that. and katie issued a decision at the time? >> most of the time, yes your he went and won enough to go on the

record and no testimony was taken, according, you could listen to the court reporting as a senior case technician. we would bring the hearings back in and put them into our system. you could listen to the recordings and he would just go on record and announce that his decision was favorable and it would be no testimony from the the the, the climate or anybody. >> and it is true that you noticed that you ar were aware t judge daugherty was assigning himself cases as well? >> on many, many, many occasions that and that was written as well. >> yes. >> thank you. >> the next questions will be asked by senator levin and he will be followed by senator mccain, senator baldwin and senator heitkamp. sander levin? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. carver, you were targeted for speaking out.

chief judge administrative law judge andrews and mr. conn used a conn employee was a former police officer to videotape you on the days that you're supposed to be working from home. they were trying to catch you going shopping or otherwise taking advantage of the rules. they failed. they were unable to provide any kind of proof like that, so instead you work them going shopping on the weekends. and then evidence was fabricated in that videotape to make it appear as though you were going shopping during work hours, and then the videotape was turned over to your superiors. so far, is that direct? >> yes. >> they try to discredit you because they believed you had spoken to a record about what was going on in the office. and judge andrus has admitted as much.

a signed statement to the social security administration ig, which is exhibit number 82. so now, shall i tell you ms. martin or ms. hicks, i'm sorry? >> either would be fine. spent okay. ms. hicks then, you're married. obviously, getting member of the huntington office, sandy, regularly place calls to you at a conn office informing you when ms. carver would be working from home? >> she did. she actually didn't call the office. she called my personal cell phone. >> were you at the office when she called? >> most of the time. >> why was she calling or personal cell phone, do you know of? >> yes. she wanted me to let eric know when -- >> eric conn? >> yes. yes. what days sarah would be on her flex day. and she also called to give us

directions to her home, her address. she told us that she had a tall privacy fence that would be hard to record over, and also told us the type of vehicle that she and her husband drove so that it would be easier for them to find or spent and this came from the social security office? >> yes. >> and then was part of that a coded message? >> yeah. a couple of messages she would say that her children had band practice, and i don't think that should children that actually had band practice but that just meant that instead of saying it's her flex days, she would just call and say her children had band practice spent and they flag state is when employers are working at home, is that direct? >> yes. >> so that was in your judgment coded words for she is supposed to be doing work at home on flex day and not the kids had band practice of?

>> correct. >> did you been given then givet information to mr. conn? >> i did. >> this is pretty stunning testimony, i've got to tell you. you are being tracked and followed here, ms. carver. we now have a witness from the judge cristaudo office there who confirms that these calls were made -- from the social security administration office there who confirms that these calls were made from mr. conn's office so you could be tracked. and i'm just wondering, i think you have initiated a lawsuit, i believe you made reference to, is that correct? >> yes. >> against the social security administration? >> well -- >> what kind of lawsuit? is a special name, right of? >> secant spent have you also thought about suing mr. conn for integrating with your employee employer relationship of? >> a lot of this information obviously i wasn't privy to

until just within the last couple of days. it was quite shocking because, you know, in the report it is stated that the agency once they found out this information that they didn't use it. and they did use it. the acting judge devlin had talked to me and had ordered an investigation with stephen hayes to my supervisor at the time. and they brought me into the office and asked me a bunch of questions, just kind of like to intimidate. it was very intimidating because they wouldn't tell me what when, where, how. at the time i union representative had requested any information that they had documentation, what they based

this investigation on. and they were told, i was told that there wasn't any. it was just an anonymous call. so i am just now kind of finding out this information. i me, it's shocking. >> it's shocking information. >> it's scary. >> i hope it will have an impact in many ways. i think that both you, ms. carver and ms. griffith, indicated that you pointed out what was going on to your bosses there at the social security office. you a ledge, i believe you alerted the chief of staff in your office, is this correct, greg hall, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> yes spent what about chief judge andrus? did you inform him what was going on as we'll? >> most of the e-mails after a certain point started to be copied to judge andrus but on one particular occasion judge

daugherty they taken approximately 50 cases away from alj and had been in his office preparing to write favorable decisions. after that already been assigned to another judge. i took them into judge daugherty's office and showed them the cases. they removed them but they were then later back with judge daugherty and were decided favorably. >> thank you. let me ask ms. slone and ms. hicks. the bank records of judge daugherty from 2005-2011 show so far unexplained cash deposits of $96,000, round amount you start as low as $1000 going as high as i thousand dollars at a time. some 26,000 was posted to his daughter's account in 2007-2008.

when asked judge daugherty declined to provide any information for the cash payments. there's no explanation for them in his financial disclosure form. ms. slone and ms. hicks coming to either the new in thing about those cash deposits? ms. slone? >> no, sir. i don't know anything in specific, specific about those cash deposits. i had been at the firm for quite a few years and working closely with eric, and they did is scheduled for them for -- >> eric conn? >> yes, sir. so i pretty much knew where eric conn was everyday. there were some days, one they usually a month that he was unaccounted for by myself anyway. i had asked him one day he come back and he was can't have the day and i told him that i had a theory about into any asked what the three was. and i said i think when you

disappear one day a month that you go and meet db. and he just looked at me and kind of smiled and said you know what they say? where there's smoke there's fire spend go and meet and? >> db, judge daugherty db. that's been the only, i've never -- >> do you know, ms. hicks, anything about those cash deposits of? >> not about the cash deposits. >> my time is up. thank you. >> senator mccain. >> i want to thank the witnesses. i also want to thank senator coburn and senator levin on the excellent work they and their staff have done. obviously, this is appalling. it's one of these things you read about in novels or see on tv. what's most disturbing, and i would like to begin with the witnesses who i want to thank

profusely. there was a pattern, is it true there was a pattern of intimidation in an action concerning your willingness to step forward? could i just go down the line and make sure that that is an accurate statement? is that true, ms. carver? >> yes, it is. >> could you give me a couple of the most egregious examples of? >> everything from i guess it would be suspension to -- >> videotaping? >> yes. >> shouldn't have been in america. >> no. >> ms. griffith? >> i'm much more fortunate defensive. i've not been followed by the private investigator. as medevac i was gone by that time. i was already gone by the time the worst of the office environment, you know, i have been gone for several years, but during my time there each reporting action was met with

equal and opposite reaction of negative verbal reprimand. i've had come you know, files that were disappeared. in the last example before i left, the supervisor had accused another union employee to go through my desk to determine if any mail was over a certain age and then in my congress review, she told me that was her goal, was to make sure that i was not going to be there by the close of the year, which would've been too much away. >> can i say one more thing? >> sure. >> during this investigation, we were able to obtain an e-mail from greg hall to howard goldberg speed would identify who they are? >> greg hall is the hearing office director. howard goldberg was ugly at the time and employee relations person in the region -- was i

believe. and e-mail said sarah, we have suspended jennifer. we are working on. >> ms. slone? >> once "the wall street journal" story aired, working out at our office, things changed. before you went into eric's office, they had a security want speed mr. conn? >> mr. conn. you would have to go through security check to make sure you didn't have any phones or any recording devices or anything like that before you be allowed into into his office. he just became a lot more strict and aware of who was around him. things that he said in the presence of certain people. there was no retaliation. i mean, were asked if we've spoken to anyone or been contacted by anyone, but other

than that there wasn't anything. >> ms. hicks? >> no, not for me personally picked after the story came out i didn't stick around too much longer because eric conn did start to do things so crazy, like have someone call my phone so that he could stock some person. so it actually didn't stay too much longer -- >> how do you know that he had someone do that? >> because it actually spoke to administrative law judge andrews and you given my phone number to an employer, standard, and she had left several messages on my phone to let me know when the employee was going to be off work so that eric could send someone to follow her. >> so there's no doubt you felt intimidated. >> very much so. i didn't want to be involved in it. it was bad enough that she had my number and left messages on my phone, bu i actually asked mo drive to her home.

and he would get upset if he told them no to anything. so i told him i didn't want to do that company, they were just days he wouldn't talk to me for a while and make you feel bad for not doing what he wanted. >> i just left shortly after that. >> ms. carver and ms. griffith, from what you are seeing, there's no way that judge daugherty could have had as many cases under his authority and carried out a lot of the activities that he did without the active support of judge andrus? >> correct, correct. >> and that obvious it is disturbing since judge andrus was the chief judge here, right? >> yes. when i would reported to the hearing office director, greg hall, he had told me on several occasions that he had spoke with alj judge andrus about it and

judge andrus was going to address the judges. however, the activity never did stop. >> how is your life now, ms. griffith? >> in the office it's not good right now. >> shunned by fellow employees? >> i was -- when -- for several years every supervisor that i was assigned to, i now have employees telling me that things that they were afraid to tell me at the time, but they were each and every one were told do not associate with me, that i was a bad person, that if you wanted to be promoted in that office -- >> do you know who was who was telling these things? >> they were newly hired employees. >> i mean he was telling them? >> the supervisors. >> and you know who they were? >> yes. >> ms. griffith?

>> my life is drastically different. i don't have the -- i don't have the medical problems that i had one worked better that were caused by stress. you know, right now i'm going back to school, and you know, i'm very, very happy that i'm not there now because i cannot imagine if it was as bad for me as what it was then, which at the time, you know, there were times, they're a couple times i was taken out of the office. one time i was taken out of the office because my blood pressure had reached a level of stroke. i mean, i've been working with my doctor for a number of years to try and get that down. i just, my health was going downhill because i couldn't control the stress. and walked away from that and i've worked for several years in the private sector as a

paralegal. and i've got ever experienced anything like what i have experienced there. >> well, i think the witness. i thank you, mr. chairman, and all i can say is that i know i speak for all of us that we will try to see that no one else ever goes through what you have been through. and, obviously, there are problems here that a much larger then your office, and you individually, but you are the people who have made this possible and we thank you. >> senator mccain, thank you. i made a mistake earlier when i said that senator baldwin is here before send i can't. the honor system would suggest that the next senator recognize is senator heitkamp. welcome. >> senator baldwin is always honest. an amazing woman. as all of you are amazing, and

really dirty remarkable women. who are doing something incredibly difficult and have been doing something incredibly difficult for a very, very long period of time. which is to stand up for the american taxpayers which is to stand up for what's right. i want to just extend my personal thank you but also the thing to our behalf of the people of this country. unfortunately, your story is so utterly remarkable. because all of you attempted on every step along the way, you attempted to try and get attention to this problem. and i've heard repeatedly during his that management stopped you, or management began to do, intimidation, management began to do this, management began to do that. obviously, as not that. obviously, as not as the night as senator levin and senator mccain and senator coburn with this file, i'm new on this committee but i think this is an opportunity i think especially ms. carver and ms. griffith the

name all of the people within management who have been intimidators, the event ignores, and somewhere whether, whether illegally or legally collaborates with a system that allowed this to continue. so i guess i would start with you, ms. carver, to provide is a list of those names. >> i started with supervisor arthur weathersby, kathy goforth, jerry need -- jerry need, stacey clarkson, stephen hayes. currently bobby bentley, and i have a new supervisor that has just racially conducted an investigation on me, and his

last name is bono, and he so relevantly knew that i don't recall his first name at this point. >> thank you. ms. griffith? >> my primary experience of it was with ms. kathy goforth. and greg hall, and chief alj charlie andrus and to some degree, although much more minor, alj doherty spent it may seem odd you that i've asked you to name folks but it's early has been our expense that sunshine can go a long way. and if other agencies are operating like this, if other events like this are occurring within the system, having people know that your name will be listed in washington, d.c. in a hearing to provide maybe some relief to folks in your situation you are calling out these kinds of egregious

problems and not getting any answer. want to transition from what was happening internally, because obviously not only has this hearing and all of the attention not led to a change of kind of atmosphere for you within the agency, it seems like there continues to be pushed back from the agency on what needs to be done. but i want to just transition for a moment because i think it was you, ms. griffith, who talked about filing and inspector general complaint in 2009 and never hearing -- i want to make sure we have this right. you filed the complaint in 2009 and did not hear from inspector general intel 2011, after the report in "the wall street journal," is that correct? >> i believe tha that is correc. >> did you ever follow up with the ig in that, not take a

rdds it's more of the same, i'm done with it, my blood pressure is going down, i want to -- >> initially i made a few phone calls, but didn't really have a result and i let it go. >> do you member who was, or do you have any record of it was in the ig's office that you contacted? >> no. the only thing i have with regard to the complaint was a copy of the original e-mail confirming that complaint that i had. >> and you got that e-mail almost right after you filed the complaint in 2009? >> i think it might've been the same day. >> to produce something that was generated. one of our tasks here isn't just to expose your particular situation, but to look at and say, if there are women like you in an agency or being intimidated, or having these problems, who are pointing out something that just seems so blatantly wrong, and not getting listen to, how do we fix that

for other women or other individuals within agency? have you thought about that? and again, i addressed the question, ms. carver and ms. griffith, on -- have you thought about only this, if only this, that would've made a difference? >> well, i have often, because we currently have had several complaints filed from women in our office, and, unfortunately, the way our grievance procedure operates is we filed our first appeal with our first line supervisor. our second appeal with the hearing office director, and then the third appeal goes to the chief alj at the region level. they are all three denied. and management knows this because either our union can only arbitrate so many cases the year based on money, and if your

case isn't selected to be arbitrated, then you have no other recourse spent ms. griffith? >> you know, part of the problem when you run into a problem within the agency, or at least my experience, is if you have a complaint about your supervisor, that's who you filed the complaint with. so you don't have the ability to be anonymous to talk to anybody who isn't going to either turn around and tell her everything you said about her or him or whoever. you don't have that protection for you. you are going to complain, you'ryou're going to complain te going to complaint to two people who are responsible for supervising you, and who in turn can discipline you for anything they like and they know they can get away with it. >> if management decided with a troublemaker, it's pretty easy to retaliate and avoid dealing with directly with the complaint, no matter how legitimate?

and the other thing that's striking about your discussion is not only is a legitimate but it was office gossip, but yet nothing got done. unfortunately, i'd like to think that this doesn't happen in cases of people trying to do the right thing and other agencies, but i think it probably does. and it takes enormous, enormous courage to do what you have done to it takes enormous courage to stand up and i just want to tell you, all four of you, how much i applaud what you have done, how much i know gets -- it's hard to risk a family, but you guys did it. and you are really great americans. thank you spent thank you. >> do i get a thank you? senator baldwin and then followed by senator mccaskill. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member coburn for holding this very revealing hearing but i also want to thank

subcommittee chairman levin and ranking member mccain for all the work that went into this investigation. it is incredibly revealing. and i look at the responsibility of this committee and think about, you know, at the very specific level of the investigation before us, our responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure that people who would abuse this broke ramp for the own personal profit or benefit are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. and further, responsibility to recognize the importance and the courage of these witnesses who have done the right thing and stepped forward, and then very, very courageous.

but others who might be similarly situated to know that, that we have their interest in mind and that there will be protections for those who do the right things and speak out. we also as a full committee have larger responsibilities for the integrity of the program that we were talking about in the social security administration, that the right reforms and oversight need to be in place to prevent these sort of abuses. and i take all of those responsibilities very seriously. i know that my colleagues on this committee do. i do want to speak for the record that i have certainly some initial hesitance to extrapolate beyond the case at hand based on the investigative report before us.

and think we need to dig figure and figure out how widespread this is. and i have a couple of questions in that regard but i just wanted to start very specifically with the case before us, with ms. slone and ms. martin. my understanding is that, that judge daugherty would contact your office roughly once a month to provide the names of 30-50 social security disability claimants that were represented by mr. khan. is that correct? how did that can indication occur speak with yes, ma'am. he would usually call on the first of the month. our deadline to get them all the information that he requested was by the 15th of every month. he would place a call to our office. i was usually the one who spoke with judge daugherty. he would give me the names of the individuals.

the first five numbers of the social sector the number and whether he wanted a mental or physical evaluation performed on the client. then that would be handed off to another employee that was scheduled employment for the evaluation. rfc, residual functional -- >> yes, ma'am. >> did any other judges, administrative law judges, aside from judge daugherty called into the office or communicate to the office like this that you are aware of? >> no, ma'am. >> when chairman carper was asking his initial question of the panel, ms. carver, you talked a little bit about how you first became aware of this and talked about amassed

dilution. and part of what you are describing was -- sort of what became apparent when you look at this aljs docket, if that's the right word, and the outcomes of those cases versus others. can you just sort of walked me through what stood out when you look at those reports and those comparisons of? >> depended on which report you would pull out, you could get the monthly dispositions of each judge. and you could see that judge daugherty we do the work of three judges as opposed to one judge. you could also look at the amount of favorable decisions that he had versus the amount of other judges, all judges pretty much buried in their allowance

rate, -- pretty much buried in their allowance rate. but on one report you can see that they would go all the way down and all you saw was favorable, favorable, favorable. not only were you able to look at the number, the amount he did each month but you could look at the representatives and you could also look at the decisions. >> when you use the term allowance rate, is that the percentage of favorable -- >> yes. >> just without the documents or reports in front of you, can you give us some idea of how much judge daugherty stood out from the rest of the aljs in terms of the allowance rate? >> monetary? in the percentage of? >> percentage. i guess what i would say is unaware of some of the rates recorded at a national scale by

the social security administration for favorable determinations of alj judges, you know, 13%. so i don't know if that was typical of any of the other aljs, but how much did these -- >> fmi interrupt you. i would ask unanimous consent in into the record the case of judge daugherty from 2006-2011 and his average was 99 points 7%. >> and just so comparatively emma can you give me any sense of the average of other aljs in the huntington office? >> well, it would depend on each alj. i mean, usually on average i would say probably in my opinion about 60%. 60-67% were favorable. but with judge daugherty and eric conn, what i seen was 100%.

i mean, he didn't even have hearings at a point of, you know, several years within. and if you look at that statistic alone, what's the likelihood that every claim to walks in your office is disabled? >> right. thank you. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to thank the witnesses for being here. i have a feeling it won't be the last time that you will be testifying somewhere. clearly, there is -- this report, it gets my heart beating a little faster as a former prosecutor, because i guarantee you, you put some good -- we have some good investigators on that work for this committee,

but give us some good prosecutors on the set of faqs and i think you're going to find something more than the pressure to move a docket quickly. i don't have a lot of questions for you all. i think you have gone over very well. i would ask you, those of you who worked in the social security administration, didn't the other lawyers know the fix was in for conn? didn't the other lawyers representing people with disabilities know this? >> i received numerous phone calls from other attorneys in the area, while i was there, more towards the end of my time in 2007 than any other, that had complained that they were losing their clients to mr. conn's office, because mr. conn saw this was making the claim that they could get their case

granted. >> and if they could, 100%. spin and in the response to that, that's why judge daugherty stopped having eric conn hearings because of the numerous complaints. that way he could have hearings for other representatives and move more room in his hearing scheduled for other -- >> for other lawyers. let me ask you this. i mean, this is a small community. so lawyers who do these cases and make it an even smaller community because this is not a major metropolitan area. somebody knew each other. all the judges knew each other. all the aljs knew each other. all the voters knew each other. how many bar complaints were there about eric conn, if you know speaks to my knowledge, none spend what about judicial complaints about the alj? >> to my knowledge, none.

>> that's depressing. how much pressure -- first of all, did you have the staff, was this pressure to move cases, accurately which i think originally there was a desire that these cases not languish and that they cases be moved to the system as good as possible, but with accuracy. did you all have sufficient staff to do that? >> not have the time to figure. the staff in the office has increased considerably since i left. >> so initially, it reminds me about background checks. you know, we say we want the government to be smaller and have fewer employees, but who have crucial functions where we don't have enough people to do the work and that's the environment that this kind of nonsense occurs in, whether it's people pretending they're doing background checks when they're not, or judges pretend like they

are making a decision on the merits when it's a pro forma decision. let me also say before i turned back to chairman, because i'm anxious to have some questions or the other panels, i'm assuming that you saw meritorious complaints, all of you, for disability? >> yes. >> yes spent and i'm sure you saw lawyers that were honest our handling those clients. >> yes. >> yes. >> i want to say that because having no employers who do this kind of work, and known people who have disabilities that receive a disability check that deserve it, i want to be careful that we get this on the record. i thought that senator coburn did a great job on television last night, talking about the damage this does to the many honest, hard-working,

meritorious claims, and honest, hard-working aljs, and honest, hard-working lawyers that are participating in this system across the country. clearly this is outrageous and house -- we have to get to the bottom of the. if the facts where they appear to look like a big lead, somebody should be prosecuted for it. by did want to point out that there are lots of honest people representing lots of people that are in desperate need in front of good aljs that are doing their best with the resources they have. >> yes, there are. >> does anybody disagree? >> no. >> cinching newer eric conn was all the time, was there a lot of socializing with other lawyers and other judges on his scheduled? >> no. usually goes and he socialized that i knew of with the judges was adhering office when he had hearings before them. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> before i yield back to dr. coburn, let me ask a couple of my own. what advice would you have two others, whether they happen to work in the social security administration or some other part of our government, who see things that are wrong and are inclined to say something about? i ride the train a lot and releasing on the train, "if you see something, say something." we sort of adopted out throughout our homeland security operations. what advice would you have two others who see things that ought not be happening? and might be helpful to them, may be encouraging to them. >> as you see these occurrences happening, i feel the most important thing to do is to document them. because without the documentation that we used, we wouldn't have been able to prove it. and the administration, i feel,

believes that we somehow may have gotten our information from, you know, some of the way. because they have since installed, i believe it's like six doors, like seven, six or $7000 of these that are soundproof doors in our office and soundproofed their offices. ..

i agree with sarah. we would not be where we are today had we not kept accurate accounts of things that went on and records. but i think the best advice i could give anybody is not to back down, not to be afraid to say something. >> all right. slone? >> i agree with miss carver that documentation is the most important thing. >> miss hicks. i apologize. >> i agree with all of them. >> what advice do you have for us? homeland security and government affairs, used to the government affairs, historically as broad oversight responsibilities for the federal government for much

of the federal government. what we have done here is shipped dr. coburn and senator levin, the details of our committee. what advice would you have for us? what advice would you have for us given what you have been through and what you have learned and we might be more constructive in the work we do and more supportive of people like you? >> i feel there should be some type of system of accountability within each administration. i feel that for the most part managers, supervisors, l.j.s, those higher up in the agency are promoted, allowed to retire,

given monetary awards, that we as employees, we are held to the same standard of conduct that we would be fired, terminated, disciplined. i have never known up until this investigation anybody in any judge, any manager that has been disciplined. they have been removed and promoted or position, created for them but never held accountable for their actions. >> thank you. again, advice for us. >> it is important to do what you already started to do, to take that very hard look at what is going on with social security, it is not just about one judge and one attorney. it is not just occurring there but occurring everywhere. it is something that needs to have more safeguards put in place to prevent this from happening anywhere else. it is a look at what it costs.

look at what one judge, one attorney costs taxpayers. it needs to be strengthened and their need to be more safeguards to protect not only the employees but to protect the american taxpayers from having this benefit system hijacked. >> miss slone, ms. hicks, any advice for us? >> trying to make changes in the way lawyers and judges communicate together, spending time together and allowing them to develop a personal relationship, a change would help. >> thank you. >> before i turn it over to dr. coburn for remaining questions, one of the things we have sought to do in other parts of our oversight is to look at things like medicare and medicaid and to see where technology can be used to put a spotlight on

behavior that is questionable, and toward where you have doctors may be prescribing large amounts of controlled substances to a lot of people. the same person over and over again, different pharmacies and that kind of thing but a pattern of behavior they were able to detect using technology. credit card companies have been doing this, charging things on my credit card and i have never been to make all. for the credit-card companies it is something going on here to be able to say give me a call. would you doing in nepal and i am not there. putting you in a position of having the prospect of losing your job and standing in the community, technology doesn't solve all our problems but it

can help. any comment on that? yield to dr. coburn. >> i feel somebody outside the agency needs to know how to read that technology. we have the abate a bit -- the availability, published in that article as far as but favorable rates and anybodythe favorable rates and anybody could look at this information but we need someone who knows what the procedures are to recognize this is a red flag here. >> thank you. >> i will go through this fairly quickly because there are things i want to get on the record. if you will look at exhibit 22, and 28 i will ask some questions about that and turn to you, miss

slone. and e-mail you sent on january 25th, 2007, one of the times you were talking about a signing cases represented by mr. conn and you wrote the following. dvd has elected to go in and assign several electronic pieces all of which are conn cases. how did you know judge doherty was assigning himself cases? just your e-mail. >> i had discussed this. jennifer came to me as the union representative and had discussed this situation. he was one of the first judges trained on the electronic file. however, the electronic files, we had cases from other attorney

representative that he was selecting. >> is this the first time you noticed he was doing this? >> this is probably around the first time jennifer had come to me over it. he may have verbally written or told something but this is the first time i was aware of it. >> were you aware of any time judge doherty assigned himself cases represented by another lawyer? >> no. >> you said in your area at the agency could put other steps to call dvd and give him a list of electronic cases. why do you think mr. conn was calling judge doherty to let him know those cases were on the way? >> because he had intercepted these cases before they were assigned to another administrative law judge. >> is that the only explanation? that he would know what the cases were? if he had no knowledge of what those cases where how would he know what cases to look for?

could he circuit by a lawyer's last name? >> not if they had not been received yet. >> he had to know the key pieces. >> he had to know the social security number. >> you end the e-mail saying this is not going unnoticed. people beginning to talk about taking care of this coz it could escalate into a bigger problem. what did you mean widely known? was everybody in the office talking about this? >> yes. >> i shouldn't use the word everybody. large number of people. >> the girls who were processing the cases. >> exhibit 28. this problem didn't seem to go away after you raised it to management's attention. if you look at exhibit 28 this is an e-mail from march 29th, 2010, from you to judge william getwall at huntington office. you wrote for this information someone is closing this case and it was over generally your case and bbb took it and did an o t r on it.

describe in more detail what happened and why you sent this e-mail. >> this was one of many e-mails i began to actually send to the l js themselves in hopes that the l js would start complaining to charlie andrews. >> and on the record determination can only be made positively. it has to have a hearing. is that correct? >> correct. >> this e-mail was sent two years after it the e-mail from jennifer griffith which we discussed. did you see judge doherty assign himself other cases after management was made aware of the problem in 2007? >> yes. >> was there any follow-up from management? >> yes. i talked with judge getlow on several occasions. he said he had e-mail a l j

andrews on several occasions and even told judge andrew as that if he did not take care of the problem he was going to take out side of the office. >> miss slone, you worked for mr. conn for a long time. describe what you actually did for him. where you everything? >> when i left high was doing managerial duties. >> were you his most senior employee in terms of responsibility? >> yes. >> the time you worked in conn's office tower important was judge doherty to the success of the law firm? >> very important. >> when did you grow concerned about the relationship between mr. conn and judge doherty? >> when i first moved to the hearing department and noticed judge doherty was the only one we didn't hold hearings for i

remember asking why it was different for him. we were told that was what he preferred to do. >> tell us what a d b list was. >> it was a list of claimants that gb would call once a month. >> what do you mean? >> judge doherty would give us a list of claimants that he wanted us to send for evaluation and have on the record decision. >> how were these lists created? >> i would create the lists, give me the information. >> look at exhibit 18. this is at the top of the first stockman, september of 2009. another stack says june quarter is due on 6-6 teen-2006. tell us what that means. >> the claimant's name, social security number, physical, meaning which kind of report

judge doherty requested. a oo they as amended on set dates, judge doherty would request of there with a prior decision or an age due to the grid rules, he would require -- >> or backdated to the age of greed or something else? >> yes. >> some list the word mental next to the claimant's name and some say physical. why did it sometimes say either? >> he would leave that the discretion of erik, which report he would -- >> submit? >> yes. >> a lot of claimants have amended on set dates. why would judge doherty do that? >> yes, sir. >> exhibit 18, a huge stack of lists dated from 2006-2010. when did they start using db west's? >> i don't know when they started losing them. they were already in place when

i came to the department. i didn't move to the hearing department in late 2008. >> they were there then. >> carlton, did judge doherty call you the list of clients? >> once a month. >> who with mr. conn sent his clients to about mental or physical? >> there was physical, primarily dr. frederick until his death. if it was mental, brad adkins. >> what would they get in return? >> $400 per evaluation and dr. brad atkins, not exactly sure he was in the $300 range. >> he would give a finding as to what mr. conn got. >> yes, sir. >> with the doctors fill out our f cs or someone else? >> someone else. >> did you have occupational

therapists in your office to determine this? >> not to my knowledge. >> where did mr. conn fine doctors he knew would give him the medical answers you wanted? >> dr. haas nagle had been performing evaluations for several years prior to my employment, same with dr. brad adkins. when dr. hofnagle passed away look for doctors to fill his shoes and look for doctors with prior sanctions and problems, easier to hire them. >> what did you do for mr. conn and how long did you work there? >> i was with the law firm for six years in the number of things. with the social security office, assisted in managing the office at one point. i have been the receptionist. for a year-and-a-half or two years of mostly went to hearings with perfect.

>> with mr conn's clients, where would they go when need to be seen by a doctor? >> eric had the medical wind but only had that last year or two that i was there. mostly the racine there. the office was within walking distance from eric conn's office of clients would go to his office and for brad at can they mostly saw him at his own office as well. >> could you describe to me a typical day when dr. hofnagel was seeing a patients in dr. conn's office? you can generalize. not specific. >> when he was in the office he probably got anywhere from 15 to 25 clients. he didn't spend a lot of time with them. actually saw them first, i am not sure what she did. he only saw them for maybe 20

minutes at the most. >> ever a time when dr. hofnagel did not fill out the r f c 4? >> not the time aware of. >> was there a time he requested a change? >> not that i'm aware of. >> s s a rules prohibit claimant lawyers from charging their clients for doctor visits when additional evidence is requested. would mr conn get the money to pay for these exams? >> i am not sure where the money came from. he wrote checks for the doctor's office to assume that was from the office accounts. >> what he require all clients to sign a contract on camera promising to pay for additional medical costs? >> they all signed the contract. for a while it was on camera but it didn't last long. so many came in it was too hard and cost too much money. >> back to dr. hofnagel. when he was finished examining

some later you get a brief report and sign a form called the residual functional capacity. these forms would be sent to judge doherty to approve cases. please look at exhibit 45. >> give me that section. can you explain how mr. conn used this form and others like it? >> for the physical, medical assessment form during the time that i dealt with these there were ten different ones. they were labelled r f c number one through 10. these would be printed out, 50 claimants that came in to see dr. hofnagel in the course of two days and 50 of these would be printed out and someone would hand write the name of the individual and their social security number at the top, attached to the medical report and those would be at the same time.

>> these were free filled out forms. >> the only thing that was blank was the name and social security number. >> i know for the record of all the forms mr conn prepared everyone of them, every one of the forms said demonstrated reliability for, every form. every form. that means nobody came through mr conn's office and his r f cs, nobody was better than poor at demonstrating reliability. that will be important leader. how was it decided which are f c form would go with which client? >> there was no form or fashion. it was a random assignment. >> did dr. hofnagel review any forms to assure that they match the claimant's limitations? >> not that i'm aware of. >> did he ever ask for and rscg >> reporter:?

>> not aware of. >> with other people call this a bit's office for claims the plan to approve? >> no. >> why would judge doherty do this? what was going on? i am not asking you to speculate. what does common sense tell you? >> common sense told us talk of the office was he was paid to do so. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the list of rfc forms noting they pour on -- pour demonstrated ability. one other set of questions. the details about the arrangement with mr. conn and judge doherty became public in an article which you afford to relate to. what was the reaction inside the office at the time? >> chaos. absolute chaos.

>> describe that. >> everyone was in panic. there wasn't a lot of work done at all. i remember the day damian came to visit the office no one spoke to him and he went to the subway next door and we had employees there and eric conn told me to go get them. they had to come out of the subway. didn't want anybody around him or anything. eric conn at the time had to get himself prescribed medication and one of the doctors gave it to him and he laughed and joked that when the o ig came to the office to ask questions that he was high on the pills he was prescribed. that is the only way he was able to speak. >> please look at exhibit 75. this is a receipt from family dollar for a throwaway cellphone. can you explain why mr. conn would use these phones? >> after the article came out in the wall street journal he

actually purchased a lot of these. he was afraid for judge doherty to call the office because if the phones were tapped or if anyone looked at the phone records they would see they were still communicating so he purchased a lot of these and the reason was the first time they purchased cellphones judge doherty forgot to use his track phone and called eric. i don't know if it was from his home number or the social security office but he called the track phone without using his track phones so they had to throw the way and get new ones. >> miss slone, of the most troubling findings is conn destroyed a huge volume of documents related to his disability practice once this relationship with judge doherty became public. can you describe what you saw in regards to what happened in those events? >> most of the documents i knew were destroyed came after his mother left the office.

we went through and there were a lot of changes made in the office, one of which several files that were kept in what we call the close the building were closed files. those were depending on their age gotten rid of. a lot of documents in his mother's office he went through himself and the decided what needed to be destroyed. >> was this after the inspector general's visit? >> yes. >> all this occurred after the inspector general's visit. >> yes, sir. >> what was unusual about what happened in the past with normal document destruction? >> to my knowledge i don't remember us having ever having a document destruction of this size. >> why do you think he wanted to destroy the d b lists? >> i guess just not to have anything that had anything to do with the be on it.

>> was their conversation specifically about making sure the list were destroyed? >> yes. he told us to check our offices, especially in the hearing department and make sure we didn't have any d b lists or documents that had the be's name on it. >> what did he do with the electronic files? >> the electronic files, do you mean the electronic files -- >> the computer files that your office. >> we had replaced several computers in our office with new ones and he would have employees remove the hard drive from the computers and destroy them. what they would do is smashed and with a hammer and later burn those. >> did mr conn make any statement to you why he was destroying all his documents? >> he wanted -- he called it spring cleaning, he just wanted, didn't want any documents in office pertaining to d b. to judge doherty.

>> thank you. thank you all very much. >> senator levin. >> mr. chair, i just had one additional question. miss slone and miss hicks, did one or both of you watch as mr. conn looked for a doctors with disciplinary problems? >> yes. >> both of you. what did you -- where was he looking? >> in his office, he was looking on a computer at the kentucky board of licenser and he would look for doctors that had had sanctions or problems with their licence in the past and he would

printout their information for i know i made several phone calls to doctors to ask if they would be interested in doing evaluations for him. >> you also saw that, miss hicks? >> yes. >> and the reason is as you testified, he said it would be easier to work with them if they had prior sanctions? >> he had said before that he referred to those as more doctors. if they had sanctions and had their licenses suspended before, he could do whatever he wanted and they were cheaper to work with. >> you heard him say that? >> yes, sir. >> i am done. >> i think that concludes this

part of the hearing. any of the one to make a closing remark? before you are dismissed? >> thank you. >> we thank you very much. >> thank you for listening to us. we thank dr. coburn and senator levin and their staffs. >> yet to get here on your own time, didn't you? >> albert einstein used to say opportunity, it has been true for a long time. adversity in west virginia, an opportunity here and the opportunity is to learn from this experience and make sure it is not happening in other places around the country where they're trying to make social security disability determinations. so we can better ensure we are

not wasting money, throwing money away, and the trust fund. my hope and prayer is something will happen for a tough couple years. with that having been said, before i excuse you, bring forth the second panel, we have one vote at 5:00 for dr. coburn at 5:30 going to hustle in and vote and come back and relieve me and go back and vote and return shortly after and that we we won't have to slow things down any further. >> i had one additional question. we are going to have a doctor in the next panel that made recommendations for social security and recommendations for mr conn. was it ever noticed in the social security office that disparity of those two sets of recommendations, one by a paid attorney and one by the social security office that they said opposite things?

>> yes. yes. >> thank you. >> that is the last question. thank you so much. >> first lady grace coolidge was known as the first lady of baseball. >> she was a lifelong baseball fan. being in massachusetts and vermont, they were big red sox fans. when they went to washington they have a little allegiance to the local team down there, the washington senators. in our collection we have a number of season passes that she was given by the american league. usually they were issued either in a wallet or pocketbook. some of the pocket books are wonderful art deco in style. one of the items in the exhibit is certificate she was given by the boston red sox and washington nationals as they were called in 1955 designating her first lady of the land, first lady of baseball. >> watch our program and grace

coolidge on our web site c-span.org/first lady or see it saturday on c-span and 7:00 eastern and we continue our series live monday as we look at first lady lou hoover. >> the supreme court heard oral arguments yesterday. the case challenging the campaign contributions from individuals builders. several attorneys had reached for both sides in the supreme court building. this is a half hour. >> in the case today, we had a brief on behalf of the republican national committee and a very pleased with results of the argument this morning. it is apparent that the court views aggregate limits, how many candidates a particular donor can support,