Robert L. Smith v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services for the United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a claimant was not prejudiced by the lack of counsel where the “[c]laimant’s proffer of prejudice amount[ed] to no more than speculation[ ] on [the] ways in which an attorney could have bolstered his credibility before the ALJ”
• noting that there is a heightened duty to “scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore all relevant facts” when a claimant is unrepresented
• describing how a claimant can “knowingly and intelligently waive his statutory right to counsel.”
• relevant inquiry is whether the record reveals evidentiary gaps which result in unfairness or clear prejudice
• “A claimant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive his statutory right to counsel when he is not adequately informed of it either in a prehearing notice or at his hearing.”
• relevant inquiry is “whether the record reveals evidentiary gaps which result in unfairness or ‘clear prejudice’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).