hearing and mediation judges of the washington …...at washington state university (wsu) to design...

HEARING AND MEDIATION JUDGES OF THE WASHINGTON BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

FINAL REPORT

PREPARED FOR:

Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals

Submitted by:

David Brody, J.D., Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Criminal Justice Program Washington State University, Spokane

Nicholas Lovrich, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Governmental Studies and Services Washington State University, Pullman

March, 2009

INTRODUCTION The Washington State Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BIIA) is a statutorily created agency established to adjudicate appeals filed by injured workers, employers, and others resulting from orders issued by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries. The BIIA considers appeals from approximately 7,500 cases a year. To perform this function, the BIIA employs 55 administrative law judges who oversee mediations and conduct adversarial hearings as part of the industrial insurance appeals process. In 2007 the Board contracted with the Division of Governmental Studies and Services at Washington State University (WSU) to design and conduct performance evaluations of the BIIA’s mediation and hearing judges for the dual purposes of judicial self‐improvement and internal agency assessment regarding judicial performance with respect to BIIA service goals and objectives. The evaluation process developed and implemented under this agreement is based largely on the 2005 American Bar Association’s Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance. Under these guidelines, a JPE program should:

• Evaluate judges on presence of universally accepted qualities expected to be possessed by outstanding judges.

• Employ specific behavior‐based measures of the presence of these qualities.

• Permit evaluators to provide written feedback to the judge that may be used for judicial self‐improvement.

• If possible, obtain information from multiple “populations,” including attorneys, litigants, and other groups of individuals who have first‐hand experiences with a judge being evaluated.

• Permit only those individuals who have observed a judge’s performance to participate in the evaluation.

• Employ statistically and scientifically reliable methods for conducting the evaluation and for computing the results.

The BIIA JPE program developed for this project follows these principles. The performance of BIIA judges was evaluated by several distinct populations: attorneys, paralegals, lay representatives, and pro se litigants. In addition, only individuals who appeared before a judge were permitted to evaluate the judge’s performance. Participants in the evaluation surveys conducted were asked to assess the judges’ performance with respect to more than 20 behavior‐based criteria. Finally, BIIA JPE assessment survey respondents were asked to provide written comments that could be used for judicial self‐improvement as warranted. This report, which presents the overall results of the BIIA Judicial Performance Evaluation, is organized into five principal sections:

• Introduction • Attorney, Paralegal, and Lay Representative Evaluations

This section discusses the methodology employed in conducting the attorney evaluations, the demographic and professional characteristics of attorney evaluators, aggregate results from attorney evaluations, and summary tables presenting scaled category results for each individual judge.

[2]

• Litigant Evaluations This section discusses the methodology used in conducting the litigant evaluations, the demographic characteristics of litigant evaluators, and aggregate results from the litigant evaluations.

• Conclusion • Appendices

The BIIA JPE evaluation survey instruments used, and detailed reports for individual judges are presented in a set of appendices.

ATTORNEY, LAY REPRESENTATIVE, AND PARALEGAL EVALUATIONS An important component of a judicial evaluation program is to obtain information from individuals who have had an opportunity to personally observe the judge being evaluated during the relevant time period. To facilitate collection of such information BIIA staff generated a database for each judge consisting of the attorneys, paralegals, lay representatives, and pro se litigants who appeared before a mediation or hearing judge during 2007. In all, 19,309 BIIA cases were provided in the database, made up of 7,481 attorneys, 5,026 lay representatives, 530 paralegals, with the remainder being pro se litigants.1 These databases, which were generated from computer records, provided the individual’s name, their mailing address, and if available their e‐mail address and the judge(s) before whom they appeared. Because thousands of these cases did not have an e‐mail address associated with them, WSU staff supplemented the database by obtaining e‐mail addresses for hundreds of attorneys from the Washington State Bar Association’s electronic lawyer directory, and for lay representatives by telephoning businesses that handle third party claims administration directly. The vast majority of the data collected for the BIIA JPE evaluation was gathered electronically over the Internet. Attorneys, lay representatives, and paralegals were sent invitations via e‐mail to evaluate judges before whom they appeared. The e‐mail message contained a link to a web‐based survey questionnaire for the individual to evaluate that particular judge. People who appeared before multiple judges received a separate e‐mail providing them with a survey to evaluate each individual judge. Regardless of how many times a person may have appeared before a judge, individuals were allowed to evaluate each judge only one time. The responses to the survey were received via this secure web‐based system, and made available for data entry and tabulation by WSU researchers. BIIA JPE evaluation questionnaires were administered to attorneys, paralegals, and lay representatives during the last three months of 2008. The questionnaires were developed in cooperation with BIIA agency staff, and pre‐tested to assure prima facie validity. Two waves of survey invitations were sent to the e‐mail address for each member of the sample of cases selected at random within broad categories of cases (mediations and adversarial hearing). In all, a total of 6,019 invitations to evaluate judges were distributed to attorneys, paralegals, and lay representatives. Based on these invitations, 1,893

1While over 19,000 individual appearances were provided in the database, a significant portion of them were unusable. Several reasons account for this, including the fact that a company name was listed rather than an individual litigant in many instances. Similarly, in a number of cases a law firm, third party representative firm, corporation, or other generic identifier was listed rather than an individual who appeared at a hearing or mediation, thus precluding their inclusion in the evaluation.

[3]

evaluation questionnaires were completed (1,211 for hearing judges, 682 for mediation judges), yielding a theoretical estimated response rate of 31.2%.2 This response rate represents a highly conservative estimate. Response rates are measured as the percent of people who received requests to complete surveys who returned completed surveys. With Internet‐based surveys that are distributed via e‐mail, an unknowable number of people who were sent surveys did not receive them, either due to spam blockers, firewalls, outdated e‐mail addresses, or for other reasons. A true response rate would be calculated by dividing the number of responses by the number of people who actually received but did not complete surveys: individuals who never received the request would be excluded from this calculation. As the number of these individuals is not knowable, they were included in the response rate calculation reported here. As such, the response rates reported for mediation judges and hearing judges are surely lower (more conservative) estimates than an omnisciently calculated rate would be. The evaluation focused upon the behavior‐based measures recommended and centered around two sets of standards. General measures of judicial competencies were based largely on those contained in the ABA Guidelines. In addition to these factors, a number of items were included to measure key competencies expected of Industrial Insurance Appeals Judges as set out in the Board’s September 2005 Performance Expectations for Industrial Insurance Appeals Judges. Specifically, evaluators were asked to rate the performance of each judge before whom they appeared under multiple criteria, which fall loosely into five categories: legal ability, integrity and impartiality, communication, professionalism, and administrative skills. As the specific performance expectations and skills required for mediation and hearing judges are not identical, slightly different criteria were used for judges conducting mediations versus those conducting adversarial hearings. The specific criteria used in the evaluation for each type of judge, which were arrived at in conjunction with the BIIA Judicial Survey Committee, are presented in Tables 1 and 2.3 After establishing the performance criteria on which the judges would be evaluated, questionnaires were developed to collect information measuring agency client perceptions of these items. The questionnaires asked individuals who had appeared at a hearing or mediation in front of a judge to rate the judge’s performance with respect to each criterion using the following scale:

Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1

2Response rates in a judicial performance evaluation based on actual observations of a judge’s behavior are of slight consequence if large numbers of surveys are collected. Because the assessment is designed on the premise that only people who have actually observed and can remember a judge’s performance should participate in the evaluation, an unknown number of people received evaluation invitations but chose not to participate due to lack of ability to provide meaningful input. This lack of participation, while it causes a diminished response rate, is appropriate and desirable for the reliability of a JPE program. 3 Copies of the survey questionnaires used in the evaluation are presented in Appendix A.

[4]

Table 1 Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Judges

Category Criteria

LEGAL ABILITY

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.

Understood the relevant substantive law.

Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.

INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Maintained a neutral presence.

Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.

Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication.

Based decisions on the law and facts, not identity of the parties or counsel.

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or income.

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.

COMMUNICATION

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings.

Acted decisively throughout proceedings.

Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders.

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

PROFESSIONALISM

Treated people with courtesy and respect.

Was attentive to proceedings.

Acted with patience and self‐control.

Promoted a sense of fairness.

ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS

Displayed common sense.

Started proceedings on time.

Was prepared for hearings and conferences.

Maintained control over the proceedings.

Appropriately enforced rules and orders.

Appropriately enforced deadlines.

Prepared orders in a timely manner.

Managed the proceedings efficiently.

Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete.

[5]

Table 2 Criteria for Evaluating Mediation Judges

Category Criteria

LEGAL ABILITY

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.

Understood the relevant substantive law.

Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.

INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Maintained a neutral presence.

Permitted all parties to be heard.

Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.


COMMUNICATION

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation.

Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.

Any agreement was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

PROFESSIONALISM

Treated people with courtesy and respect.

Was attentive during the mediation.

Acted with patience and self‐control.

Promoted a sense of fairness.

ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS

Displayed common sense.

Started proceedings on time.

Was prepared for proceedings.

Maintained control over the proceedings.

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute.

Helped participants understand each others' position.

Prepared written orders in a timely manner.

Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement.

[6]

In addition to questions regarding the judge’s performance, three other categories of information were also collected. First, respondents were asked questions regarding the general nature of their appearances before the judge being evaluated. Specifically, attorneys, lay representatives, and paralegals were asked the number of times they appeared before the judge during the prior two years, as well as their perception of the level of success they had achieved during these appearances. Second, respondents were asked to provide information about their demographic and professional background characteristics. Specifically, those persons appearing before a judge in a representative capacity were asked to provide general information about the type of client they represented, the type of organization for which they work, and whether they are an attorney, paralegal, or lay representative. Additionally, attorneys were asked to provide the size of the firm or organization in which they are employed, and the length of time they have been practicing law. Information about the demographic and professional background characteristics of survey participants, as well as the frequency and successfulness of their appearance before the judge under evaluation, was collected in order to provide a means of considering potential sample bias. Such bias could be based on race, gender, type of representation, or other factors that could potentially affect how judges are evaluated. The possession of this information allows the Board to consider whether there are issues of concern at the aggregate level, as well as for each individual judge. The third category of supplemental information collected involved soliciting narrative comments from the BIIA JPE survey respondents. In judicial performance evaluations often the most telling and beneficial information is obtained from specific comments supplied by evaluators. Written comments get beyond quantitative measures, and frequently provide an important qualitative sense of a judge’s performance concerning specific areas of concern. To facilitate collection of narrative comments, at the end of the BIIA JPE survey questionnaire, respondents were invited to record their comments by this statement:

Please provide any additional comments or details related to either the items raised in this questionnaire or the judge’s performance in the space below. Additionally, feel free to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the judge.

Comments provided by respondents for each judge, which have been redacted to remove identifying information, are included in the individual judge reports located in Appendix B. Aggregate Description of Representative Respondents As discussed above, the evaluation questionnaire asked attorneys, paralegals, and lay representatives to provide information about themselves and the role they played in the BIIA proceeding in question. Characteristics of the respondents for each judge are included in the results reported for those individual judges in Appendix B. The characteristics, in aggregate, of the respondents participating in the evaluation are listed below in Tables 3 through 7.

[7]

Table 3 Description of Client Represented by Respondent Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Injured Worker 428 36.0 196 29.1 Employer 256 21.5 303 45.0 Labor and Industries 506 42.5 161 23.9 Other 0 0 13 1.9 Table 4 Work Setting Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Attorney General’s Office 510 42.7 162 24.1 In House Counsel 34 2.8 1 0.1 Private Practice 643 53.8 312 46.4 Third Party Claims Administration 0 0 191 28.4 Other 10 0.7 7 1.0

Table 5 Respondent Professional Job Description Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Attorney 1169 97.8 369 54.7 Paralegal 24 2.0 122 18.1 Lay Representative 2 0.2 184 27.3

Table 6 Size of Firm (Attorneys only) Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Sole Practitioner 132 11.3 67 18.4 2‐5 Attorneys 369 31.7 211 57.8 6‐10 Attorneys 118 10.1 23 6.3 11‐20 Attorneys 44 3.8 15 4.1 Over 20 Attorneys 500 43.0 49 13.4

[8]

Table 7 Years of Experience as an Attorney (Attorneys only) Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent 1‐2 years 90 7.8 8 2.2 3‐5 years 118 10.2 32 8.8 6‐10 years 132 11.4 42 11.5 11‐20 years 401 34.6 77 21.1 More than 20 years 418 36.1 206 56.4

Table 8 Race/Ethnicity Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Caucasian/White 1109 97.9 594 93.2 African American/Black 6 0.5 17 2.7 Hispanic/Latino(a) 10 0.9 15 2.4 Asian American/Pacific Islander 8 0.7 11 1.7 Native American 0 0 0 0 Table 9 Gender Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Male 695 61.9 337 53.2 Female 428 38.1 296 46.8

In addition to requesting that BIIA JPE survey respondents provide information regarding their demographic and professional background characteristics and role played in mediations and hearings, the questionnaire also asked several questions about the frequency of appearances and level of success achieved in cases brought before the judge under evaluation. The aggregate responses for these items are presented in Tables 10 and 11 below. Several items relating to the reliability of the evaluations are worthy of note. First, over 80% of all respondents reported that they had multiple appearances before the judges they evaluated. Increased dealings with a judge lead to evaluations of greater depth and substantive validity. The fact that four out of five respondents reported having multiple appearances before a judge, which is a high rate for a JPE, adds to the level of trust one can place in the evaluation’s results reported here. A second item worthy of note is the distribution among respondents regarding their level of success in cases involving the judge under evaluation. A concern frequently (and legitimately) raised by judges being evaluated is that only individuals with “an axe to grind” due to negative case outcomes will take

[9]

[10]

the time and trouble to complete JPE evaluations. As shown in Table 11, only one in four respondents considered the matters heard by a judge to have been “unsuccessful.” Overall, the level of success reported by respondents was very well balanced along a continuum of success, and as a consequence the “axe to grind” concern should not be considered a significant factor in the evaluation outcomes reported here.4 Table 10 Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Once 268 22.7 89 13.5 2‐3 Times 470 39.7 177 26.9 4‐10 Times 313 26.5 231 35.1 More Than 10 Times 132 11.2 162 24.6

Table 11 Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Very Unsuccessful 100 8.6 87 13.3 Somewhat Unsuccessful 180 15.5 80 12.3 Neutral 400 34.3 175 26.8 Somewhat Successful 381 32.7 186 28.5 Very Successful 104 8.1 125 19.1 Aggregate Attorney, Lay Representative , and Paralegal Evaluation Results For each of the criteria used in the evaluation, behavior‐based questions were asked for which there were five possible substantive responses: unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very good, and excellent. Additionally, attorneys were asked to answer “don’t know” for questions which they did not have sufficient first‐hand knowledge to provide an assessment. To foster usability of the results, numerical values were assigned to each evaluative rating and are the basis for the average ratings achieved for each question in the evaluation. The rating scale is presented immediately below.

RATING SCALE Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1

Tables 12 and 13 present the aggregate average ratings and frequency distributions for the hearing and mediation judges, respectively.

4 Average respondent success rates were calculated for each judge. These averages were not significantly correlated with evaluation results.

Table 12 Hearing Judges Ratings Matrix

ItemAverage

CategoryAverage

Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good

Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.10

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.03 1.0% 4.7% 20.0% 38.5% 35.8%

Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.15 .5% 3.6% 16.3% 39.5% 40.0%

Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.11 .8% 4.9% 18.0% 35.1% 41.2%

INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.31

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.30 1.5% 3.4% 11.8% 30.1% 53.3%

Maintained a neutral presence. 4.24 1.3% 5.6% 13.3% 27.6% 52.1%

Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.32 .7% 2.2% 14.9% 28.9% 53.4%

Conducted proceedings in a manner promoting public confidence in the integrity & impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.21 1.4% 4.8% 15.1% 29.4% 49.4%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.44 .9% 1.1% 10.1% 29.2% 58.8%

Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel.

4.16 1.5% 6.4% 14.0% 30.6% 47.5%

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

4.56 .2% 1.2% 8.2% 23.4% 67.0%


4.27 1.7% 4.7% 12.8% 26.4% 54.4%

COMMUNICATION 4.20

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.21 .5% 2.2% 15.5% 39.4% 42.4%

Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.17 .3% 2.6% 18.2% 37.5% 41.3%

Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.03 2.0% 5.7% 18.2% 35.2% 38.8%

Returned messages and correspondence in a prompt manner. 4.39 .5% 1.3% 10.2% 34.6% 53.3%

[11]

Hearing Judges Ratings Matrix cont’d

ItemAverage

CategoryAverage


Excellent

PROFESSIONALISM 4.35

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.41 1.2% 2.5% 9.2% 28.9% 58.3%

Was attentive to proceedings. 4.49 .3% 1.0% 8.8% 29.1% 60.8%

Acted with patience and self‐control. 4.29 1.7% 2.7% 13.1% 29.7% 52.8%

Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.24 1.5% 4.1% 14.7% 28.2% 51.5%

ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.27

Displayed common sense. 4.15 1.0% 5.6% 15.4% 33.4% 44.6%

Started proceedings on time. 4.39 .3% 2.0% 8.0% 37.2% 52.4%

Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.40 .2% 1.0% 11.1% 34.5% 53.2%

Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.34 .3% 1.5% 13.5% 32.9% 51.7%

Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.20 1.1% 2.5% 16.1% 35.7% 44.6%

Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.22 .7% 2.3% 14.5% 38.9% 43.6%

Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.19 .9% 1.6% 17.9% 37.2% 42.4%

Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.28 .2% 1.9% 16.1% 33.7% 48.2%

Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete.

4.29 1.0% 5.6% 15.4% 33.4% 44.6%

[12]

Table 13 Mediation Judge Ratings Matrix

Item

Average

Category

Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.44


Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.43 1.5% 2.0% 9.2% 27.1% 60.3%

Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.49 1.1% 2.3% 8.2% 23.6% 64.7%




Permitted all parties to be heard. 4.42 2.6% 2.9% 10.7% 17.0% 66.8%

Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity & impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.36 4.9% 2.6% 8.8% 18.5% 65.1%


4.60 .9% 1.1% 10.0% 13.3% 74.6%

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, worker, the state, or any other interest.

4.40 4.1% 3.4% 8.4% 16.6% 67.5%

COMMUNICATION 4.46

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.42 2.0% 4.2% 5.6% 26.5% 61.8%

Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 4.33 3.7% 2.9% 9.3% 24.6% 59.5%

The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.

4.54 .4% .4% 9.3% 25.3% 64.7%

Returned messages & correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.54 .3% 1.2% 10.6% 20.3% 67.6%

[13]

[14]

Mediation Judge Ratings Matrix cont’d

Item

Average

Category

Average


Excellent



Was attentive during the mediation. 4.55 1.4% 2.0% 8.0% 17.5% 71.1%

Acted with patience and self‐control. 4.38 4.8% 2.6% 6.6% 22.0% 63.9%




Started proceedings on time. 4.41 .6% 1.2% 14.2% 24.3% 59.7%

Was prepared for proceedings. 4.44 .3% 2.6% 11.4% 24.1% 61.5%

Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.45 1.6% 1.7% 12.7% 18.6% 65.4%

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.43 2.2% 1.6% 10.2% 23.2% 62.9%

Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.32 3.8% 2.5% 12.8% 19.7% 61.1%

Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.50 .3% .2% 12.9% 22.8% 63.8%

Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 4.25 5.0% 2.8% 11.2% 24.6% 56.4%

Correlations Between Respondent Characteristics and Evaluation Results Statistical analyses were conducted to determine whether significant differences were present in the way in which different categories of respondents evaluated the performance of the judges under evaluation. In general, no consistent patterns emerged showing systematic differences in the ratings. The one exception to this general finding involves the ratings of mediation judges with respect to the type of client being represented at the mediation. As shown in Table 14, individuals representing employers rated mediation judges significantly lower than those representing injured workers or Labor and Industries. This pattern was present only for mediation judges, and did not apply to hearing judges. Other than this relationship, no other correlations between respondent characteristics and evaluation outcome were present in the survey data. Table 14 Average Rating by Type of Party being Represented Worker Employer Government

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.51 4.20 4.55 Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.58 4.27 4.50 Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.66 4.33 4.54 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.77 4.26 4.42 Maintained a neutral presence. 4.67 4.10 4.20 Permitted all parties to be heard. 4.78 4.25 4.29 Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in integrity & impartiality of industrial appeals system. 4.72 4.12 4.36

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. 4.84 4.41 4.64

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or other interest. 4.76 4.17 4.35

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.59 4.25 4.49

Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 4.51 4.16 4.40

The agreement was written clearly & accurately. 4.67 4.38 4.62

Returned messages & correspondence in a prompt manner. 4.76 4.36 4.54

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.74 4.23 4.36

Was attentive during the mediation. 4.77 4.40 4.52

Acted with patience and self‐control. 4.67 4.18 4.35

Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.72 4.07 4.33

Displayed common sense. 4.59 4.18 4.47

Started proceedings on time. 4.53 4.24 4.60

Was prepared for proceedings. 4.64 4.22 4.57

Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.67 4.28 4.46

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.58 4.30 4.45 Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.48 4.15 4.39 Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.70 4.31 4.55 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 4.50 4.00 4.36

[15]

Summary of Results for Individual Judges

Tables 15 and 16 present the average rating obtained by each BIIA judge for the five substantive categories. In addition to the categorical averages, the number of evaluations used to make up the average is also included for each judge, including the number of valid evaluations received for each judge and the percentage of responses to individual questions that gave the judge a rating of “unacceptable,” “poor,” “acceptable,” “very good,” and “excellent.”

Table 15 Average Ratings for Mediation Judges

Responses Legal

Ability Integrity & Impartiality

Communication Professionalism Administrative Skills

L. BRADLEY 44 4.28 4.52 4.49 4.64 4.49F. FELLER 37 4.72 4.78 4.77 4.76 4.73K. GUYKEMA 65 4.24 4.09 4.32 3.98 4.23L. HANSON 30 4.69 4.71 4.69 4.68 4.70H. HUNTSMAN 18 4.41 4.53 4.37 4.67 4.35A. JONES 24 3.39 3.15 4.13 3.21 3.77J. KLAYMAN 56 4.65 4.59 4.51 4.48 4.50R. LAMB 67 4.57 4.68 4.59 4.70 4.52A. MCINTOSH 47 4.59 4.30 4.46 4.39 4.43F. REKASIS 76 4.85 4.90 4.85 4.90 4.83S. SAWTELL 44 4.39 4.43 4.45 4.41 4.36A. SILVERNALE 39 4.63 4.69 4.66 4.76 4.64D. SWAN 51 4.62 4.68 4.62 4.72 4.48G. THORSON 44 4.49 4.44 4.38 4.55 4.36L. WERNER 40 3.02 3.08 2.89 2.92 2.87

Table 16: Average Ratings for Hearing Judges Responses Legal

Ability Integrity & Impartiality


C. BRODERICK 32 4.40 4.45 4.40 4.44 4.42J. BURKHARDT 36 4.20 4.59 4.27 4.59 4.35Z. CANER 6 3.17 3.52 4.00 4.08 3.74D. CROSSLAND 24 3.42 3.88 3.77 4.34 4.13N. CURINGTON 22 3.75 4.26 3.79 4.38 3.89G. DURAS 64 4.08 4.46 4.17 4.51 4.24J. FAIRLEY 42 4.13 4.11 4.13 4.07 4.28S. FARWELL 24 2.91 2.67 2.71 2.10 2.75D. FRANKLIN 48 4.26 4.51 4.24 4.63 4.43J. GEBHARDT 42 4.02 4.21 4.17 4.23 4.16J. GILLIGAN 48 4.36 4.71 4.52 4.69 4.45J. GRANT 26 4.33 4.80 4.49 4.75 4.59R. HANSEN 44 4.26 4.49 4.34 4.45 4.34

[16]

[17]

Responses Legal Ability

Integrity & Impartiality


L. HANSON 22 4.23 4.25 4.30 4.41 4.44M. HARADA 50 4.33 4.48 4.37 4.50 4.46J. HICKMAN 46 4.17 4.40 4.21 4.58 4.39D. JOHNSON 22 3.82 3.79 4.11 3.75 4.10T. KALENIUS 30 4.37 4.57 4.25 4.53 4.34V. KEITH‐MILLER 28 3.46 3.53 3.70 3.60 3.64W. LUCIA 50 3.52 3.67 3.75 3.54 3.95R. MACKEY 38 4.54 4.77 4.64 4.89 4.62C. MCDONALD 40 3.82 4.25 4.22 4.51 4.27T. MERRILL 34 4.13 4.09 4.20 4.22 4.35M. METZGER 30 4.24 4.41 4.30 4.38 4.45R. MILHOLLAND 10 4.33 4.44 4.60 4.55 4.59C. MOLCHIOR 26 4.30 4.44 4.24 4.39 4.24J. O’CONNELL 28 4.10 4.44 4.26 4.45 4.21R. RAYMOND 12 3.81 4.19 3.88 4.50 4.03B. RIDLEY 48 3.96 4.22 4.00 4.26 4.18D. SHIPPS 25 4.45 4.41 4.51 4.26 4.56R. SPAULDING 14 4.33 4.33 4.28 4.25 4.26C. STEWART 44 4.31 4.41 4.46 4.45 4.44K. STOCKMAN 48 4.24 4.49 4.27 4.62 4.32W. STRANGE 30 3.78 4.00 3.99 4.28 4.07S. STRAUME 18 3.96 4.39 4.30 4.48 4.15T. WAKENSHAW 38 4.00 4.56 4.36 4.70 4.41S. YEAGER 22 4.00 4.35 3.92 4.45 4.13

PRO SE LITIGANT EVALUATIONS In addition to having the BIIA judge evaluated by individuals appearing in a representative capacity, input regarding judicial performance was also obtained from litigants who appeared before a judge pro se. The BIIA provided WSU researchers with a list of litigants who appeared pro se during 2007. The list provided by the agency contained information about the judge before whom these individuals appeared, and well as the mailing address that was part of the BIIA records. In all, such information was provided for 1,775 litigants. From this sample, a total of 189 competed evaluations were collected via mail surveys; a total of 162 surveys were collected for hearing judges and a total of 27 surveys for mediation judges were received. As with the attorney BIIA JPE evaluations, the litigant evaluations focused upon behavior‐based measures. Given the nature of their role in the system and their lack of legal training, litigants were not asked to evaluate judges on their legal ability but rather on criteria within the knowledge and experience of the typical litigant. The specific criteria making up the litigant evaluations are presented in Table 17 and Table 18 below.

Table 17 Criteria for Litigant Evaluation Hearing Judges

Category CriteriaINTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY Always appeared neutral. Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in

the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex,

religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.

COMMUNICATION Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. Acted decisively throughout proceedings. Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. Returned messages and correspondence in a prompt manner. PROFESSIONALISM Treated people with courtesy and respect. Was attentive to proceedings. Acted with patience and self‐control. Promoted a sense of fairness.ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS Displayed common sense. Started proceedings on time. Was prepared for hearings and conferences. Maintained control over the proceedings. Appropriately enforced rules and orders. Appropriately enforced deadlines. Prepared orders in a timely manner. Managed the proceedings efficiently.

Table 18 Criteria for Litigant Evaluation Mediation Judges

Category CriteriaINTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY Always appeared neutral. Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in

the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex,

religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.

COMMUNICATION Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. Acted decisively throughout proceedings. Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders.

[18]

Returned messages & correspondence in a prompt manner. PROFESSIONALISM Treated people with courtesy and respect. Was attentive to proceedings. Acted with patience and self‐control. Promoted a sense of fairness.ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS Displayed common sense. Started proceedings on time. Was prepared for hearings and conferences. Maintained control over the proceedings. Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. Helped participants understand each others' position. Prepared orders in a timely manner. Managed the proceedings efficiently. Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement.

Aggregate Description of Litigant Respondents Litigants were asked to provide demographic background information about themselves as well as their perception of the overall experience. The demographic background characteristics, in aggregate, of the litigants are listed in Tables 19 through 21.5 Table 19 Description of Client Represented by Respondent Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Injured Worker 117 73.6 17 65.4

Employer 32 20.1 7 26.9

Other 10 6.3 2 7.7

Table 20 Race/Ethnicity Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Caucasian/White 117 74.5 20 76.9

African American/Black 6 3.8 2 7.7

Hispanic/Latino(a) 17 10.8 3 11.5

Asian American/Pacific Islander 7 4.5 1 3.8

Native American 7 4.5 0 0

Other 3 1.9 0 0

5 Due to the small number of litigant who evaluated any given judge, characteristics of the litigant participants for each judge are not included in the results reported for individual judges.

[19]

Table 21 Gender Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Male 108 68.4 18 69.2

Female 50 31.6 8 30.8

In addition to demographic background characteristics, BIIA JPE survey respondents were asked to provide information about their experience with the BIIA appeals process. Litigants were asked whether or not they were satisfied with the outcome of their case. Additionally, litigants evaluating mediation judges were asked about the outcome of their mediation as well as the mediation’s overall helpfulness in addressing their concerns. The aggregate responses to these several items are presented in Tables 22, 23, and 24 below. Table 22 Level of Satisfaction with Outcome of Proceeding Hearing Judges Mediation Judges Number Percent Number Percent Very Satisfied 53 35.6 9 33.3 Somewhat Satisfied 22 14.8 3 11.5 Neutral 11 6.8 4 15.4 Somewhat Dissatisfied 11 6.8 3 11.5 Very Dissatisfied 52 34.9 7 26.9

Table 23 Outcome of Mediation Number PercentAll Issues Settled 8 33.3Some Issues Settled 10 41.7No Issues Settled 6 25.0 Table 24 Helpfulness of Mediation Number PercentVery Helpful 12 46.2Somewhat Helpful 7 26.9Not at all Helpful 7 26.9

[20]

[21]

Aggregate Litigant Evaluation Results In examining the litigant evaluation results, as with the attorney evaluations, behavior‐based questions were asked for which there were five possible substantive responses: unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very good, and excellent. To foster statistical usability of the results, numerical values were assigned to each evaluative rating and these serve as the basis for the average ratings achieved for each question in the evaluation. The rating scale is presented immediately below.

RATING SCALE Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1

Tables 25 and 26 present the aggregate average ratings and the frequency distributions for the litigant JPE mail survey evaluations of both BIIA adversary hearing and BIIA mediation judges, respectively.

Table 25 Pro Se Litigant Respondents For Hearing Judges

Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent

Always appeared neutral. 14.6% 9.6% 15.3% 12.1% 48.4%

Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 13.9% 6.3% 12.7% 17.1% 50.0%

Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system.

20.1% 6.5% 9.7% 16.9% 46.8%


15.3% 3.3% 12.7% 12.7% 56.0%

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, worker, or any other interest.

22.1% 5.2% 9.1% 16.2% 47.4%

Used clear & logical oral communication during proceedings. 7.4% 9.4% 14.8% 21.5% 47.0%

Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 7.3% 10.0% 16.0% 20.7% 46.0%

Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 14.0% 5.9% 17.6% 16.9% 45.6%

Returned messages in a reasonably prompt manner. 13.7% 4.6% 14.5% 21.4% 45.8%

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 7.9% 5.3% 13.8% 19.1% 53.9%

Was attentive to proceedings. 7.4% 5.4% 12.8% 22.8% 51.7%

Acted with patience and self‐control. 9.5% 4.7% 13.5% 17.6% 54.7%

Promoted a sense of fairness. 17.4% 9.4% 8.7% 16.1% 48.3%

Displayed common sense. 14.1% 6.7% 12.8% 20.8% 45.6%

Started proceedings on time. 9.9% 2.6% 12.5% 26.3% 48.7%

Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 8.6% 3.9% 15.1% 23.0% 49.3%

Maintained control over the proceedings. 7.6% 2.8% 13.1% 20.7% 55.9%

Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 13.3% 5.6% 9.8% 20.3% 51.0%

Appropriately enforced deadlines. 12.7% 3.0% 15.7% 20.1% 48.5%

Prepared orders in a timely manner. 9.2% 3.5% 18.3% 21.8% 47.2%

Managed the proceedings efficiently. 11.3% 5.3% 11.9% 21.9% 49.7%

[22]

[23]

Table 26 Pro Se Litigant Respondents For Mediation Judges


Maintained a neutral presence. 11.5% 23.1% 15.4% 7.7% 42.3%

Permitted all parties to be heard. 11.5% .0% 26.9% 19.2% 42.3%

Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity & impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

12.0% 20.0% 20.0% 8.0% 40.0%


7.7% 11.5% 19.2% 7.7% 53.8%


11.5% 15.4% 19.2% 19.2% 34.6%

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 3.8% .0% 19.2% 26.9% 50.0%

Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 7.7% 7.7% 19.2% 30.8% 34.6%

Agreement was written clearly & accurately reflected what transpired. 13.6% .0% 22.7% 18.2% 45.5%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 9.1% .0% 36.4% 18.2% 36.4%

Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 7.7% 11.5% 34.6% 15.4% 30.8%

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.8% 3.8% 23.1% 23.1% 46.2%

Was attentive during the mediation. 3.8% 7.7% 15.4% 30.8% 42.3%

Acted with patience and self‐control. 8.0% .0% 24.0% 28.0% 40.0%

Promoted a sense of fairness. 16.0% 20.0% 16.0% 8.0% 40.0%

Displayed common sense. 12.0% 4.0% 24.0% 20.0% 40.0%

Started proceedings on time. 3.8% 3.8% 23.1% 26.9% 42.3%

Was prepared for proceedings. 3.8% 11.5% 26.9% 15.4% 42.3%

Maintained control over the proceedings. 7.7% .0% 34.6% 19.2% 38.5%

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 8.0% 16.0% 28.0% 8.0% 40.0%

Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.0% 20.0% 24.0% 12.0% 40.0%

Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.2% .0% 33.3% 16.7% 45.8%

Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 8.3% 41.7%

CONCLUSION The evaluation process developed and implemented under this agreement is based largely on the 2005 American Bar Association’s Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance. Under these guidelines, a JPE program should:

• Evaluate judges on presence of universally accepted qualities expected to be possessed by outstanding judges.

• Employ specific behavior‐based measures of the presence of these qualities.

• Permit evaluators to provide written feedback to the judge that may be used for judicial self‐improvement.

• If possible, obtain information from multiple “populations,” including attorneys, litigants, and other groups of individuals who have first‐hand experiences with a judge being evaluated.

• Permit only those individuals who have observed a judge’s performance to participate in the evaluation.

• Employ statistically and scientifically reliable methods for conducting the evaluation and for computing the results.

Using this ABA framework, it is clear from the findings presented here that judges working in the BIIA as adversary hearings officers and mediators receive generally high marks from those legal system professionals and lay citizens who come before them in the course of their work. Since the data collected here – including the qualitative comments recorded by survey participants – will be made available to each individual judge, it is ultimately their judgment on the utility of the information collected that ought to be used to assess the overall value of the agency’s JPE effort. If the agency staff and the individual BIIA judges find value in these findings, then it would likely be wise to plan for the periodic collection of such data as the BIIA continues to carry out its current duties and incorporates new challenges as they arise in the course of the agency’s performance of its mission.

[24]

APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

[25]

Attorney Evaluation of Hearings Judge ___________ Please answer the following questions about your personal experience with Judge _______________ at the Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals.

Please rate the judge’s performance, based on your own personal experience, using the following scale:

A Excellent B Very Good C Acceptable D Poor F Unacceptable Please answer Don’t Know/Does not Apply (“DK/DNA”) for any items in which you lack sufficient information from your own observation to fairly and accurately rate the judge’s performance or items which do not apply to your interactions with the judge.

A B C D F DK/DNA

Section 1: Legal Ability

a. Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Understood the relevant substantive law. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. □ □ □ □ □ □

Section 2: Integrity and Impartiality

a. Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Maintained a neutral presence. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. □ □ □ □ □ □

d. Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system. □ □ □ □ □ □

e. Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. □ □ □ □ □ □

f. Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. □ □ □ □ □ □

g. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

□ □ □ □ □ □

h. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. □ □ □ □ □ □

If you believe the judge favored or disfavored a party as described above, please explain the nature of the bias in the space below.

[26]

A B C D F DK/DNA

Section 3: Communication

a. Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Acted decisively throughout proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. □ □ □ □ □ □

d. Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. □ □ □ □ □ □

Section 4: Professionalism and Temperament

a. Treated people with courtesy and respect. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Was attentive to proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Acted with patience and self-control. □ □ □ □ □ □

d. Promoted a sense of fairness. □ □ □ □ □ □

Section 5: Administrative Capacity

a. Displayed common sense. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Started proceedings on time. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Was prepared for hearings and conferences. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Maintained control over the proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □

d. Appropriately enforced rules and orders. □ □ □ □ □ □

e. Appropriately enforced deadlines. □ □ □ □ □ □

f. Prepared orders in a timely manner. □ □ □ □ □ □

g. Managed the proceedings efficiently. □ □ □ □ □ □

h. Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. □ □ □ □ □ □

Section 6: Background and Demographic Information

a. Which of the following best describes your client in this appeal(s)?

o INJURED WORKER

o EMPLOYER

o LABOR AND INDUSTRIES

o OTHER _________________________________

b. Which of the following best describes your work setting?

o ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

o IN-HOUSE CORPORATE COUNSEL

o PRIVATE PRACTICE

o OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ______________________________

[27]

c. Which of the following best describes your position in appearing before the judge?

o ATTORNEY

o PARALEGAL

o LAY REPRESENTATIVE

o OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ______________________________

If paralegal, lay representative, or other, SKIP to Question f below.

d. How many attorneys are employed by your firm?

o SOLE PRACTITIONER

o 2-5 ATTORNEYS

o 6-10 ATTORNEYS

o 11-20 ATTORNEYS

o MORE THAN 20 ATTORNEYS

e. How long have you been a practicing attorney?

o 1-2 YEARS

o 3-5 YEARS

o 6-10 YEARS

o 11-20 YEARS

o MORE THAN 20 YEARS

f. What best describes your racial background? (Please check all that apply)

o CAUCASIAN/WHITE

o AFRICAN AMERICAN/BLACK

o HISPANIC/LATINO(A)

o ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

o NATIVE AMERICAN

o OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ______________________

g. What is your gender?

o MALE

o FEMALE

[28]

h. How many hearings have you had with this judge over the past two years?

o NONE

o ONE

o 2-3

o 4-10

o MORE THAN 10

i. How would you rate the level of success you have had before this judge during the previous two years?

o VERY UNSUCCESSFUL

o SOMEWHAT UNSUCCESSFUL

o NEITHER SUCCESSFUL NOR UNSUCCESSFUL

o SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL

o VERY SUCCESSFUL

Comments Please provide any additional comments or details related to either the items raised in this questionnaire or the judge’s performance in the space below. Additionally, feel free to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the judge. (You may write on the back of this page or add additional pages if needed.)

Thank you very much for your time and effort.

[29]

Attorney Evaluation of Mediation Judge ___________ Please answer the following questions about your personal experience with Judge _______________ at the Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. The questionnaire will take 5-10 minutes to complete.

Your responses will be confidential.


A Excellent B Very Good C Acceptable D Poor F Unacceptable Please answer Don’t Know/Does not Apply (“DK/DNA”) for any items in which you lack sufficient information from your own observation to fairly and accurately rate the judge’s performance or items which do not apply to your interactions with the judge.

A B C D F DK/DNA

Section 1: Legal Ability

a. Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Understood the relevant substantive law. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. □ □ □ □ □ □


a. Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Maintained a neutral presence. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Permitted all parties to be heard. □ □ □ □ □ □

d. Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system.

□ □ □ □ □ □

e. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

□ □ □ □ □ □

f. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. □ □ □ □ □ □


[30]

A B C D F DK/DNA


a. Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired. □ □ □ □ □ □




b. Was attentive during the mediation. □ □ □ □ □ □



Section 5 Administrative Capacity

a. Displayed common sense.


c. Was prepared for proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □

d. Maintained control over the proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □

e. Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. □ □ □ □ □ □

f. Helped participants understand each others’ positions. □ □ □ □ □ □

g. Prepared written orders in a timely manner. □ □ □ □ □ □

h. Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. □ □ □ □ □ □

Section 6: Background and Demographic Information a. Which of the following best describes your client in this appeal(s)?

o INJURED WORKER o EMPLOYER o LABOR AND INDUSTRIES o OTHER _________________________________

[31]

b. Which of the following best describes your work setting?

o ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE o IN-HOUSE CORPORATE COUNSEL o PRIVATE PRACTICE o OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ______________________________

c. Which of the following best describes your position in appearing before the judge?

o ATTORNEY o PARALEGAL o LAY REPRESENTATIVE o OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ______________________________

If paralegal, lay representative, or other, SKIP to Question f below.

d. How many attorneys are employed by your firm?

o SOLE PRACTITIONER o 2-5 ATTORNEYS o 6-10 ATTORNEYS o 11-20 ATTORNEYS o MORE THAN 20 ATTORNEYS

e. How long have you been a practicing attorney?

o 1-2 YEARS o 3-5 YEARS o 6-10 YEARS o 11-20 YEARS o MORE THAN 20 YEARS

f. What best describes your racial background? (Please check all that apply)

o CAUCASIAN/WHITE o AFRICAN AMERICAN/BLACK o HISPANIC/LATINO(A) o ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER o NATIVE AMERICAN o OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ______________________

g. What is your gender?

o MALE o FEMALE

[32]

h. How many cases have you had mediated by the judge over the past two years? o NONE o ONE o 2-3 o 4-10 o MORE THAN 10

i. How would you rate the level of success you have had before this judge during the previous two years?

o VERY UNSUCCESSFUL o SOMEWHAT UNSUCCESSFUL o NEITHER SUCCESSFUL NOR UNSUCCESSFUL o SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL o VERY SUCCESSFUL



[33]

Unrepresented Party Evaluation of Hearings Judge ___________ Please answer the following questions about your personal experience with Judge _______________ at the Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals.


A Excellent B Very Good C Acceptable D Poor F Unacceptable

Please answer Don’t Know/Does not Apply (“DK/DNA”) for any items in which you lack sufficient information from your own observation to fairly and accurately rate the judge’s performance or items which do not apply to your interactions with the judge.

A B C D F DK/DNA


a. Always appeared neutral. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. □ □ □ □ □ □

d. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

□ □ □ □ □ □

e. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. □ □ □ □ □ □


[34]

A B C D F DK/DNA



b. Acted decisively throughout proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. □ □ □ □ □ □










c. Was prepared for hearings and conferences. □ □ □ □ □ □


e. Appropriately enforced rules and orders. □ □ □ □ □ □

f. Appropriately enforced deadlines. □ □ □ □ □ □

g. Prepared orders in a timely manner. □ □ □ □ □ □

h. Managed the proceedings efficiently. □ □ □ □ □ □

How satisfied are you with the outcome of the hearing? o VERY SATISFIED o SOMEWHAT SATISFIED o NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED o SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED o VERY DISSATISFIED

[35]

Section 5: Background and Demographic Information a. Which of the following best describes your position in this appeal?

o INJURED WORKER o EMPLOYER o GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY o OTHER _________________________________

b. What best describes your racial background? (Please check all that apply)

o CAUCASIAN/WHITE o AFRICAN AMERICAN/BLACK o HISPANIC/LATINO(A) o ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER o NATIVE AMERICAN o OTHER (please specify) ______________________

c. What is your gender?

o MALE o FEMALE



To return this evaluation, please place it in the enclosed postage paid envelope and place it in the US mail.

[36]

Unrepresented Party Evaluation of Mediation Judge ___________

Please answer the following questions about your personal experience with Judge _______________ at the Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. The questionnaire will take 5-10 minutes to complete.

Your responses will be confidential.


A Excellent B Very Good C Acceptable D Poor F Unacceptable

Please answer Don’t Know/Does not Apply (“DK/DNA”) for any items in which you lack sufficient information from your own observation to fairly and accurately rate the judge’s performance or items which do not apply to your interactions with the judge.

A B C D F DK/DNA


a. Always appeared neutral. □ □ □ □ □ □

b. Permitted all parties to be heard. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. Conducted mediation in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. □ □ □ □ □ □

d. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

□ □ □ □ □ □

e. Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. □ □ □ □ □ □


[37]

A B C D F DK/DNA



b. Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. □ □ □ □ □ □

c. The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately. □ □ □ □ □ □


e. Had sufficient communication with you prior to mediation proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □









c. Was prepared for proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □


e. Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. □ □ □ □ □ □

f. Helped participants understand each other’s positions. □ □ □ □ □ □

g. Prepared written orders in a timely manner. □ □ □ □ □ □

h. Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. □ □ □ □ □ □

Section 5: Process and Outcome Assessment

a. In your opinion, the mediation process was (check one):

o VERY HELPFUL

o SOMEWHAT HELPFUL

o NOT AT ALL HELPFUL

[38]

b. Your mediation ended with an agreement on (check one):

o ALL OF THE ISSUES

o SOME OF THE ISSUES

o NONE OF THE ISSUES

c. How satisfied are you with the outcome of the mediation?

o VERY SATISFIED

o SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

o NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED

o SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED

o VERY DISSATISFIED

Section 6: Background and Demographic Information

a. Which of the following best describes your position in this appeal?

o INJURED WORKER

o EMPLOYER

o GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY

o OTHER _________________________________

b. What best describes your racial background? (Please check all that apply)

o CAUCASIAN/WHITE

o AFRICAN AMERICAN/BLACK

o HISPANIC/LATINO(A)

o ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

o NATIVE AMERICAN

o OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ______________________

d. What is your gender?

o MALE

o FEMALE

[39]

[40]

Comments Please provide any additional comments or details related to either the items raised in this questionnaire or the judge’s performance the space below. Additionally, feel free to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the judge. (You may write on the back of this page or add additional pages if needed.)


To return this evaluation, please place it in the enclosed postage paid envelope and place it in the US mail.

HEARING AND MEDIATION JUDGES OF THE WASHINGTON BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

APPENDIX B INDIVIDUAL JUDGE REPORTS

PREPARED FOR:

Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals

Submitted by:

David Brody, J.D., Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Criminal Justice Program Washington State University, Spokane

Nicholas Lovrich, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Governmental Studies and Services Washington State University, Pullman

March, 2009

APPENDIX B

INDIVIDUAL JUDGE REPORTS HEARING JUDGES Pages 3‐261 MEDIATION JUDGES Pages 262‐362

2

JUDGE CHARLES BRODERICK BIIA Hearing Judge

The following pages report the results obtained from a judicial performance evaluation conducted in 2008. Attorneys, paralegals, and lay representatives, and pro se litigants who appeared before the above named judge in 2007 were asked to evaluate the judge’s performance based on behavior‐based criteria using the 5 point scale presented below.


At the bottom of this page is information regarding the number of individuals who were asked to evaluate the judge’s performance and the number who completed evaluations. This remainder of the report presents ratings received on individual questions, average ratings across five categories, comments provided by respondents, and demographic characteristics of attorney and lay representative respondents. Additional details regarding the evaluation program are provided in the Final Report of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals Judicial Performance Evaluation Program prepared for Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals.

SUMMARY OF SURVEY DISTRIBUTION AND RESPONSES Attorney, Paralegal, and Lay Representative Evaluations 104 Distributed 28 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 27 Distributed 5 Completed

3

ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.40

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.27 .0% 13.3% .0% 33.3% 53.3% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.56 .0% .0% 6.3% 31.3% 62.5% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.38 .0% 6.3% 12.5% 18.8% 62.5% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.45

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.31 .0% 7.7% 15.4% 15.4% 61.5% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.50 .0% .0% 14.3% 21.4% 64.3% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.36 .0% 7.1% 7.1% 28.6% 57.1%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.43 .0% .0% 21.4% 14.3% 64.3% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.46 .0% 15.4% .0% 7.7% 76.9%


4.64 .0% .0% 7.1% 21.4% 71.4%


4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.40

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.50 .0% .0% 14.3% 21.4% 64.3% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.23 .0% 7.7% 15.4% 23.1% 53.8% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.31 .0% 15.4% 7.7% 7.7% 69.2% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.54 .0% .0% 15.4% 15.4% 69.2%

4

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.50 .0% .0% 14.3% 21.4% 64.3% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.36 .0% 7.1% 14.3% 14.3% 64.3% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.38 .0% .0% 23.1% 15.4% 61.5% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.50 .0% .0% 14.3% 21.4% 64.3% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.42

Displayed common sense. 4.43 .0% 7.1% 7.1% 21.4% 64.3% Started proceedings on time. 4.57 .0% .0% .0% 42.9% 57.1% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.38 .0% 7.7% 7.7% 23.1% 61.5% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.46 .0% .0% 15.4% 23.1% 61.5% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.33 .0% .0% 25.0% 16.7% 58.3% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.31 .0% .0% 23.1% 23.1% 53.8% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.43 .0% .0% 21.4% 14.3% 64.3% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.43 .0% .0% 21.4% 14.3% 64.3%

5

ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent

Injured Worker 20 71.4

Employer 6 21.4

Labor and Industries 2 7.1

Other 0 0

Work Setting Number Percent

Attorney General's Office 2 7.7

In House Corporate Counsel 2 7.7

Private Practice 22 84.6

Other 0 0

Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent

Attorney 28 100.0

Paralegal 0 0

Lay Representative 0 0

Other 0 0

Size of Firm Number Percent

Sole Practitioner 4 14.3

2‐5 Attorneys 12 42.9



More Than 20 Attorneys 2 7.1

6

Years as Attorney Number Percent

1‐2 years 2 7.1

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 4 14.3

11‐20 years 4 14.3

More than 20 years 18 64.3

Race/Ethnicity Number Percent

Caucasian/White 28 100.0

African American/Black 0 0

Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0

Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0

Native American 0 0

Other 0 0

Gender Number Percent

Male 18 64.3

Female 10 35.7

Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent

Once 10 35.7

2‐3 Times 16 57.1

4‐10 Times 2 7.1

More Than 10 Times 0 0

7

Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent

Very Unsuccessful 2 7.1

Somewhat Unsuccessful 6 21.4

Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 14 50.0

Somewhat Successful 6 21.4

Very Successful 0 0

8

LITIGANT RATINGS Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent

Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 1 3 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 1 3 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 0 1 3


0 0 0 0 3

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 0 1 3

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 1 3 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 2 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 0 3 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 3 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 4 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 1 3 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 1 3 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 1 3 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 1 3 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 3 2 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 3 1 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 1 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 1 3 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 2 2 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 3 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 3 2

9

JUDGE JEFFREY BURKHARDT

BIIA Hearing Judge The following pages report the results obtained from a judicial performance evaluation conducted in 2008. Attorneys, lay representatives, and pro se litigants who appeared before the above named judge in 2007 were asked to evaluate the judge’s performance based on behavior‐based criteria using the 5 point scale presented below.




10


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.20

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.22 .0% 5.6% 16.7% 27.8% 50.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.17 .0% .0% 27.8% 27.8% 44.4% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.22 .0% 5.6% 16.7% 27.8% 50.0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.59

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.61 .0% .0% 5.6% 27.8% 66.7% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.56 .0% .0% 5.6% 33.3% 61.1% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.65 .0% .0% 5.9% 23.5% 70.6% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.56 .0% .0% 5.6% 33.3% 61.1%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.67 .0% .0% 5.6% 22.2% 72.2% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.39 .0% .0% 16.7% 27.8% 55.6%


4.65 .0% .0% 11.8% 11.8% 76.5%


4.61 .0% .0% 11.1% 16.7% 72.2%

COMMUNICATION 4.27

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.39 .0% .0% 11.1% 38.9% 50.0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.17 .0% .0% 22.2% 38.9% 38.9% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.22 .0% 5.6% 16.7% 27.8% 50.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.31 .0% .0% 12.5% 43.8% 43.8%

11

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.61 .0% .0% 5.6% 27.8% 66.7% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.61 .0% .0% 5.6% 27.8% 66.7% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.65 .0% .0% 5.9% 23.5% 70.6% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.50 .0% .0% 11.1% 27.8% 61.1% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.35

Displayed common sense. 4.28 .0% 5.6% 11.1% 33.3% 50.0% Started proceedings on time. 4.53 .0% .0% 5.9% 35.3% 58.8% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.41 .0% .0% 17.6% 23.5% 58.8% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.33 .0% .0% 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.35 .0% 5.9% 5.9% 35.3% 52.9% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.35 .0% 5.9% 5.9% 35.3% 52.9% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.22 .0% .0% 22.2% 33.3% 44.4% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.39 .0% .0% 16.7% 27.8% 55.6% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.33 .0% .0% 16.7% 33.3% 50.0%

12



Employer 6 16.7


Other 0 0



In House Corporate Counsel 0 0


Other 0 0


Attorney 34 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0





11‐20 Attorneys 0 0


13


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 10 27.8

6‐10 years 2 5.6

11‐20 years 14 38.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 26 72.2

Female 10 27.8


Once 12 33.3

2‐3 Times 14 38.9

4‐10 Times 10 27.8


14






Very Successful 4 11.1

15

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 1 0 1



16

JUDGE ZIMMIE CANER BIIA Hearing Judge

The following pages report the results obtained from a judicial performance evaluation conducted in 2008. Attorneys, lay representatives, and pro se litigants who appeared before the above named judge in 2007 were asked to evaluate the judge’s performance based on behavior‐based criteria using the 5 point scale presented below.




17


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.17

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.00 .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.00 .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.50 .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.52

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.33 .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0% Maintained a neutral presence. 3.33 .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 3.00 .0% 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

3.33 .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.00 .0% .0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.50 .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0%


4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3%


3.33 .0% 33.3% .0% 66.7% .0%

COMMUNICATION 4.00

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0%

18

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% Acted with patience and self-control. 3.67 .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% .0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.67 .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% .0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.74

Displayed common sense. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% Started proceedings on time. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 3.00 .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 3.67 .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% .0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 3.00 .0% 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.00 .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0%

19


Injured Worker 0 0

Employer 2 33.3


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 6 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0


Sole Practitioner 0 0





20


1‐2 years 2 33.3

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 2 33.3

11‐20 years 0 0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 4 66.7

Female 2 33.3


Once 4 66.7

2‐3 Times 2 33.3

4‐10 Times 0 0


21


Very Unsuccessful 0 0



Somewhat Successful 0 0

Very Successful 0 0

22

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 0 1



23

JUDGE DAVID CROSSLAND BIIA Hearing Judge





24


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.42

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.45 .0% .0% 63.6% 27.3% 9.1% Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.36 .0% 18.2% 36.4% 36.4% 9.1% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.45 .0% 9.1% 54.5% 18.2% 18.2% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.88


3.64 .0% 9.1% 45.5% 18.2% 27.3%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.10 .0% .0% 20.0% 50.0% 30.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel.

.0% 27.3% 9.1% 27.3% 3.36 36.4%


4.55 .0% .0% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6%


3.67 .0% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 33.3%

COMMUNICATION 3.77

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.08 .0% 33.3% 25.0% .0% 41.7% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 3.64 .0% .0% 54.5% 27.3% 18.2%

Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.27 .0% 18.2% 54.5% 9.1% 18.2% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.09 .0% .0% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4%

25

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.45 .0% .0% .0% 54.5% 45.5% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.92 .0% .0% 41.7% 25.0% 33.3% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.13

Displayed common sense. 3.83 .0% 8.3% 33.3% 25.0% 33.3% Started proceedings on time. 4.27 .0% .0% .0% 72.7% 27.3% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 3.91 .0% .0% 27.3% 54.5% 18.2% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 3.91 .0% .0% 27.3% 54.5% 18.2% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.42 .0% .0% .0% 58.3% 41.7% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.18 .0% .0% 18.2% 45.5% 36.4% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.09 .0% .0% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4%

26



Employer 6 25.0


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 22 91.7

Paralegal 2 8.3


Other 0 0







27


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 8 36.4

11‐20 years 8 36.4







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 4 25.0

Female 12 75.0


Once 2 9.1

2‐3 Times 10 45.5

4‐10 Times 10 45.5


28






Very Successful 0 0

29

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 0 1 10



30

JUDGE NANCY CURINGTON BIIA Hearing Judge





31

ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX Item

AverageCategory Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.75

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.60 .0% .0% 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.00 .0% .0% 9.1% 81.8% 9.1% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.64 .0% 18.2% 18.2% 45.5% 18.2% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.26

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.27 .0% .0% .0% 72.7% 27.3% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.36 .0% .0% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.09 .0% .0% 18.2% 54.5% 27.3%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.00 .0% .0% 27.3% 45.5% 27.3%


4.80 .0% .0% 10.0% .0% 90.0%


3.80 10.0% .0% 20.0% 40.0% 30.0%

COMMUNICATION 3.79

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.00 .0% .0% 18.2% 63.6% 18.2% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.09 .0% 9.1% 18.2% 27.3% 45.5% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.27 9.1% 9.1% 27.3% 54.5% .0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 3.80 .0% 10.0% 20.0% 50.0% 20.0%

32

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.00 .0% .0% 27.3% 45.5% 27.3% Started proceedings on time. 3.55 .0% .0% 54.5% 36.4% 9.1% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.00 .0% .0% 36.4% 27.3% 36.4% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.10 .0% 10.0% 10.0% 40.0% 40.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 3.70 .0% 10.0% 20.0% 60.0% 10.0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 3.20 20.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 20.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.20 .0% .0% 30.0% 20.0% 50.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.00 .0% .0% 18.2% 63.6% 18.2%

33



Employer 2 9.1


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 22 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







34


1‐2 years 4 20.0

3‐5 years 6 30.0

6‐10 years 2 10.0

11‐20 years 4 20.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 14 75.0

Female 4 25.0


Once 0 0

2‐3 Times 0 0

4‐10 Times 6 27.3

More Than 10 Times 16 72.7

35



Somewhat Unsuccessful 0 0




36

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 1 0 2



37

JUDGE GREG DURAS BIIA Hearing Judge





38


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.08

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.90 .0% 3.3% 30.0% 40.0% 26.7% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.17 .0% 3.3% 13.3% 46.7% 36.7% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.16 .0% 3.2% 16.1% 41.9% 38.7% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.46

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.53 .0% 3.1% 3.1% 31.3% 62.5% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.38 .0% 3.1% 12.5% 28.1% 56.3% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.45 .0% .0% 12.9% 29.0% 58.1% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.34 .0% 3.1% 15.6% 25.0% 56.3%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.63 .0% .0% 6.7% 23.3% 70.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.29 .0% 6.5% 9.7% 32.3% 51.6%


4.71 .0% .0% .0% 29.0% 71.0%


4.35 .0% 6.5% 6.5% 32.3% 54.8%

COMMUNICATION 4.17

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.19 .0% 3.1% 18.8% 34.4% 43.8% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 3.84 .0% 12.9% 19.4% 38.7% 29.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.07 .0% .0% 24.1% 44.8% 31.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.59 .0% .0% .0% 41.4% 58.6%

39

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.59 .0% .0% 6.3% 28.1% 65.6% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.48 .0% .0% 9.7% 32.3% 58.1% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.56 .0% .0% 6.3% 31.3% 62.5% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.41 .0% 3.1% 6.3% 37.5% 53.1% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.24

Displayed common sense. 4.11 .0% 3.6% 25.0% 28.6% 42.9% Started proceedings on time. 4.50 .0% 3.3% .0% 40.0% 56.7% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.30 .0% .0% 13.3% 43.3% 43.3% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.21 .0% 3.4% 17.2% 34.5% 44.8% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.07 .0% 6.7% 16.7% 40.0% 36.7% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.04 .0% 7.1% 17.9% 39.3% 35.7% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.18 .0% .0% 17.9% 46.4% 35.7% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.28 .0% 3.4% 13.8% 34.5% 48.3% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.46 .0% .0% 10.7% 32.1% 57.1%

40



Employer 14 22.6


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 56 90.3

Paralegal 6 9.7


Other 0 0







41


1‐2 years 2 3.6

3‐5 years 8 14.3

6‐10 years 8 14.3

11‐20 years 20 35.7







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 32 51.6

Female 30 48.4


Once 14 23.3

2‐3 Times 26 43.3

4‐10 Times 18 30.0


42







43

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 0 2 3



44

JUDGE JOHN FAIRLEY BIIA Hearing Judge





45


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.13

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.00 5.0% 5.0% 20.0% 25.0% 45.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.19 .0% 4.8% 19.0% 28.6% 47.6% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.19 .0% 4.8% 19.0% 28.6% 47.6% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.11

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.10 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 25.0% 50.0% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.05 .0% 14.3% 14.3% 23.8% 47.6% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.05 .0% 9.5% 19.0% 28.6% 42.9% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.10 .0% 5.0% 30.0% 15.0% 50.0%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.40 .0% .0% 15.0% 30.0% 55.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.95 5.3% .0% 26.3% 31.6% 36.8%


4.40 .0% 5.0% 15.0% 15.0% 65.0%


3.80 5.0% 15.0% 20.0% 15.0% 45.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.13

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.00 .0% .0% 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.24 .0% .0% 23.8% 28.6% 47.6% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.90 4.8% 4.8% 19.0% 38.1% 33.3% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.38 .0% 9.5% 4.8% 23.8% 61.9%

46

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.05 4.8% 4.8% 19.0% 23.8% 47.6% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.40 .0% 5.0% 5.0% 35.0% 55.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 3.86 .0% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 42.9% Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.95 .0% 14.3% 14.3% 33.3% 38.1% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.28

Displayed common sense. 3.81 4.8% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 38.1% Started proceedings on time. 4.38 .0% 4.8% 9.5% 28.6% 57.1% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.48 .0% .0% 14.3% 23.8% 61.9% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.29 .0% 4.8% 19.0% 19.0% 57.1% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.35 .0% .0% 15.0% 35.0% 50.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.40 .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.05 .0% 14.3% 14.3% 23.8% 47.6% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.30 .0% 5.0% 15.0% 25.0% 55.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.42 .0% .0% 15.8% 26.3% 57.9%

47



Employer 14 33.3


Other 0 0





Other 2 5.0


Attorney 42 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







48


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 2 4.8

6‐10 years 2 4.8

11‐20 years 8 19.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 34 81.0

Female 8 19.0


Once 10 25.0

2‐3 Times 20 50.0

4‐10 Times 10 25.0


49







50

LITIGANT RATINGS


Always appeared neutral. 0 1 1 3 3 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 2 2 4 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 2 1 1 4 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. 0 0 0 3 4 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 0 2 2 3 Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 1 3 4 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 1 2 2 3 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 1 1 3 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 1 0 4 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 3 5 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 3 5 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 3 5 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 1 2 3 2 Displayed common sense. 0 1 0 4 3 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 3 4 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 1 3 4 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 1 4 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 1 0 1 2 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 1 2 3 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 2 2 3 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 1 3 4

51

JUDGE STEPHANIE FARWELL BIIA Hearing Judge





52


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 2.91

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 2.86 .0% 14.3% 85.7% .0% .0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.00 .0% 14.3% 71.4% 14.3% .0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 2.88 .0% 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% .0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 2.67

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 2.56 22.2% 33.3% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1% Maintained a neutral presence. 2.25 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% .0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 2.29 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% .0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

2.25 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% .0%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 3.33 16.7% .0% 50.0% .0% 33.3% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 2.71 14.3% .0% 85.7% .0% .0%


3.33 .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0%


2.67 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% .0%

COMMUNICATION 2.71

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 2.50 12.5% 37.5% 37.5% 12.5% .0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 3.29 .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% .0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 2.67 .0% 33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 2.38 25.0% 25.0% 37.5% 12.5% .0%

53

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 2.00 44.4% 33.3% 11.1% .0% 11.1% Was attentive to proceedings. 2.75 12.5% 25.0% 50.0% .0% 12.5% Acted with patience and self-control. 1.63 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% .0% .0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 2.00 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% .0% .0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 2.75

Displayed common sense. 2.33 .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0% .0% Started proceedings on time. 2.89 11.1% 33.3% 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 2.67 11.1% 33.3% 44.4% .0% 11.1% Maintained control over the proceedings. 2.88 .0% 37.5% 50.0% .0% 12.5% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 2.63 12.5% 12.5% 75.0% .0% .0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 2.83 .0% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% .0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 3.00 16.7% .0% 66.7% .0% 16.7% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 2.89 .0% 33.3% 55.6% .0% 11.1% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 2.67 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% .0% 16.7%

54



Employer 0 0


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 18 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







55


1‐2 years 4 22.2

3‐5 years 2 11.1

6‐10 years 2 11.1

11‐20 years 4 22.2







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 6 37.5

Female 10 62.5


Once 4 22.2

2‐3 Times 12 66.7

4‐10 Times 0 0


56







57

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 1 1 1 2



58

JUDGE DOUGLAS FRANKLIN BIIA Hearing Judge





59


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.26

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.20 .0% 5.0% 15.0% 35.0% 45.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.35 .0% .0% 10.0% 45.0% 45.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.24 .0% .0% 23.8% 28.6% 47.6% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.51

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.55 .0% .0% 18.2% 9.1% 72.7% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.45 .0% .0% 18.2% 18.2% 63.6% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.40 .0% 5.0% 10.0% 25.0% 60.0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.40 .0% 5.0% 10.0% 25.0% 60.0%



4.74 .0% .0% 5.3% 15.8% 78.9%


4.47 .0% .0% 15.8% 21.1% 63.2%

COMMUNICATION 4.24

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.38 .0% .0% 14.3% 33.3% 52.4% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.24 .0% .0% 14.3% 47.6% 38.1% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.00 5.0% .0% 25.0% 30.0% 40.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.33 .0% .0% 19.0% 28.6% 52.4%

60

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.48 .0% .0% 14.3% 23.8% 61.9% Started proceedings on time. 4.60 .0% .0% 10.0% 20.0% 70.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.60 .0% .0% 10.0% 20.0% 70.0% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.52 .0% .0% 9.5% 28.6% 61.9% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.30 .0% .0% 20.0% 30.0% 50.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.42 .0% .0% 10.5% 36.8% 52.6% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.14 .0% .0% 19.0% 47.6% 33.3% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.38 .0% .0% 19.0% 23.8% 57.1% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.45 .0% .0% 35.0% 10.0% 55.0%

61



Employer 10 21.7


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 46 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







62


1‐2 years 6 13.0

3‐5 years 6 13.0

6‐10 years 4 8.7

11‐20 years 16 34.8







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 28 60.9

Female 18 39.1


Once 18 39.1

2‐3 Times 16 34.8

4‐10 Times 8 17.4


63







64

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 1 0 1



65

JUDGE JUDIT GEBHARDT BIIA Hearing Judge





66


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.02



4.10 .0% .0% 35.0% 20.0% 45.0%



4.50 .0% .0% 10.0% 30.0% 60.0%


4.16 .0% .0% 26.3% 31.6% 42.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.17

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.15 .0% 5.0% 20.0% 30.0% 45.0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.35 .0% .0% 20.0% 25.0% 55.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.10 5.0% .0% 20.0% 30.0% 45.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.06 5.6% .0% 16.7% 38.9% 38.9%

67

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.00 .0% .0% 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% Started proceedings on time. 4.35 .0% .0% 10.0% 45.0% 45.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.40 .0% .0% 15.0% 30.0% 55.0% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.25 .0% .0% 20.0% 35.0% 45.0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 3.75 5.0% .0% 35.0% 35.0% 25.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.11 .0% .0% 31.6% 26.3% 42.1% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.05 .0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 30.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.30 .0% .0% 20.0% 30.0% 50.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.20 .0% 5.0% 25.0% 20.0% 50.0%

68



Employer 6 15.8


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 38 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







69


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 4 10.5

6‐10 years 4 10.5

11‐20 years 20 52.6





Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 5.6


Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 20 58.8

Female 14 41.2


Once 10 27.8

2‐3 Times 18 50.0

4‐10 Times 8 22.2


70







71

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 1 1 2



72

JUDGE JAMES GILLIGAN BIIA Hearing Judge





73


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.36

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.35 .0% .0% 13.0% 39.1% 47.8% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.35 .0% .0% 17.4% 30.4% 52.2% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.39 .0% .0% 13.0% 34.8% 52.2% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.71

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.79 .0% .0% .0% 20.8% 79.2% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.71 .0% .0% 4.2% 20.8% 75.0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.75 .0% .0% 4.2% 16.7% 79.2% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.64 .0% .0% .0% 36.4% 63.6%


4.75 .0% 4.2% .0% 12.5% 83.3%


4.68 .0% .0% 4.5% 22.7% 72.7%

COMMUNICATION 4.52

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.63 .0% .0% .0% 37.5% 62.5% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.46 .0% .0% 12.5% 29.2% 58.3% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.41 .0% .0% 13.6% 31.8% 54.5% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.58 .0% .0% 5.3% 31.6% 63.2%

74

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.71 .0% .0% 4.2% 20.8% 75.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.75 .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 75.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.71 .0% .0% .0% 29.2% 70.8% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.58 .0% .0% 8.3% 25.0% 66.7% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.45

Displayed common sense. 4.42 .0% .0% 16.7% 25.0% 58.3% Started proceedings on time. 4.63 .0% .0% 4.2% 29.2% 66.7% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.63 .0% .0% 4.2% 29.2% 66.7% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.54 .0% .0% 4.2% 37.5% 58.3% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.64 .0% .0% .0% 36.4% 63.6% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.41 .0% .0% 4.5% 50.0% 45.5% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.10 .0% .0% 30.0% 30.0% 40.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.33 .0% .0% 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.39 .0% .0% 34.8% 13.0% 52.2%

75



Employer 14 29.2


Other 0 0





Other 2 4.2


Attorney 44 91.7

Paralegal 2 4.2

Lay Representative 2 4.2

Other 0 0







76


1‐2 years 8 18.2

3‐5 years 4 9.1

6‐10 years 6 13.6

11‐20 years 14 31.8




African American/Black 2 4.8



Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 26 65.0

Female 14 35.0


Once 4 8.3

2‐3 Times 22 45.8

4‐10 Times 14 29.2


77







78

LITIGANT RATINGS




2 0 2 1 6



79

JUDGE JAN GRANT BIIA Hearing Judge





80


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.33

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.45 .0% .0% 9.1% 36.4% 54.5% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.18 .0% 9.1% 18.2% 18.2% 54.5% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.36 .0% .0% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.80

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.85 .0% .0% .0% 15.4% 84.6% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.85 .0% .0% .0% 15.4% 84.6% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.77 .0% .0% .0% 23.1% 76.9% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.77 .0% .0% .0% 23.1% 76.9% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.78 .0% .0% .0% 22.2% 77.8%


4.85 .0% .0% .0% 15.4% 84.6%


4.85 .0% .0% .0% 15.4% 84.6%

COMMUNICATION 4.49

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.54 .0% .0% .0% 46.2% 53.8% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.33 .0% .0% 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.50 .0% .0% 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.58 .0% .0% 8.3% 25.0% 66.7%

81

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.85 .0% .0% .0% 15.4% 84.6% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.69 .0% .0% 7.7% 15.4% 76.9% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.77 .0% .0% .0% 23.1% 76.9% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.69 .0% .0% 7.7% 15.4% 76.9% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.59

Displayed common sense. 4.46 .0% .0% 15.4% 23.1% 61.5% Started proceedings on time. 4.83 .0% .0% .0% 16.7% 83.3% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.67 .0% .0% 8.3% 16.7% 75.0% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.55 .0% .0% .0% 45.5% 54.5% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.55 .0% .0% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.36 .0% .0% .0% 63.6% 36.4% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.64 .0% .0% 18.2% 9.1% 72.7%

82



Employer 0 0


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 26 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







83


1‐2 years 4 15.4

3‐5 years 2 7.7

6‐10 years 4 15.4

11‐20 years 8 30.8







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 10 38.5

Female 16 61.5


Once 10 38.5

2‐3 Times 14 53.8

4‐10 Times 2 7.7


84







85

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 0 3



86

JUDGE RANDALL HANSEN BIIA Hearing Judge





87


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.26



4.45 .0% .0% 13.6% 27.3% 59.1%



4.67 .0% .0% 9.5% 14.3% 76.2%


4.45 .0% .0% 18.2% 18.2% 63.6%

COMMUNICATION 4.34

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.09 .0% .0% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.40 .0% .0% 15.0% 30.0% 55.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.60 .0% .0% 10.0% 20.0% 70.0%

88

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.45 .0% 4.5% 9.1% 22.7% 63.6% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.45 .0% .0% 9.1% 36.4% 54.5% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.45 .0% .0% 13.6% 27.3% 59.1% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.43 .0% .0% 19.0% 19.0% 61.9% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.34

Displayed common sense. 4.36 .0% .0% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5% Started proceedings on time. 4.41 .0% .0% 13.6% 31.8% 54.5% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.45 .0% .0% 9.1% 36.4% 54.5% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.29 .0% .0% 23.8% 23.8% 52.4% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.33 .0% .0% 19.0% 28.6% 52.4% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.33 .0% .0% 23.8% 19.0% 57.1% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.36 .0% .0% 13.6% 36.4% 50.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.25 .0% 5.0% 30.0% 15.0% 50.0%

89



Employer 6 14.3


Other 0 0





Other 2 4.8


Attorney 42 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







90


1‐2 years 2 4.8

3‐5 years 6 14.3

6‐10 years 4 9.5

11‐20 years 18 42.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 24 70.6

Female 10 29.4


Once 6 15.8

2‐3 Times 24 63.2

4‐10 Times 8 21.1


91







92

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 1 0


Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 1 0 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 1 0 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 0 1 0 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 0 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 1 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 0 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 1 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 1 0 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 1 0 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 0 0 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 1 0 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 0 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 1 0 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 1 0 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 0 1 Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 1 0

93

JUDGE LYLE HANSON BIIA Hearing Judge





94


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.23

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.10 10.0% .0% .0% 50.0% 40.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.30 10.0% .0% .0% 30.0% 60.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.30 .0% .0% 20.0% 30.0% 50.0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.25

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.91 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 27.3% 45.5% Maintained a neutral presence. 3.91 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 27.3% 45.5% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.45 .0% .0% 18.2% 18.2% 63.6% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.18 9.1% 9.1% .0% 9.1% 72.7%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.10 .0% 10.0% 30.0% .0% 60.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. .0% 30.0% 60.0% 4.30 10.0% .0%


4.80 .0% .0% 10.0% .0% 90.0%


4.36 9.1% .0% 9.1% 9.1% 72.7%

COMMUNICATION 4.30

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.10 10.0% .0% 10.0% 30.0% 50.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.55 .0% .0% 18.2% 9.1% 72.7%

95

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.55 .0% .0% 18.2% 9.1% 72.7% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.55 .0% .0% 18.2% 9.1% 72.7% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.27 9.1% .0% 9.1% 18.2% 63.6% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.44

Displayed common sense. 4.09 9.1% .0% 9.1% 36.4% 45.5% Started proceedings on time. 4.45 .0% .0% 18.2% 18.2% 63.6% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.55 .0% .0% 18.2% 9.1% 72.7% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.55 .0% .0% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.45 .0% .0% 18.2% 18.2% 63.6% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.36 .0% .0% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.27 .0% .0% 27.3% 18.2% 54.5% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.45 .0% .0% 18.2% 18.2% 63.6% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.80 .0% .0% .0% 10.0% 90.0%

96



Employer 4 18.2


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 20 90.9

Paralegal 2 9.1


Other 0 0







97


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 4 20.0

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 2 10.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 18 81.8

Female 4 18.2


Once 4 18.2

2‐3 Times 2 9.1

4‐10 Times 8 36.4


98






Very Successful 0 0

99

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 1 0 2



100

JUDGE MITCHELL HARADA BIIA Hearing Judge





101


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.33

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.24 4.0% .0% 8.0% 44.0% 44.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.36 .0% .0% 12.0% 40.0% 48.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.40 .0% 4.0% 12.0% 24.0% 60.0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.48

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.60 .0% .0% 4.0% 32.0% 64.0% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.44 .0% 4.0% 8.0% 28.0% 60.0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.48 .0% 4.0% 4.0% 32.0% 60.0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.36 .0% 4.0% 8.0% 36.0% 52.0%



4.58 .0% 4.2% .0% 29.2% 66.7%


4.44 .0% 4.0% 4.0% 36.0% 56.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.37

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.40 .0% .0% 12.0% 36.0% 52.0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.44 .0% .0% 8.0% 40.0% 52.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.16

.0% 4.0% 8.0% 56.0% 32.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.48 .0% .0% 4.3% 43.5% 52.2%

102

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.60 .0% .0% 4.0% 32.0% 64.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.64 .0% .0% 4.0% 28.0% 68.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.32 .0% 8.0% .0% 44.0% 48.0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.44 .0% 4.0% .0% 44.0% 52.0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.46

Displayed common sense. 4.48 .0% 4.0% 4.0% 32.0% 60.0% Started proceedings on time. 4.56 .0% .0% 4.0% 36.0% 60.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.58 .0% .0% 4.2% 33.3% 62.5% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.48 .0% .0% 8.0% 36.0% 56.0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.40 .0% .0% 8.0% 44.0% 48.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.40 .0% .0% 8.0% 44.0% 48.0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.24 .0% .0% 16.0% 44.0% 40.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.48 .0% .0% 4.0% 44.0% 52.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.48 .0% .0% 36.0% 8.0% 56.0%

103



Employer 12 25.0


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 48 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







104


1‐2 years 2 4.5

3‐5 years 6 13.6

6‐10 years 12 27.3

11‐20 years 14 31.8







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 20 43.5

Female 26 56.5


Once 12 25.0

2‐3 Times 12 25.0

4‐10 Times 14 29.2


105







106

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 1 0 2



107

JUDGE JAMES HICKMAN BIIA Hearing Judge





108


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.17



4.27 .0% .0% 13.6% 45.5% 40.9%



4.55 .0% .0% 4.5% 36.4% 59.1%


4.50 .0% .0% 4.5% 40.9% 54.5%

COMMUNICATION 4.21

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.18 .0% .0% 13.6% 54.5% 31.8% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.09 .0% 4.5% 13.6% 50.0% 31.8% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.30

.0% .0% 10.0% 50.0% 40.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.26 .0% .0% 15.8% 42.1% 42.1%

109

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.23 .0% .0% 13.6% 50.0% 36.4% Started proceedings on time. 4.68 .0% .0% 4.5% 22.7% 72.7% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.45 .0% .0% 4.5% 45.5% 50.0% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.36 .0% .0% 13.6% 36.4% 50.0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.25 .0% 5.0% 15.0% 30.0% 50.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.40 .0% 5.0% 5.0% 35.0% 55.0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.37 .0% .0% 5.3% 52.6% 42.1% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.41 .0% 4.5% .0% 45.5% 50.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.32 .0% .0% 31.8% 18.2% 50.0%

110



Employer 14 30.4


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 44 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







111


1‐2 years 2 4.3

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 10 21.7

11‐20 years 26 56.5







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 20 43.5

Female 26 56.5


Once 10 21.7

2‐3 Times 24 52.2

4‐10 Times 8 17.4


112







113

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 1 1 2 2



114

JUDGE DANIEL JOHNSON BIIA Hearing Judge





115


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.82

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.82 .0% .0% 36.4% 45.5% 18.2% Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.91 .0% .0% 27.3% 54.5% 18.2% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.73 .0% 9.1% 27.3% 45.5% 18.2% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.79

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.64 .0% 9.1% 45.5% 18.2% 27.3% Maintained a neutral presence. 3.82 .0% 18.2% 18.2% 27.3% 36.4% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 3.91 .0% 9.1% 27.3% 27.3% 36.4% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

3.45 .0% 18.2% 36.4% 27.3% 18.2%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.45 .0% .0% .0% 54.5% 45.5% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.80 .0% 10.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%


3.82 9.1% .0% 18.2% 45.5% 27.3%


3.45 .0% 18.2% 36.4% 27.3% 18.2%

COMMUNICATION 4.11

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.00 .0% .0% 27.3% 45.5% 27.3% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.09 .0% .0% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.90 .0% 10.0% 20.0% 40.0% 30.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.44 .0% .0% .0% 55.6% 44.4%

116

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.64 .0% 18.2% 36.4% 9.1% 36.4% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.09 .0% .0% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% Acted with patience and self-control. 3.64 .0% .0% 63.6% 9.1% 27.3% Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.64 .0% 18.2% 27.3% 27.3% 27.3% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.10

Displayed common sense. 3.73 .0% 9.1% 36.4% 27.3% 27.3% Started proceedings on time. 4.36 .0% .0% .0% 63.6% 36.4% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.36 .0% .0% .0% 63.6% 36.4% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 3.82 .0% .0% 45.5% 27.3% 27.3% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.09 .0% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 36.4% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.00 .0% .0% 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.10 .0% .0% 30.0% 30.0% 40.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.20 .0% .0% 40.0% 20.0% 40.0%

117



Employer 4 18.2


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 20 90.9

Paralegal 2 9.1


Other 0 0







118


1‐2 years 2 10.0

3‐5 years 2 10.0

6‐10 years 2 10.0

11‐20 years 6 30.0






Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 9.1

Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 14 63.6

Female 8 36.4


Once 2 9.1

2‐3 Times 6 27.3

4‐10 Times 6 27.3


119






Very Successful 0 0

120

LITIGANT RATINGS


Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 0 1 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 0 0 1


0 0 0 0 1


Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 0 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 0 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 0 0 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 0 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 1 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 0 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 1 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 0 1 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 0 1 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 0 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 0 1 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 0 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 0 1 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 0 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 0 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 0 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 0 1

121

JUDGE TOM KALENIUS BIIA Hearing Judge





122


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.37

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.29 .0% .0% 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.40 .0% 6.7% .0% 40.0% 53.3% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.57

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.60 .0% .0% 6.7% 26.7% 66.7% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.53 .0% .0% 13.3% 20.0% 66.7% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.36 .0% .0% 21.4% 21.4% 57.1%



4.77 .0% .0% .0% 23.1% 76.9%


4.53 .0% 6.7% .0% 26.7% 66.7%

COMMUNICATION 4.25

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.33 .0% 6.7% 6.7% 33.3% 53.3% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.20 .0% 6.7% 6.7% 46.7% 40.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.08 .0% .0% 30.8% 30.8% 38.5% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.40 .0% .0% 6.7% 46.7% 46.7%

123

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.67 .0% .0% 6.7% 20.0% 73.3% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.36 .0% .0% 21.4% 21.4% 57.1% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.40 .0% .0% 13.3% 33.3% 53.3% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.34

Displayed common sense. 4.00 .0% 15.4% 7.7% 38.5% 38.5% Started proceedings on time. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.60 .0% .0% 6.7% 26.7% 66.7% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.33 .0% .0% 13.3% 40.0% 46.7% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.33 .0% .0% 20.0% 26.7% 53.3% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.17 .0% .0% 25.0% 33.3% 41.7% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.21 .0% 7.1% 14.3% 28.6% 50.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.36 .0% .0% 35.7% 14.3% 50.0%

124



Employer 2 6.7


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 30 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







125


1‐2 years 4 13.3

3‐5 years 4 13.3

6‐10 years 2 6.7

11‐20 years 8 26.7







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 26 92.9

Female 2 7.1


Once 4 13.3

2‐3 Times 10 33.3

4‐10 Times 14 46.7


126







127

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 0 3



128

JUDGE VERLAINE KEITH‐MILLER BIIA Hearing Judge





129


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.46

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.36 7.1% 7.1% 42.9% 28.6% 14.3% Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.38 7.7% 15.4% 23.1% 38.5% 15.4% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.64 7.1% .0% 35.7% 35.7% 21.4% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.53

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.29 7.1% 28.6% 21.4% 14.3% 28.6% Maintained a neutral presence. 3.29 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 3.85 7.7% .0% 30.8% 23.1% 38.5% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

3.29 14.3% 21.4% 21.4% 7.1% 35.7%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 3.50 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 16.7% 33.3% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.43 14.3% 14.3% 21.4% 14.3% 35.7%


4.00 .0% .0% 41.7% 16.7% 41.7%


3.57 14.3% 7.1% 21.4% 21.4% 35.7%

COMMUNICATION 3.70

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 3.71 7.1% 7.1% 28.6% 21.4% 35.7% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 3.64 .0% 7.1% 42.9% 28.6% 21.4% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.58 8.3% 8.3% 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

3.86 .0% .0% 35.7% 42.9% 21.4%

130

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.71 7.1% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 35.7% Was attentive to proceedings. 3.86 7.1% 7.1% 21.4% 21.4% 42.9% Acted with patience and self-control. 3.43 14.3% 7.1% 35.7% 7.1% 35.7% Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.38 7.7% 15.4% 38.5% 7.7% 30.8% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.64

Displayed common sense. 3.50 7.1% 14.3% 35.7% 7.1% 35.7% Started proceedings on time. 3.29 7.1% 21.4% 28.6% 21.4% 21.4% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 3.79 .0% 7.1% 42.9% 14.3% 35.7% Maintained control over the proceedings. 3.86 7.1% .0% 28.6% 28.6% 35.7% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 3.71 7.1% .0% 35.7% 28.6% 28.6% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 3.86 7.1% .0% 28.6% 28.6% 35.7% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 3.08 15.4% 7.7% 46.2% 15.4% 15.4% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 3.86 .0% .0% 42.9% 28.6% 28.6% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 3.79 7.1% 7.1% 28.6% 21.4% 35.7%

131



Employer 6 21.4


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 28 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







132


1‐2 years 2 7.7

3‐5 years 4 15.4

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 10 38.5







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 10 41.7

Female 14 58.3


Once 0 0

2‐3 Times 14 50.0

4‐10 Times 12 42.9


133







134

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 1 0 1



135

JUDGE WAYNE LUCIA BIIA Hearing Judge





136


Item Category Average


Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 3.52

3.46 4.2% 12.5% 29.2% 41.7% 12.5% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.


3.48 4.0% 16.0% 24.0% 40.0% 16.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.


3.60 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% 40.0% 24.0% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.


3.64 4.0% 4.0% 40.0% 28.0% 24.0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.


3.32 12.0% 8.0% 32.0% 32.0% 16.0%

3.67 4.2% 8.3% 25.0% 41.7% 20.8% Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication.

Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.59 4.5% 18.2% 13.6% 40.9% 22.7%


4.19 .0% 4.8% 9.5% 47.6% 38.1%


3.91 4.5% 4.5% 18.2% 40.9% 31.8%

COMMUNICATION 3.75

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 3.64 4.0% 4.0% 28.0% 52.0% 12.0%

3.79 4.2% .0% 29.2% 45.8% 20.8% Acted decisively throughout proceedings.

Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.41 .0% 22.7% 31.8% 27.3% 18.2% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.14 .0% .0% 14.3% 57.1% 28.6%

137

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.60 4.0% 12.0% 20.0% 48.0% 16.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.04 .0% 4.0% 12.0% 60.0% 24.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 3.16 12.0% 12.0% 36.0% 28.0% 12.0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.36 16.0% 8.0% 20.0% 36.0% 20.0%

3.95 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS

Displayed common sense. 3.52 8.0% 12.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% Started proceedings on time. 4.13 .0% 12.5% 4.2% 41.7% 41.7% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.17 .0% .0% 12.5% 58.3% 29.2%

4.12 .0% .0% 24.0% 40.0% 36.0% Maintained control over the proceedings.

Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 3.70 8.7% 4.3% 17.4% 47.8% 21.7% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 3.96 4.2% .0% 16.7% 54.2% 25.0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.14 .0% .0% 31.8% 22.7% 45.5%

3.96 .0% .0% 32.0% 40.0% 28.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently.

Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 3.84 4.0% 28.0% 4.0% 32.0% 32.0%

138



Employer 10 20.0


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 50 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







139


1‐2 years 6 12.0

3‐5 years 6 12.0

6‐10 years 8 16.0

11‐20 years 14 28.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 28 60.9

Female 18 39.1


Once 14 28.0

2‐3 Times 10 20.0

4‐10 Times 10 20.0


140







141

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 0 2



142

JUDGE RICHARD MACKEY BIIA Hearing Judge





143


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.54



4.76 .0% .0% .0% 23.5% 76.5%



4.86 .0% .0% .0% 14.3% 85.7%


4.67 .0% .0% 5.6% 22.2% 72.2%

COMMUNICATION 4.64

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.78 .0% .0% .0% 22.2% 77.8% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.65 .0% .0% 5.9% 23.5% 70.6% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.47 .0% .0% 11.8% 29.4% 58.8% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7%

144

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.89 .0% .0% .0% 11.1% 88.9% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.88 .0% .0% .0% 11.8% 88.2% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.89 .0% .0% .0% 11.1% 88.9% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.89 .0% .0% .0% 11.1% 88.9% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.62

Displayed common sense. 4.67 .0% .0% 5.6% 22.2% 72.2% Started proceedings on time. 4.75 .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 75.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.71 .0% .0% 5.9% 17.6% 76.5% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.71 .0% .0% 5.9% 17.6% 76.5% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.53 .0% .0% 6.7% 33.3% 60.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.59 .0% .0% 5.9% 29.4% 64.7% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.47 .0% .0% 11.8% 29.4% 58.8% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.59 .0% .0% .0% 41.2% 58.8% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0%

145



Employer 6 16.7


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 36 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







146


1‐2 years 6 16.7

3‐5 years 4 11.1

6‐10 years 4 11.1

11‐20 years 10 27.8







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 22 64.7

Female 12 35.3


Once 4 11.1

2‐3 Times 10 27.8

4‐10 Times 18 50.0


147







148

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 2 0 3



149

JUDGE CRAIG MCDONALD BIIA Hearing Judge





150


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.82

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.75 .0% 10.0% 25.0% 45.0% 20.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.95 .0% .0% 31.6% 42.1% 26.3% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.75 .0% 15.0% 25.0% 30.0% 30.0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.25


4.16 .0% 5.3% 21.1% 26.3% 47.4%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.37 5.3% .0% .0% 42.1% 52.6% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.88 .0% 11.8% 23.5% 29.4% 35.3%


4.58 .0% .0% 10.5% 21.1% 68.4%


4.17 .0% 5.6% 27.8% 11.1% 55.6%

COMMUNICATION 4.22

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.15 .0% .0% 25.0% 35.0% 40.0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.32 .0% 5.3% 10.5% 31.6% 52.6% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.61 .0% 16.7% 27.8% 33.3% 22.2% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.78 .0% .0% .0% 22.2% 77.8%

151

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.63 .0% .0% 10.5% 15.8% 73.7% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.79 .0% .0% .0% 21.1% 78.9% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.42 .0% 5.3% 10.5% 21.1% 63.2% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.21 .0% 5.3% 26.3% 10.5% 57.9% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.27

Displayed common sense. 4.00 .0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Started proceedings on time. 4.74 .0% .0% .0% 26.3% 73.7% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.68 .0% .0% .0% 31.6% 68.4% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.47 .0% .0% 15.8% 21.1% 63.2% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 3.94 5.9% .0% 23.5% 35.3% 35.3% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.00 5.3% .0% 21.1% 36.8% 36.8% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.16 .0% 10.5% 10.5% 31.6% 47.4% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.21 .0% 5.3% 15.8% 31.6% 47.4% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.26 .0% .0% 21.1% 31.6% 47.4%

152



Employer 6 15.0


Other 2 5.0





Other 0 0


Attorney 40 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







153


1‐2 years 4 10.0

3‐5 years 2 5.0

6‐10 years 4 10.0

11‐20 years 12 30.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 22 61.1

Female 14 38.9


Once 8 21.1

2‐3 Times 8 21.1

4‐10 Times 14 36.8


154







155

LITIGANT RATINGS




2 0 0 2 2



156

JUDGE THOMAS MERRILL BIIA Hearing Judge





157


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.13

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.00 .0% 13.3% 6.7% 46.7% 33.3% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.13 .0% .0% 20.0% 46.7% 33.3% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.27 .0% .0% 13.3% 46.7% 40.0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.09

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.13 .0% .0% 18.8% 50.0% 31.3% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.06 .0% 18.8% .0% 37.5% 43.8% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.13 .0% 6.3% 12.5% 43.8% 37.5% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.00 .0% 12.5% 6.3% 50.0% 31.3%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.47 .0% .0% 6.7% 40.0% 53.3% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.87 .0% 26.7% .0% 33.3% 40.0%


4.19 .0% 12.5% 12.5% 18.8% 56.3%


3.88 .0% 25.0% 6.3% 25.0% 43.8%

COMMUNICATION 4.20

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.25 .0% .0% 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.19 .0% 6.3% 6.3% 50.0% 37.5% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.07 7.1% .0% 7.1% 50.0% 35.7% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.29 .0% .0% 7.1% 57.1% 35.7%

158

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.19 .0% 6.3% 12.5% 37.5% 43.8% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.44 .0% .0% 12.5% 31.3% 56.3% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.31 .0% 6.3% 6.3% 37.5% 50.0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.94 .0% 18.8% 6.3% 37.5% 37.5% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.35

Displayed common sense. 4.13 .0% .0% 18.8% 50.0% 31.3% Started proceedings on time. 4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.25 .0% .0% 18.8% 37.5% 43.8% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.44 .0% 6.3% .0% 37.5% 56.3% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.43 .0% 7.1% .0% 35.7% 57.1% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.31 .0% 6.3% .0% 50.0% 43.8% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.36 .0% .0% 7.1% 50.0% 42.9% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.33 .0% 6.7% .0% 46.7% 46.7% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.43 .0% .0% .0% 57.1% 42.9%

159



Employer 6 18.8


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 32 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







160


1‐2 years 2 6.7

3‐5 years 2 6.7

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 10 33.3







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 22 78.6

Female 6 21.4


Once 10 33.3

2‐3 Times 16 53.3

4‐10 Times 4 13.3


161







162

LITIGANT RATINGS




2 0 1 1 1



163

JUDGE MICHAEL METZGER BIIA Hearing Judge





164


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.24



4.57 .0% .0% .0% 42.9% 57.1%



4.79 .0% .0% .0% 21.4% 78.6%


4.31 .0% .0% 15.4% 38.5% 46.2%

COMMUNICATION 4.30

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.14 .0% .0% 7.1% 71.4% 21.4% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.29 .0% .0% 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.08 .0% .0% 15.4% 61.5% 23.1% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7%

165

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.21 .0% .0% 7.1% 64.3% 28.6% Started proceedings on time. 4.69 .0% .0% .0% 30.8% 69.2% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.79 .0% .0% .0% 21.4% 78.6% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.50 .0% .0% 7.1% 35.7% 57.1% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.21 .0% .0% 21.4% 35.7% 42.9% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.15 .0% .0% 15.4% 53.8% 30.8% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.62 .0% .0% .0% 38.5% 61.5% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.36 .0% .0% 14.3% 35.7% 50.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.54 .0% .0% .0% 46.2% 53.8%

166



Employer 10 35.7


Other 0 0





Other 2 7.1


Attorney 28 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







167


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 6 21.4

6‐10 years 6 21.4

11‐20 years 12 42.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 10 38.5

Female 16 61.5


Once 6 21.4

2‐3 Times 6 21.4

4‐10 Times 10 35.7


168







169

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 0 1



170

JUDGE RANDAL MILHOLAND BIIA Hearing Judge





171


Item Average

Category Average Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very

Good Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.33

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.20 .0% .0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.40 .0% .0% .0% 60.0% 40.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.40 .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.60 16.7% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.40 16.7% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.40 .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.40 .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.80 .0% .0% .0% 20.0% 80.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.20 .0% 20.0% .0% 20.0% 60.0%


4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0%


4.00 .0% 20.0% 20.0% .0% 60.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.60 Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner.

4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0%

172

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.80 .0% .0% .0% 20.0% 80.0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.20 .0% .0% 40.0% .0% 60.0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.59 Displayed common sense. 4.40 .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% Started proceedings on time. 4.80 .0% .0% .0% 20.0% 80.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.40 .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.40 .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0%

173



Employer 3 33.3






Other 0 0


Attorney 10 100.0

Paralegal 0 0








174


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 3 30.0

11‐20 years 5 50.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 5 50.0

Female 5 50.0


Once 0 0

2‐3 Times 9 90.0

4‐10 Times 1 10.0


175






Very Successful 0 0

176

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 0 2



177

JUDGE CAROL MOLCHIOR BIIA Hearing Judge





178


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.30


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.42 .0% 8.3% .0% 33.3% 58.3% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.50 .0% .0% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0%



4.50 .0% .0% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3%


4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.24


179

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.09 .0% .0% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% Started proceedings on time. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.36 .0% .0% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.18 .0% .0% 18.2% 45.5% 36.4% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.09 .0% .0% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.30 .0% .0% 10.0% 50.0% 40.0%

180



Employer 6 27.3


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 24 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







181


1‐2 years 2 8.3

3‐5 years 2 8.3

6‐10 years 2 8.3

11‐20 years 8 33.3







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 12 54.5

Female 10 45.5


Once 4 16.7

2‐3 Times 12 50.0

4‐10 Times 6 25.0


182







183

LITIGANT RATINGS




3 0 1 0 0



184

JUDGE JOAN O’CONNELL BIIA Hearing Judge





185


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.10



4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5%



4.64 .0% .0% .0% 36.4% 63.6%


4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.26


186

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.50 .0% .0% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.21

Displayed common sense. 4.50 .0% .0% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% Started proceedings on time. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.18 .0% .0% 9.1% 63.6% 27.3% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.00 .0% .0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.22 .0% .0% .0% 77.8% 22.2% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.10 .0% .0% 20.0% 50.0% 30.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.18 .0% .0% 18.2% 45.5% 36.4% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.18 .0% .0% 18.2% 45.5% 36.4%

187



Employer 6 21.4


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 26 92.9

Paralegal 2 7.1


Other 0 0







188


1‐2 years 2 7.7

3‐5 years 2 7.7

6‐10 years 6 23.1

11‐20 years 8 30.8







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 16 61.5

Female 10 38.5


Once 6 21.4

2‐3 Times 14 50.0

4‐10 Times 4 14.3


189






Very Successful 0 0

190

Litigant Ratings




0 0 0 0 4



191

JUDGE ROBERT RAYMOND BIIA Hearing Judge





192


Item Average

Category Average Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very

Good Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.81

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.80 .0% 60.0% .0% 40.0% .0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.80 .0% 60.0% .0% 40.0% .0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.83 .0% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% .0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.19

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.00 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.00 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.17 .0% 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% .0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.17 .0% 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% .0%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.20 .0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% .0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.00 .0% 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0%


4.80 .0% .0% 20.0% 80.0% .0%


4.20 .0% 40.0% .0% 60.0% .0%

COMMUNICATION 3.88

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 3.83 .0% .0% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 3.67 .0% 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.80 .0% .0% 60.0% .0% 40.0%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.20 .0% .0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0%

193

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 3.83 .0% .0% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% Started proceedings on time. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% Maintained control over the proceedings. 3.80 .0% .0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.00 .0% .0% 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.00 .0% .0% 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.17 .0% .0% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.00 .0% .0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 3.80 .0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0%

194


Injured Worker 0 0

Employer 0 0





Private Practice 0 0

Other 0 0


Attorney 10 83.3

Paralegal 2 16.7




2‐5 Attorneys 0 0




195


1‐2 years 4 40.0

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 2 20.0

11‐20 years 4 40.0

More than 20 years 0 09






Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 6 50.0

Female 6 50.0


Once 2 16.7

2‐3 Times 8 66.7

4‐10 Times 2 16.7


196






Very Successful 0 0

197

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 1 3



198

JUDGE BRUCE RIDLEY BIIA Hearing Judge





199


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.96


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.25 4.2% .0% 12.5% 33.3% 50.0% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.13 4.3% .0% 21.7% 26.1% 47.8% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.25 .0% .0% 29.2% 16.7% 54.2% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.21 .0% 8.3% 16.7% 20.8% 54.2%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.45 .0% .0% 18.2% 18.2% 63.6% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.91 4.3% 17.4% 8.7% 21.7% 47.8%


4.46 .0% .0% 20.8% 12.5% 66.7%


4.08 8.3% 4.2% 12.5% 20.8% 54.2%

COMMUNICATION 4.00

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.04 .0% 4.3% 17.4% 47.8% 30.4% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.18 .0% .0% 18.2% 45.5% 36.4% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.48 8.7% 21.7% 8.7% 34.8% 26.1% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.29 .0% .0% 16.7% 37.5% 45.8%

200

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.54 .0% .0% 8.3% 29.2% 62.5% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.46 .0% .0% 16.7% 20.8% 62.5% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.04 .0% 4.2% 20.8% 41.7% 33.3% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.00 .0% 16.7% 8.3% 33.3% 41.7% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.18

Displayed common sense. 3.88 4.2% 16.7% 8.3% 29.2% 41.7% Started proceedings on time. 4.21 .0% .0% 16.7% 45.8% 37.5% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.25 .0% 4.2% 8.3% 45.8% 41.7% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.29 .0% .0% 16.7% 37.5% 45.8% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.22 .0% 4.3% 17.4% 30.4% 47.8% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.22 .0% .0% 17.4% 43.5% 39.1% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.13 .0% .0% 21.7% 43.5% 34.8% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.29 .0% .0% 20.8% 29.2% 50.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.09 .0% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 36.4%

201



Employer 14 30.4


Other 2 4.3





Other 0 0


Attorney 44 95.7

Paralegal 2 4.3


Other 0 0







202


1‐2 years 2 4.5

3‐5 years 2 4.5

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 8 18.2







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 38 86.4

Female 6 13.6


Once 8 17.4

2‐3 Times 16 34.8

4‐10 Times 20 43.5


203







204

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 1 0 1 2



205

JUDGE DONNA SHIPPS BIIA Hearing Judge





206


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.45

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.48 .0% .0% 4.0% 44.0% 52.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.48 .0% 4.0% .0% 40.0% 56.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.40 .0% .0% 4.0% 52.0% 44.0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.41


4.33 .0% 4.2% 8.3% 37.5% 50.0%



4.73 .0% .0% 4.5% 18.2% 77.3%


4.32 .0% .0% 18.2% 31.8% 50.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.51

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.44 .0% .0% 4.0% 48.0% 48.0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.36 .0% 4.0% 8.0% 36.0% 52.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.64 .0% .0% .0% 36.0% 64.0%

207

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.88 .0% 8.0% 20.0% 48.0% 24.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.75 .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 75.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.12 .0% .0% 20.0% 48.0% 32.0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.28 .0% 4.0% 16.0% 28.0% 52.0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.56

Displayed common sense. 4.40 .0% 4.0% .0% 48.0% 48.0% Started proceedings on time. 4.28 .0% 4.0% 4.0% 52.0% 40.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.68 .0% .0% 4.0% 24.0% 72.0% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.80 .0% .0% .0% 20.0% 80.0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.63 .0% .0% .0% 37.5% 62.5% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.52 .0% .0% .0% 47.8% 52.2% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.52 .0% .0% 4.0% 40.0% 56.0% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.52 .0% .0% 4.0% 40.0% 56.0%

208



Employer 8 32.0


Other 1 4.0





Other 1 4.0


Attorney 23 95.8

Paralegal 1 4.2


Other 0 0







209


1‐2 years 1 4.3

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 8 34.8







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 19 79.2

Female 5 20.8


Once 7 29.2

2‐3 Times 9 37.5

4‐10 Times 6 25.0


210







211

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 0 1



212

JUDGE ROBERT SPAULDING BIIA Hearing Judge





213


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.33

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.33


4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6%



4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0%


4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.28

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.20 .0% .0% .0% 80.0% 20.0%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3%

214

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.14 .0% .0% 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.26

Displayed common sense. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Started proceedings on time. 4.17 .0% .0% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.14 .0% .0% 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6%

215



Employer 0 0


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 14 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







216


1‐2 years 4 28.6

3‐5 years 2 14.3

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 6 42.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 8 57.1

Female 6 42.9


Once 8 57.1

2‐3 Times 4 28.6

4‐10 Times 2 14.3


217






Very Successful 0 0

218

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 1 0 1



219

JUDGE CRAIG STEWART BIIA Hearing Judge





220


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.31



4.32 .0% 4.5% .0% 54.5% 40.9%



4.65 .0% .0% 5.0% 25.0% 70.0%


4.48 .0% 9.5% .0% 23.8% 66.7%

COMMUNICATION 4.46

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.41 .0% .0% 4.5% 50.0% 45.5% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.50 .0% .0% 9.1% 31.8% 59.1% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.29 .0% 4.8% 14.3% 28.6% 52.4%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.65 .0% .0% .0% 35.0% 65.0%

221

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.55 .0% .0% 4.5% 36.4% 59.1% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.64 .0% .0% .0% 36.4% 63.6% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.18 4.5% .0% 13.6% 36.4% 45.5% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.41 .0% 4.5% 4.5% 36.4% 54.5% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.44

Displayed common sense. 4.45 .0% .0% 13.6% 27.3% 59.1% Started proceedings on time. 4.59 .0% .0% .0% 40.9% 59.1% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.38 .0% .0% 9.5% 42.9% 47.6% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.45 .0% 4.5% 4.5% 31.8% 59.1% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.40 .0% .0% 5.0% 50.0% 45.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.32 .0% .0% 10.5% 47.4% 42.1% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.57 .0% .0% .0% 42.9% 57.1% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.40 .0% .0% 5.0% 50.0% 45.0%

222



Employer 4 9.5


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 42 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







223


1‐2 years 2 4.8

3‐5 years 6 14.3

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 26 61.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 24 66.7

Female 12 33.3


Once 6 14.3

2‐3 Times 16 38.1

4‐10 Times 18 42.9


224







225

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 0 1 1



226

JUDGE KATHLEEN STOCKMAN BIIA Hearing Judge





227


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.24



4.46 .0% .0% 12.5% 29.2% 58.3%



4.65 .0% .0% 4.3% 26.1% 69.6%


4.46 4.2% .0% 4.2% 29.2% 62.5%

COMMUNICATION 4.27


228

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.29 .0% .0% 16.7% 37.5% 45.8% Started proceedings on time. 4.54 .0% .0% 8.3% 29.2% 62.5% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.54 .0% .0% 8.3% 29.2% 62.5% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.30 .0% .0% 26.1% 17.4% 56.5% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.23 .0% .0% 22.7% 31.8% 45.5% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.32 .0% .0% 18.2% 31.8% 50.0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.09 .0% 4.3% 26.1% 26.1% 43.5% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.13 .0% .0% 33.3% 20.8% 45.8% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.43 .0% .0% 13.0% 30.4% 56.5%

229



Employer 10 20.8


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 46 95.8

Paralegal 2 4.2


Other 0 0







230


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 4 8.7

6‐10 years 2 4.3

11‐20 years 28 60.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 26 54.2

Female 22 45.8


Once 16 33.3

2‐3 Times 16 33.3

4‐10 Times 16 33.3


231







232

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 1 0 3



233

JUDGE WILLIAM STRANGE

BIIA Hearing Judge The following pages report the results obtained from a judicial performance evaluation conducted in 2008. Attorneys, lay representatives, and pro se litigants who appeared before the above named judge in 2007 were asked to evaluate the judge’s performance based on behavior‐based criteria using the 5 point scale presented below.




234


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.78

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.77 7.7% 7.7% 23.1% 23.1% 38.5% Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.85 .0% 7.7% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.71 7.1% 21.4% 7.1% 21.4% 42.9% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.00

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.00 7.1% 7.1% 14.3% 21.4% 50.0% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.00 .0% 7.1% 28.6% 21.4% 42.9% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 3.87 .0% 20.0% 20.0% 13.3% 46.7% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.00 .0% 13.3% 26.7% 6.7% 53.3%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.00 6.7% .0% 26.7% 20.0% 46.7% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.85 .0% 15.4% 30.8% 7.7% 46.2%


4.21 .0% 7.1% 21.4% 14.3% 57.1%


4.07 .0% 6.7% 26.7% 20.0% 46.7%

COMMUNICATION 3.99

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 3.87 .0% 6.7% 33.3% 26.7% 33.3% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.13 .0% 6.7% 20.0% 26.7% 46.7% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.08 .0% 8.3% 16.7% 33.3% 41.7% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 3.86 .0% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 42.9%

235

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.13 .0% 13.3% 13.3% 20.0% 53.3% Started proceedings on time. 4.27 .0% .0% 20.0% 33.3% 46.7% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.13 .0% .0% 33.3% 20.0% 46.7% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.20 .0% .0% 26.7% 26.7% 46.7% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 3.93 .0% 14.3% 28.6% 7.1% 50.0% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 3.80 6.7% 6.7% 26.7% 20.0% 40.0% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.17 .0% .0% 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.20 .0% .0% 33.3% 13.3% 53.3% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 3.77 .0% 15.4% 23.1% 30.8% 30.8%

236



Employer 10 35.7


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 30 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







237


1‐2 years 2 6.7

3‐5 years 2 6.7

6‐10 years 6 20.0

11‐20 years 8 26.7







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 22 78.6

Female 6 21.4


Once 10 33.3

2‐3 Times 12 40.0

4‐10 Times 2 6.7


238






Very Successful 0 0

239

LITIGANT RATINGS




1 0 1 0 1


Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 0 0Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 0 0Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 0 0 0Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 0 0Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 0Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 0 0Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 0Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 0 0Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 0 0Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 0 0Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 0 0Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 0 0Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 0 0Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 0 0Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 0 0Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 0 0

240

JUDGE STEVE STRAUME BIIA Hearing Judge





241


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.96

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.88 .0% 25.0% .0% 37.5% 37.5% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.00 .0% 25.0% .0% 25.0% 50.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.00 .0% 22.2% .0% 33.3% 44.4% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.39

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.38 .0% .0% 25.0% 12.5% 62.5% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.13 .0% 25.0% .0% 12.5% 62.5% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.33 .0% .0% 22.2% 22.2% 55.6% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

3.89 .0% 33.3% .0% 11.1% 55.6%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.83 .0% .0% .0% 16.7% 83.3% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.57 .0% .0% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4%


4.75 .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 75.0%


4.25 .0% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 62.5%

COMMUNICATION 4.30

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.11 .0% 22.2% .0% 22.2% 55.6% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.00 .0% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1% 55.6% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.43 14.3% .0% .0% .0% 85.7% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.67 .0% .0% 16.7% .0% 83.3%

242

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.56 .0% .0% 11.1% 22.2% 66.7% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.33 .0% .0% 22.2% 22.2% 55.6% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.63 .0% .0% .0% 37.5% 62.5% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.38 .0% .0% 25.0% 12.5% 62.5% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.15

Displayed common sense. 4.00 .0% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1% 55.6% Started proceedings on time. 4.11 .0% .0% 33.3% 22.2% 44.4% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.00 .0% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 50.0% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.13 .0% 25.0% .0% 12.5% 62.5% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.14 .0% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 57.1% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.29 .0% .0% 28.6% 14.3% 57.1% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.00 .0% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1% 55.6% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.29 .0% 14.3% 14.3% .0% 71.4%

243



Employer 4 22.2


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 18 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







244


1‐2 years 4 25.0

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 2 12.5

11‐20 years 2 12.5







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 10 55.6

Female 8 44.4


Once 6 33.3

2‐3 Times 4 22.2

4‐10 Times 4 22.2


245






Very Successful 0 0

246

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 1 0 1



247

JUDGE TIMOTHY WAKENSHAW BIIA Hearing Judge





248


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.00

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.94 .0% 11.1% 5.6% 61.1% 22.2% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.00 .0% 11.1% .0% 66.7% 22.2% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.06 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 44.4% 38.9% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.56

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.74 .0% .0% .0% 26.3% 73.7% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.50 .0% .0% 11.1% 27.8% 61.1% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.72 .0% .0% .0% 27.8% 72.2% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

4.59 .0% .0% 5.9% 29.4% 64.7%

Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.63 .0% .0% .0% 36.8% 63.2% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.13 6.3% 12.5% .0% 25.0% 56.3%


4.61 .0% .0% 5.6% 27.8% 66.7%


4.56 .0% .0% 5.6% 33.3% 61.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.36

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.53 .0% .0% 10.5% 26.3% 63.2% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.44 .0% .0% 5.6% 44.4% 50.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.86 .0% 21.4% 7.1% 35.7% 35.7% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.59 .0% .0% .0% 41.2% 58.8%

249

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Displayed common sense. 4.33 .0% 5.6% 5.6% 38.9% 50.0% Started proceedings on time. 4.44 .0% .0% 5.6% 44.4% 50.0% Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.44 .0% .0% 5.6% 44.4% 50.0% Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.59 .0% .0% .0% 41.2% 58.8% Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.29 .0% .0% 5.9% 58.8% 35.3% Appropriately enforced deadlines. 4.18 .0% 5.9% 11.8% 41.2% 41.2% Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.38 .0% .0% 6.3% 50.0% 43.8% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 4.53 .0% .0% .0% 47.1% 52.9% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.50 .0% .0% 6.3% 37.5% 56.3%

250



Employer 10 26.3


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 38 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







251


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 6 16.7

6‐10 years 6 16.7

11‐20 years 14 38.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 16 44.4

Female 20 55.6


Once 6 15.8

2‐3 Times 26 68.4

4‐10 Times 6 15.8


252







253

LITIGANT RATINGS


Excellent


Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. 3 1 0 0 2



254

JUDGE STEVEN YEAGER BIIA Hearing Judge





255




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 4.00

3.82 .0% 9.1% 27.3% 36.4% 27.3% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.

Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.09 .0% 9.1% 18.2% 27.3% 45.5%

4.09 9.1% .0% 18.2% 18.2% 54.5% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.


4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Maintained a neutral presence. 4.36 .0% .0% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5%

4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.


4.20 .0% .0% 30.0% 20.0% 50.0%

4.36 .0% 9.1% .0% 36.4% 54.5% Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication.

Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.27 .0% 9.1% 9.1% 27.3% 54.5%


4.55 .0% .0% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6%


4.55 .0% 9.1% .0% 18.2% 72.7%

COMMUNICATION 3.92

Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 3.82 .0% 9.1% 27.3% 36.4% 27.3%

3.50 10.0% .0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings.

Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3.91 9.1% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 27.3% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.45 .0% .0% 9.1% 36.4% 54.5%

256

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.64 .0% .0% 9.1% 18.2% 72.7% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.45 .0% .0% 9.1% 36.4% 54.5% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.45 .0% .0% 9.1% 36.4% 54.5%


Displayed common sense. 4.27 .0% 9.1% .0% 45.5% 45.5%

4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Started proceedings on time.

Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 4.09 .0% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 36.4%

4.18 9.1% .0% 9.1% 27.3% 54.5% Maintained control over the proceedings.

Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 4.09 .0% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 36.4%

4.27 .0% 9.1% .0% 45.5% 45.5% Appropriately enforced deadlines.

Prepared orders in a timely manner. 4.20 .0% .0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% Managed the proceedings efficiently. 3.64 9.1% .0% 27.3% 45.5% 18.2% Ensured that the record of the proceedings was clear and complete. 4.18 .0% 9.1% .0% 54.5% 36.4%

257



Employer 8 36.4


Other 0 0





Other 0 0


Attorney 22 100.0

Paralegal 0 0


Other 0 0







258


1‐2 years 2 9.1

3‐5 years 2 9.1

6‐10 years 4 18.2

11‐20 years 6 27.3







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 18 81.8

Female 4 18.2


Once 4 18.2

2‐3 Times 4 18.2

4‐10 Times 6 27.3


259







260

LITIGANT RATINGS




0 0 1 1 5



261

JUDGE LAURA BRADLEY BIIA Mediation Judge





262




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 4.28

4.23 0 0 17.5% 42.5% 40.0% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.

Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.29 0 0 7.3% 56.1% 36.6%

4.33 0 0 7.0% 53.5% 39.5% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.


4.60 0 0 9.3% 20.9% 69.8% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Maintained a neutral presence. 4.44 0 0 14.0% 27.9% 58.1%

4.50 0 0 4.8% 40.5% 54.8% Permitted all parties to be heard.


4.36 0 0 9.5% 45.2% 45.2%


4.60 0 0 9.3% 20.9% 69.8%


4.60 0 0 4.7% 30.2% 65.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.49

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.53 0 0 5.3% 36.8% 57.9%

4.47 0 0 10.5% 31.6% 57.9% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.


0 0 4.58 5.6% 30.6% 63.9%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.39 0 0 16.1% 29.0% 54.8%

263

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.66 0 0 5.3% 23.7% 71.1%

Was attentive during the mediation. 4.83 0 0 5.7% 5.7% 88.6%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.56 0 0 4.9% 34.1% 61.0%

Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.49 0 0 7.3% 36.6% 56.1%


Displayed common sense. 4.53 0 0 13.2% 21.1% 65.8%

Started proceedings on time. 4.49 0 0 9.8% 31.7% 58.5%

Was prepared for proceedings. 4.46 0 0 12.2% 29.3% 58.5%

Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.61 0 0 7.3% 24.4% 68.3%

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.43 0 0 8.1% 40.5% 51.4%

Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.34 0 5.7% 5.7% 37.1% 51.4%

Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.58 0 0 31.6% 63.2% 5.3%

4.46 0 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 10.8% 32.4% 56.8%

264



Employer 18 43.9


Other 0 0





Third Party Claims Admin Organization

8 19.5

Other 2 4.9


Attorney 21 51.2

Paralegal 12 29.3


Other 0 0







265


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 7 33.3

6‐10 years 2 9.5

11‐20 years 3 14.3







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 23 56.1

Female 18 43.9


Once 15 36.6

2‐3 Times 11 26.8

4‐10 Times 7 17.1


266







267

JUDGE S. FREDERICK FELLER BIIA Mediation Judge





268




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 4.72

4.68 0 2.7% 5.4% 13.5% 78.4% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.

Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.72 0 2.8% 5.6% 8.3% 83.3%



4.78 0 2.7% 2.7% 8.1% 86.5% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Maintained a neutral presence. 4.74 0 2.9% 5.7% 5.7% 85.7%



4.76 0 2.7% 2.7% 10.8% 83.8%


4.81 0 0 5.6% 8.3% 86.1%


4.76 0 0 5.4% 13.5% 81.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.77

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.73 0 2.7% 0 18.9% 78.4%

4.73 0 2.7% 0 18.9% 78.4% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.


0 0 4.78 3.7% 14.8% 81.5%


269

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.78 0 2.7% 0 13.5% 83.8%

Was attentive during the mediation. 4.78 0 2.7% 0 13.5% 83.8%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.76 2.7% 0 0 13.5% 83.8%

Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.73 0 2.7% 5.4% 8.1% 83.8%


Displayed common sense. 4.73 0 2.7% 5.4% 8.1% 83.8%

4.78 0 0 2.8% 16.7% 80.6% Started proceedings on time.


4.71 0 0 5.7% 17.1% 77.1% Maintained control over the proceedings.

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.72 0 2.8% 2.8% 13.9% 80.6%

4.75 0 0 5.6% 13.9% 80.6% Helped participants understand each others' position.


4.65 0 2.7% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 2.7% 21.6% 73.0%

270



Employer 7 18.9


Other 0 0






5 13.5

Other 0 0


Attorney 19 51.4

Paralegal 13 35.1


Other 0 0







271


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 3 17.6

11‐20 years 6 35.3







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 13 43.3

Female 17 56.7


Once 2 5.4

2‐3 Times 14 37.8

4‐10 Times 10 27.0


272







273

LITIGANT RATINGS


Maintained a neutral presence. 0 1 0 0 1Permitted all parties to be heard. 0 0 1 0 1Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system. 0 1 0 0 1 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. 0 0 1 0 1 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation ofan employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 1 0 1 0 Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 0 0 1 0 1Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 0 0 1 0 1The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired. 1 0 0 0 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 0 1Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 0 1 0 0 1Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 1 0 1Was attentive during the mediation. 0 0 1 0 1Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 1 1 0Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 1 0 1Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 0 1Started proceedings on time. 0 1 1 0 0Was prepared for proceedings. 0 1 1 0 0Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 2 0 0Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 0 1 1 0 0Helped participants understand each others' position. 0 1 1 0 0Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 0 1Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 1 1 0 0 0

274

JUDGE KATHRYN GUYKEMA BIIA Mediation Judge





275




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 4.24



4.22 1.5% 10.8% 3.1% 33.8% 50.8% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.




4.08 4.6% 7.7% 16.9% 16.9% 53.8% Permitted all parties to be heard.


3.97 7.7% 10.8% 9.2% 21.5% 50.8%


4.57 0 0 7.9% 27.0% 65.1%


3.86 7.7% 13.8% 7.7% 26.2% 44.6%

COMMUNICATION 4.32

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.25 0 6.2% 9.2% 38.5% 46.2%

4.08 1.5% 4.6% 20.0% 32.3% 41.5% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.


0 0 4.50 12.1% 25.9% 62.1%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.44 0 4.9% 6.6% 27.9% 60.7%

276

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Was attentive during the mediation. 4.37 0 4.6% 7.7% 33.8% 53.8%

Acted with patience and self-control. 3.90 4.8% 9.5% 15.9% 30.2% 39.7%





Was prepared for proceedings. 4.38 0 1.6% 6.3% 44.4% 47.6%

4.31 0 4.6% 20.0% 15.4% 60.0% Maintained control over the proceedings.

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.31 0 4.7% 12.5% 29.7% 53.1%

4.13 3.2% 9.5% 12.7% 20.6% 54.0% Helped participants understand each others' position.


3.79 9.5% 7.9% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 9.5% 39.7% 33.3%

277



Employer 33 50.8


Other 2 3.1






30 46.2

Other 2 3.1


Attorney 22 33.8

Paralegal 13 20.0


Other 4 6.2







278


1‐2 years 3 13.6

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 7 31.8

11‐20 years 2 9.1







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 20 33.9

Female 39 66.1


Once 7 11.7

2‐3 Times 19 31.7

4‐10 Times 19 31.7


279







280

JUDGE LYLE O. HANSON BIIA Mediation Judge





281


Item

Average

Category Average

Unacceptable Poor Very Good

Excellent Acceptable

4.69 LEGAL ABILITY

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.80 0 0 0 20.0% 80.0%

Understood the relevant substantive law. 0 0 35.7% 64.3% 0 4.64

Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.64 0 0 0 35.7% 64.3%


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 0 0 0 20.0% 80.0% 4.80

Maintained a neutral presence. 0 6.7% 13.3% 0 80.0% 4.73

Permitted all parties to be heard. 4.80 0 0 0 20.0% 80.0%


0 0 6.7% 80.0% 13.3% 4.67


0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0% 4.67


4.60 0 0 20.0% 0 80.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.69


Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 4.80 0 0 0 20.0% 80.0%


0 0 4.62 15.4% 7.7% 76.9%


282

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.73 0 0 13.3% 0 86.7%

Was attentive during the mediation. 4.73 0 0 13.3% 0 86.7%


Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.60 0 0 20.0% 0 80.0%



Started proceedings on time. 4.80 0 0 0 20.0% 80.0%

Was prepared for proceedings. 4.80 0 0 0 20.0% 80.0%



Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.67 0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%


0 4.67 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%

283



Employer 14 46.7


Other 0 0






12 40.0

Other 0 0


Attorney 12 40.0

Paralegal 6 20.0


Other 0 0







284


1‐2 years 4 33.3

3‐5 years 2 16.7

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 0 0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 22 73.3

Female 8 26.7


Once 0 0

2‐3 Times 10 33.3

4‐10 Times 12 40.0


285





Somewhat Successful 0 0


286

LITIGANT RATINGS


Maintained a neutral presence. 0 1 0 0 1Permitted all parties to be heard. 1 0 0 0 1Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system. 1 0 0 0 1 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. 0 1 0 0 1 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 1 0 0 1 Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 0 0 0 1 1Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 0 0 1 0 1The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired. 0 0 0 1 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 1 0Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 0 0 1 0 1Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 1 0 0 1Was attentive during the mediation. 0 0 1 0 1Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 1 0 1Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 0 0 1Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 0 1Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 1Was prepared for proceedings. 0 0 1 0 1Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 1 0 1Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 0 1 0 0 1Helped participants understand each others' position. 0 1 0 0 1Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 0 1Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 1 0 0 1

287

JUDGE HENRY HUNTSMAN BIIA Mediation Judge





288




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 3.39

3.33 .0% .0% 11.1% 38.9% 50.0% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.

Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.33 .0% .0% 11.1% 33.3% 55.6%

3.50 .0% .0% 16.7% 27.8% 55.6% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.

INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.15 .0%

3.00 .0% .0% 11.1% 16.7% 72.2% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Maintained a neutral presence. 3.00 .0% 5.6% 5.6% 27.8% 61.1%

3.50 .0% .0% 16.7% 22.2% 61.1% Permitted all parties to be heard.


3.00 .0% 5.6% 11.1% 27.8% 55.6%


3.40 .0% .0% 5.6% 16.7% 77.8%


3.00 .0% 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 77.8%

COMMUNICATION 4.13 .0%

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 3.50 .0% .0% 33.3% 16.7% 50.0%

3.50 .0% .0% 29.4% 23.5% 47.1% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.


4.50 .0% .0% 5.9% 35.3% 58.8%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 5.00 .0% .0% 5.6% 27.8% 66.7%

289

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.00 .0% .0% 5.6% 11.1% 83.3% Was attentive during the mediation. 3.83 .0% .0% 5.6% 16.7% 77.8%

3.00 .0% .0% 11.1% 11.1% 77.8% Acted with patience and self-control.

Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.00 .0% 5.6% 5.6% 22.2% 66.7% 3.77 .0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS

Displayed common sense. 3.50 .0% 16.7% 11.1% 72.2% 16.7%

4.20 .0% 27.8% 27.8% 44.4% 27.8% Started proceedings on time.

Was prepared for proceedings. 3.83 .0% 11.8% 52.9% 35.3% 11.8%

3.83 .0% 22.2% 16.7% 61.1% 22.2% Maintained control over the proceedings.

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 3.80 .0% 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 16.7%

3.33 .0% 22.2% 27.8% 50.0% 22.2% Helped participants understand each others' position.

Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.50 .0% 6.3% 62.5% 6.3% 31.3%

3.17 .0% 11.1% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 38.9% 38.9% 11.1%

290



Employer 3 16.7


Other 0 0






0 0

Other 0 0


Attorney 13 72.2

Paralegal 5 27.8


Other 0 0







291


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 1 7.7





Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 0 0 Gender Number Percent

Male 13 76.5

Female 4 23.5


Once 1 5.9

2‐3 Times 5 29.4

4‐10 Times 5 29.4


292







293

LITIGANT RATINGS


Maintained a neutral presence. 1 0 0 0 0Permitted all parties to be heard. 0 0 1 0 0Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.

1 0 0 0 0


1 0 0 0 0


1 0 0 0 0

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 0 0 1 0 0Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 0 0 1 0 0The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.

1 0 0 0 0

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 0 0Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 0 0 1 0 0Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 1 0 0Was attentive during the mediation. 0 1 0 0 0Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 1 0 0Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 0 0 0Displayed common sense. 1 0 0 0 0Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 0 0Was prepared for proceedings. 0 1 0 0 0Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 1 0 0Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 0 0 1 0 0Helped participants understand each others' position. 0 0 1 0 0Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 0 0

1 0 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 0

294

JUDGE ALISON JONES BIIA Mediation Judge





295




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 3.39

3.33 33.3% 0 16.7% 0 50.0% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.

Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.33 33.3% 0 16.7% 0 50.0%

3.50 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0 50.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.


3.00 50.0% 0 0 0 50.0% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Maintained a neutral presence. 3.00 50.0% 0 0 0 50.0%

3.50 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0 50.0% Permitted all parties to be heard.


3.00 50.0% 0 0 0 50.0%


3.40 20.0% 0 40.0% 0 40.0%


3.00 50.0% 0 0 0 50.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.13

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 3.50 0 50.0% 0 0 50.0%

3.50 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0 50.0% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.


0 0 4.50 25.0% 0 75.0%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 5.00 0 0 0 0 100.0%

296

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.00 50.0% 0 0 0 50.0%

Was attentive during the mediation. 3.83 0 16.7% 33.3% 0 50.0%

Acted with patience and self-control. 3.00 50.0% 0 0 0 50.0%

Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.00 50.0% 0 0 0 50.0%


Displayed common sense. 3.50 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0 50.0%

Started proceedings on time. 4.20 0 0 40.0% 0 60.0%

Was prepared for proceedings. 3.83 0 16.7% 33.3% 0 50.0%

3.83 0 16.7% 33.3% 0 50.0% Maintained control over the proceedings.

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 3.80 20.0% 0 20.0% 0 60.0%

3.33 33.3% 0 16.7% 0 50.0% Helped participants understand each others' position.

Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.50 0 0 0 75.0% 25.0%

3.17 33.3% 16.7% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 0 50.0%

297



Employer 16 66.7


Other 0 0






4 16.7

Other 0 0


Attorney 16 66.7

Paralegal 4 16.7


Other 4 16.7






More Than 20 Attorneys 0 0

298


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 4 25.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 8 40

Female 12 60


Once 4 16.7

2‐3 Times 16 66.7

4‐10 Times 0 0


299







300

LITIGANT RATINGS



301

JUDGE JUDITH KLAYMAN BIIA Mediation Judge





302




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 4.65

4.61 0 3.6% 0 28.6% 67.9% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.




4.61 3.6% 0 0 25.0% 71.4% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Maintained a neutral presence. 4.39 3.6% 0 7.1% 32.1% 57.1%

4.43 3.6% 0 21.4% 0 75.0% Permitted all parties to be heard.


4.64 3.6% 0 0 21.4% 75.0%


4.86 0 0 3.6% 7.1% 89.3%


4.62 3.8% 0 0 23.1% 73.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.51

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.43 3.6% 0 0 42.9% 53.6%

4.39 3.6% 0 0 46.4% 50.0% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.


0 0 4.54 4.2% 37.5% 58.3%


303

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.46 3.6% 0 7.1% 25.0% 64.3%

Was attentive during the mediation. 4.57 3.6% 0 0 28.6% 67.9%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.39 3.6% 0 7.1% 32.1% 57.1%

Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.50 3.6% 0 0 35.7% 60.7%


Displayed common sense. 4.57 3.6% 0 0 28.6% 67.9%

Started proceedings on time. 4.50 3.6% 0 7.1% 21.4% 67.9%


4.61 3.6% 0 0 25.0% 71.4% Maintained control over the proceedings.

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.54 3.6% 0 0 32.1% 64.3%

4.46 3.8% 0 7.7% 23.1% 65.4% Helped participants understand each others' position.


4.46 3.8% 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 3.8% 30.8% 61.5%

304



Employer 26 46.4


Other 0 0






10 17.9

Other 0 0


Attorney 30 53.6

Paralegal 16 28.6


Other 0 0







305


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 6 21.4

6‐10 years 0 0

11‐20 years 12 42.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 24 46.2

Female 28 53.8


Once 6 11.5

2‐3 Times 12 23.1

4‐10 Times 18 34.6


306







307

LITIGANT RATINGS Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent


308

JUDGE RONALD LAMB BIIA Mediation Judge





309




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 4.57





4.69 0 0 3.1% 24.6% 72.3% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.




4.65 0 0 9.2% 16.9% 73.8%


4.69 0 0 9.2% 12.3% 78.5%


4.67 0 0 9.0% 14.9% 76.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.59




0 0 4.61 6.3% 26.6% 67.2%


310

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent














4.44 0 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 16.7% 22.7% 60.6%

311



Employer 25 37.3


Other 2 3.0






14 20.9

Other 0 0


Attorney 46 68.7

Paralegal 9 13.4


Other 2 3.0







312


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 2 4.3

6‐10 years 2 4.3

11‐20 years 7 15.2







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 47 72.3

Female 18 27.7


Once 9 14.1

2‐3 Times 2 3.1

4‐10 Times 35 54.7


313







314

LITIGANT RATINGS



315

JUDGE ALEXANDER G. MCINTOSH BIIA Mediation Judge





316




Excellent Average

LEGAL ABILITY 4.59







4.41 4.3% 0 10.9% 19.6% 65.2% Permitted all parties to be heard.


4.28 2.2% 6.5% 10.9% 21.7% 58.7%


4.68 0 0 11.4% 9.1% 79.5%


4.15 4.3% 8.7% 13.0% 15.2% 58.7%

COMMUNICATION 4.46

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.46 0 2.2% 10.9% 26.1% 60.9%

4.26 4.3% 0 15.2% 26.1% 54.3% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.


0 0 4.50 16.7% 16.7% 66.7%


317

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Was attentive during the mediation. 4.59 2.2% 0 6.5% 19.6% 71.7%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.40 2.2% 0 8.9% 33.3% 55.6%



Displayed common sense. 4.46 2.2% 0 10.9% 23.9% 63.0%

Started proceedings on time. 4.47 0 2.2% 8.9% 28.9% 60.0%






4.22 4.4% 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 17.8% 24.4% 53.3%

318



Employer 21 44.7


Other 2 4.3





Third Party Claims Admin Organiztion

16 34.0

Other 1 2.1


Attorney 26 55.3

Paralegal 5 10.6


Other 3 6.4







319


1‐2 years 1 3.8

3‐5 years 5 19.2

6‐10 years 1 3.8

11‐20 years 8 30.8







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 23 53.5

Female 20 46.5


Once 9 19.6

2‐3 Times 11 23.9

4‐10 Times 15 32.6


320







321

LITIGANT RATINGS



322

JUDGE FRANK REKASIS BIIA Mediation Judge





323


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.85



4.88 0 0 0 11.8% 88.2% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.


4.82 0 2.6% 0 10.5% 86.8% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.


4.89 0 0 0 10.5% 89.5% Permitted all parties to be heard.


4.92 0 0 0 8.0% 92.0%


4.96 0 0 0 4.0% 96.0%


4.93 0 0 0 6.6% 93.4%

COMMUNICATION 4.85

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.89 0 0 0 10.7% 89.3%



0 0 4.80 0 19.7% 80.3%


324

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.95 0 0 0 5.3% 94.7%

Was attentive during the mediation. 4.91 0 0 0 9.2% 90.8%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.91 0 0 0 9.2% 90.8%

Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.84 0 0 0 15.8% 84.2%




Was prepared for proceedings. 4.76 0 0 0 23.7% 76.3%

Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.86 0 0 0 13.5% 86.5%



Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.86 0 0 14.1% 85.9% 0

4.79 0 1.3% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 17.1% 81.6%

325



Employer 29 38.7


Other 2 2.7





Third Party Claims Administration Organization

22 28.9

Other 0 0


Attorney 43 56.6

Paralegal 12 15.8


Other 2 2.6







326


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 1 2.3

6‐10 years 6 14.0

11‐20 years 10 23.3







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 42 58.3

Female 30 41.7


Once 6 8.0

2‐3 Times 17 22.7

4‐10 Times 31 41.3


327







328

LITIGANT RATINGS



329

JUDGE SALLY R SAWTELL BIIA Mediation Judge





330


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.39





4.50 0 4.5% 2.3% 31.8% 61.4% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.


4.41 0 4.5% 11.4% 22.7% 61.4% Permitted all parties to be heard.


4.44 0 0 11.6% 32.6% 55.8%


4.48 0 4.5% 6.8% 25.0% 63.6%


4.41 9.1% 2.3% 27.3% 61.4% 9.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.45


4.26 0 9.3% 11.6% 23.3% 55.8% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.


0 0 4.50 7.9% 34.2% 57.9%


331

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent


4.41 0 0 12.2% 34.1% 53.7% Treated people with courtesy and respect.


Acted with patience and self-control. 4.36 0 9.5% 2.4% 31.0% 57.1%







Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.30 4.5% 0 6.8% 38.6% 50.0%



4.25 4.5% 4.5% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 2.3% 38.6% 50.0%

332



Employer 21 47.7


Other 2 4.5






10 22.7

Other 0 0


Attorney 28 63.6

Paralegal 7 15.9


Other 1 2.3







333


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 1 3.6

6‐10 years 4 14.3

11‐20 years 8 28.6







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 21 51.2

Female 20 48.8


Once 4 9.1

2‐3 Times 14 31.8

4‐10 Times 19 43.2


334







335

LITIGANT RATINGS



336

JUDGE ANN SILVERNALE BIIA Mediation Judge





337


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.63

Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.61 0 0 5.3% 28.9% 65.8%


Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.66 0 0 2.6% 28.9% 68.4%


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.68 0 0 8.1% 16.2% 75.7%


Permitted all parties to be heard. 4.68 0 0 10.8% 10.8% 78.4%


4.73 0 0 8.1% 10.8% 81.1%


4.78 0 0 2.8% 16.7% 80.6%

Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, worker, the state, or any other interest. 4.73 0 0 2.7% 21.6% 75.7%

COMMUNICATION 4.66


Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 4.65 0 0 8.1% 18.9% 73.0%


0 4.61 0 6.5% 25.8% 67.7%


338

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent














Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 4.62 0 0 8.1% 21.6% 70.3%

339



Employer 17 44.7


Other 1 2.6






12 40.5

Other 1 2.7


Attorney 20 52.6

Paralegal 5 13.2


Other 0 0







340


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 1 5.0

6‐10 years 2 10.0

11‐20 years 4 20.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 16 45.7

Female 19 54.3


Once 4 10.8

2‐3 Times 10 27.0

4‐10 Times 20 54.1


341







342

LITIGANT RATINGS



343

JUDGE DAVID SWAN BIIA Mediation Judge





344


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.62









4.61 0 2.3% 11.4% 9.1% 77.3%


4.80 0 0 4.5% 11.4% 84.1%


4.79 0 0 4.3% 12.8% 83.0%

COMMUNICATION 4.62




0 4.60 0 9.3% 20.9% 69.8%


345

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.60 0 2.1% 10.6% 12.8% 74.5%








Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.28 0 2.2% 21.7% 21.7% 54.3%

Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 4.43 0 0 17.0% 23.4% 59.6%

346



Employer 25 52.1


Other 1 2.1





Third Party claims admin organization

20 42.6

Other 1 2.1


Attorney 20 41.7

Paralegal 8 16.7


Other 1 2.1







347


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 1 5.0

6‐10 years 4 20.0

11‐20 years 4 20.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 22 47.8

Female 24 52.2


Once 4 8.3

2‐3 Times 10 20.8

4‐10 Times 15 31.3


348







349

LITIGANT RATINGS



350

JUDGE R. GARY THORSON BIIA Mediation Judge





351


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.49









4.34 0 0 15.9% 34.1% 50.0%


4.52 0 0 11.4% 25.0% 63.6%


4.39 0 0 20.5% 20.5% 59.1%

COMMUNICATION 4.38




4.38 0 0 8.8% 44.1% 47.1%


352

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent














0 0 18.2% 34.1% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 4.30 47.7%

353



Employer 23 53.5


Other 0 0






15 34.1

Other 0 0


Attorney 25 56.6

Paralegal 6 13.6


Other 0 0







354


1‐2 years 1 4.0

3‐5 years 0 0

6‐10 years 4 16.0

11‐20 years 3 12.0







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 27 62.8

Female 16 37.2


Once 8 18.2

2‐3 Times 12 27.3

4‐10 Times 15 34.1


355







356

JUDGE LUCY WERNER BIIA Mediation Judge





357


Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.02



Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.27 6.1% 12.1% 42.4% 27.3% 12.1%




Permitted all parties to be heard. 2.98 15.0% 20.0% 30.0% 22.5% 12.5%


2.75 30.0% 12.5% 27.5% 12.5% 17.5%


3.45 5.3% 13.2% 44.7% 5.3% 31.6%


3.18 15.0% 12.5% 37.5% 10.0% 25.0%

COMMUNICATION 2.89

Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 2.58 28.9% 23.7% 15.8% 23.7% 7.9%

Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 2.43 37.5% 17.5% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%


3.23 9.1% 9.1% 40.9% 31.8% 9.1%

Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 3.32 6.5% 12.9% 38.7% 25.8% 16.1%

358

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Was attentive during the mediation. 3.10 15.0% 12.5% 42.5% 7.5% 22.5%

Acted with patience and self-control. 2.73 30.0% 17.5% 20.0% 15.0% 17.5%




Started proceedings on time. 3.28 5.0% 17.5% 40.0% 20.0% 17.5%

Was prepared for proceedings. 2.91 5.7% 34.3% 34.3% 14.3% 11.4%

Maintained control over the proceedings. 2.90 20.5% 10.3% 43.6% 10.3% 15.4%

Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 2.89 16.7% 16.7% 41.7% 11.1% 13.9%

Helped participants understand each others' position. 2.66 21.1% 21.1% 39.5% 7.9% 10.5%

Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 3.29 6.5% 0 58.1% 29.0% 6.5%

30.0% 12.5% 40.0% 12.5% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 2.50 5.0%

359



Employer 25 62.5


Other 1 2.5






13 32.5

Other 0 0


Attorney 28 70.0

Paralegal 1 2.5


Other 1 2.5







360


1‐2 years 0 0

3‐5 years 5 17.9

6‐10 years 7 25.0

11‐20 years 5 17.9







Native American 0 0

Other 0 0


Male 16 41.0

Female 23 59.0


Once 10 25.0

2‐3 Times 14 35.0

4‐10 Times 10 25.0


361






Very Successful 0 0

362

hearing and mediation judges of the washington …...at washington state university (wsu) to design...

Documents