HEARING AND MEDIATION JUDGES OF THE WASHINGTON …...at Washington State University (WSU) to design...
Transcript of 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.
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 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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.44
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.39 2.1% 3.2% 7.7% 28.1% 58.9%
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%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.42
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.46 3.7% 2.9% 6.0% 18.3% 69.1%
Maintained a neutral presence. 4.30 4.1% 4.3% 9.7% 20.9% 61.0%
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.42
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.42 4.5% 2.9% 5.9% 19.3% 67.4%
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%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.33 4.6% 2.8% 9.6% 20.8% 62.2%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.40
Displayed common sense. 4.38 2.6% 3.9% 9.2% 21.3% 63.0%
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
Communication Professionalism Administrative Skills
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
Communication Professionalism Administrative Skills
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
7.7% 11.5% 19.2% 7.7% 53.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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.
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. □ □ □ □ □ □
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. □ □ □ □ □ □
If you believe the judge favored or disfavored a party as described above, please explain the nature of the bias in the space below.
[30]
A B C D F DK/DNA
Section 3: Communication
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. □ □ □ □ □ □
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 during the mediation. □ □ □ □ □ □
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. □ □ □ □ □ □
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
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.
[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.
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: Integrity and Impartiality
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. □ □ □ □ □ □
If you believe the judge favored or disfavored a party as described above, please explain the nature of the bias in the space below.
[34]
A B C D F DK/DNA
Section 2: 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 3: 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 4: Administrative Capacity
a. Displayed common sense. □ □ □ □ □ □
b. Started proceedings on time. □ □ □ □ □ □
c. Was prepared for hearings and conferences. □ □ □ □ □ □
d. Maintained control over the proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □
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
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.
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.
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: Integrity and Impartiality
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. □ □ □ □ □ □
If you believe the judge favored or disfavored a party as described above, please explain the nature of the bias in the space below.
[37]
A B C D F DK/DNA
Section 2: Communication
a. Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □
b. Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. □ □ □ □ □ □
c. The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately. □ □ □ □ □ □
d. Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. □ □ □ □ □ □
e. Had sufficient communication with you prior to mediation proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □
Section 3: 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 4: Administrative Capacity
a. Displayed common sense. □ □ □ □ □ □
b. Started proceedings on time. □ □ □ □ □ □
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 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.)
Thank you very much for your time and effort.
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.64 .0% .0% 7.1% 21.4% 71.4%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.44
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
6‐10 Attorneys 8 28.6
11‐20 Attorneys 2 7.1
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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 116 Distributed 36 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 55 Distributed 7 Completed
10
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.65 .0% .0% 11.8% 11.8% 76.5%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.59
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 18 50.0
Employer 6 16.7
Labor and Industries 12 33.3
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 12 33.3
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 24 66.7
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 34 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 11.1
2‐5 Attorneys 18 50.0
6‐10 Attorneys 2 5.6
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 12 33.3
13
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 10 27.8
6‐10 years 2 5.6
11‐20 years 14 38.9
More than 20 years 10 27.8
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 36 100.0
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 26 72.2
Female 10 27.8
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 12 33.3
2‐3 Times 14 38.9
4‐10 Times 10 27.8
More Than 10 Times 0 0
14
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 11.1
Somewhat Unsuccessful 6 16.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 8 22.2
Somewhat Successful 14 38.9
Very Successful 4 11.1
15
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 3 0 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 0 0 2 1 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 1 0 0 1 0
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 0 1 0 1
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 0 1 1 0
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 1 0 2 0 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 1 0 1 1 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 0 0 1 0 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 0 2 0 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 2 2 0 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 2 2 0 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 1 2 1 0 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 1 0 0 Displayed common sense. 0 0 2 1 0 Started proceedings on time. 1 0 1 1 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 3 0 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 1 1 0 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 1 0 1 1 0 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 1 0 1 0 0 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 3 0 0 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 1 0 2 1 0
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 78 Distributed 6 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 23 Distributed 1 Completed
17
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.33 .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.08
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 0 0
Employer 2 33.3
Labor and Industries 4 66.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 4 66.7
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 2 33.3
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 6 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 2 33.3
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 4 66.7
20
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 33.3
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 2 33.3
11‐20 years 0 0
More than 20 years 2 33.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 6 100.0
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 4 66.7
Female 2 33.3
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 66.7
2‐3 Times 2 33.3
4‐10 Times 0 0
More Than 10 Times 0 0
21
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 50.0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 2 50.0
Somewhat Successful 0 0
Very Successful 0 0
22
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 0 1 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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 0 1
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 0 1
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 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
23
JUDGE DAVID CROSSLAND 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 105 Distributed 21 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 69 Distributed 13 Completed
24
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.00 .0% .0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Maintained a neutral presence. 3.75 .0% 16.7% 25.0% 25.0% 33.3% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.00 .0% .0% 27.3% 45.5% 27.3% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.55 .0% .0% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.34
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 2 8.3
Employer 6 25.0
Labor and Industries 16 66.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 16 66.7
In House Corporate Counsel 2 8.3
Private Practice 6 25.0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 22 91.7
Paralegal 2 8.3
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 18.2
2‐5 Attorneys 2 9.1
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 16 72.7
27
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 8 36.4
11‐20 years 8 36.4
More than 20 years 6 27.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 18 100.0
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 4 25.0
Female 12 75.0
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 2 9.1
2‐3 Times 10 45.5
4‐10 Times 10 45.5
More Than 10 Times 0 0
28
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 10 45.5
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 6 27.3
Somewhat Successful 6 27.3
Very Successful 0 0
29
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 1 1 1 0 9 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 0 0 1 10 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 1 1 2 8
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 0 0 1 10
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 0 1 1 9
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 1 0 0 2 9 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 1 0 0 1 10 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 0 0 1 10 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 0 0 1 8 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 1 1 9 Was attentive to proceedings. 1 0 0 1 10 Acted with patience and self-control. 1 0 0 1 10 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 1 1 9 Displayed common sense. 1 0 0 1 10 Started proceedings on time. 1 0 0 0 11 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 1 0 0 1 10 Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 0 0 11 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 1 0 0 0 11 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 1 0 0 0 10 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 1 0 0 0 11 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 1 0 0 0 11
30
JUDGE NANCY CURINGTON 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 67 Distributed 22 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 41 Distributed 3 Completed
31
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX Item
AverageCategory Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.80 .0% .0% 10.0% .0% 90.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.38
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.45 .0% .0% .0% 54.5% 45.5% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.45 .0% .0% .0% 54.5% 45.5% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.36 .0% .0% .0% 63.6% 36.4% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.89
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 6 27.3
Employer 2 9.1
Labor and Industries 14 63.6
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 14 63.6
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 8 36.4
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 22 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 10.0
2‐5 Attorneys 4 20.0
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 14 70.0
34
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 4 20.0
3‐5 years 6 30.0
6‐10 years 2 10.0
11‐20 years 4 20.0
More than 20 years 4 20.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 16 100.0
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 14 75.0
Female 4 25.0
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 0 0
2‐3 Times 0 0
4‐10 Times 6 27.3
More Than 10 Times 16 72.7
35
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 0 0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 10 45.5
Somewhat Successful 10 45.5
Very Successful 2 9.1
36
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 1 0 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 1 0 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 1 0 2
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 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 0 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 1 0 2 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 1 0 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 1 0 2 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 1 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 1 2 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 1 2 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 1 0 2 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 1 0 2 Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 0 2 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 2 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 1 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 1 0 2 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 1 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 1 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 0 2 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 1 0 2
37
JUDGE GREG DURAS 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 106 Distributed 62 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 48 Distributed 6 Completed
38
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.71 .0% .0% .0% 29.0% 71.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.51
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 24 38.7
Employer 14 22.6
Labor and Industries 24 38.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 24 38.7
In House Corporate Counsel 2 302
Private Practice 36 58.1
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 56 90.3
Paralegal 6 9.7
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 10 17.9
2‐5 Attorneys 18 32.1
6‐10 Attorneys 6 10.7
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 22 39.3
41
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 3.6
3‐5 years 8 14.3
6‐10 years 8 14.3
11‐20 years 20 35.7
More than 20 years 18 32.1
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 60 100.0
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 32 51.6
Female 30 48.4
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 14 23.3
2‐3 Times 26 43.3
4‐10 Times 18 30.0
More Than 10 Times 2 3.3
42
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 8 13.3
Somewhat Unsuccessful 10 16.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 14 23.3
Somewhat Successful 24 40.0
Very Successful 4 6.7
43
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 1 0 0 2 3 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 0 0 1 4 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 1 0 0 2 3
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 0 0 2 3
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 0 0 2 3
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 1 0 2 3 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 1 0 3 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 1 1 1 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 0 3 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 1 2 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 1 2 3 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 1 2 3 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 0 2 3 Displayed common sense. 0 1 1 1 3 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 3 3 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 1 2 3 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 3 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 1 0 0 3 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 1 2 2 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 2 1 3 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 1 0 2 3
44
JUDGE JOHN FAIRLEY 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 73 Distributed 42 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 61 Distributed 8 Completed
45
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.40 .0% 5.0% 15.0% 15.0% 65.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.07
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 24 57.1
Employer 14 33.3
Labor and Industries 4 9.5
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 4 10.0
In House Corporate Counsel 2 5.0
Private Practice 32 80.0
Other 2 5.0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 42 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 8 20.0
2‐5 Attorneys 20 50.0
6‐10 Attorneys 4 10.0
11‐20 Attorneys 2 5.0
More Than 20 Attorneys 6 15.0
48
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 2 4.8
6‐10 years 2 4.8
11‐20 years 8 19.0
More than 20 years 30 71.4
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 40 100.0
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 34 81.0
Female 8 19.0
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 10 25.0
2‐3 Times 20 50.0
4‐10 Times 10 25.0
More Than 10 Times 0 0
49
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 10.0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 8 20.0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 16 40.0
Somewhat Successful 10 25.0
Very Successful 2 5.0
50
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
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
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 99 Distributed 18 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 49 Distributed 8 Completed
52
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
3.33 .0% .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 2.10
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 6 33.3
Employer 0 0
Labor and Industries 12 66.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 12 66.7
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 6 33.3
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 18 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 11.1
2‐5 Attorneys 2 11.1
6‐10 Attorneys 2 11.1
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 12 66.7
55
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 4 22.2
3‐5 years 2 11.1
6‐10 years 2 11.1
11‐20 years 4 22.2
More than 20 years 6 33.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 18 100.0
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 6 37.5
Female 10 62.5
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 22.2
2‐3 Times 12 66.7
4‐10 Times 0 0
More Than 10 Times 2 11.1
56
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 0 0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 10 55.6
Somewhat Successful 6 33.3
Very Successful 2 11.1
57
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 2 2 1 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 0 3 1 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 2 1 1 1 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 1 1 1 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 1 1 1 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 3 1 2 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 1 1 0 2 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 1 0 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 1 0 0 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 2 0 2 0 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 1 2 1 2 Acted with patience and self-control. 1 0 2 1 2 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 3 1 2 Displayed common sense. 1 0 1 1 3 Started proceedings on time. 1 0 2 0 3 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 2 1 3 Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 2 2 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 2 3 1 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 1 2 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 2 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 1 0 1 3 1
58
JUDGE DOUGLAS FRANKLIN 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 109 Distributed 46 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 30 Distributed 2 Completed
59
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.70 .0% .0% 5.0% 20.0% 75.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.35 .0% 5.0% 15.0% 20.0% 60.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.74 .0% .0% 5.3% 15.8% 78.9%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.63
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.67 .0% .0% 9.5% 14.3% 76.2% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.70 .0% .0% 10.0% 10.0% 80.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.65 .0% .0% 15.0% 5.0% 80.0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.48 .0% 4.8% 9.5% 19.0% 66.7% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.43
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 22 47.8
Employer 10 21.7
Labor and Industries 14 30.4
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 14 30.4
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 32 69.4
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 46 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 8.7
2‐5 Attorneys 20 43.5
6‐10 Attorneys 4 8.7
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 18 39.1
62
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 6 13.0
3‐5 years 6 13.0
6‐10 years 4 8.7
11‐20 years 16 34.8
More than 20 years 14 30.4
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 46 100.0
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 28 60.9
Female 18 39.1
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 18 39.1
2‐3 Times 16 34.8
4‐10 Times 8 17.4
More Than 10 Times 4 8.7
63
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 2 4.3
Somewhat Unsuccessful 14 30.4
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 14 30.4
Somewhat Successful 14 30.4
Very Successful 2 4.3
64
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 1 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 1 0 1 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 1 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 status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 0 1
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 1 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 1 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 1 0 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 1 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 1 1 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 1 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 1 1 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 1 0 1 Displayed common sense. 0 1 0 0 1 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 1 0 1 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 1 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 1 1 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 1 0 0 0 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 0 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 1 1
65
JUDGE JUDIT GEBHARDT 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 127 Distributed 38 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 37 Distributed 4 Completed
66
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.02
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.86 .0% 4.8% 33.3% 33.3% 28.6% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.10 .0% 4.8% 19.0% 38.1% 38.1% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.10 .0% 4.8% 23.8% 28.6% 42.9% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.21
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.20 .0% .0% 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.15 .0% .0% 30.0% 25.0% 45.0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.10 .0% .0% 30.0% 30.0% 40.0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.10 .0% .0% 35.0% 20.0% 45.0%
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. 4.05 .0% 10.5% 15.8% 31.6% 42.1%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.50 .0% .0% 10.0% 30.0% 60.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.23
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.25 .0% .0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.40 .0% .0% 15.0% 30.0% 55.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.20 .0% .0% 30.0% 20.0% 50.0% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.05 .0% .0% 35.0% 25.0% 40.0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.16
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 18 47.4
Employer 6 15.8
Labor and Industries 14 36.8
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 14 36.8
In House Corporate Counsel 2 5.3
Private Practice 22 57.9
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 38 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 5.3
2‐5 Attorneys 20 52.6
6‐10 Attorneys 2 5.3
11‐20 Attorneys 2 5.3
More Than 20 Attorneys 12 31.6
69
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 4 10.5
6‐10 years 4 10.5
11‐20 years 20 52.6
More than 20 years 10 26.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 34 94.4
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 5.6
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 20 58.8
Female 14 41.2
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 10 27.8
2‐3 Times 18 50.0
4‐10 Times 8 22.2
More Than 10 Times 0 0
70
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 11.8
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 11.8
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 8 23.5
Somewhat Successful 16 47.1
Very Successful 2 5.9
71
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 1 1 0 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 1 1 1 1 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 2 1 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 1 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 1 0 1 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 1 2 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 1 1 0 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 1 1 2 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 1 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 2 2 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 2 2 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 2 2 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 1 0 0 2 Displayed common sense. 1 0 1 0 2 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 3 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 2 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 2 2 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 1 1 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 1 1 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 1 1 1 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 1 1 0 1
72
JUDGE JAMES GILLIGAN 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 78 Distributed 48 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 84 Distributed 11 Completed
73
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.75 .0% 4.2% .0% 12.5% 83.3%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.69
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 16.7
Employer 14 29.2
Labor and Industries 26 54.2
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 26 54.2
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 20 41.7
Other 2 4.2
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 44 91.7
Paralegal 2 4.2
Lay Representative 2 4.2
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 4.5
2‐5 Attorneys 14 31.8
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 4 9.1
More Than 20 Attorneys 24 54.5
76
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 8 18.2
3‐5 years 4 9.1
6‐10 years 6 13.6
11‐20 years 14 31.8
More than 20 years 12 27.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 40 95.2
African American/Black 2 4.8
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 26 65.0
Female 14 35.0
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 8.3
2‐3 Times 22 45.8
4‐10 Times 14 29.2
More Than 10 Times 8 16.7
77
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 8.3
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 8.3
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 22 45.8
Somewhat Successful 16 33.3
Very Successful 2 4.2
78
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 1 2 5 1 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 1 3 3 3 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 2 0 3 5 0
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
2 0 2 1 6
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 2 2 1 3 3
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 5 2 1 3 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 2 4 3 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 1 4 2 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 1 3 2 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 1 0 4 2 4 Was attentive to proceedings. 1 0 3 3 3 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 2 3 2 4 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 3 3 3 2 Displayed common sense. 0 1 4 5 1 Started proceedings on time. 1 1 2 3 3 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 1 2 5 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 1 3 3 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 1 1 3 3 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 2 0 3 4 2 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 2 0 3 3 2 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 2 0 3 3 3
79
JUDGE JAN GRANT 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 79 Distributed 26 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 27 Distributed 3 Completed
80
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.85 .0% .0% .0% 15.4% 84.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.75
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 10 38.5
Employer 0 0
Labor and Industries 16 61.5
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 16 61.5
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 10 38.5
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 26 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 7.7
2‐5 Attorneys 6 23.1
6‐10 Attorneys 2 7.7
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 16 61.5
83
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 4 15.4
3‐5 years 2 7.7
6‐10 years 4 15.4
11‐20 years 8 30.8
More than 20 years 8 30.8
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 26 100.0
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 10 38.5
Female 16 61.5
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 10 38.5
2‐3 Times 14 53.8
4‐10 Times 2 7.7
More Than 10 Times 0 0
84
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 2 7.7
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 7.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 6 23.1
Somewhat Successful 10 38.5
Very Successful 6 23.1
85
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 0 3 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 0 3 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 0 0 3
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
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 0 3
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 0 0 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 0 3 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 3 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 0 3 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 0 3 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 0 3 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 0 3 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 0 3 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 0 3 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 0 3 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 0 3
86
JUDGE RANDALL HANSEN 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 100 Distributed 42 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 37 Distributed 1 Completed
87
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.26
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.23 .0% .0% 22.7% 31.8% 45.5% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.32 .0% .0% 18.2% 31.8% 50.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.23 .0% .0% 22.7% 31.8% 45.5% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.49
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.36 .0% .0% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.45 .0% .0% 13.6% 27.3% 59.1% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.50 .0% .0% 13.6% 22.7% 63.6% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.45 .0% .0% 13.6% 27.3% 59.1%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.70 .0% .0% 5.0% 20.0% 75.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.30 .0% .0% 25.0% 20.0% 55.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.67 .0% .0% 9.5% 14.3% 76.2%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.45
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 18 42.9
Employer 6 14.3
Labor and Industries 18 42.9
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 18 42.9
In House Corporate Counsel 2 4.8
Private Practice 20 47.6
Other 2 4.8
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 42 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 9.5
2‐5 Attorneys 14 33.3
6‐10 Attorneys 4 9.5
11‐20 Attorneys 2 4.8
More Than 20 Attorneys 18 42.9
90
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 4.8
3‐5 years 6 14.3
6‐10 years 4 9.5
11‐20 years 18 42.9
More than 20 years 12 28.6
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 32 100.0
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 24 70.6
Female 10 29.4
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 6 15.8
2‐3 Times 24 63.2
4‐10 Times 8 21.1
More Than 10 Times 0 0
91
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 5.3
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 14 36.8
Somewhat Successful 16 42.1
Very Successful 6 15.8
92
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 1 0 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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 1 0
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 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
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 58 Distributed 22 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 22 Distributed 3 Completed
94
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.80 .0% .0% 10.0% .0% 90.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.41
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 10 45.5
Employer 4 18.2
Labor and Industries 8 36.4
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 8 36.4
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 14 63.6
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 20 90.9
Paralegal 2 9.1
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 10.0
2‐5 Attorneys 6 30.0
6‐10 Attorneys 4 20.0
11‐20 Attorneys 2 10.0
More Than 20 Attorneys 6 30.0
97
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 4 20.0
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 2 10.0
More than 20 years 14 70.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 16 88.9
African American/Black 2 11.1
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 18 81.8
Female 4 18.2
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 18.2
2‐3 Times 2 9.1
4‐10 Times 8 36.4
More Than 10 Times 8 36.4
98
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 2 10.0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 10.0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 6 30.0
Somewhat Successful 10 50.0
Very Successful 0 0
99
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 0 3 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 1 0 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 0 0 3
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 2
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 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 1 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 0 1 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 0 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 1 2 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 3 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 0 3 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 1 2 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 2 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 1 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 1 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 0 3 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 1 2 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 1 2
100
JUDGE MITCHELL HARADA 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 77 Distributed 48 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 22 Distributed 4 Completed
101
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.67 .0% .0% 4.2% 25.0% 70.8% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.29 .0% 4.2% 8.3% 41.7% 45.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.58 .0% 4.2% .0% 29.2% 66.7%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.50
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 16.7
Employer 12 25.0
Labor and Industries 28 58.3
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 28 58.3
In House Corporate Counsel 4 8.3
Private Practice 16 33.3
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 48 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 13.0
2‐5 Attorneys 12 26.1
6‐10 Attorneys 2 4.3
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 26 56.5
104
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 4.5
3‐5 years 6 13.6
6‐10 years 12 27.3
11‐20 years 14 31.8
More than 20 years 10 22.7
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 44 95.7
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 4.3
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 20 43.5
Female 26 56.5
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 12 25.0
2‐3 Times 12 25.0
4‐10 Times 14 29.2
More Than 10 Times 10 20.8
105
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 6 12.5
Somewhat Unsuccessful 10 20.8
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 18 37.5
Somewhat Successful 12 25.0
Very Successful 2 4.2
106
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 1 0 1 0 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 0 0 1 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 1 1 0 0 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 0 1 0 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 2 0 0 0 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 1 0 0 2 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 1 0 1 0 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 0 1 1 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 0 0 1 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 1 0 0 1 2 Was attentive to proceedings. 1 0 1 0 2 Acted with patience and self-control. 1 0 1 0 2 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 1 0 0 2 Displayed common sense. 1 0 0 2 1 Started proceedings on time. 1 0 0 3 0 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 1 0 1 0 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 0 1 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 1 0 0 1 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 1 0 1 1 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 1 0 0 1 2 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 1 0 0 1 2
107
JUDGE JAMES HICKMAN 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 84 Distributed 46 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 35 Distributed 6 Completed
108
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.17
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.15 .0% .0% 15.0% 55.0% 30.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.16 .0% .0% 15.8% 52.6% 31.6% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.20 .0% .0% 25.0% 30.0% 45.0% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.40
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.27 .0% .0% 13.6% 45.5% 40.9% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.41 .0% .0% 4.5% 50.0% 45.5% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.27 .0% .0% 13.6% 45.5% 40.9%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.43 .0% .0% 4.8% 47.6% 47.6% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.42 .0% .0% 5.3% 47.4% 47.4%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.55 .0% .0% 4.5% 36.4% 59.1%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.58
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.64 .0% .0% 4.5% 27.3% 68.2% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.64 .0% .0% 4.5% 27.3% 68.2% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.59 .0% .0% 9.1% 22.7% 68.2% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.45 .0% .0% 15.0% 25.0% 60.0% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.39
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 4 8.7
Employer 14 30.4
Labor and Industries 28 60.9
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 28 60.9
In House Corporate Counsel 2 4.3
Private Practice 16 34.8
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 44 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 4.3
2‐5 Attorneys 8 17.4
6‐10 Attorneys 2 4.3
11‐20 Attorneys 4 8.7
More Than 20 Attorneys 30 65.2
111
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 4.3
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 10 21.7
11‐20 years 26 56.5
More than 20 years 8 17.4
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 42 91.3
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 8.7
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 20 43.5
Female 26 56.5
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 10 21.7
2‐3 Times 24 52.2
4‐10 Times 8 17.4
More Than 10 Times 4 8.7
112
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 10 23.8
Somewhat Unsuccessful 0 0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 8 19.0
Somewhat Successful 22 52.4
Very Successful 2 4.8
113
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 1 1 1 3 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 0 0 2 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 1 0 0 2 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 1 1 2 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 0 1 1 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 1 0 0 2 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 2 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 0 0 1 2 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 2 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 1 0 1 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 1 2 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 2 2 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 2 1 Displayed common sense. 1 0 1 1 2 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 2 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 1 2 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 1 1 2 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 1 0 0 1 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 1 0 0 1 2 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 1 3 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 1 1 2
114
JUDGE DANIEL JOHNSON 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 56 Distributed 22 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 15 Distributed 1 Completed
115
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
3.82 9.1% .0% 18.2% 45.5% 27.3%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 3.75
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 36.4
Employer 4 18.2
Labor and Industries 10 45.5
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 10 45.5
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 12 54.5
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 20 90.9
Paralegal 2 9.1
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 6 30.0
6‐10 Attorneys 4 20.0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 10 50.0
118
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 10.0
3‐5 years 2 10.0
6‐10 years 2 10.0
11‐20 years 6 30.0
More than 20 years 8 40.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 20 90.9
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 9.1
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 14 63.6
Female 8 36.4
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 2 9.1
2‐3 Times 6 27.3
4‐10 Times 6 27.3
More Than 10 Times 8 36.4
119
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 9.1
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 10 45.5
Somewhat Successful 10 45.5
Very Successful 0 0
120
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 0 1
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 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
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 67 Distributed 30 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 35 Distributed 3 Completed
122
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.57 .0% .0% .0% 42.9% 57.1% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.77 .0% .0% .0% 23.1% 76.9%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.53
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 16 53.3
Employer 2 6.7
Labor and Industries 12 40.0
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 12 40.0
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 18 60.0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 30 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 12 40.0
6‐10 Attorneys 4 13.3
11‐20 Attorneys 2 6.7
More Than 20 Attorneys 12 40.0
125
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 4 13.3
3‐5 years 4 13.3
6‐10 years 2 6.7
11‐20 years 8 26.7
More than 20 years 12 40.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 30 100.0
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 26 92.9
Female 2 7.1
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 13.3
2‐3 Times 10 33.3
4‐10 Times 14 46.7
More Than 10 Times 2 6.7
126
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 14.3
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 7.1
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 10 35.7
Somewhat Successful 10 35.7
Very Successful 2 7.1
127
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 1 0 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 1 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 0 1 1
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
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 0 3
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 1 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 1 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 1 0 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 1 0 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 3 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 0 3 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 1 1 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 0 2 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 1 0 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 1 2 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 1 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 1 0 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 1 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 0 3
128
JUDGE VERLAINE KEITH‐MILLER 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 126 Distributed 28 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 53 Distributed 3 Completed
129
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.00 .0% .0% 41.7% 16.7% 41.7%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 3.60
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 28.6
Employer 6 21.4
Labor and Industries 14 50.0
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 14 50.0
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 14 50.0
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 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 4 14.3
6‐10 Attorneys 8 28.6
11‐20 Attorneys 2 7.1
More Than 20 Attorneys 14 50.0
132
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 7.7
3‐5 years 4 15.4
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 10 38.5
More than 20 years 10 38.5
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 24 100.0
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 10 41.7
Female 14 58.3
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 0 0
2‐3 Times 14 50.0
4‐10 Times 12 42.9
More Than 10 Times 2 7.1
133
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 14.3
Somewhat Unsuccessful 8 28.6
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 6 21.4
Somewhat Successful 6 21.4
Very Successful 4 14.3
134
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 1 1 0 0 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 1 0 0 1 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 1 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.
1 0 1 0 1
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 2 0 0 0 1
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 1 0 1 0 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 1 1 0 0 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 0 1 0 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 0 1 0 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 2 0 0 0 1 Was attentive to proceedings. 2 0 0 0 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 2 0 0 0 1 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 1 0 0 1 Displayed common sense. 1 1 0 0 1 Started proceedings on time. 1 0 1 0 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 2 0 0 0 1 Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 0 0 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 2 0 0 0 1 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 2 0 0 0 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 1 0 0 0 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 2 0 0 0 1
135
JUDGE WAYNE LUCIA 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 94 Distributed 50 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 33 Distributed 2 Completed
136
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent Average
LEGAL ABILITY 3.52
3.46 4.2% 12.5% 29.2% 41.7% 12.5% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.
Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.63 4.2% 8.3% 25.0% 45.8% 16.7%
3.48 4.0% 16.0% 24.0% 40.0% 16.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.67
3.60 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% 40.0% 24.0% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Maintained a neutral presence. 3.44 8.0% 16.0% 20.0% 36.0% 20.0%
3.64 4.0% 4.0% 40.0% 28.0% 24.0% 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.
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.19 .0% 4.8% 9.5% 47.6% 38.1%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 3.54
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 18 36.0
Employer 10 20.0
Labor and Industries 22 44.0
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 22 44.0
In House Corporate Counsel 2 4.0
Private Practice 26 52.0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 50 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 12.0
2‐5 Attorneys 20 40.0
6‐10 Attorneys 4 8.0
11‐20 Attorneys 2 4.0
More Than 20 Attorneys 18 36.0
139
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 6 12.0
3‐5 years 6 12.0
6‐10 years 8 16.0
11‐20 years 14 28.0
More than 20 years 16 32.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 46 100.0
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 28 60.9
Female 18 39.1
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 14 28.0
2‐3 Times 10 20.0
4‐10 Times 10 20.0
More Than 10 Times 16 32.0
140
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 8.0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 8.0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 26 52.0
Somewhat Successful 12 24.0
Very Successful 4 8.0
141
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 0 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 0 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 0 0 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 0 2
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 0 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 0 2 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 1 0 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 0 0 2 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 0 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 2 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 0 2 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 2 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 0 2 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 0 2 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 0 2 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 0 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 0 2 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 0 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 0 2 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 0 2 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 0 2
142
JUDGE RICHARD MACKEY 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 66 Distributed 36 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 43 Distributed 6 Completed
143
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.54
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.50 .0% .0% 5.6% 38.9% 55.6% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.58 .0% .0% 5.3% 31.6% 63.2% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.53 .0% .0% 10.5% 26.3% 63.2% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.77
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.94 .0% .0% .0% 5.9% 94.1% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.83 .0% .0% .0% 16.7% 83.3% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.76 .0% .0% .0% 23.5% 76.5% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.76 .0% .0% .0% 23.5% 76.5%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.72 .0% .0% .0% 27.8% 72.2% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.65 .0% .0% .0% 35.3% 64.7%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.86 .0% .0% .0% 14.3% 85.7%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.89
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 22.2
Employer 6 16.7
Labor and Industries 22 61.1
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 22 61.1
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 14 38.9
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 36 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 11.1
2‐5 Attorneys 6 16.7
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 4 11.1
More Than 20 Attorneys 22 61.1
146
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 6 16.7
3‐5 years 4 11.1
6‐10 years 4 11.1
11‐20 years 10 27.8
More than 20 years 12 33.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 34 100.0
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 22 64.7
Female 12 35.3
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 11.1
2‐3 Times 10 27.8
4‐10 Times 18 50.0
More Than 10 Times 4 11.1
147
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 5.6
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 18 50.0
Somewhat Successful 10 27.8
Very Successful 6 16.7
148
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 2 0 1 0 3 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 2 0 1 0 3 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 2 0 1 0 3
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 0 2 0 3
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 3 0 0 0 3
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 3 0 3 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 3 0 3 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 3 0 2 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 3 0 3 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 1 2 0 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 3 0 3 Acted with patience and self-control. 1 0 2 0 3 Promoted a sense of fairness. 2 1 0 0 3 Displayed common sense. 2 0 1 0 2 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 3 0 3 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 3 0 3 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 3 0 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 3 0 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 3 0 3 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 3 0 3 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 3 0 3
149
JUDGE CRAIG MCDONALD 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 71 Distributed 40 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 47 Distributed 6 Completed
150
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.32 .0% 5.3% 15.8% 21.1% 57.9% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.05 .0% 15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 52.6% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.47 .0% .0% 15.8% 21.1% 63.2% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.58 .0% .0% 10.5% 21.1% 68.4%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.51
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 10 25.0
Employer 6 15.0
Labor and Industries 22 55.0
Other 2 5.0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 24 60.0
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 16 40.0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 40 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 10.5
2‐5 Attorneys 8 21.1
6‐10 Attorneys 4 10.5
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 22 57.9
153
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 4 10.0
3‐5 years 2 5.0
6‐10 years 4 10.0
11‐20 years 12 30.0
More than 20 years 18 45.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 36 94.7
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 5.3
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 22 61.1
Female 14 38.9
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 8 21.1
2‐3 Times 8 21.1
4‐10 Times 14 36.8
More Than 10 Times 8 21.1
154
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 10 26.3
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 18 47.4
Somewhat Successful 6 15.8
Very Successful 4 10.5
155
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 2 0 0 2 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 1 0 1 2 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 2 0 0 1 3
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
2 0 0 2 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 2 0 0 2 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 1 1 0 3 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 1 1 0 2 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 1 0 1 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 1 0 2 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 1 0 1 3 1 Was attentive to proceedings. 1 0 1 3 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 1 0 1 3 1 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 1 0 3 1 Displayed common sense. 1 0 1 2 1 Started proceedings on time. 1 0 1 2 2 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 1 0 1 2 1 Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 1 3 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 1 1 0 2 1 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 1 1 0 2 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 1 0 1 2 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 1 1 0 3 1
156
JUDGE THOMAS MERRILL 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 119 Distributed 32 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 54 Distributed 7 Completed
157
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.19 .0% 12.5% 12.5% 18.8% 56.3%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.22
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 12 37.5
Employer 6 18.8
Labor and Industries 14 43.8
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 14 41.2
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 18 56.3
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 32 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 12 37.5
6‐10 Attorneys 4 12.5
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 16 50.0
160
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 6.7
3‐5 years 2 6.7
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 10 33.3
More than 20 years 16 53.3
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 22 78.6
Female 6 21.4
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 10 33.3
2‐3 Times 16 53.3
4‐10 Times 4 13.3
More Than 10 Times 0 0
161
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 2 6.7
Somewhat Unsuccessful 6 20.0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 6 20.0
Somewhat Successful 8 26.7
Very Successful 8 26.7
162
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 1 2 1 1 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 3 1 1 2 0 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 4 0 1 2 0
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
2 0 1 1 1
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 3 0 1 2 0
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 1 2 0 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 1 2 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 1 1 1 0 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 0 0 1 0 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 1 0 2 0 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 3 0 Acted with patience and self-control. 1 0 1 1 0 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 1 0 2 0 Displayed common sense. 2 0 0 2 0 Started proceedings on time. 2 0 1 1 0 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 1 1 0 2 0 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 1 2 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 2 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 1 1 2 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 1 0 0 3 0 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 2 1
163
JUDGE MICHAEL METZGER 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 82 Distributed 28 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 20 Distributed 1 Completed
164
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.24
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.13 .0% .0% 26.7% 33.3% 40.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.27 .0% .0% 20.0% 33.3% 46.7% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.33 .0% .0% 13.3% 40.0% 46.7% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.41
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.29 .0% .0% 21.4% 28.6% 50.0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.50 .0% .0% 7.1% 35.7% 57.1% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.57 .0% .0% .0% 42.9% 57.1%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.43 .0% .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 3.93 .0% .0% 35.7% 35.7% 28.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.79 .0% .0% .0% 21.4% 78.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.38
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.43 .0% .0% 7.1% 42.9% 50.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.57 .0% .0% 7.1% 28.6% 64.3% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.29 .0% .0% 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.21 .0% .0% 14.3% 50.0% 35.7% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.45
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 28.6
Employer 10 35.7
Labor and Industries 10 35.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 10 35.7
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 16 57.1
Other 2 7.1
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
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 12 42.9
167
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 6 21.4
6‐10 years 6 21.4
11‐20 years 12 42.9
More than 20 years 4 14.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 26 92.9
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 7.1
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 10 38.5
Female 16 61.5
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 6 21.4
2‐3 Times 6 21.4
4‐10 Times 10 35.7
More Than 10 Times 6 21.4
168
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 7.1
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 10 35.7
Somewhat Successful 12 42.9
Very Successful 4 14.3
169
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 0 1 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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 0 1
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 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
170
JUDGE RANDAL MILHOLAND 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 61 Distributed 10 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 27 Distributed 2 Completed
171
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.60 .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 60.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.55
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 4 44.4
Employer 3 33.3
Labor and Industries 2 22.2
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 2 20.0
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 8 80.0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 10 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 20.0
2‐5 Attorneys 1 10.0
6‐10 Attorneys 2 20.0
11‐20 Attorneys 3 30.0
More Than 20 Attorneys 2 20.0
174
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 3 30.0
11‐20 years 5 50.0
More than 20 years 2 20.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 10 100.0
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 5 50.0
Female 5 50.0
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 0 0
2‐3 Times 9 90.0
4‐10 Times 1 10.0
More Than 10 Times 0 0
175
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 3 30.0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 20.0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 2 20.0
Somewhat Successful 3 30.0
Very Successful 0 0
176
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 1 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 1 1 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 0 1 1
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 0 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 0 1
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 1 0 0 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 1 0 0 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 1 0 0 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 1 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 1 1 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 1 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 1 1 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 1 0 0 1 Displayed common sense. 0 1 0 0 1 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 1 1 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 1 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 1 0 1 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 1 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 1 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 1 1
177
JUDGE CAROL MOLCHIOR 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 109 Distributed 24 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 55 Distributed 5 Completed
178
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.30
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.27 .0% .0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44
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%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.40 .0% .0% 10.0% 40.0% 50.0% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.50 .0% .0% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0%
COMMUNICATION 4.24
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.09 .0% .0% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.00 .0% .0% 27.3% 45.5% 27.3% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.50 .0% .0% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3%
179
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.39
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.55 .0% .0% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.27 .0% .0% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.24
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 36.4
Employer 6 27.3
Labor and Industries 8 36.4
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 10 41.7
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 14 58.3
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 24 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 16.7
2‐5 Attorneys 6 25.0
6‐10 Attorneys 2 8.3
11‐20 Attorneys 2 8.3
More Than 20 Attorneys 10 41.7
181
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 8.3
3‐5 years 2 8.3
6‐10 years 2 8.3
11‐20 years 8 33.3
More than 20 years 10 41.7
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 24 100.0
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 12 54.5
Female 10 45.5
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 16.7
2‐3 Times 12 50.0
4‐10 Times 6 25.0
More Than 10 Times 2 8.3
182
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 16.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 8 33.3
Somewhat Successful 10 41.7
Very Successful 2 8.3
183
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 4 0 1 0 0 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 3 0 2 0 0 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 4 0 1 0 0
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
3 0 1 0 0
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 4 0 1 0 0
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 1 2 2 0 0 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 2 3 0 0 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 2 0 3 0 0 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 3 0 2 0 0 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 2 3 0 0 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 3 2 0 0 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 3 2 0 0 Promoted a sense of fairness. 4 1 0 0 0 Displayed common sense. 2 0 3 0 0 Started proceedings on time. 1 1 2 0 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 2 3 0 0 Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 4 0 0 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 2 2 1 0 0 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 1 2 2 0 0 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 1 2 2 0 0 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 2 2 1 0 0
184
JUDGE JOAN O’CONNELL 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 68 Distributed 4 Completed
185
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.10
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.20 .0% .0% 10.0% 60.0% 30.0% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.10 .0% .0% 10.0% 70.0% 20.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.00 .0% .0% 18.2% 63.6% 18.2% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.33 .0% .0% 8.3% 50.0% 41.7% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.30 .0% .0% 10.0% 50.0% 40.0% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.36 .0% .0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.45 .0% .0% 9.1% 36.4% 54.5% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.56 .0% .0% .0% 44.4% 55.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.64 .0% .0% .0% 36.4% 63.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
4.42 .0% .0% 8.3% 41.7% 50.0%
COMMUNICATION 4.26
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.33 .0% .0% 8.3% 50.0% 41.7% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 4.08 .0% .0% 16.7% 58.3% 25.0% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.11 .0% .0% 11.1% 66.7% 22.2% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.50 .0% .0% 10.0% 30.0% 60.0%
186
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.45
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 6 21.1
Employer 6 21.4
Labor and Industries 16 57.1
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 16 57.1
In House Corporate Counsel 2 7.1
Private Practice 10 35.7
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 26 92.9
Paralegal 2 7.1
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 15.4
2‐5 Attorneys 4 15.4
6‐10 Attorneys 2 7.7
11‐20 Attorneys 2 7.7
More Than 20 Attorneys 14 53.8
188
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 7.7
3‐5 years 2 7.7
6‐10 years 6 23.1
11‐20 years 8 30.8
More than 20 years 8 30.8
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 26 100.0
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 16 61.5
Female 10 38.5
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 6 21.4
2‐3 Times 14 50.0
4‐10 Times 4 14.3
More Than 10 Times 4 14.3
189
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 14.3
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 22 78.6
Somewhat Successful 2 7.1
Very Successful 0 0
190
Litigant Ratings
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 0 4 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 0 4 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 0 0 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 0 4
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 0 4
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 0 0 4 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 0 4 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 1 0 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 1 3 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 4 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 0 4 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 4 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 0 4 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 0 4 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 0 4 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 0 4 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 0 4 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 0 4 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 0 4 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 0 4 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 0 4
191
JUDGE ROBERT RAYMOND 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 58 Distributed 12 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 24 Distributed 4 Completed
192
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.80 .0% .0% 20.0% 80.0% .0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.50
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.67 .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 66.7% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.00 .0% .0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.03
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 0 0
Employer 0 0
Labor and Industries 12 100.0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 12 100.0
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 0 0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 10 83.3
Paralegal 2 16.7
Lay Representative 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 0 0
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 10 100.0
195
Years as Attorney Number Percent
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
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 12 100.0
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 6 50.0
Female 6 50.0
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 2 16.7
2‐3 Times 8 66.7
4‐10 Times 2 16.7
More Than 10 Times 0 0
196
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 2 16.7
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 16.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 4 33.3
Somewhat Successful 4 33.3
Very Successful 0 0
197
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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 1 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 0 3 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 0 0 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 0 3 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 0 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 0 3 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 3 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 0 3 Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 1 3 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 3 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 1 3 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 1 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 0 3 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 1 3 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 1 3 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 1 3
198
JUDGE BRUCE RIDLEY 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 95 Distributed 46 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 45 Distributed 5 Completed
199
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 3.96
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 3.83 .0% 16.7% 12.5% 41.7% 29.2% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.04 .0% 8.3% 20.8% 29.2% 41.7% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.00 .0% 4.2% 25.0% 37.5% 33.3% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.22
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.46 .0% .0% 20.8% 12.5% 66.7%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.26
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 26 56.5
Employer 14 30.4
Labor and Industries 4 8.7
Other 2 4.3
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 4 8.7
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 42 91.3
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 44 95.7
Paralegal 2 4.3
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 13.6
2‐5 Attorneys 20 45.5
6‐10 Attorneys 10 22.7
11‐20 Attorneys 2 4.5
More Than 20 Attorneys 6 13.6
202
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 4.5
3‐5 years 2 4.5
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 8 18.2
More than 20 years 32 72.7
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 42 95.5
African American/Black 2 4.5
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 38 86.4
Female 6 13.6
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 8 17.4
2‐3 Times 16 34.8
4‐10 Times 20 43.5
More Than 10 Times 2 4.3
203
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 8.7
Somewhat Unsuccessful 8 17.4
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 8 17.4
Somewhat Successful 16 34.8
Very Successful 10 21.7
204
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 1 1 0 1 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 2 0 0 1 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 1 1 0 1 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 1 0 1 2
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 1 0 1 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 1 1 1 0 2 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 1 1 1 0 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 2 0 0 0 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 2 0 1 0 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 1 1 0 1 2 Was attentive to proceedings. 1 1 0 1 2 Acted with patience and self-control. 1 1 0 0 2 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 1 0 1 2 Displayed common sense. 2 0 0 1 2 Started proceedings on time. 2 0 0 1 2 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 2 0 0 1 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 1 0 1 2 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 1 0 0 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 1 0 1 0 2 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 1 1 1 2 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 1 1 0 1 2
205
JUDGE DONNA SHIPPS 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 68 Distributed 25 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 69 Distributed 1 Completed
206
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.30 .0% 4.3% 13.0% 30.4% 52.2% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.21 .0% 8.3% 12.5% 29.2% 50.0% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.46 .0% .0% 8.3% 37.5% 54.2% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.33 .0% 4.2% 8.3% 37.5% 50.0%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.57 .0% .0% 4.8% 33.3% 61.9% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.33 .0% .0% 12.5% 41.7% 45.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.73 .0% .0% 4.5% 18.2% 77.3%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.26
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 11 44.0
Employer 8 32.0
Labor and Industries 5 20.0
Other 1 4.0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 5 20.0
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 19 76.0
Other 1 4.0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 23 95.8
Paralegal 1 4.2
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 7 29.2
2‐5 Attorneys 10 41.7
6‐10 Attorneys 2 8.3
11‐20 Attorneys 1 4.2
More Than 20 Attorneys 4 16.7
209
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 1 4.3
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 8 34.8
More than 20 years 14 60.9
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 24 100.0
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 19 79.2
Female 5 20.8
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 7 29.2
2‐3 Times 9 37.5
4‐10 Times 6 25.0
More Than 10 Times 2 8.3
210
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 3 12.5
Somewhat Unsuccessful 3 12.5
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 5 20.8
Somewhat Successful 10 41.7
Very Successful 3 12.5
211
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 0 0 1 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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 0 1
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 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
212
JUDGE ROBERT SPAULDING 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 66 Distributed 14 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 21 Distributed 3 Completed
213
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.17 .0% .0% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.29 .0% .0% .0% 71.4% 28.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.50 .0% .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.25
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 2 14.3
Employer 0 0
Labor and Industries 12 85.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 12 85.7
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 2 14.3
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 14 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 2 14.3
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 12 85.7
216
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 4 28.6
3‐5 years 2 14.3
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 6 42.9
More than 20 years 2 14.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 14 100.0
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 8 57.1
Female 6 42.9
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 8 57.1
2‐3 Times 4 28.6
4‐10 Times 2 14.3
More Than 10 Times 0 0
217
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 28.6
Somewhat Unsuccessful 0 0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 6 42.9
Somewhat Successful 4 28.6
Very Successful 0 0
218
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 2 0 0 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 2 0 0 1 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 1 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.
1 0 1 0 1
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 1 0 0 1
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 1 0 1 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 1 0 0 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 1 0 0 1 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 0 0 1 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 1 1 0 1 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 1 1 0 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 1 0 1 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 0 1 1 Displayed common sense. 0 1 0 1 1 Started proceedings on time. 0 1 0 1 1 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 2 0 0 1 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 1 0 0 2 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 1 0 0 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 1 1 0 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 1 1 0 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 1 1 0 0 1
219
JUDGE CRAIG STEWART 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 66 Distributed 42 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 44 Distributed 2 Completed
220
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.31
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.23 .0% 4.5% 13.6% 36.4% 45.5% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.43 .0% 4.8% 4.8% 33.3% 57.1% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.27 .0% 4.5% 9.1% 40.9% 45.5% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.41
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.27 .0% 4.5% 9.1% 40.9% 45.5% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.38 .0% 4.8% 4.8% 38.1% 52.4% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.38 .0% .0% 14.3% 33.3% 52.4% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.32 .0% 4.5% .0% 54.5% 40.9%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.41 .0% .0% 13.6% 31.8% 54.5% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.40 .0% .0% 15.0% 30.0% 55.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.65 .0% .0% 5.0% 25.0% 70.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.45
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 22 52.4
Employer 4 9.5
Labor and Industries 16 38.1
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 16 38.1
In House Corporate Counsel 2 4.8
Private Practice 24 57.1
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 42 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 14.3
2‐5 Attorneys 12 28.6
6‐10 Attorneys 6 14.3
11‐20 Attorneys 2 4.8
More Than 20 Attorneys 16 38.1
223
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 4.8
3‐5 years 6 14.3
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 26 61.9
More than 20 years 8 19.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 38 100.0
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 24 66.7
Female 12 33.3
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 6 14.3
2‐3 Times 16 38.1
4‐10 Times 18 42.9
More Than 10 Times 2 4.8
224
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 9.5
Somewhat Unsuccessful 14 33.3
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 4 9.5
Somewhat Successful 14 33.3
Very Successful 6 14.3
225
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 1 1 0 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 0 2 0 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 1 1 0
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 0 1 1
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 1 0
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 1 1 0 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 1 1 0 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 1 1 0 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 1 0 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 2 0 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 2 0 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 2 0 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 0 2 0 Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 1 0 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 2 0 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 2 0 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 2 0 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 2 0 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 2 0 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 2 0 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 2 0
226
JUDGE KATHLEEN STOCKMAN 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 96 Distributed 48 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 43 Distributed 6 Completed
227
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.24
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.13 .0% .0% 21.7% 43.5% 34.8% Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.38 .0% .0% 12.5% 37.5% 50.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.21 .0% .0% 20.8% 37.5% 41.7% INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.49
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.58 .0% .0% 8.3% 25.0% 66.7% Maintained a neutral presence. 4.46 .0% 4.2% 12.5% 16.7% 66.7% Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case. 4.48 .0% .0% 17.4% 17.4% 65.2% Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.46 .0% .0% 12.5% 29.2% 58.3%
Refrained from inappropriate ex parte communication. 4.57 .0% .0% 13.0% 17.4% 69.6% Based decisions on the law and facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel. 4.27 .0% 4.5% 13.6% 31.8% 50.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.65 .0% .0% 4.3% 26.1% 69.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
4.46 4.2% .0% 4.2% 29.2% 62.5%
COMMUNICATION 4.27
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 4.25 .0% .0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 3.96 .0% .0% 34.8% 34.8% 30.4% Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 4.27 .0% .0% 22.7% 27.3% 50.0% Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.59 .0% .0% 13.6% 13.6% 72.7%
228
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.62
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.67 .0% .0% 4.2% 25.0% 70.8% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.63 .0% .0% 4.2% 29.2% 66.7% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.58 .0% .0% 8.3% 25.0% 66.7% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.61 .0% .0% 8.7% 21.7% 69.6% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.32
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 16 33.3
Employer 10 20.8
Labor and Industries 22 45.8
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 22 45.8
In House Corporate Counsel 2 4.2
Private Practice 24 50.0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 46 95.8
Paralegal 2 4.2
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 4.3
2‐5 Attorneys 16 34.8
6‐10 Attorneys 8 17.4
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 20 43.5
230
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 4 8.7
6‐10 years 2 4.3
11‐20 years 28 60.9
More than 20 years 12 26.1
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 44 95.7
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 4.3
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 26 54.2
Female 22 45.8
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 16 33.3
2‐3 Times 16 33.3
4‐10 Times 16 33.3
More Than 10 Times 0 0
231
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 8 19.0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 10 23.8
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 6 14.3
Somewhat Successful 12 28.6
Very Successful 6 14.3
232
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 2 0 0 0 3 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 1 0 1 3 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 2 0 0 0 3
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 0 1 0 3
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 1 0 0 3
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 1 1 3 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 1 1 0 1 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 0 0 1 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 1 0 1 2 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 1 1 0 3 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 1 0 1 3 Acted with patience and self-control. 1 0 1 0 3 Promoted a sense of fairness. 2 0 0 0 3 Displayed common sense. 1 1 0 0 3 Started proceedings on time. 0 1 1 0 3 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 1 0 0 1 3 Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 1 0 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 2 0 0 3 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 1 1 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 0 3 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 1 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 45 Distributed 30 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 26 Distributed 0 Completed
234
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.21 .0% 7.1% 21.4% 14.3% 57.1%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.28
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.40 .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.27 .0% .0% 33.3% 6.7% 60.0% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.33 .0% .0% 20.0% 26.7% 53.3% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.13 .0% 6.7% 26.7% 13.3% 53.3% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.07
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 28.6
Employer 10 35.7
Labor and Industries 10 35.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 10 33.3
In House Corporate Counsel 4 13.3
Private Practice 16 53.3
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 30 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 13.3
2‐5 Attorneys 14 46.7
6‐10 Attorneys 2 6.7
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 10 33.3
237
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 6.7
3‐5 years 2 6.7
6‐10 years 6 20.0
11‐20 years 8 26.7
More than 20 years 12 40.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 28 93.3
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 6.7
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 22 78.6
Female 6 21.4
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 10 33.3
2‐3 Times 12 40.0
4‐10 Times 2 6.7
More Than 10 Times 6 20.0
238
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 13.3
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 6.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 10 33.3
Somewhat Successful 14 46.7
Very Successful 0 0
239
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 2 0 0 0 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 1 0 1 1 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 2 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.
1 0 1 0 1
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 1 0 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
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 55 Distributed 18 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 22 Distributed 3 Completed
241
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.75 .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 75.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.48
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 10 55.6
Employer 4 22.2
Labor and Industries 4 22.2
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 4 22.2
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 14 77.8
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 18 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 12.5
2‐5 Attorneys 8 50.0
6‐10 Attorneys 2 12.5
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 4 25.0
244
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 4 25.0
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 2 12.5
11‐20 years 2 12.5
More than 20 years 8 50.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 18 100.0
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 10 55.6
Female 8 44.4
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 6 33.3
2‐3 Times 4 22.2
4‐10 Times 4 22.2
More Than 10 Times 4 22.2
245
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 0 0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 14 77.8
Somewhat Successful 4 22.2
Very Successful 0 0
246
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 1 1 1 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 1 0 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 0 0 1 1 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 status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 1 0
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 0 1 1 1 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 1 1 1 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 0 0 1 1 0 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 1 0 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 1 1 1 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 1 1 1 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 1 1 1 Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 1 1 1 Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 1 1 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 2 0 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 1 1 1 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 1 1 1 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 1 1 1 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 1 1 0 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 1 0 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 1 1 1
247
JUDGE TIMOTHY WAKENSHAW 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 124 Distributed 38 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 35 Distributed 7 Completed
248
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.61 .0% .0% 5.6% 27.8% 66.7%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.70
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.79 .0% .0% .0% 21.1% 78.9% Was attentive to proceedings. 4.79 .0% .0% .0% 21.1% 78.9% Acted with patience and self-control. 4.68 .0% .0% .0% 31.6% 68.4% Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.53 .0% .0% 10.5% 26.3% 63.2% ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.41
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 10 26.3
Employer 10 26.3
Labor and Industries 18 47.4
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 18 47.4
In House Corporate Counsel 2 5.3
Private Practice 18 47.4
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 38 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 16.7
2‐5 Attorneys 4 11.1
6‐10 Attorneys 6 16.7
11‐20 Attorneys 2 5.6
More Than 20 Attorneys 18 50.0
251
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 6 16.7
6‐10 years 6 16.7
11‐20 years 14 38.9
More than 20 years 10 27.8
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 38 100.0
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 16 44.4
Female 20 55.6
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 6 15.8
2‐3 Times 26 68.4
4‐10 Times 6 15.8
More Than 10 Times 0 0
252
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 10.5
Somewhat Unsuccessful 8 21.1
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 14 36.8
Somewhat Successful 8 21.1
Very Successful 4 10.5
253
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 4 1 0 0 2 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 2 2 1 0 2 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 4 1 0 0 2
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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 4 1 0 0 2
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 2 1 0 2 2 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 2 1 1 1 2 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 3 1 1 0 2 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 2 1 0 2 1 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3 0 1 1 2 Was attentive to proceedings. 3 1 0 1 2 Acted with patience and self-control. 3 0 1 1 2 Promoted a sense of fairness. 5 0 0 0 2 Displayed common sense. 3 2 0 0 2 Started proceedings on time. 3 0 0 2 2 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 3 0 2 0 2 Maintained control over the proceedings. 2 1 0 0 3 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 5 0 0 0 2 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 3 0 1 1 1 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 3 0 2 1 1 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 3 0 1 1 2
254
JUDGE STEVEN YEAGER 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 54 Distributed 22 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 37 Distributed 7 Completed
255
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.35
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.
Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
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%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.55 .0% .0% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.45
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%
4.13 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 36.4
Employer 8 36.4
Labor and Industries 6 27.3
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 6 27.3
In House Corporate Counsel 2 9.1
Private Practice 14 63.6
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 22 100.0
Paralegal 0 0
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 27.3
2‐5 Attorneys 4 18.2
6‐10 Attorneys 4 18.2
11‐20 Attorneys 2 9.1
More Than 20 Attorneys 6 27.3
258
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 2 9.1
3‐5 years 2 9.1
6‐10 years 4 18.2
11‐20 years 6 27.3
More than 20 years 8 36.4
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 22 100.0
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 81.8
Female 4 18.2
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 18.2
2‐3 Times 4 18.2
4‐10 Times 6 27.3
More Than 10 Times 8 36.4
259
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 0 0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 18.2
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 12 54.5
Somewhat Successful 4 18.2
Very Successful 2 9.1
260
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Always appeared neutral. 0 0 2 0 5 Permitted all parties to be heard and present their case.. 0 0 1 1 5 Conducted proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial insurance appeals system. 1 0 0 1 5
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 1 1 5
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their status as an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 0 0 2 4
Used clear and logical oral communication during proceedings. 0 1 0 1 5 Acted decisively throughout proceedings. 0 0 1 2 4 Prepared clear and logical written decisions and orders. 1 0 0 2 3 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 0 5 Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 1 6 Was attentive to proceedings. 0 0 0 1 6 Acted with patience and self-control. 0 0 0 0 7 Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 0 0 6 Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 2 4 Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 6 Was prepared for hearings and conferences. 0 0 0 1 6 Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 0 7 Appropriately enforced rules and orders. 0 0 0 1 6 Appropriately enforced deadlines. 0 0 0 1 6 Prepared orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 2 5 Managed the proceedings efficiently. 0 0 0 2 5
261
JUDGE LAURA BRADLEY BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 248 Distributed 41 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 0 Distributed 0 Completed
262
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.52
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.
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.36 0 0 9.5% 45.2% 45.2%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.60 0 0 9.3% 20.9% 69.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.64
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%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.49
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 19.5
Employer 18 43.9
Labor and Industries 15 36.6
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 15 36.6
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 16 39.0
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
8 19.5
Other 2 4.9
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 21 51.2
Paralegal 12 29.3
Lay Representative 8 19.5
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 19.0
2‐5 Attorneys 10 47.6
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 2 9.5
More Than 20 Attorneys 5 23.8
265
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 7 33.3
6‐10 years 2 9.5
11‐20 years 3 14.3
More than 20 years 9 42.9
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 39 95.1
African American/Black 1 2.4
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 1 2.4
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 23 56.1
Female 18 43.9
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 15 36.6
2‐3 Times 11 26.8
4‐10 Times 7 17.1
More Than 10 Times 8 19.5
266
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 8 20.0
Somewhat Unsuccessful 5 12.5
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 4 10.0
Somewhat Successful 9 22.5
Very Successful 14 35.0
267
JUDGE S. FREDERICK FELLER BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 227 Distributed 37 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 21 Distributed 2 Completed
268
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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%
4.76 0 0 8.1% 8.1% 83.8% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.78
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%
4.83 0 0 2.9% 11.4% 85.7% 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.
4.76 0 2.7% 2.7% 10.8% 83.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.81 0 0 5.6% 8.3% 86.1%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 0 4.78 3.7% 14.8% 81.5%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.83 0 0 2.9% 11.4% 85.7%
269
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.76
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%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.73
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.
Was prepared for proceedings. 4.75 0 0 5.6% 13.9% 80.6%
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.
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.74 0 0 6.5% 83.9% 9.7%
4.65 0 2.7% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 2.7% 21.6% 73.0%
270
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 10 27.0
Employer 7 18.9
Labor and Industries 20 54.1
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 20 54.1
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 12 32.4
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
5 13.5
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 19 51.4
Paralegal 13 35.1
Lay Representative 5 13.5
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 2 10.5
2‐5 Attorneys 10 52.6
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 1 5.3
More Than 20 Attorneys 6 31.6
271
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 3 17.6
11‐20 years 6 35.3
More than 20 years 8 47.1
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 27 87.1
African American/Black 2 6.5
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 6.5
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 13 43.3
Female 17 56.7
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 2 5.4
2‐3 Times 14 37.8
4‐10 Times 10 27.0
More Than 10 Times 11 29.7
272
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 2 5.9
Somewhat Unsuccessful 1 2.9
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 12 35.3
Somewhat Successful 9 26.5
Very Successful 10 29.4
273
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
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
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 147 Distributed 65 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 18 Distributed 0 Completed
275
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent Average
LEGAL ABILITY 4.24
4.20 0 9.2% 7.7% 36.9% 46.2% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.
Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.29 0 3.1% 12.3% 36.9% 47.7%
4.22 1.5% 10.8% 3.1% 33.8% 50.8% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.09
4.27 4.7% 7.8% 7.8% 15.6% 64.1% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Maintained a neutral presence. 3.78 4.6% 16.9% 6.2% 40.0% 32.3%
4.08 4.6% 7.7% 16.9% 16.9% 53.8% 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.
3.97 7.7% 10.8% 9.2% 21.5% 50.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.57 0 0 7.9% 27.0% 65.1%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 3.98
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.88 7.7% 9.2% 9.2% 35.4% 38.5%
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%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 3.77 7.7% 10.8% 10.8% 38.5% 32.3%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.23
Displayed common sense. 4.05 0 7.7% 21.5% 29.2% 41.5%
4.25 0 0 23.3% 28.3% 48.3% Started proceedings on time.
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.
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.59 0 0 30.4% 64.3% 5.4%
3.79 9.5% 7.9% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 9.5% 39.7% 33.3%
277
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 11 16.9
Employer 33 50.8
Labor and Industries 19 29.2
Other 2 3.1
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 19 29.2
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 14 21.5
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
30 46.2
Other 2 3.1
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 22 33.8
Paralegal 13 20.0
Lay Representative 26 40.0
Other 4 6.2
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 5 22.7
2‐5 Attorneys 10 45.5
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 1 4.5
More Than 20 Attorneys 6 27.3
278
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 3 13.6
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 7 31.8
11‐20 years 2 9.1
More than 20 years 10 45.5
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 55 93.2
African American/Black 2 3.4
Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 3.4
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 20 33.9
Female 39 66.1
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 7 11.7
2‐3 Times 19 31.7
4‐10 Times 19 31.7
More Than 10 Times 15 25.0
279
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 6.6
Somewhat Unsuccessful 12 19.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 17 27.9
Somewhat Successful 19 31.1
Very Successful 9 14.8
280
JUDGE LYLE O. HANSON BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 124 Distributed 30 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 29 Distributed 3 Completed
281
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
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%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.71
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%
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
0 0 6.7% 80.0% 13.3% 4.67
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0% 4.67
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
4.60 0 0 20.0% 0 80.0%
COMMUNICATION 4.69
Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.67 0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%
Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 4.80 0 0 0 20.0% 80.0%
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 0 4.62 15.4% 7.7% 76.9%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.67 0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%
282
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.68
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%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.67 0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.60 0 0 20.0% 0 80.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.70
Displayed common sense. 4.67 0 0 13.3% 6.7% 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%
Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.67 0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%
Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.67 0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%
Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.67 0 0 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.67 0 0 6.7% 80.0% 13.3%
0 4.67 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 13.3% 6.7% 80.0%
283
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 8 26.7
Employer 14 46.7
Labor and Industries 8 26.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 8 26.7
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 10 33.3
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
12 40.0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 12 40.0
Paralegal 6 20.0
Lay Representative 12 40.0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 4 33.3
2‐5 Attorneys 4 33.3
6‐10 Attorneys 2 16.7
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 2 16.7
284
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 4 33.3
3‐5 years 2 16.7
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 0 0
More than 20 years 6 50.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 26 92.9
African American/Black 2 7.1
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 22 73.3
Female 8 26.7
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 0 0
2‐3 Times 10 33.3
4‐10 Times 12 40.0
More Than 10 Times 8 26.7
285
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 13.3
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 13.3
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 12 40.0
Somewhat Successful 0 0
Very Successful 10 33.3
286
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
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
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 72 Distributed 18 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 34 Distributed 1 Completed
288
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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.
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
3.00 .0% 5.6% 11.1% 27.8% 55.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
3.40 .0% .0% 5.6% 16.7% 77.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 3.21
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 9 50.0
Employer 3 16.7
Labor and Industries 6 33.3
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 6 33.3
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 12 66.7
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
0 0
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 13 72.2
Paralegal 5 27.8
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 1 7.7
2‐5 Attorneys 11 84.6
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 1 7.7
291
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 1 7.7
More than 20 years 12 92.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 17 94.4
African American/Black 1 5.6
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
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 1 5.9
2‐3 Times 5 29.4
4‐10 Times 5 29.4
More Than 10 Times 6 35.3
292
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 1 5.6
Somewhat Unsuccessful 2 11.1
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 9 50.0
Somewhat Successful 3 16.7
Very Successful 3 16.7
293
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
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
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
1 0 0 0 0
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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
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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 186 Distributed 24 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 20 Distributed 1 Completed
295
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
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.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.15
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.
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
3.00 50.0% 0 0 0 50.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
3.40 20.0% 0 40.0% 0 40.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 3.21
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%
3.77 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 4 16.7
Employer 16 66.7
Labor and Industries 4 16.7
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 4 16.7
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 16 66.7
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
4 16.7
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 16 66.7
Paralegal 4 16.7
Lay Representative 0 0
Other 4 16.7
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 12 75.0
6‐10 Attorneys 4 25.0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 0 0
298
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 4 25.0
More than 20 years 12 75.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 16 80.0
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 20.0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 8 40
Female 12 60
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 16.7
2‐3 Times 16 66.7
4‐10 Times 0 0
More Than 10 Times 4 16.7
299
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 4 16.7
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 16.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 4 16.7
Somewhat Successful 4 16.7
Very Successful 8 33.3
300
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Maintained a neutral presence. 0 0 1 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. 0 0 1 0 0 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 0 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 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. 0 0 1 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 0 1 0 0Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 1 0 0Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 1 0 0Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 0 0Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 0 0Was prepared for proceedings. 0 0 1 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 0Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 0 1 0 0
301
JUDGE JUDITH KLAYMAN BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 231 Distributed 56 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 24 Distributed 1 Completed
302
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent Average
LEGAL ABILITY 4.65
4.61 0 3.6% 0 28.6% 67.9% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.
Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.57 0 0 3.6% 35.7% 60.7%
4.78 0 0 3.7% 14.8% 81.5% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.59
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.
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.64 3.6% 0 0 21.4% 75.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.86 0 0 3.6% 7.1% 89.3%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 0 4.54 4.2% 37.5% 58.3%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.68 0 0 10.7% 10.7% 78.6%
303
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.48
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%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.5
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%
Was prepared for proceedings. 4.56 0 0 11.1% 22.2% 66.7%
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.
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.33 0 0 41.7% 45.8% 12.5%
4.46 3.8% 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 3.8% 30.8% 61.5%
304
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 14 25.0
Employer 26 46.4
Labor and Industries 16 28.6
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 16 28.6
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 30 53.6
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
10 17.9
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 30 53.6
Paralegal 16 28.6
Lay Representative 10 17.9
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 0 0
2‐5 Attorneys 26 92.9
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 2 7.1
305
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 6 21.4
6‐10 years 0 0
11‐20 years 12 42.9
More than 20 years 10 35.7
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 48 92.3
African American/Black 2 3.8
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 3.8
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 24 46.2
Female 28 53.8
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 6 11.5
2‐3 Times 12 23.1
4‐10 Times 18 34.6
More Than 10 Times 16 30.8
306
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 8 15.4
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 7.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 8 15.4
Somewhat Successful 24 46.2
Very Successful 8 15.4
307
LITIGANT RATINGS Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Maintained a neutral presence. 1 0 0 0 0Permitted all parties to be heard. 1 0 0 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 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. 1 0 0 0 0 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 0 0 0 0 Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 1 0 0 0 0Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 1 0 0 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. 1 0 0 0 0Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 1 0 0 0 0Treated people with courtesy and respect. 1 0 0 0 0Was attentive during the mediation. 1 0 0 0 0Acted with patience and self‐control. 1 0 0 0 0Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 0 0 0 0Displayed common sense. 1 0 0 0 0Started proceedings on time. 1 0 0 0 0Was prepared for proceedings. 1 0 0 0 0Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 0 0 0Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 1 0 0 0 0Helped participants understand each others' position. 1 0 0 0 0Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 1 0 0 0 0Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 1 0 0 0 0
308
JUDGE RONALD LAMB BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 163 Distributed 67 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 32 Distributed 1 Completed
309
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent Average
LEGAL ABILITY 4.57
4.49 0 0 6.0% 38.8% 55.2% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.
Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.57 0 0 6.0% 31.3% 62.7%
4.66 0 0 6.0% 22.4% 71.6% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.68
4.69 0 0 3.1% 24.6% 72.3% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Maintained a neutral presence. 4.70 0 0 9.0% 11.9% 79.1%
4.67 0 0 9.0% 14.9% 76.1% 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.
4.65 0 0 9.2% 16.9% 73.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.69 0 0 9.2% 12.3% 78.5%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
4.67 0 0 9.0% 14.9% 76.1%
COMMUNICATION 4.59
Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.63 0 0 3.0% 31.3% 65.7%
4.56 0 0 9.1% 25.8% 65.2% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 0 4.61 6.3% 26.6% 67.2%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.57 0 0 6.2% 30.8% 63.1%
310
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.70
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.76 0 0 3.0% 17.9% 79.1%
Was attentive during the mediation. 4.69 0 0 7.7% 15.4% 76.9%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.69 0 0 3.0% 25.4% 71.6%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.67 0 0 9.0% 14.9% 76.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.52
Displayed common sense. 4.58 0 0 10.4% 20.9% 68.7%
4.49 0 0 13.4% 23.9% 62.7% Started proceedings on time.
Was prepared for proceedings. 4.55 0 0 9.0% 26.9% 64.2%
4.55 0 0 10.4% 23.9% 65.7% Maintained control over the proceedings.
Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.52 0 0 10.6% 27.3% 62.1%
4.42 0 0 17.2% 23.4% 59.4% Helped participants understand each others' position.
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.59 0 0 22.2% 68.3% 9.5%
4.44 0 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 16.7% 22.7% 60.6%
311
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 29 43.3
Employer 25 37.3
Labor and Industries 11 16.4
Other 2 3.0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 13 19.4
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 40 59.7
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
14 20.9
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 46 68.7
Paralegal 9 13.4
Lay Representative 10 14.9
Other 2 3.0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 12 26.1
2‐5 Attorneys 22 47.8
6‐10 Attorneys 5 10.9
11‐20 Attorneys 3 6.5
More Than 20 Attorneys 4 8.7
312
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 2 4.3
6‐10 years 2 4.3
11‐20 years 7 15.2
More than 20 years 35 76.1
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 63 96.9
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 3.1
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 47 72.3
Female 18 27.7
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 9 14.1
2‐3 Times 2 3.1
4‐10 Times 35 54.7
More Than 10 Times 18 28.1
313
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 8 11.9
Somewhat Unsuccessful 10 14.9
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 13 19.4
Somewhat Successful 25 37.3
Very Successful 11 16.4
314
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Maintained a neutral presence. 0 1 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. 0 1 0 0 0 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 0 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 0 Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 0 0 0 1 0Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 0 1 0 0 0The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired. 0 0 0 0 0 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 0 0Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 0 1 0 0 0Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 1 0 0Was attentive during the mediation. 0 0 0 1 0Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 0 1 0Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 1 0 0 0Displayed common sense. 0 1 0 0 0Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 0Was prepared for proceedings. 0 0 0 1 0Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 1 0Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 0 1 0 0 0Helped participants understand each others' position. 0 1 0 0 0Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 1 0Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 1 0 0 0 0
315
JUDGE ALEXANDER G. MCINTOSH BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 232 Distributed 47 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 25 Distributed 5 Completed
316
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent Average
LEGAL ABILITY 4.59
4.53 0 0 11.1% 24.4% 64.4% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.
Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.58 0 0 13.3% 15.6% 71.1%
4.66 0 0 9.1% 15.9% 75.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.30
4.33 2.2% 4.4% 11.1% 22.2% 60.0% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Maintained a neutral presence. 3.96 4.3% 8.7% 17.4% 26.1% 43.5%
4.41 4.3% 0 10.9% 19.6% 65.2% 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.
4.28 2.2% 6.5% 10.9% 21.7% 58.7%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.68 0 0 11.4% 9.1% 79.5%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 0 4.50 16.7% 16.7% 66.7%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.60 0 0 10.0% 20.0% 70.0%
317
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.39
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.39 4.3% 2.2% 8.7% 19.6% 65.2%
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%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.17 4.3% 4.3% 15.2% 21.7% 54.3%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.43
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%
Was prepared for proceedings. 4.63 0 0 6.5% 23.9% 69.6%
4.53 0 0 13.3% 20.0% 66.7% Maintained control over the proceedings.
Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.42 0 0 14.0% 30.2% 55.8%
4.18 4.5% 0 18.2% 27.3% 50.0% Helped participants understand each others' position.
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.56 0 0 19.5% 68.3% 12.2%
4.22 4.4% 0 Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 17.8% 24.4% 53.3%
318
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 14 29.8
Employer 21 44.7
Labor and Industries 10 21.3
Other 2 4.3
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 9 19.1
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 21 44.7
Third Party Claims Admin Organiztion
16 34.0
Other 1 2.1
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 26 55.3
Paralegal 5 10.6
Lay Representative 13 27.7
Other 3 6.4
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 3 11.5
2‐5 Attorneys 14 53.8
6‐10 Attorneys 1 3.8
11‐20 Attorneys 2 7.7
More Than 20 Attorneys 6 23.1
319
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 1 3.8
3‐5 years 5 19.2
6‐10 years 1 3.8
11‐20 years 8 30.8
More than 20 years 11 42.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 39 90.7
African American/Black 1 2.3
Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 2.3
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 4.7
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 23 53.5
Female 20 46.5
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 9 19.6
2‐3 Times 11 23.9
4‐10 Times 15 32.6
More Than 10 Times 11 23.9
320
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 11 23.9
Somewhat Unsuccessful 3 6.5
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 16 34.8
Somewhat Successful 12 26.1
Very Successful 4 8.7
321
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Maintained a neutral presence. 0 1 0 0 4Permitted all parties to be heard. 0 0 1 1 3Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system. 0 1 0 1 3 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 4 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 1 3 Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 0 0 1 0 4Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 0 1 0 2 2The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired. 0 0 1 0 4 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 1 2Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 0 1 0 2 2Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 1 0 4Was attentive during the mediation. 0 1 0 0 4Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 1 0 4Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 1 0 0 3Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 1 3Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 0 4Was prepared for proceedings. 0 0 1 0 4Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 1 1 3Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 0 0 1 0 4Helped participants understand each others' position. 0 1 0 0 4Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 1 3Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 1 0 0 4
322
JUDGE FRANK REKASIS BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 282 Distributed 76 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 68 Distributed 5 Completed
323
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.85
4.83 0 0 1.3% 14.5% 84.2% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.
Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.84 0 0 1.3% 13.2% 85.5%
4.88 0 0 0 11.8% 88.2% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.90
4.82 0 2.6% 0 10.5% 86.8% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Maintained a neutral presence. 4.87 0 0 2.6% 7.9% 89.5%
4.89 0 0 0 10.5% 89.5% 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.
4.92 0 0 0 8.0% 92.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.96 0 0 0 4.0% 96.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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%
4.84 0 0 2.7% 10.7% 86.7% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 0 4.80 0 19.7% 80.3%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.85 0 0 1.4% 12.7% 85.9%
324
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.90
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%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.83
Displayed common sense. 4.88 0 0 2.6% 6.6% 90.8%
4.74 0 0 3.9% 18.4% 77.6% Started proceedings on time.
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%
Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.88 0 0 2.6% 6.6% 90.8%
4.85 0 0 1.3% 12.0% 86.7% Helped participants understand each others' position.
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 31 41.3
Employer 29 38.7
Labor and Industries 13 17.3
Other 2 2.7
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 13 17.1
In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.3
Private Practice 40 52.6
Third Party Claims Administration Organization
22 28.9
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 43 56.6
Paralegal 12 15.8
Lay Representative 19 25.0
Other 2 2.6
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 7 16.3
2‐5 Attorneys 26 60.5
6‐10 Attorneys 4 9.3
11‐20 Attorneys 2 4.7
More Than 20 Attorneys 4 9.3
326
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 1 2.3
6‐10 years 6 14.0
11‐20 years 10 23.3
More than 20 years 26 60.5
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 68 93.2
African American/Black 2 2.7
Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2.7
Asian American/Pacific Islander 1 1.4
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 42 58.3
Female 30 41.7
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 6 8.0
2‐3 Times 17 22.7
4‐10 Times 31 41.3
More Than 10 Times 21 28.0
327
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 8 10.5
Somewhat Unsuccessful 7 9.2
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 16 21.1
Somewhat Successful 22 28.9
Very Successful 23 30.3
328
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Maintained a neutral presence. 1 0 1 1 2Permitted all parties to be heard. 1 0 0 1 3Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system. 0 1 1 1 2 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 4 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 1 0 1 1 2 Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 0 0 0 1 4Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 1 0 0 2 2The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired. 0 0 1 2 2 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 1 0 1 1 2Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 1 0 1 1 2Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 1 1 3Was attentive during the mediation. 0 0 0 3 2Acted with patience and self‐control. 1 0 1 1 2Promoted a sense of fairness. 1 1 0 1 2Displayed common sense. 1 0 0 1 2Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 1 3Was prepared for proceedings. 0 1 1 0 3Maintained control over the proceedings. 1 0 1 0 3Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 1 1 0 1 2Helped participants understand each others' position. 0 1 1 1 2Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 1 3Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 2 0 0 1 2
329
JUDGE SALLY R SAWTELL BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 212 Distributed 44 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 19 Distributed 1 Completed
330
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.39
4.39 0 4.5% 2.3% 43.2% 50.0% Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability.
Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.39 0 4.5% 6.8% 34.1% 54.5%
4.39 0 0 11.4% 38.6% 50.0% Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.43
4.50 0 4.5% 2.3% 31.8% 61.4% Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Maintained a neutral presence. 4.32 0 9.1% 6.8% 27.3% 56.8%
4.41 0 4.5% 11.4% 22.7% 61.4% 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.
4.44 0 0 11.6% 32.6% 55.8%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.48 0 4.5% 6.8% 25.0% 63.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
4.41 9.1% 2.3% 27.3% 61.4% 9.1%
COMMUNICATION 4.45
Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.43 0 0 11.4% 34.1% 54.5%
4.26 0 9.3% 11.6% 23.3% 55.8% Adequately facilitated communication between the parties.
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 0 4.50 7.9% 34.2% 57.9%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.60 0 0 7.1% 26.2% 66.7%
331
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.41
4.41 0 0 12.2% 34.1% 53.7% Treated people with courtesy and respect.
Was attentive during the mediation. 4.57 0 0 6.8% 29.5% 63.6%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.36 0 9.5% 2.4% 31.0% 57.1%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.30 2.3% 4.5% 6.8% 34.1% 52.3%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.36
Displayed common sense. 4.39 0 4.5% 2.3% 43.2% 50.0%
4.30 0 0 18.2% 34.1% 47.7% Started proceedings on time.
Was prepared for proceedings. 4.39 0 0 15.9% 29.5% 54.5%
4.43 0 0 11.4% 34.1% 54.5% Maintained control over the proceedings.
Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.30 4.5% 0 6.8% 38.6% 50.0%
4.30 4.5% 0 11.4% 29.5% 54.5% Helped participants understand each others' position.
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.55 0 0 30.0% 62.5% 7.5%
4.25 4.5% 4.5% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 2.3% 38.6% 50.0%
332
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 12 27.3
Employer 21 47.7
Labor and Industries 9 20.5
Other 2 4.5
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 9 20.5
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 25 56.8
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
10 22.7
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 28 63.6
Paralegal 7 15.9
Lay Representative 8 18.2
Other 1 2.3
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 21.4
2‐5 Attorneys 17 60.7
6‐10 Attorneys 2 7.1
11‐20 Attorneys 2 7.1
More Than 20 Attorneys 1 3.6
333
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 1 3.6
6‐10 years 4 14.3
11‐20 years 8 28.6
More than 20 years 15 53.6
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 40 93.0
African American/Black 1 2.3
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 4.7
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 21 51.2
Female 20 48.8
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 9.1
2‐3 Times 14 31.8
4‐10 Times 19 43.2
More Than 10 Times 7 15.9
334
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 7 17.5
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 10.0
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 16 40.0
Somewhat Successful 10 25.0
Very Successful 3 7.5
335
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Maintained a neutral presence. 0 0 1 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. 0 0 1 0 0 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 0 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 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. 0 0 1 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 0 1 0Was attentive during the mediation. 0 0 0 1 0Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 0 0 0Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 1 0 0Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 0 0Started proceedings on time. 0 0 1 0 0Was prepared for proceedings. 0 0 1 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 0Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 0 1 0 0
336
JUDGE ANN SILVERNALE BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 238 Distributed 38 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 24 Distributed 2 Completed
337
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.63
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.61 0 0 5.3% 28.9% 65.8%
Understood the relevant substantive law. 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%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.69
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.68 0 0 8.1% 16.2% 75.7%
Maintained a neutral presence. 4.54 0 0 10.8% 24.3% 64.9%
Permitted all parties to be heard. 4.68 0 0 10.8% 10.8% 78.4%
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.73 0 0 8.1% 10.8% 81.1%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
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
Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.70 0 0 2.7% 24.3% 73.0%
Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 4.65 0 0 8.1% 18.9% 73.0%
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 4.61 0 6.5% 25.8% 67.7%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.68 0 0 5.9% 20.6% 73.5%
338
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.76
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.78 0 0 2.7% 16.2% 81.1%
Was attentive during the mediation. 4.76 0 0 2.7% 18.9% 78.4%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.73 0 0 5.4% 16.2% 78.4%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.76 0 0 5.4% 13.5% 81.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.64
Displayed common sense. 4.73 0 0 2.7% 21.6% 75.7%
Started proceedings on time. 4.59 0 0 8.1% 24.3% 67.6%
Was prepared for proceedings. 4.59 0 0 8.1% 24.3% 67.6%
Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.72 0 0 2.8% 22.2% 75.0%
Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.67 0 0 5.6% 22.2% 72.2%
Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.59 0 0 8.1% 24.3% 67.6%
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.60 0 0 8.6% 22.9% 68.6%
Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 4.62 0 0 8.1% 21.6% 70.3%
339
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 11 28.9
Employer 17 44.7
Labor and Industries 9 23.7
Other 1 2.6
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 9 24.3
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 15 32.4
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
12 40.5
Other 1 2.7
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 20 52.6
Paralegal 5 13.2
Lay Representative 13 34.2
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 3 15.0
2‐5 Attorneys 11 55.0
6‐10 Attorneys 2 10.0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 4 20.0
340
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 1 5.0
6‐10 years 2 10.0
11‐20 years 4 20.0
More than 20 years 13 65.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 34 94.4
African American/Black 1 2.8
Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 2.8
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 16 45.7
Female 19 54.3
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 10.8
2‐3 Times 10 27.0
4‐10 Times 20 54.1
More Than 10 Times 3 8.1
341
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 3 8.1
Somewhat Unsuccessful 5 13.5
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 9 24.3
Somewhat Successful 11 29.7
Very Successful 9 24.3
342
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Maintained a neutral presence. 0 0 1 1 0Permitted all parties to be heard. 0 0 0 2 0Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system. 0 0 1 0 0 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. 0 1 0 1 0 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 0 2 0 Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 0 0 0 2 0Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 0 0 0 2 0The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired. 0 0 1 0 0 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 1 0 0Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 0 0 1 1 0Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 2 0Was attentive during the mediation. 0 0 1 1 0Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 0 2 0Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 0 1 1 0Displayed common sense. 0 0 1 1 0Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 2 0Was prepared for proceedings. 0 0 1 1 0Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 1 1 0Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 0 0 1 0 0Helped participants understand each others' position. 0 0 0 1 0Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 0 0 1 0 0Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 0 1 0 0
343
JUDGE DAVID SWAN BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 154 Distributed 48 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 56 Distributed 4 Completed
344
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.62
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.62 0 0 6.4% 25.5% 68.1%
Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.64 0 0 4.3% 27.7% 68.1%
Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.60 0 0 12.8% 14.9% 72.3%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.68
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.66 0 0 8.5% 17.0% 74.5%
Maintained a neutral presence. 4.54 0 2.2% 13.0% 13.0% 71.7%
Permitted all parties to be heard. 4.68 0 0 6.4% 19.1% 74.5%
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.61 0 2.3% 11.4% 9.1% 77.3%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.80 0 0 4.5% 11.4% 84.1%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
4.79 0 0 4.3% 12.8% 83.0%
COMMUNICATION 4.62
Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.66 0 0 4.3% 25.5% 70.2%
Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 4.63 0 0 8.7% 19.6% 71.7%
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
0 4.60 0 9.3% 20.9% 69.8%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.57 0 0 10.6% 21.3% 68.1%
345
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.72
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.77 0 0 2.1% 19.1% 78.7%
Was attentive during the mediation. 4.81 0 0 2.1% 14.9% 83.0%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.70 0 0 4.3% 21.3% 74.5%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.60 0 2.1% 10.6% 12.8% 74.5%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.48
Displayed common sense. 4.62 0 0 4.4% 28.9% 66.7%
Started proceedings on time. 4.30 0 0 21.3% 27.7% 51.1%
Was prepared for proceedings. 4.43 0 0 21.3% 14.9% 63.8%
Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.51 0 0 17.8% 13.3% 68.9%
Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.70 0 0 4.7% 20.9% 74.4%
Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.60 0 0 10.6% 19.1% 70.2%
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 13 27.1
Employer 25 52.1
Labor and Industries 9 18.8
Other 1 2.1
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 9 19.1
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 17 36.2
Third Party claims admin organization
20 42.6
Other 1 2.1
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 20 41.7
Paralegal 8 16.7
Lay Representative 19 39.6
Other 1 2.1
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 30.0
2‐5 Attorneys 9 45.0
6‐10 Attorneys 3 15.0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 2 10.0
347
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 1 5.0
6‐10 years 4 20.0
11‐20 years 4 20.0
More than 20 years 11 55.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 42 91.3
African American/Black 2 4.3
Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 2.2
Asian American/Pacific Islander 1 2.2
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 22 47.8
Female 24 52.2
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 4 8.3
2‐3 Times 10 20.8
4‐10 Times 15 31.3
More Than 10 Times 19 39.6
348
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 7 14.6
Somewhat Unsuccessful 8 16.7
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 10 20.8
Somewhat Successful 15 31.3
Very Successful 8 16.7
349
LITIGANT RATINGS
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Maintained a neutral presence. 0 1 0 0 3Permitted all parties to be heard. 0 0 0 1 3Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system. 0 0 1 0 3 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. 0 0 0 1 3 Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest. 0 0 1 0 3 Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 0 0 0 1 3Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 0 0 0 1 3The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired. 0 0 0 0 2 Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 0 0 0 1 2Had sufficient communication prior to mediation. 0 0 2 0 2Treated people with courtesy and respect. 0 0 0 1 3Was attentive during the mediation. 0 0 0 1 3Acted with patience and self‐control. 0 0 0 1 3Promoted a sense of fairness. 0 1 0 0 3Displayed common sense. 0 0 0 1 3Started proceedings on time. 0 0 0 1 3Was prepared for proceedings. 0 0 0 1 3Maintained control over the proceedings. 0 0 0 1 3Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 0 0 1 0 3Helped participants understand each others' position. 0 0 1 0 3Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 0 0 0 0 3Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 0 0 0 0 3
350
JUDGE R. GARY THORSON BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 209 Distributed 44 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 27 Distributed 0 Completed
351
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.49
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 4.43 0 0 9.5% 38.1% 52.4%
Understood the relevant substantive law. 4.52 0 0 9.5% 28.6% 61.9%
Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 4.51 0 0 11.6% 25.6% 62.8%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.57 0 0 9.1% 25.0% 65.9%
Maintained a neutral presence. 4.36 0 0 20.5% 22.7% 56.8%
Permitted all parties to be heard. 4.45 0 0 11.4% 31.8% 56.8%
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
4.34 0 0 15.9% 34.1% 50.0%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
4.52 0 0 11.4% 25.0% 63.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
4.39 0 0 20.5% 20.5% 59.1%
COMMUNICATION 4.38
Used clear and logical oral communication during the mediation. 4.55 0 0 7.1% 31.0% 61.9%
Adequately facilitated communication between the parties. 4.41 0 0 9.1% 40.9% 50.0%
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
4.38 0 0 8.8% 44.1% 47.1%
Returned messages and correspondence in a reasonably prompt manner. 4.17 0 0 29.3% 24.4% 46.3%
352
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 4.55
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.61 0 0 4.5% 29.5% 65.9%
Was attentive during the mediation. 4.59 0 0 6.8% 27.3% 65.9%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.57 0 0 9.1% 25.0% 65.9%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 4.43 0 0 18.2% 20.5% 61.4%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.36
Displayed common sense. 4.39 0 0 13.6% 34.1% 52.3%
Started proceedings on time. 4.36 0 0 15.9% 31.8% 52.3%
Was prepared for proceedings. 4.40 0 0 16.7% 26.2% 57.1%
Maintained control over the proceedings. 4.41 0 0 18.2% 22.7% 59.1%
Helped parties identify the issues in the dispute. 4.37 0 0 16.3% 30.2% 53.5%
Helped participants understand each others' position. 4.36 0 0 20.5% 22.7% 56.8%
Prepared written orders in a timely manner. 4.32 0 0 21.6% 24.3% 54.1%
0 0 18.2% 34.1% Took reasonable and appropriate steps to encourage settlement. 4.30 47.7%
353
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 13 30.2
Employer 23 53.5
Labor and Industries 7 16.3
Other 0 0
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 7 15.9
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 22 50.0
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
15 34.1
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 25 56.6
Paralegal 6 13.6
Lay Representative 13 29.5
Other 0 0
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 8 34.8
2‐5 Attorneys 13 56.5
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 0 0
More Than 20 Attorneys 2 8.7
354
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 1 4.0
3‐5 years 0 0
6‐10 years 4 16.0
11‐20 years 3 12.0
More than 20 years 17 68.0
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 42 97.7
African American/Black 1 2.3
Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 27 62.8
Female 16 37.2
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 8 18.2
2‐3 Times 12 27.3
4‐10 Times 15 34.1
More Than 10 Times 9 20.5
355
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 3 7.1
Somewhat Unsuccessful 4 9.5
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 12 28.6
Somewhat Successful 18 42.9
Very Successful 4 11.9
356
JUDGE LUCY WERNER BIIA Mediation 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.
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
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 218 Distributed 40 Completed Pro Se Litigant Evaluations 29 Distributed 0 Completed
357
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RATINGS MATRIX
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 3.02
Exercised necessary legal reasoning ability. 2.72 16.7% 27.8% 30.6% 16.7% 8.3%
Understood the relevant substantive law. 3.08 5.3% 21.1% 47.4% 13.2% 13.2%
Understood the relevant rules of procedure and evidence. 3.27 6.1% 12.1% 42.4% 27.3% 12.1%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.08
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.18 15.8% 18.4% 26.3% 10.5% 28.9%
Maintained a neutral presence. 2.95 21.1% 18.4% 18.4% 28.9% 13.2%
Permitted all parties to be heard. 2.98 15.0% 20.0% 30.0% 22.5% 12.5%
Conducted mediation proceedings in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the industrial appeals system.
2.75 30.0% 12.5% 27.5% 12.5% 17.5%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
3.45 5.3% 13.2% 44.7% 5.3% 31.6%
Acted without favor or disfavor toward anyone, based on their representation of an employer, a worker, the state, or any other interest.
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%
The agreement (if one was obtained) was written clearly and accurately reflected what transpired.
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
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
PROFESSIONALISM 2.92
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 2.85 20.0% 27.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5%
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%
Promoted a sense of fairness. 2.98 20.0% 12.5% 35.0% 15.0% 17.5%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 2.87
Displayed common sense. 2.55 25.0% 32.5% 17.5% 12.5% 12.5%
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
ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, AND LAY REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Description of Client Represented by Respondent Number Percent
Injured Worker 9 22.5
Employer 25 62.5
Labor and Industries 5 12.5
Other 1 2.5
Work Setting Number Percent
Attorney General's Office 5 12.5
In House Corporate Counsel 0 0
Private Practice 22 55.0
Third Party Claims Admin Organization
13 32.5
Other 0 0
Respondent Professional Job Description Number Percent
Attorney 28 70.0
Paralegal 1 2.5
Lay Representative 10 25.0
Other 1 2.5
Size of Firm Number Percent
Sole Practitioner 6 21.4
2‐5 Attorneys 16 57.1
6‐10 Attorneys 0 0
11‐20 Attorneys 2 7.1
More Than 20 Attorneys 4 14.3
360
Years as Attorney Number Percent
1‐2 years 0 0
3‐5 years 5 17.9
6‐10 years 7 25.0
11‐20 years 5 17.9
More than 20 years 11 39.3
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
Caucasian/White 38 97.4
African American/Black 0 0
Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 2.6
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0 0
Native American 0 0
Other 0 0
Gender Number Percent
Male 16 41.0
Female 23 59.0
Appearances Before Judge During Previous 2 Years Number Percent
Once 10 25.0
2‐3 Times 14 35.0
4‐10 Times 10 25.0
More Than 10 Times 6 15.0
361
Respondent Perceived Level of Success Before Judge Number Percent
Very Unsuccessful 9 23.7
Somewhat Unsuccessful 7 18.4
Neither Successful nor Unsuccessful 17 44.7
Somewhat Successful 5 13.2
Very Successful 0 0
362