tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post8717035554668641287..comments2023-11-13T11:54:56.769-08:00Comments on DePaolo's World: Westphal Is About ValueAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02446191842560064784noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post-76469553033188128032013-04-11T05:50:23.576-07:002013-04-11T05:50:23.576-07:00This may also be a good time for the court, en ban...This may also be a good time for the court, en banc, to decide how 440.13 (5)(e) (the holy three) does not violate the due process clause. Is there any other type of case in any type of law that precludes you from bringing a witness to prove your claim. I realize that there are few types of law more draconian than ERISA; however, even ERISA allows you to present evidence from any witness, including a "non-authorized treating doctor", as long as it is in the claims file before the "administrator" made her denial. Perhaps the court, en banc, can also determine how reducing the attorney's fees paid by the claimant by essentially one third in 1994 does not violate the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (other than perhaps the state has a substantial interest in protecting the claimant from their own attorney). (During this same time period, SSA has increased the claimant's maximum fee under a fee agreement from 4000 dollars to 6000.) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com