Hate the Players, or the Game? The Role of Court Mediators and Hearing Officers in the Civil Protection Order Process

Civil Protection Orders (CPOs) are among the most common legal tools that victims of intimate partner violence and abuse (IPV/A) use to protect themselves. The current study adds to the CPO research by using quantitative data to look at how female survivors' experiences with court personnel (attorneys, mediators, and hearing officers) shape their satisfaction with the court process, and what types of individual and court-related factors are related to perceived fairness of court personnel. The current study uses in-depth quantitative data collected from women over the age of 18 who sought a CPO due to violence from a male current or former partner. The findings indicate that women's satisfaction with the court process is significantly impacted by the perceived fairness of court personnel. In turn, specific behaviors by court personnel predict women's ratings of fairness of those personnel. Additionally, women's socioeconomic status impacts how fair they perceive the hearing officers to be. Court personnel play an integral role in helping victims navigate the legal system in ways that could protect their safety and influence how they perceive the CPO system as it relates to the abuse they have experienced.

State Due Process Hearing Systems Under the IDEA: An Update

As part of its structure of cooperative federalism, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act delegates to the states implementation, within broad specifications, of administrative adjudication systems. In light of the centrality of these systems of dispute resolution and the limited research to date, policy makers and practitioners need more current information about the variations in the state hearing and review officer systems nationwide. Based on a survey of state special education directors, this article provides an updated snapshot of due process systems in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Key findings include the following: (a) the increased predominance of one-tier, rather than two-tier, systems, (b) a similar continuation of the gradual shift toward full-time hearing officers who are attorneys, (c) a corresponding cumulative trend toward administrative law judge agencies, and (d) common problems concerning the length of hearings, the recruitment and selection of hearing officers, and their professional development, with the attendant responses in progress focused on additional training and revised procedures. Overall, in addition to the limitations of a relatively short and structured survey, the key contextual considerations included (a) the predominance of six states that account for the vast majority of the adjudicated hearings, (b) the wide variety among the remaining states, and (c) the interplay with the other indicators of dispute resolution activity, including filings, resolution sessions, and mediation.

Officers Under the Appointments Clause

Much ink has been spilled, and many keyboards worn, debating the definition of “Officers of the United States” under the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Most recently, this debate has focused on the denizens of the Office of Appeals of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In Tucker I, the U.S. Tax Court faced the question of whether the settlement officers, appeals officers, and appeals team managers (collectively, IRS hearing officers) within the Office of Appeals are Officers or mere employees. In Tucker II, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) faced the same question on appeal. Both courts sided with the IRS in holding that none of the above are Officers. Although it hardly seems controversial to agree with the Tax Court and D.C. Circuit when the U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in the case, remarkably, all previous scholarship disputes the outcome of the Tucker decisions. This Article will defend that outcome as a proper application of Supreme Court precedent.

Clinical Update: Assessing Common Issues in Electrophysiologic Studies

Electrodiagnosis is a quantitative electrophysiologic test that may identify and localize the site of neurologic dysfunction and detect subclinical changes and compensatory processes. Electrodiagnostic (EDX) studies useful in evaluating the peripheral nervous system and spinal cord include electromyography (EMG), nerve conduction studies, and somatosensory evoked potentials. The primary uses of these tests are to evaluate radiculopathy, entrapment neuropathy, or other peripheral nerve study, and results must be presented completely, concisely, and in a standardized format understandable to nonelectromyographers (who may include adjusters, attorneys, hearing officers, and judges with varying degrees of knowledge about clinical neurology). Needle EMG remains the most sensitive electrophysiologic test for determining radiculopathy. Any EDX report should contain the fundamental test results and a summary of the findings and should make clear when facts other than neurophysiological data are included. Reports must be internally consistent to avoid compromising the report's integrity. Errors of fact and technique, incomplete or irrelevant data, and over-, mis-, and underinterpretation of data are too frequent in EMG reports. EDX studies objectively define peripheral nerve injuries, entrapment neuropathies, and radiculopathies; the findings must be clearly presented with supportable conclusions. Carpal tunnel syndrome practice parameters from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation are provided.

Denial and Defensiveness in the Place of Fact and Reason: Rejoinder to Smith and Lovaas

The Smith and Lovaas (1997) rebuttal to our article (Gresham & MacMillan, 1997) is defensive, factually inaccurate, and often trivial in its attempts to distract readers from the more important issues of methodological rigor and experimental validity. Smith and Lovaas inaccurately claim that the EIP studies incorporated all six features outlined by the National Institutes of Health for scientifically sound outcome studies and still do not admit to any methodological problems with the lack of random assignment, instrumentation, statistical regression, and use of educational placement as an outcome measure. More important for schools and fair hearing officers, Smith and Lovaas do not adequately address the issues of external validity or generalizability of their findings across sites, subjects, parents, treatment implementers, and to settings in which physical punishment cannot be used. We indicate that the EIP results are indeed promising; however, the evidence presented to date is not as compelling as Smith and Lovaas suggest. Smith and Lovaas's inability to concede any methodological limitations of the EIP studies should give the parental, educational, and research communities reason for concern.