- 30 -
Thus, while the remark complained of by petitioners may
sound harsh standing alone, it was made in the context of a
review which went on to consider and accurately to summarize the
particular reasons for the result reached in the earlier matter.
Moreover, as the facts found above indicate, Mr. Skidmore then
proceeded to grant repeated requests from petitioners for more
time to prepare for the hearing and to submit updated financial
information. His notes also document and discuss his analysis of
the financial materials ultimately provided by petitioners,
commenting in detail about specific items and why they continued
to fall short of establishing petitioners’ qualification for
collection alternatives. This accommodation of petitioners’
scheduling needs and careful review of the particular evidence
offered indicates a willingness to consider anew the merits of
petitioners’ then-existing circumstances and is the antithesis of
prejudgment.
The second factual point emphasized by petitioners in their
quest to show bias is the timing of Mr. Skidmore’s conclusion
that a determination letter should be issued; i.e, that the
decision was made on the same day as the hearing was held.
Again, however, the record reveals nothing inappropriate.
Petitioners submitted their financial documentation prior to the
hearing and offered nothing further at the conference that would
justify delay for additional review. Mr. Skidmore’s notes with
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011