Armstrong v. New Mexico Disability Determination Services

Armstrong v. New Mexico Disability Determination Services: Court Dismisses Employee's Claims

Armstrong, an employee of New Mexico Disability Determination Services, filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination and retaliation against his employer. The case involved disputes over how the Social Security Administration handles disability examinations and referrals of attorneys for investigation.

The court sided completely with the employer and dismissed Armstrong's entire case. The judge ruled on two key issues: First, that the Social Security Administration only needs to make the names of doctors who conduct disability examinations available when someone asks for them, rather than automatically providing this information upfront. Second, the court found that Administrative Law Judges have complete legal protection (called "absolute judicial immunity") when they refer attorneys to the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review for investigation.

What this means for workers: This ruling makes it harder for employees in similar government positions to successfully challenge their terminations, especially when the firing involves procedural disputes about how disability cases are handled. The decision strengthens protections for Administrative Law Judges and gives employers more leeway in how they handle information sharing requirements. Workers should be aware that courts may provide broad immunity protections for certain government decision-makers.