Skip to main content

Armstrong v. New Mexico Disability Determination Services

D.N.M.September 30, 2017No. No. CIV 15-1148 JB/JHRCited 5 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Browning, James
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationRetaliation

Outcome

The court granted both of the defendant's motions to dismiss, holding that the SSA only needs to make the name of the consultative examination provider available upon request rather than providing it in the initial notice, and that ALJs are entitled to absolute judicial immunity when referring attorneys to ODAR for investigation.

What This Ruling Means

**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.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.