The issue of 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman’s cardiac health has taken center stage as a redacted transcript from a July hearing has been released, revealing concerns over her fitness for judicial duties. The transcript was made public despite objections from Newman’s attorney, who opposed the use of the term “cardiac condition” to describe her health.
The hearing, presided over by a three-judge panel, aimed to determine whether Judge Newman’s non-compliance with a judicial committee’s request for medical records was justified amidst an ongoing fitness probe. The committee had initiated an investigation into her fitness and potential misconduct in response to concerns raised by multiple judges regarding her performance on the bench.
During the hearing held on July 13, Newman’s legal counsel, Greg Dolin, expressed the belief that the matter should be moved out of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dolin argued that the committee had not established a sufficient case warranting the need for an evaluation of Judge Newman’s medical records and her subsequent medical examination.
See also: Federal Appeals Judge Questions Handling of Misconduct Complaint Against Judge Pauline Newman
The ongoing investigation stems from allegations of Newman’s impaired functioning as a judge. The committee had recommended sanctions against Newman for her refusal to cooperate with the probe, proposing her suspension from new case assignments for a year or until she complies with the investigation.
Advance your legal career and achieve your professional goals – sign up for LawCrossing now.
Newman staunchly denied claims of her unfitness to serve and refuted allegations of suffering a heart attack in 2022. To counter these claims, she submitted a report from a neurologist and professor at the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences. The report stated that there were “no significant cognitive deficits” observed at the end of June, aiming to negate the need for a medical examination by the committee-selected doctor.
However, during the hearing, concerns were raised regarding the appropriateness of replacing the committee’s medical examination with the neurologist’s report. The panel questioned why Newman declined to provide the documents that formed the basis of the neurologist’s opinion, especially given the context of the investigation. Newman’s legal counsel, Dolin, mentioned that the neurologist had reviewed materials relevant to the case before administering a neurological test.
The neurological test included three questions that required written responses. However, due to a cast on her hand, Newman was unable to complete the writing section during the test. The panel further questioned the inconsistency in the neurologist’s report, highlighting that while he indicated Newman’s inability to write for two questions, he credited her for the third question.
Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore raised concerns about the internal inconsistency within the neurologist’s report, suggesting that the report itself appeared contradictory despite his expertise. Additionally, Ted Rothstein, the physician who conducted an examination on Newman, expressed disagreements with how the judicial committee had characterized his report in a previous interview.
Furthermore, the panel clarified that the reduction in Newman’s caseload between 2021 and 2023 was not influenced by the assignments made by Chief Judge Moore, contrary to suggestions put forth by Dolin. Chief Judge Moore emphasized that case assignments were made randomly by individual judges.
The panel for this hearing consisted of Judges Sharon Prost and Richard G. Taranto, alongside Chief Judge Moore.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
