Steven Rose

Steven Rose was nominated for reappointment to the Industrial Accident Board.




The hearing is scheduled for May 30 at 12:30


Charles Oliver Cipollini - District 1

Marilyn M. Petitto Devaney - District 3

Mary-Ellen Manning - District 5

Terrence Kennedy - District 6

Jen Caissie - District 7

Terrence Kennedy - District 6 presided

The hearing began with Councilor Kennedy administering an oath to the nominee and each of the witnesses, Councilor Cipollini objectd to this procedure.

First to speak was The Honorable Omar Hernandez, Senior Judge for the Industrial Accident Board.

The Honorable Omar Hernandezsaid he had known Judge Rose for 18 years.

The Honorable Omar Hernandez represented the state when he appeared before him.

The Honorable Omar Hernandez stated that Judge Rose's performance is excellent. Judge Rose did not make it out of the nominating committee first time round but persisted. The Honorable Omar Hernandez stated that Judge Rose is a tremendous asset, and that he could not speak highly enough of him.

The Honorable Omar Hernandez stated that Judge Rose was one of the top five producers of decisions, and that his turn around was one of the best.

Mark Joyce, Senior Regional Manager for the Department of Industrial Accident also spoke in favor of Judge Rose.

In Mr. Joyce's position he got involved with the Judges of the Industrial Accident Board when there are complaints. In the case of Judge Rose he never heard a complaint against him. Mr. Joyce described Judge Rose as being respectful and that he makes sure that everyone is heard.

Mr. Joyce stated that his coworkers and collegues, the staff in Springfield, enjoy working with Judge Rose. He expressed the view that Springfield was fortunate for having Judge Rose.

When Judge Rose spoke he was asked about the length of his term.

He acknowledged that his term ended in May 2010.

He said he was not recommended for reappointment by the Advisory Committee, but was told that he could reapply.

He received the highest rating by the Senior Justice.

Judge Rose acknowledged that between his not being recommended by the the Advisory Committee and then being recommended, when he reapplied, the make of the the committee itself had changed.

Judge Rose was asked if he had been involved in any controversial case at the time his nomination did not pass the committees, he stated that he was not aware of one if he was.

Judge Rose acknowledged that the lack of support from a bar association president appeared to have derailed his renomination.

Judge Rose also clarified that he can report fraud if he believes a party appearing before him is acting fraudulently. He also stated that he had done this.

Judge Rose does his own research and writes his own rulings.

There appeared to be a consensus that the council was unhappy with Judges being held over rather than being resubmitted to the council.

A vote was taken at the June 6, 2012 meeting

Use of the materials provided on this website is encouraged, however please provide this website as the source where appropriate