Post by jagghagg on Jul 21, 2009 11:38:56 GMT -5
Social Security judges sought chief's ouster
By Greg Moran
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. July 20, 2009
DETAILS
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
What it is: The court handles claims for such Social Security benefits as disability, retirement and Supplemental Security Income
Its impact: Administrative law judges hear hundreds of cases each year, and they can award lifetime payments reaching into six figures
From their nondescript eighth-floor offices in Golden Eagle Plaza downtown, nine administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration work in near-total anonymity.
A roster of the judges is hard to find. The hearings they hold are closed to the public. Even calling them is difficult, because their names aren't accessible via the automated phone system at the office, formally known as the San Diego Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, or ODAR.
Despite the obscurity, the judges wield an impressive amount of power. Each year they conduct thousands of hearings and issue opinions on individual claims for Social Security benefits – such as retirement, disability and Supplemental Security Income – that the agency initially denied.
But behind the placid scenes of this little-known court system, a quiet revolt has been simmering for months.
One day in November, eight of the judges took the extraordinary step of signing a petition demanding the removal of the longtime chief judge of the San Diego office, Edward D. Steinman.
The confidential petition, which was sent anonymously to The San Diego Union-Tribune, said Steinman “has lost the trust and confidence of every judge in San Diego ODAR.” It said “(he) lacks the professionalism, interpersonal skills and managerial competence” needed in the position.
All of the judges appended memos spelling out, in varying degrees, their problems with Steinman. One judge described the office as “dysfunctional” and not as productive in terms of processing cases as it should be.
Despite the united front, Steinman remains the court's chief judge.
The petition was sent to the chief administrative law judge in Washington, D.C., who oversees all 1,200 judges in the Social Security legal system spread across 141 offices around the country.
Two investigators sent from Washington interviewed several of the ODAR judges earlier this year, one judge in the San Diego office said. The judge would speak only if he were allowed to remain anonymous because judges are not allowed to speak to the media.
Weeks later, two other officials announced the results. “They decided the chief judge would stay and there was no rationale for removing him,” the judge said.
Steinman, who has led the San Diego office for two decades, declined requests for comment last week. JoAnn Anderson, the acting regional chief judge in San Francisco who oversees San Diego and 19 other offices in California, Nevada and Arizona, said she could not comment extensively because the issue is a personnel matter.
Anderson said complaints from employees are taken seriously, but she declined to say exactly what was done in this case. “Obviously, (Steinman) is still in his position after our inquiry and review,” she said.
Asked if she was satisfied with the performance of the San Diego office, Anderson said, “We believe there are some improvements we can make in the San Diego operations, and we are working on that. That includes working with everyone down there.” She declined to be specific.
Administrative law judges preside over proceedings that involve disputes between individuals and government agencies. The hearings are akin to nonjury trials in the court system.
Judges take evidence, listen to testimony and issue rulings. They are not constitutional officers, like federal court judges, but are appointed after a rigorous screening and examination.
In the Social Security system, the stakes can be high. A judge's favorable ruling can result in lifetime payouts per person that can reach into six figures. Judges weigh hundreds of cases each year.
In the litany of complaints, Steinman is blamed for low morale, poor communication and a high-handed management style, among other things.
Some of the judges also contended in their memos that the staff has dwindled by about one-third. “Judge Steinman's failure of leadership is signally responsible for the exodus of support staff from this office and he is still driving them away,” wrote Judge Peter J. Valentino. He did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.
The staff is responsible for preparing the often voluminous cases the judges have to decide. Low staffing means fewer cases are ready for hearing. Judge Leland Spencer wrote that he had asked for as many as 60 cases to be readied each month, but instead he gets between 25 and 35. The backlog of disability claims at the Social Security Administration around the country is enormous and growing. A report by the Social Security inspector general in April 2008 said there were 755,000 cases nationwide awaiting hearings.
Data in that report seem to give support to the productivity complaints of the judges. In the fiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2007, the number of case dispositions per judge in San Diego lagged the national average.
In 2005, the average case disposition per judge in San Diego was 359, while nationally it was 421. The next year, San Diego judges averaged 438 compared with 459 nationally. In 2007, the breakdown was 344 in San Diego and 474 nationally. In each of those years, San Diego was well in the lower half of all offices.
Lawyers who appear regularly at the hearings were not surprised. “They're not the worst but not the best, either,” said one longtime lawyer, who did not want to be named because he has cases pending before the judges.
Clients can get frustrated with the wait, the lawyer said. “It's a combination of poor management style and the lack of production from the judges.”
The average number of days it takes for a disposition in a case has slowly increased each year from 2005, rising from 384 days to 522 in 2007, statistics show.
Productivity of individual judges varied, according to a database compiled last year by The Oregonian newspaper in Portland, Ore., of all Social Security judges in the country.
In San Diego, Steinman pumped out more dispositions between 2005 and 2008 than any other judge in the office. In their memos, some judges complained that this is so because of Steinman's position.
Judge David Wurzel wrote that Steinman “put himself first by commandeering support staff for his own use. He takes the best clerks and writers for himself, and manipulates assignment of cases to enhance his own numbers. That enhances his own productivity but lessens the overall productivity of the office.”
www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/20/1m20judges23536-federal-agencys-sd-spat-revealed/?uniontrib
By Greg Moran
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. July 20, 2009
DETAILS
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
What it is: The court handles claims for such Social Security benefits as disability, retirement and Supplemental Security Income
Its impact: Administrative law judges hear hundreds of cases each year, and they can award lifetime payments reaching into six figures
From their nondescript eighth-floor offices in Golden Eagle Plaza downtown, nine administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration work in near-total anonymity.
A roster of the judges is hard to find. The hearings they hold are closed to the public. Even calling them is difficult, because their names aren't accessible via the automated phone system at the office, formally known as the San Diego Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, or ODAR.
Despite the obscurity, the judges wield an impressive amount of power. Each year they conduct thousands of hearings and issue opinions on individual claims for Social Security benefits – such as retirement, disability and Supplemental Security Income – that the agency initially denied.
But behind the placid scenes of this little-known court system, a quiet revolt has been simmering for months.
One day in November, eight of the judges took the extraordinary step of signing a petition demanding the removal of the longtime chief judge of the San Diego office, Edward D. Steinman.
The confidential petition, which was sent anonymously to The San Diego Union-Tribune, said Steinman “has lost the trust and confidence of every judge in San Diego ODAR.” It said “(he) lacks the professionalism, interpersonal skills and managerial competence” needed in the position.
All of the judges appended memos spelling out, in varying degrees, their problems with Steinman. One judge described the office as “dysfunctional” and not as productive in terms of processing cases as it should be.
Despite the united front, Steinman remains the court's chief judge.
The petition was sent to the chief administrative law judge in Washington, D.C., who oversees all 1,200 judges in the Social Security legal system spread across 141 offices around the country.
Two investigators sent from Washington interviewed several of the ODAR judges earlier this year, one judge in the San Diego office said. The judge would speak only if he were allowed to remain anonymous because judges are not allowed to speak to the media.
Weeks later, two other officials announced the results. “They decided the chief judge would stay and there was no rationale for removing him,” the judge said.
Steinman, who has led the San Diego office for two decades, declined requests for comment last week. JoAnn Anderson, the acting regional chief judge in San Francisco who oversees San Diego and 19 other offices in California, Nevada and Arizona, said she could not comment extensively because the issue is a personnel matter.
Anderson said complaints from employees are taken seriously, but she declined to say exactly what was done in this case. “Obviously, (Steinman) is still in his position after our inquiry and review,” she said.
Asked if she was satisfied with the performance of the San Diego office, Anderson said, “We believe there are some improvements we can make in the San Diego operations, and we are working on that. That includes working with everyone down there.” She declined to be specific.
Administrative law judges preside over proceedings that involve disputes between individuals and government agencies. The hearings are akin to nonjury trials in the court system.
Judges take evidence, listen to testimony and issue rulings. They are not constitutional officers, like federal court judges, but are appointed after a rigorous screening and examination.
In the Social Security system, the stakes can be high. A judge's favorable ruling can result in lifetime payouts per person that can reach into six figures. Judges weigh hundreds of cases each year.
In the litany of complaints, Steinman is blamed for low morale, poor communication and a high-handed management style, among other things.
Some of the judges also contended in their memos that the staff has dwindled by about one-third. “Judge Steinman's failure of leadership is signally responsible for the exodus of support staff from this office and he is still driving them away,” wrote Judge Peter J. Valentino. He did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.
The staff is responsible for preparing the often voluminous cases the judges have to decide. Low staffing means fewer cases are ready for hearing. Judge Leland Spencer wrote that he had asked for as many as 60 cases to be readied each month, but instead he gets between 25 and 35. The backlog of disability claims at the Social Security Administration around the country is enormous and growing. A report by the Social Security inspector general in April 2008 said there were 755,000 cases nationwide awaiting hearings.
Data in that report seem to give support to the productivity complaints of the judges. In the fiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2007, the number of case dispositions per judge in San Diego lagged the national average.
In 2005, the average case disposition per judge in San Diego was 359, while nationally it was 421. The next year, San Diego judges averaged 438 compared with 459 nationally. In 2007, the breakdown was 344 in San Diego and 474 nationally. In each of those years, San Diego was well in the lower half of all offices.
Lawyers who appear regularly at the hearings were not surprised. “They're not the worst but not the best, either,” said one longtime lawyer, who did not want to be named because he has cases pending before the judges.
Clients can get frustrated with the wait, the lawyer said. “It's a combination of poor management style and the lack of production from the judges.”
The average number of days it takes for a disposition in a case has slowly increased each year from 2005, rising from 384 days to 522 in 2007, statistics show.
Productivity of individual judges varied, according to a database compiled last year by The Oregonian newspaper in Portland, Ore., of all Social Security judges in the country.
In San Diego, Steinman pumped out more dispositions between 2005 and 2008 than any other judge in the office. In their memos, some judges complained that this is so because of Steinman's position.
Judge David Wurzel wrote that Steinman “put himself first by commandeering support staff for his own use. He takes the best clerks and writers for himself, and manipulates assignment of cases to enhance his own numbers. That enhances his own productivity but lessens the overall productivity of the office.”
www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/20/1m20judges23536-federal-agencys-sd-spat-revealed/?uniontrib
