|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 29, 2009 11:06:15 GMT -5
July 21, 2009
Hensley v. Astrue,
No. 08-6389 <>
In an action challenging the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the Administrative Law Judge failed to give controlling weight to a medical evaluation by plaintiff's treating physician or to explain his reasons for such action.
Read more... <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/086389p.pdf>
__________________________________________
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
July 22, 2009
Simila v. Astrue, No.
07-3682 <>
In a dispute involving plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ did not err in declining to place significant weight on plaintiff's doctor's findings regarding the intensity of plaintiff's impairments as the ALJ discerned and discussed the evidence and found that it failed to support the doctor's conclusions; 2) the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's credibility was not patently wrong as the judge properly considered plaintiff's subjective complaints and the evidence undermining the credibility of those complaints; 3) the ALJ's hypothetical questions to a vocational expert did not omit key facts and incorporated all of plaintiff's credible limitations; and 4) the court properly decided against remand where plaintiff's doctor's letter clarifying his prior opinion was not new and material evidence.
Read more... <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/073682p.pdf>
__________________________________________________
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
July 20, 2009 Valentine v. Comm'r., Soc. Sec. Admin.
No. 08-35374 >
In an action challenging the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, judgment for defendant is affirmed, where 1) the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not ignore or contradict plaintiff's neuropsychological assessment; and 2) the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to reject plaintiff's subjective complaint testimony.
Read more... <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0835374p.pdf>
|
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 29, 2009 11:45:01 GMT -5
The treating source rule is by far the reason for most remands and no matter how well supported and analyzed, any decision rejecting a true treating source opinion is subject to remand if the AC or Court believe the case should have been paid. It varies from Circuit to Circuit; my recollection is you reject treating source opinion in the 1st and 2nd Cir at your peril; the 4th enforces it but if you follow the Court's rulings (AND CITE TO THEM- are you General Counsel folks listening) I have been very successful MOST OF THE TIME. Another big factor is VE testimony- In the 3rd Cir, you better have a VE almost always ; in the 4th we can rely on SSRs 83-14 and 85-15 to address in-between RFCs and nonexertional limitations suchas simple, repetive, routine tasks. For those of you in training, I hope your instructors are keying you in some of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Jul 29, 2009 12:31:00 GMT -5
July 21, 2009 Hensley v. Astrue, No. 08-6389 <> In an action challenging the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the Administrative Law Judge failed to give controlling weight to a medical evaluation by plaintiff's treating physician or to explain his reasons for such action. Read more... <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/086389p.pdf> __________________________________________ U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals July 22, 2009 Simila v. Astrue, No. 07-3682 <> In a dispute involving plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ did not err in declining to place significant weight on plaintiff's doctor's findings regarding the intensity of plaintiff's impairments as the ALJ discerned and discussed the evidence and found that it failed to support the doctor's conclusions; 2) the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's credibility was not patently wrong as the judge properly considered plaintiff's subjective complaints and the evidence undermining the credibility of those complaints; 3) the ALJ's hypothetical questions to a vocational expert did not omit key facts and incorporated all of plaintiff's credible limitations; and 4) the court properly decided against remand where plaintiff's doctor's letter clarifying his prior opinion was not new and material evidence. Read more... <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/073682p.pdf> __________________________________________________ U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals July 20, 2009 Valentine v. Comm'r., Soc. Sec. Admin. No. 08-35374 > In an action challenging the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, judgment for defendant is affirmed, where 1) the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not ignore or contradict plaintiff's neuropsychological assessment; and 2) the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to reject plaintiff's subjective complaint testimony. Read more... <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0835374p.pdf> Imagine how helpful Jagghagg would have been to her fellows ALJs had SSA made an offer of employment. More uncontroverted evidence of just how dysfunctional SSA's hiring process truly is. Nothing uncontroverted or even material here. New ALJs are not tasked to research new case law in their circuit nor would it be a prudent use of their time. OGC sends out regular case law updates to all applicable components on a regular basis with links provided to the actual decisions. It is their job to do the research and to send the updates. A good manager would normally assign tasks to the lowest pay grade capable of doing the task and in this instance an ALJ is not that person. Basic legal research skills are not something that would set an ALJ candidate apart from the rest of the heard. It is a basic skill set for all attorneys and therefore something of a given for the experienced people applying to be ALJs. |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 29, 2009 12:41:17 GMT -5
Well, aren't you just the sweeeeeeeeeetest thing, Non ? Funny how I have a couple of HOCALJs on my distribution list who want this information. They must want to be kept up to date from outside sources.....instead of going the "Soylent Green" route and eating what is fed to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 29, 2009 13:02:42 GMT -5
V and NM are classic insiders and perfect examples of the stovepipe SSA mentality. Folks, ALJs don't get any information except something management wants them to get. Our new HOCALJ passes alot of stuff on but the pap that V and NM are talking about is POMs, policy interpretatioms, adjudication tips, et. al. The Regional Newsletter summarizes what the Region wants to pass on but caselaw- Oh my gosh what is that. And the HALLEX_ I don't think its been updated in 20 years, a la the DOT! I keep Charles Hall's website, SOCIAL SECURITY NEWS, on my favorite list and check it every AM. I am not plugging the guy but he did write the Westlaw pub in the US Attorney's law library and he is a helpful read.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jul 29, 2009 13:04:13 GMT -5
Well, aren't you just the sweeeeeeeeeetest thing, Non ? Funny how I have a couple of HOCALJs on my distribution list who want this information. They must want to be kept up to date from outside sources.....instead of going the "Soylent Green" route and eating what is fed to them. The case law updates! They're... they're... PEOPLE! AAHHHHHH THEY'RE PEOPLE! |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 29, 2009 14:30:01 GMT -5
Long, long ago we used to get the Social Security Reporter which I would read and mark what I considered relevant issues; I would then forward it with a "staffing ladder" to the other ALJs before putting it in the library (which disappeared about the same time as HPI). It usually led to a group CLE discussion. We were a very tight group of ALJs before XXX and now that XXX got himself into a forced retirement situation, we are again. We gather at the end of every day and discuss issues which came up during the days hearings. We have made our # last year and for the last seven months, primarily because we are blessed with supurb writers. The only time we have had difficulty is with outside writing (they never learn) which requires extensive editing and occasionally a whole rewrite. By the way XXX was one of the original insider ALJs, appointed in about 91 and then fast tracked to HOCALJ positions where he'd make a mess and then they had to move him to demoralize another office. At the end, even OCALJ couldn't save him from himself. As for references to caselaw now, I keep a close watch on Hall's blog and NOSSCR's website. So sad but true.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 29, 2009 15:16:09 GMT -5
No, Val - actually, the caselaw updates could also be construed as (a) an ALJ failed to follow the rules and give controlling weight to a medical opinion; (b) a court followed the rules and refused to remand because the evidence was not new and material;and (c) the ALJ was upheld because s/he followed the rules and gave weight to a neuropsychological assessment.
They're.....they're.....OMG!......they're RULES!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jul 29, 2009 16:50:22 GMT -5
No, Val - actually, the caselaw updates could also be construed as (a) an ALJ failed to follow the rules and give controlling weight to a medical opinion; (b) a court followed the rules and refused to remand because the evidence was not new and material;and (c) the ALJ was upheld because s/he followed the rules and gave weight to a neuropsychological assessment. They're.....they're.....OMG!......they're RULES!!!! I was just having fun with your soylent green reference. I thought it was funny. Otherwise, I don't know what email lists that Decadealj is on, but my office receives regular case updates from Regional HQ. I agree with DecadeAlj that a lot of the stuff we get, POMS, Hallex, etc, has little or no use. The attorneys at our office regularly do seminars with the local SSA bar group to discuss new regs, cases, trends, etc. I can't recall a time when they the claimant reps surprised us with a case we had never heard of. Why on earth would ODAR want to somehow conceal relevant caselaw? If SSA ALJs don't follow the caselaw, regardless of what management thinks of the new law, the cases will come back on remand and increase the backlog. If your theory is that SSA wants to force the ALJs against their independence to decrease the backlog, why would SSA make the backlog worse? I am pleased with my promotion to classic insider. Do you have any idea how many derrierre kisses that takes? |
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Jul 29, 2009 17:22:03 GMT -5
Non, not cool. Not at all. I was merely suggesting that JH would have been an asset to the ALJ corps. I think your response was insulting and unnecessary. How is it insulting to point out that your latest "proof" about why you think SSA is the spawn of Satan is not proof at all? Is it only OK for you to have an opinion about a subject? Nothing insulting to JH to point out that legal research skills are a basic requirement for all attorneys and that sending out case law updates is not something that a new ALJ should be doing with their valuable time. It is nice if she has the time and wants to share an item but it is not something that would set a candidate above others or prove an error in the agency hiring someone else who should have the same skill set. |
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Jul 29, 2009 17:39:00 GMT -5
V and NM are classic insiders and perfect examples of the stovepipe SSA mentality. Folks, ALJs don't get any information except something management wants them to get. Our new HOCALJ passes alot of stuff on but the pap that V and NM are talking about is POMs, policy interpretatioms, adjudication tips, et. al. The Regional Newsletter summarizes what the Region wants to pass on but caselaw- Oh my gosh what is that. And the HALLEX_ I don't think its been updated in 20 years, a la the DOT! I keep Charles Hall's website, SOCIAL SECURITY NEWS, on my favorite list and check it every AM. I am not plugging the guy but he did write the Westlaw pub in the US Attorney's law library and he is a helpful read. Thanks for the insulting characterization as a "classic insider" with a "stovepipe" mentality. You have no idea what sources I use to get info or even how much or little time I worked in the agency before I became an ALJ. I'm well aware of many sources of news about SS law and related issues since I actually took the time to learn that area of law prior to applying for a position as an ALJ at the agency. I was pointing out to someone who has never worked at ODAR that there is a group that is tasked with providing updates on case law so his assertion about JH's research being some type of "proof" of an error by SSA was not proof at all. Your assumption that I only get info that I'm being fed baby food is quite insulting but I expect nothing less on this board where it has turned into the Hatfields and McCoy over every little thing what with the constant spewing of negativity and sour grapes. I can see that those who don't agree with your little gang are not allowed to have an opinion without being attacked, so you all enjoy wallowing in the negativity and taking out your aggressiveness in the relatively anonymous world of the internet. I suppose it is better than going home to kick the dog. |
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Jul 29, 2009 19:19:58 GMT -5
Look, I gotta say that there was no reason for this thread to go downhill. All the Hagg did was post some caselaw she came across. It was "FYI." (Someone mentioned Charles Hall; JH distributes a lot of info and spends a lot of her spare time on it -she has about 6 distribution lists that are received by a number of federal attorneys.) I've known her a long time and if you haven't figured it out by now, there is little subtle about her. She doesn't TRY to make a point; she uses a 4x4 with great force. So unless she made a comment, her reasons for posting were benign. There was no need to, if you will excuse the pun, make a federal case about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 29, 2009 20:41:46 GMT -5
There are valid points and opinions on both sides here.
But ALJDiscussion has a point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 29, 2009 21:24:56 GMT -5
OK folks, time to quit making snide remarks at one another. This thread certainly degenerated quickly and for no good reason. Pix.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 30, 2009 6:16:54 GMT -5
There are valid points and opinions on both sides here. It was just caselaw - there shouldn't have BEEN " sides." Geez. I was just having fun with your soylent green reference. I thought it was funny. Oops. My bad!  |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 30, 2009 12:55:10 GMT -5
Pix and ALJD- to the extent I contributed to the degeneration- mea culpa and Pax. I think this thread just hit a raw nerve for some of us who have watched helplessly as we have been forced into so many clerical functions that we have less and less time to do the job we were appointed to do. The idea that I am a nonproducer or sleep on the bench was too much. The day I stop researching the law is the day I hang it up. What no one has seemed to mention here is some of us are the mentors for the staff attorneys! Io me it is unconscionable not to research issues and for those that think that this is all just FITS, I beg to differ. Of the 8 decisions I edited today, 5 were written by our most experienced (and best) attorneys and all either deleted or varied significantly from the FIT format. I am not going to rehash old wounds but I participate on this blog to share some hard earned lessons with the new ALJs and to some of our SESers who are reading may give pause to some of the machinations that haven't been digested before force feeding us more assistance. As several folks have pointed out, these aren't cases- they are peoples lives and it seems every new "practice" requires more and more time. I'll share one very personal incident- several years ago we were doing travel dockets in Western Naw York and after a particularly long day of cases involving 55 year old very skilled workers who had lost jobs at Corning, IBM and Eastman Kodak, and were desperate for assistance. I would have loved to be able to dispense assistance but there are alot of other folks struggling to make ends meet that are paying the bill. Maybe LBJ's minimum compensation to every citizen had some merit but last I heard it didn't pass. Anyway as I came out of the hearing room, I muttered "I am not God"- the senior attorney heard me and quipped "To those people you are". I have stated on many occasions how awesome the responsibilityof this job is and to those folks reading this blog who have a say in what's coming next, please ask me how you can help me rather than telling me. And by the way, what region you are in has everything to do with management. I hear the RC in KC has always been a leader- I wish all of the rest were.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jul 30, 2009 15:44:57 GMT -5
In the great scheme of things I didn't think this thread was that bad. We got an outrageously over-acted Charlton Heston movie line out of it. Jagghagg gets the assist. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 31, 2009 6:40:22 GMT -5
In the great scheme of things I didn't think this thread was that bad. We got an outrageously over-acted Charlton Heston movie line out of it. Jagghagg gets the assist. I tend to agree with y'all.  Gosh knows Siskel does need Ebert...And you know what, I think y'all care about each other even if some would never believe it! But ALJDiscussion wants y'all to stop beating the ODAR hiring horse and to ensure you don't get too personal. I understand her lofty goals and embrace her sentiments, but as Popeye would say "I ams what I ams." However, I know we care way too much about this Board to get her high horse saddled up... True litigators are a different breed. We shoot first and ask questions later. And we ain't gonna change. However, some of us gotta learn to be Judges... |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 31, 2009 6:55:33 GMT -5
PA- well said and not as easy as it seems especially for a career trial lawyer. As the LB thread investigation thread illustrated, judging requires not only temperment but caution. It is very easy to send the wrong signal to a rep and claimant even by the tone of your voice. And when someone is committing outright purgery, it is difficult not to enter your cross examine mode and reduce the claimant to tears. Its a new world folks- its the greatest job in government but contary to what some have suggested, it aint easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Jul 31, 2009 7:33:16 GMT -5
But ALJDiscussion wants y'all to stop beating the ODAR hiring horse ... If that's the case, then ALJDiscussion should make it a prohibited subject and shut down any discussion that veers in that direction. Seems ridiculous to me, because it seems to be both polarizing and important. If this board is only to discuss each upcoming cert and hire for SSA, then re-name the board to reflect that. If it is to discuss all aspects of BEING an ALJ, then manage the board with that in mind. If it is about all ALJ discussions, then let it go. True, some people just seem to draw fire: you, PA - and PF, JA, Val, PM are others. Drawing fire is not a bad thing. Everything needs a catalyst. My bet is a lot of people watch these discussions silently but with interest. Otherwise there would not be so many hits on each thread. Ergo, I'd say they serve a purpose. The hiring practices of ODAR will not be a "dead horse" until a court says they are. |
|
Gosh knows Siskel does need Ebert...And you know what, I think y'all care about each other even if some would never believe it!