|
Post by privateatty on Oct 12, 2009 17:49:36 GMT -5
nonamouse, I don't agree. Everyone brings different levels of knowledge, aptitude and desire to the table. Three striking high scorers to reach SSA experienced attorneys when some of those struck have much more medical litigation experience to me is a poor bargain. If you don't know the medical term find out. And its the wrong way to populate the ranks of the ALJ Corps.
decadealj has a good point. We are primarily decision makers. Knowing how to flesh out and highlight the difference between medical and legal causation has always been key and that almost always requires knowledge acquired through litigation ranging from subtle diplomacy to a velvet fist.
Your frustration is totally alien to me and I guess I can count my blessings.
|
|
|
Post by ruonthelist on Oct 13, 2009 11:35:06 GMT -5
Finally, the agencies that have deigned it unacceptable to hire except through internally announced vacancies, rather than taking from the register, have avoided one more thing: they have made an end run around the budgetary costs of paying for the certification of candidates that OPM would otherwise assess them and the cost of interviewing, doing reference checks and other workload implication associated with a hire. As I understand it, the non-SSA agencies do get assessed, whether they hire from the register or through usajobs, or even whether they hire or not. The way it was explained in a recent panel discussion of chief ALJs is that every year OPM assesses a set fee per judge for every agency, based on how many ALJs they employ. SSA pays a lot, and other agencies pay a little, but they all pay the user fee to OPM for running the hiring process.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 13, 2009 19:37:32 GMT -5
There is still this loose end and that is the changes wrought by the new ALJ Accomplishment Record ("AR") requirements and the fact that it allowed such a huge uptick in those qualified through agency experience versus traditional litigation experience.
I can assure that this is still a hot topic amongst the ALJ Corps.
And while we all hear you'all regarding the need to populate your ALJ ranks with SSA experienced attorneys, there is a lot of concern that those very same attorneys are not sufficiently schooled in litigation to transfer to other agencies (as they are historically wont to do).
SSA may be the 300 lb gorilla in the room with 90% of all ALJs but by definition they also account for all the other Judges in the remaining agencies as well. Its hard for me to believe that this is the scenario that Congress intended when the APA was enacted.
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Oct 13, 2009 21:20:47 GMT -5
The last part of this thread illustrates that some folks belief that ALJs shouild be medical experts. The Courts have cosistently admonished ALJs not to play doctor. I will not admit X-rays MRIs, CATSCANs or any other medical imaging modalitiy. I will admit physicians opinions as to the findings of those tests and compare the basis of the opinion with other evidence in the record. An ALJ needs to know enough to know when a case meets a listing and if it appears close to request an ME for an opinion whether the evidence warrant a finding that the case meets or equals a lisrting. There are a lot of physicians who are not comfortable opining about RFC- and I reject outright any DDS opinion as to RFC by an examiner who is not an MD, DO or PHD. Most of my cases are decided by the opinion of the treating source, as long as the opinion is consistent with his treatment notes and examination findings of the claimant. If its close, we owe the claimant the opinion of an ME, not an ALJ, no matter how experienced. Perhaps you misunderstand my point. When a case is close then using an ME is not "a waste." When an ALJ does not bother to read the evidence and uses MEs on every case as a shortcut to doing their job, then it is a waste and a cop out of using one's judgment as an ALJ. If one does not bother to learn about medical evidence then one does not know if it "is close" or out in left field. We are not required to be "medical experts" nor should we be trying to make a diagnosis that is not found in the medical evidence. However, we should have sufficient knowledge to know when to get an expert and which kind of expert to request. We should be able to find the symptoms per the listings and recognize them in the records to see if a condition does meet a listing and if a conclusion is supported by the medical records or if it is being manufactured out of thin air based solely on a claimant's subjective complaints. There are many things that require an ALJ to learn about the type of evidence that they are supposed to be weighing day after day and at ODAR acquiring that knowledge takes longer than learning the applicable law.
|
|
|
Post by ruonthelist on Oct 13, 2009 21:40:42 GMT -5
The smaller agencies (such as Medicare) use USAJOBs to announce transfer opportunities for sitting ALJs from other agencies. However, they still have to use the OPM process if they want to hire from the registry. I know the USPS hired one off the registry within the last year or so, and Medicare also hired a few (although I have no idea what does a USPS ALJ do... anyone here know?). It's not necessarily an either/or proposition. I have seen cases in which an agency both listed the opening on usajobs and obtained a cert. That way they get both a list of three candidates from the register and however many sitting ALJs respond to the usajobs listing. With regard to what a USPS ALJ does, I'm not the best qualified member of the board to answer that, but FWIW here is a thread from last spring where the same question came up. Scroll down to the bottom to see what I was able to find out then: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=polls&thread=945&page=1
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Oct 13, 2009 21:50:46 GMT -5
nonamouse, I don't agree. Everyone brings different levels of knowledge, aptitude and desire to the table. Three striking high scorers to reach SSA experienced attorneys when some of those struck have much more medical litigation experience to me is a poor bargain. If you don't know the medical term find out. And its the wrong way to populate the ranks of the ALJ Corps. decadealj has a good point. We are primarily decision makers. Knowing how to flesh out and highlight the difference between medical and legal causation has always been key and that almost always requires knowledge acquired through litigation ranging from subtle diplomacy to a velvet fist. Your frustration is totally alien to me and I guess I can count my blessings. I didn't opine about the quality of those passed over with high scores from OPM. I'm sure that some would have done a fine job and others would have been pain-in-the neck divas and others would have been lazy slackers who produced the bare minimum. My response was regarding your assertion that an ALJ at ODAR does not need to learn the area of law in depth to do the job properly and the implication was that understanding medical evidence was basically not an important consideration. You appear to be taking my post as some assertion that SSA specific experience is the only way to get that knowledge which was not I disagreeertion. I do believe that medical litigation would be a good background for hearing disability cases. The same goes for being a worker's comp judge. I also believe that anyone who has some knowledge of the agency has another leg up initially when the learning curve is the steepest. Sure other people can look up medical terms and do tutorials on how to use the computers and learn all of the regs and rulings and policies, etc. However, for anyone starting in a new position it is helpful to have a head start in the required knowledge and skills.
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Oct 13, 2009 23:03:01 GMT -5
Now this is the type of discussion that has been missing for this Board for a while. Very interesting points all. I'd like to hear more. As for the other agencies "avoiding" vet prefs, etc. by hiring from the existing ALJ corps, that may very well be true, but remember all of the regulations still apply if they seek positions from the register, which some have. I do not have enough knowledge about the hiring of ALJs from other agencies to speak intelligently about the process, or to make any accusations that wrongdoing is involved in it. On the specialized knowledge of SSA attorneys, I don;t think anyone is denying that it exists. My god, how could you work for an agency for ten or fifteen years and NOT have knowledge. However, as I have said before, you are not splitting the atom in a disability hearing. You are kidding yourselves if you think your specialized knowledge takes years of practice to obtain. That's nonsense. Anyone hired off the register can master it in a reasonable period of time and be productive. If SSA has hired some bad apples in the past, and I have no doubt that has been the case, that's a shame. But its certainly not a basis to violate the regulations. As I have said ad nauseum, if you don't like the system, change it through OPM or Congress, don't just ignore the law. SSA has tried that and failed, so now it just ignores the law. You may think the end justifies the means, but I don't. You are assuming a lot that is not in my post. I have not justified anything about passing over anyone, but that is your usual favorite debate topic, so I guess you saw it between the lines somewhere in my post. Anyone who went through the process for the old register can tell you that the way the interviews were done changed and that was what I was referencing. The agency interviews are more in-depth at ODAR than they were in the past because doing a cursory "crazy check" didn't serve them well in the past. If you can prove that something illegal occurred in the hiring from the new register, then I'm happy for you and well done. However, every post is not about that allegation. I was not "defending" passing over any particular person or group because I don't know the entire list of who was not selected and why they got passed over on a particular cert. In fact, the only people who I know personally who applied and were not selected are ODAR attorneys (some of whom had prior litigation experience before they joined the agency). I'm well aware that people can gain quite a bit of knowledge about the agency in a relatively short amount of time because contrary to your assumption, I didn't work there for a decade or whatever before I became an ALJ. I didn't assert that applicable knowledge of medical evidence had to come from working at SSA. It is another one of your assumptions made after seeing what you wanted to debate instead of what was actually posted. In fact, I didn't gain my knowledge of medical issues at SSA nor did I need to count my time at ODAR to meet the OPM litigation requirements. Like many people at ODAR, I could have applied without any change in the definition of qualifying experience. If you think that having prior experience with medical evidence gained over a number of years is something that "anyone" can cram into their brain in a short amount of time, then I want to live in your reality. I could have saved myself a lot of years of hard work and studying. I disagree with your assertion that anyone on the register can master all of the law and medical and be productive in a reasonable amount of time. The ALJs hired off of the old register proved that some people are simply incapable of doing the job properly even after many years and their non-medical litigation chops didn't help them to quickly sift the chaff from the wheat when reading the medical records. Asking more detailed questions at the agency interview was a prudent change in the selection process, not some huge conspiracy to pass over those from outside of SSA. This change is not related to agency specific knowledge but to things that are required to function at a hearing office at ODAR and at some other agencies as well. People could have gained these skills in any number of places, but someone who is clueless in those areas may not get an offer regardless of their OPM score since OPM didn't inquire about some basic things. There are attorneys still practicing who cannot independently operate a computer sufficiently well to be an ALJ in a paperless environment or doing video hearings. It may seem like a given to you that everyone is computer literate now, but it is not the case. If you recall your ODAR interview, then you might realize that questions were asked relating to your ability to function within the business process in use by the hearing offices currently. You probably didn't pay much attention to those questions because you possessed the needed skills.
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Oct 13, 2009 23:54:43 GMT -5
There is still this loose end and that is the changes wrought by the new ALJ Accomplishment Record ("AR") requirements and the fact that it allowed such a huge uptick in those qualified through agency experience versus traditional litigation experience. I can assure that this is still a hot topic amongst the ALJ Corps. And while we all hear you'all regarding the need to populate your ALJ ranks with SSA experienced attorneys, there is a lot of concern that those very same attorneys are not sufficiently schooled in litigation to transfer to other agencies (as they are historically wont to do). If everyone came straight from law school to ODAR, then your assumption might hold water but that is not the case. In my hearing office the two of us selected as ALJs had sufficient litigation experience under the old definition to hit the 7 years required by OPM before one could be considered. There are plenty of other attorneys who take a job in an SSA component after having many years of outside experience and the "ALJ Corp" is well aware of it. The ones who were allowed to apply from our office who did not have the litigation experience from the old definition got such low scores from OPM that they didn't even make one cert. Your assertion that the ARs are the change that allowed more SSA attorneys to apply is incorrect. It makes me wonder what else is being remembered incorrectly. It was the initial questions before one reached the ARs on the application that required one to list a minimum of 7 years of qualifying experience. Following the litigation about the old register, OPM (not SSA) changed their definition of qualifying experience. If other agencies were actually concerned about only hiring ALJs with sufficient litigation experience, then they would use the register and stop poaching after SSA spends the money and time to train candidates. Hiring directly from the register would ensure that other agencies with smaller certs would only have to look at people with the highest OPM scores and those can only be obtained with some litigation experience. However, the other agencies apparently don't put as much stock in the OPM score as yourself and PF or they would be hiring exclusively from the register. Any agency poaching from SSA has the ability to look at resumes and cherry pick the ones with whatever background they desire. They are not bound by OPM scores when evaluating sitting ALJs for a change of agency. Hence Val's very valid point that much of the anger directed at SSA for being an obstacle in the path to other agencies is misdirected. SSA is not forcing any agency to poach their ALJs. It is ridiculous to hold them responsible for what other agencies do to hire ALJs. It is even more ridiculous to expect ODAR to consider the future desires of a potential poacher when hiring people to preside at nonadversarial hearings at an ODAR hearing office. If someone does not want to be an ALJ at ODAR, then they should be willing to sit on the register until another agency (where they do want to work) reaches their score. This is exactly what they would have to do if OPM maintained separate registers for agencies with nonadversarial versus adversarial hearings. If a candidate's score is too low to get on a cert for anyone except ODAR, then tough nuggets. Life is frequently not "fair." They must not be "qualified" to be at the other agency by virtue of the very OPM score that some have argued should have been given more weight by ODAR.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 14, 2009 21:09:17 GMT -5
Actually there was a change that allowed administrative litigation experience in lieu of Art. III courtroom experience. I remember having to cite reported cases in my application in 2006. And you are correct that it was OPM that made the change, not SSA. But to think that OPM did not bow to SSA pressure would be a bit naive. That was why I suggested a while back that the real reason for AALJ's suit against OPM was the fear that SSA was feathering its nest of new ALJs with its "own people". That may well be "fightin" words" to some on this Board, so I will leave it as a mere whimsical accusation, bereft of empirical evidence... I am not saying that SSA is hiring Judges not qualified to serve in other Agencies; no, not me! I am saying that there is a strong belief amongst the ALJ Corps that this is going on, however. We do agree that the Register has many fine potential Judges, indeed, they post in these pages. You, me, pf, heck, we all fit this bill. So of course do about 50-100 3 striked attorneys languishing in the Register. There are practical reasons why other Agencies hire only sitting ALJs, primarily those from SSA. A "rogue" SSA is an unmitigated disaster to another Agency. SSA vets them, makes sure they can "produce", "insures" that they have no obvious or not so obvious "issues", etc. etc. This is common sense. And yes, of course SSA has a bunch of non-producers (or those that doth produceth too much), but the law of statistics is what it is. Let's just be honest here. SSA is saying that the ends justify the means--its OK to choose whom we want, no matter the score, to help us with our backlog. If you had Congress breathing down your neck, you'd understand. The irony of the remark that years of medical-litigation experience is not to be scoffed at is, I agree! I will not bore you with my qualifications, but let's just say that doing 2 to 4 dr. depos a month (plus some trials and hearings) for over 25 years convinces me you are right. Having this body of knowledge under your belt is a plus. But decadealj is right too. And it is not justification for three-striking qualified candidates. I agree with pf. Its the process that stinks. All those on the Register are qualified to be ALJs. And of course this is a touchy subject. We all must know someone who was by-passed. And I would expect those that were "reached" over these by-passed bodies to defend themselves. And yes, life may not be fair, but we can and should expect better.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 15, 2009 7:15:29 GMT -5
I always laugh when I remember the reactions on this board to the first batch of OPM scores. Of course some of us were happy with our scores, but others were justly shocked and angry with the arbitrariness with which their impressive resumes and experience were casually dismissed by OPM with ridiculously low scores or even "unqualified" findings. Many of those with "happy" scores began measuring their robes and licking their chops as the first few board members reported offers from agencies other than SSA. There were a few words of sympathy for the people screwed by OPM, along with best wishes on the appeal process. But really, one could sense a feeling that a few eggs have to be broken to make an omlette...
Then SSA did its first hiring... and Captain Willard began his long trip up the Nung river. (Apocalypse Now is a delightfully darker metaphor than Alice in Wonderland.)
Suddenly up was down and down was up, integrity of process mattered, and it was all SSA's fault. All those new robes with nowhere to go! Whereas the OPM process was just a mysterious ritual to be accepted, SSA's process had to be dissected to the bone to find and banish the rot.
Lets be honest, the process only became an issue on this board after things went south for certain candidates. They never questioned their high OPM scores, because their entitlement to their scores was assumed. Just because another candidate with essentially the same experience as Patriotsfan was found unqualified, why should it detract from the legitimacy of his score? I suppose it all depends upon which part of the process you choose to ignore.
"Do you really believe that the majority of people on the register are pining to become SSA ALJs because of the challenges of doing disability hearings? The vast majority want to be ALJs, and hope to someday be an ALJ at another agency that offers more interesting work."
LOL! Surely we all know by now that the insiders are only interested in the SSA ALJ slots because they feel entitled to an in-house promotion, but those from the outside have only the purest intentions of furthering truth, justice, the American Way, and vocational fullfillment! A generous, steady paycheck, great benefits, job security, family-friendly hours, and prestige have never had anything to do with it for anyone concerned!
Patriotsfan, you would be so much more convincing with just a few shades of grey. Your black-or-white world vividly exposes the limitations of litigation experience. My client is right, and yours is wrong, and there is no in-between.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Oct 15, 2009 8:30:53 GMT -5
The OPM scores have meaning; otherwise, one's position on the Register would be determined by how quickly the application was received. Anyone who can state that "scores are meaningless" without at least a queasy feeling in the gut is not someone I would invite into my home. Face it, a higher score means that, to the graders at OPM who applied objective, if unrevealed, criteria, that particular person was more qualified than others who received lesser scores.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Oct 15, 2009 9:32:51 GMT -5
"I have heard" some rumblings about SSA researching other methods of acquiring adjudicators without going through the OPM register process. And if so, it is not without precedent. Long, long ago, I think in the late 70s, SSA appointed "Black Lung" judges at GS 14/15, to preside over a caseload that is now the jurisdiction of DOL ALJs. Eventually those folks were "folded" into the ALJ Corps in the late 80s or so. There my be a few ALJs around who could comment on that process (deltajudge?) but it would not surprise me to see SSA come up with a similar process if they could get the legislation to authorize it. It would make a distinction between nonadversarial (SSA) and other agency qualifications for the SSA ADJUDICATOR position. It could also be the promotion so many agency attorneys want and with overtime they could earn the same amount as an ALJ (there are some senior attorneys doing that now). Of course, they would not be ALJs that could qualify for the ALJ positions with other agencies without going through the OPM register process.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 15, 2009 12:57:03 GMT -5
Patriotsfan you simply missed my point. Of course litigators find and use grey areas. But they use the grey areas to support the assertion that their client is entirely right and their opponent is entirely wrong. Conceding that your opponent just might not be entirely in the wrong is generally not good practice. Some litigators check that attitude at the door when its time to head home, and others... well not so much.
I'm glad you're finally willing to concede that the process is really about serving the people, or more specifically, the claimants. I know myself and everyone else on the board has recognized that your crusade has had everything to do with respect for government, and nothing to do with getting rejected by SSA. We are all quite happy that you have managed to uncover the numerous and vast conspiracies within SSA and the ALJ hiring process within two years, while at the same time developing a near-encyclopedic understanding of the programs. (Don't worry, we understand your failure to achieve a similar grasp of the OPM process, since even genius has its limits.)
I must admit that I find myself ashamed in light of your selfless and idealistic pursuit of government service. I am drowning in a stagnant pool of inherent bias and numbing blindness, a mere slave to the evil machinations of my ODAR Overlords. I look up at my GSA standard drop-ceiling panels and see the higher calling of which you speak and realize that I do not belong...
Fin
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Oct 15, 2009 21:39:43 GMT -5
The OPM scores have meaning; otherwise, one's position on the Register would be determined by how quickly the application was received. Anyone who can state that "scores are meaningless" without at least a queasy feeling in the gut is not someone I would invite into my home. Face it, a higher score means that, to the graders at OPM who applied objective, if unrevealed, criteria, that particular person was more qualified than others who received lesser scores. The only reason I get a "queasy" feeling when I see someone assert that "scores are meaningless" is the truth of the assertion. Something as important to government public service should have open and objective criteria and qualified personnel evaluating the applications. I have heard all the arguments about well trained HR specialists, but bottom line is they have no clue how to evaluate and compare legal expertise. While the scoring of the written test and interviews may be valid, a large chunk of the score is not. The AR portion of the process is a measure of who can play word games well and not a measure of the value of ones career thus far, as much as the high scorers would like to pretend. All I know is that the first time applications were accepted, I did not make the AR cut, despite having litigation experience, med mal experience, agency experience AND vet pref points. Second time around, my score was among the top third. In the intervening year, the only thing that changed was my wordsmithing. While I am thankful that things worked out for me, it does make me queasy to think my ability to identify and artificially use key words in 700 words or less made the difference in whether or not I am an alj.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 16, 2009 17:36:06 GMT -5
The OPM scores have meaning; otherwise, one's position on the Register would be determined by how quickly the application was received. Anyone who can state that "scores are meaningless" without at least a queasy feeling in the gut is not someone I would invite into my home. Face it, a higher score means that, to the graders at OPM who applied objective, if unrevealed, criteria, that particular person was more qualified than others who received lesser scores. The only reason I get a "queasy" feeling when I see someone assert that "scores are meaningless" is the truth of the assertion. Something as important to government public service should have open and objective criteria and qualified personnel evaluating the applications. I have heard all the arguments about well trained HR specialists, but bottom line is they have no clue how to evaluate and compare legal expertise. While the scoring of the written test and interviews may be valid, a large chunk of the score is not. The AR portion of the process is a measure of who can play word games well and not a measure of the value of ones career thus far, as much as the high scorers would like to pretend. All I know is that the first time applications were accepted, I did not make the AR cut, despite having litigation experience, med mal experience, agency experience AND vet pref points. Second time around, my score was among the top third. In the intervening year, the only thing that changed was my wordsmithing. While I am thankful that things worked out for me, it does make me queasy to think my ability to identify and artificially use key words in 700 words or less made the difference in whether or not I am an alj. Ditto. I think morg was confining his remarks to SSA, and while the latter may three-strike you, at least you must be considered. Other Agencies do hire off the Register with their own certificates.
|
|
|
Post by karaj on Oct 22, 2009 21:52:05 GMT -5
MarciaBrady, I am a 19 yr. veteran S.A. at ODAR..and I love your idea from p. 4 of this thread! the ALJ Rejects Club! Let's do it! where & when??
|
|
|
Post by marciabrady1977 on Oct 26, 2009 14:10:12 GMT -5
karaj:
Let's see...my idea from page 4...was that for intensive psychotherapy or a get together??? Or perhaps group psychotherapy...
Okay, folks!!! I've received some private messages about a get together. Let's put on our thinking caps. I'm thinking of something totally off the wall like a meeting in Las Vegas!!! Can't just about everyone fly there on the cheap???
Oh, I know. Let's go to Falls Church...party in the office of the big chief. Nope. Just kidding.
I will be in Europe for two weeks in July 2010...other than that I'm relatively free...with advance planning of course!
Gotta go wax my board and look for some waves.
Peace.
Marcia
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Oct 27, 2009 12:30:42 GMT -5
Marcia:
I'm thinking we have to meet some place like South Dakota, you know amber waves of grain. No surfboards, but lots of baked goods. They'll know we're serious when we show up in SD. Maybe it could be coordinated with the Sturgis get together. Or maybe we should just pick some other off the wall place and turn it into a Sturgis. Okmulgee, Oklahoma? Green River, Utah? Clovis, NM? Baker, CA? Dodge City, KS? Wikiup, AZ? Limon, CO? The Dalles, OR? Tonapah, NV? These are just a few of my favorite places - and each with virtually no outside distractions. I'm just afraid if we go to LV some may not go just for the warmth of our little group and they might be distracted. Just a thought. I'm game as long as there's a Howard Johnson's by the airport with a seafood buffet - they're always so nice!
CJ
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Nov 4, 2009 11:25:03 GMT -5
... Do you really believe that the majority of people on the register are pining to become SSA ALJs because of the challenges of doing disability hearings? The vast majority want to be ALJs, and hope to someday be an ALJ at another agency that offers more interesting work. That doesn't make them unqualified or a bad person. ... I haven't been around the board in a while - yes, that's right, I come around when I know I'm going to need information - and I have not read the last 4-5 months of discussion about the whole SSA vs all other agencies issue. But can this possibly be true? With SSA having, what, 90%?, of the ALJ jobs, are there really people trying to use SSA ALJing as a path to another agency? That's sounds pretty farfetched as a plan, and as a conclusion. Maybe the "challenges" of the job are not what attract people, but after years of representing clients and now a year plus at SSA, I want to be an ALJ at SSA. I don't want to learn a new body of law and a new set of procedures. I want to be able to use what I know to help make the right decisions - and to be able to be confident that I did what I was supposed to do and the law was working the way it is supposed to. The money is great, of course, but if they said I could be an ALJ without a raise - I'd do it anyway. Explaining to clients why they lose when you believe in their case is very difficult, especially when your only answer is that the ALJ who heard their case is a moron. Preparing decisions for ALJs who couldn't assemble an RFC to save their pension is frustrating. I don't harbor the illusion that being an ALJ is like living in the Garden of Eden, but I'd like to think that of 200 people hired to be ALJs at ODAR, it's not true that 150 are simply killing time until they can be "real" ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Nov 4, 2009 11:47:09 GMT -5
I agree with you that after years of learning an area of the law I don't want to learn a new body of law and a new set of proceedures. However I don't work at SSA and my agency hires transfers from other agencies (usually SSA -- all of our ALJs started at SSA). In order to work in my agency I need to "spend 2 years in SSA before you become a real judge." (That is a quote from my agency's Chief ALJ.) Therefore if I want to be an ALJ, I need to spend my time at SSA on the way to somewhere else.
I don't know the percentages who want to leave SSA, but if another agency posts a job there are many SSA judges that apply. That tells me many are using it as a path to another agency.
I am glad you like your job and enjoy what you are doing but there is a measurable percentage that wants to move on.
|
|