|
Post by coloradoman on Jan 19, 2010 9:12:09 GMT -5
Our ODAR office has had only one ALJ who was previously an SSA attorney. She turns out to be one of the best and most productive among our ALJs. She is polite to claimant's and reps, allows the rep to ask questions, and she then follows up politely with questions that may or may not expose lack of credibility. Her hypos to VEs are usually right on the money, and decisions are fair and accurate. However, we also have an ALJ who was a long time prosecutor. He is very good as cross examination, finding great satisfaction in leaving the claimant and sometimes even the rep in tears by the end of the hearing. He is not as good at asking hypos to VEs, usually just asking hypos using the state agency RFC findings; and writing his decisions sometimes feels like trying to hammer a square into a hole made for a triangle.
For a SSA ALJ, litigation experience is good; but there can be such a thing as too much litigation experience if the ALJ is too locked into the view that the world is adversarial and he or she cannot readjust to the non-adversarial nature of a SSA hearing. We want each claimant and rep to leave a hearing knowing that they were treated with courtesy and respect, regardless of the outcome of the case.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 19, 2010 9:48:59 GMT -5
8-)I disagree with patriotsfan about OHA/ODAR being a 'farm team." We had quite a few transfers of ALJs from other agencies mainly for the reason stated, the cases were not as difficult as the adversary cases. This is strictly my opinion, but one factor that should be considered in the selection process, how much experience has the candidate had in dealing with the public and the proletariat? The hearing process and sitting in an office working a computer is a whole lot different world. You will also be dealing with attorneys who handle more than SSA cases, who have trod the boards, and most of them are pretty sharp. It will take more than your title of Judge to impress them.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 19, 2010 12:32:06 GMT -5
Patriots Fan said: "Since the new register kicked in, the % of folks hired by SSA as ALJs who have prior SSA experience increased from less than 10% prior to 2007 to close to 50% post-2007. " So, is this information a matter of public record?
|
|
|
Post by coloradoman on Jan 19, 2010 13:49:35 GMT -5
PF, I am not suggesting that all prior litigators will remain adversarial when on the bench. I simply pointed out one example of an ALJ who could not put aside years of litigation experience where he viewed the world as adversarial and could not put that aside when interacting with claimants and their reps. I have worked with other ALJs who I also felt were too tough on claimant's and reps...perhaps the ALJ was insecure and got an ego boost by cutting down claimants and reps or whatever. Of course, there are many others who fall between the range of outright adversarial or being too passive and simply listening to the claimant and rep and never asking any questions. We have had some ALJ who were former litigators who view an ALJ position as easy street or high paid retirement plan where they ask few if any questions at the hearing, make decisions based on gut feeling without decent review of the evidence, and give little guidance/ instructions to writer other than pay or don't pay.
What makes a good SSA ALJ has as much to do with good people skills and good work ethic as anything else. The most qualified candidates may come from within SSA or outside of SSA. It depends on the person. Litigation experience should be a consideration; previous experience with SSA law and procedures, reading and interpreting medical shorthand, and interpreting medical records should also be a consideration in the hiring decision.
There are some attorneys in my office who applied for an ALJ position, but never made it past OPM. They do a great job as SSA attorneys, sitting in an office all day long reviewing cases and typing decisions, but they lacked litigation experience and also do not have decent public speaking skills or public interaction skills. OPM did a decent job screening out those individuals.
I agree with you and Pvt attny that SSA, as a gov't agency, should comply with all rules and criteria in making hiring decisions and should also be transparent and publicly accountable for its hiring process. I have always worked with the belief that if you do the right thing in the right way, you never have to worry about anyone auditing your work. SSA should take the same approach.
I just sense some disdain from you with regard to applicants from inside SSA. Its not our fault how puzzles palace handles the hiring process; and being an insider can also potentially be a negative for those of use who have had the guts to speak up within the agency when non-attorney management issue illegal directives, etc.
|
|
|
Post by runningman on Jan 19, 2010 13:56:19 GMT -5
The ALJ register was closed for approximately 10 years because of ongoing litigation. In 2007, OPM changed the requirements for minimum qualifications. This change allowed some applicants with administrative law experience to include that in their experience, whereas earlier, those people may not have been able to do so. I don't know what PF means by "SSA experience," but it is probably a very broad definition. As has been posted through numerous other threads, most ALJ training classes (including mine) had about 1/3 with experience in social security disability law. However, even those with experience in this area of law may have been brief or, for private practitioners, very intermittent.
|
|
rep2
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by rep2 on Jan 19, 2010 14:01:05 GMT -5
In response to the comment about how the hearing process and sitting in an office working at a computer are very different....as an AA for SSA, I (we all have in this job) have probably listened to 1,000 hearing tapes to ascertain the numbers of jobs the VE cited, or to put together the RFC -which may have been left lacking in the instructions-, or to hear more about how the claimant described his or her condition, etc. It may not be the same as participating in the hearing, but I believe most SSA writers are well- equipped to hold hearings, as we know EXACTLY how it all works from beginning to end.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 19, 2010 15:54:21 GMT -5
PF- to close the loop, SSA and H&HS obviously want OPMs blessing to make legit what they are already doing. I don't see how anyone could read the GAO report any other way!
|
|
|
Post by belgrade on Jan 19, 2010 16:20:44 GMT -5
It's amazing, my friends, how some of you have so much time available to waste on useless and empty as vacuum debates. Get a life and get to work.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 19, 2010 19:15:47 GMT -5
It's amazing, my friends, how some of you have so much time available to waste on useless and empty as vacuum debates. Get a life and get to work. One sees it as a vacuum, another a professional issue of major impact. Only about 10% of all ALJs give any time to professional organizations such as AALJ, FALJC and the ABA. The same I guess can be said for any professional group.
|
|
|
Post by coloradoman on Jan 19, 2010 21:57:02 GMT -5
When I first came to OHA (now ODAR), there were several attorneys who had worked with OHA since its beginning and were true experts in the area of SSA law and practice. Throughout their careers, there was little, if any, chance that they could become a SSA ALJ. The word at that time was that there was a belief that attorneys for the agency would be biased in favor for SSA and biased against claimants. That was far from the truth, but that is what, to my knowledge was the belief of those making the ALJ hiring decisions at that time. The general belief among attorneys until just a few years ago was they they had little chance of being hired as an ALJ, as evidence by some of those attorneys' attempts to become ALJs. Most of those attorneys have now retired. I don't know how far back statistics obtained by others on this forum go, but I am certain statistics will show very few SSA attorneys were hired as ALJs until the last few years, even though many had prior litigation experience and were extremely well qualified for the position. Those SSA attorneys were always training newly hired ALJs who had no prior SSA experience; and as loyal staff attorneys, going to great lengths to help correct ALJs errors and protect them from embarrassment. I too have helped train new ALJs in our office and helped correct their mistakes. I mean no disrespect to those ALJs, but that was the case; and it was my job to help them.
The hiring process back then was not fair to SSA attorneys. Now, SSA attorneys have at least a chance to become SSA ALJs.
I do not condone SSA violating any established ALJ hiring criteria, and PF has obviously done a lot of homework on the hiring criteria. But it is wrong for anyone to bash SSA attorneys without knowing their work history and qualifications, or to state directly or imply that SSA is one big happy good o'boy agency or family engaging in nepotism. It is not a good o'boy or family environment. There are many well qualified SSA attorneys, and we are certainly not biased against claimants. I always take great satisfaction when I can pay a case on the record and save a claimant from months to more than a year of waiting to have an ALJ hearing. I firmly believe in SSAs mission of providing quality service to the public.
Even though I am currently an SSA insider, I received a high OPM score based on a long career of hard work and varied work experiences, and got that score without being on steriods. I will not hold my breath counting on that score getting me an ALJ slot. If I get an offer, fine. If not, I still have a good job and much to be thankful for.
I respect the efforts by PF, Pvt Attny, and the others who have worked to make sure applicable hiring criteria are followed correctly. It should be a transparent process. But I object to any unfair bashing of SSA attorneys, whoever it may be who does the bashing.
With that said, I think the criteria should be changed to allow for consideration of subject matter expertise. Do you think it would be good for society to not allow consideration of bankruptcy experience in deciding who to appoint as a bankruptcy judge? Is is right to prohibit a district attorney from considering an applicant's prior criminal law experience in making decisions on who to hire as an assistant DA? Should the Senate and the President be prohibited from considering prior criminal law experience in deciding who to appoint as a District Court Judge who will be handling criminal cases? How logical is it to preclude consideration of prior SSA experience (whether as an agency attorney or claimant's rep) when deciding who becomes a SSA ALJ who will make decisions that have such a significant impact on SSA claimant's lives.
I have read the posts from others who say SSA law can be understood in a short period. Those who say that have such little knowledge of SSA practice that they don't know what they do not know. Its not as simple as step 1-5. There are several types of cases and issues unique to each type of case. Mostly, there is a large learning curve for understanding the significance of lab results, reading medical shorthand, understanding the many medical conditions and the typical signs and symptoms, etc. An experienced SSA attorney can breeze through hand written medical short hand notes; and can easily recognize pertinent lab values, understand medical terminology, and recognize even subtle recognized symptoms for various medical impairments. You can't teach that in a short course. It comes from years of experience.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 20, 2010 7:44:18 GMT -5
When I first came to OHA (now ODAR), there were several attorneys who had worked with OHA since its beginning and were true experts in the area of SSA law and practice. Throughout their careers, there was little, if any, chance that they could become a SSA ALJ. The word at that time was that there was a belief that attorneys for the agency would be biased in favor for SSA and biased against claimants. That was far from the truth, but that is what, to my knowledge was the belief of those making the ALJ hiring decisions at that time. The general belief among attorneys until just a few years ago was they they had little chance of being hired as an ALJ, as evidence by some of those attorneys' attempts to become ALJs. Most of those attorneys have now retired. I don't know how far back statistics obtained by others on this forum go, but I am certain statistics will show very few SSA attorneys were hired as ALJs until the last few years, even though many had prior litigation experience and were extremely well qualified for the position. Those SSA attorneys were always training newly hired ALJs who had no prior SSA experience; and as loyal staff attorneys, going to great lengths to help correct ALJs errors and protect them from embarrassment. I too have helped train new ALJs in our office and helped correct their mistakes. I mean no disrespect to those ALJs, but that was the case; and it was my job to help them. The hiring process back then was not fair to SSA attorneys. Now, SSA attorneys have at least a chance to become SSA ALJs. I do not condone SSA violating any established ALJ hiring criteria, and PF has obviously done a lot of homework on the hiring criteria. But it is wrong for anyone to bash SSA attorneys without knowing their work history and qualifications, or to state directly or imply that SSA is one big happy good o'boy agency or family engaging in nepotism. It is not a good o'boy or family environment. There are many well qualified SSA attorneys, and we are certainly not biased against claimants. I always take great satisfaction when I can pay a case on the record and save a claimant from months to more than a year of waiting to have an ALJ hearing. I firmly believe in SSAs mission of providing quality service to the public. Even though I am currently an SSA insider, I received a high OPM score based on a long career of hard work and varied work experiences, and got that score without being on steriods. I will not hold my breath counting on that score getting me an ALJ slot. If I get an offer, fine. If not, I still have a good job and much to be thankful for. I respect the efforts by PF, Pvt Attny, and the others who have worked to make sure applicable hiring criteria are followed correctly. It should be a transparent process. But I object to any unfair bashing of SSA attorneys, whoever it may be who does the bashing. With that said, I think the criteria should be changed to allow for consideration of subject matter expertise. Do you think it would be good for society to not allow consideration of bankruptcy experience in deciding who to appoint as a bankruptcy judge? Is is right to prohibit a district attorney from considering an applicant's prior criminal law experience in making decisions on who to hire as an assistant DA? Should the Senate and the President be prohibited from considering prior criminal law experience in deciding who to appoint as a District Court Judge who will be handling criminal cases? How logical is it to preclude consideration of prior SSA experience (whether as an agency attorney or claimant's rep) when deciding who becomes a SSA ALJ who will make decisions that have such a significant impact on SSA claimant's lives. I have read the posts from others who say SSA law can be understood in a short period. Those who say that have such little knowledge of SSA practice that they don't know what they do not know. Its not as simple as step 1-5. There are several types of cases and issues unique to each type of case. Mostly, there is a large learning curve for understanding the significance of lab results, reading medical shorthand, understanding the many medical conditions and the typical signs and symptoms, etc. An experienced SSA attorney can breeze through hand written medical short hand notes; and can easily recognize pertinent lab values, understand medical terminology, and recognize even subtle recognized symptoms for various medical impairments. You can't teach that in a short course. It comes from years of experience. I agree with everything you say, but there are a few points. This Board was started and is still run by ALJDisc and Pixie, two SSA Judges. Its focus has been and continues to be, SSA. The "Other Board" had become populated with trolls and they felt, rightly so, that a new Board was needed. Absent this Board, neither I nor patriotsfan would have become Judges. Why this is so need not be trotted out at this time. Thus, we are the two serial posters who feel very strongly about this Board. Ironically, neither of us work for SSA because we were three striked by Puzzle Palace. I divorced myself from this Board (my start date was 9/07) as ALJDisc had vaporized the Wild Wild West, another feature on this Board like the Polling place. She also put in place these stupid faces. Why she did this I don't know but I guess it was because it became a pain in the keister to monitor and it was in danger of being troll-infected. I felt that was a big mistake and got in a snit fit and signed off, with jagghagg, whom some of us dearly miss. I say all this because there is a lot of history on this Board and you, coloradoman, have touched upon some of it. The change in 2007 with OPM to allow admin experience was monumental. The huge uptick cited by pf in the percentage of SSA insiders hired was huge as well. pf's figures are accurate. I agree that in years past SSA SA's and AA's got the short end of the stick. They made their Judges look good and were treated like the hired help, if that. And they were not hired and that was wrong, very wrong. However, let's dispell the notion you and other posters have that there is SA and AA bashing going on in these pages. Au contraire! Many of you would make great Judges. No doubt! As you posted, it is the person and their work ethic who makes a good Judge, not necessarily their skill set, although the later is important. pf and I will continue to champion the right way, the legal way, to choose ALJs. That is our passion. Yes it makes sense to choose attys with SSA experience, but it isn't legal when you three strike your way through 50 or 75 lawyers to get to "your people". That it happened to me was a huge blessing and the irony is not lost here nor is it lost to pf. But that is not the point. Many of my favorite posters here have been three striked and when it happens before your eyes, well, it ain't pretty. The bottom line is if you get on the Register you are qualified to be an ALJ and then its a "crap-shoot". If you have SSA experience your chances are increased. Don't forget to mention it in your SSA interview and ensure your SSA ALJs are solidly in your corner. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 20, 2010 10:43:25 GMT -5
There is no statisitical public record of the ALJ hiring since 2007. What I mean is, there are no public statistics from which you could say x% of agency attorneys on the register were hired vs. y% of non-agency attorneys on the register were hired. This board has been able to determine to some extent the numbers and backgrounds of those actually hired, but the numbers and backgrounds of the unfortunates have been largely unknown. Even the definition of "insider" is somewhat murky, as in, do you count as an insider if you have ever worked for ODAR, or even SSA? What about if you worked outside ODAR for 20+ years and you just started working there last year?
Patriotsfan has said he has some information that he has received through legal channels, but there is no real way to confirm any of it. Therefore, we're really pretty much in the dark over the whole question of favoritism or desecrating the most holy merit-based hiring process or even daring to question some interpretations of the APA.
Overall, agency insiders have represented about 40% of the hires since 2007. If you acknowledge that agency attorneys would be qualified, then you would also have to realize that after being shut out of the OPM hiring for so long, the talent pool would reasonably be expected to be considerably deeper as a class than others.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 20, 2010 11:34:15 GMT -5
Patriotsfan has said he has some information that he has received through legal channels, but there is no real way to confirm any of it.. So much for the value of my word. val, I too can vouch for pf, not as to his word (which you KNOW is good) but to the data... Heck, we have always taken you at your word.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 20, 2010 11:39:41 GMT -5
coloradoman- your post has significant merit but after a lot of years at this business, I can't agree that you ever learn all the issues that pop-up in our cases. I haven't written a child paternity case in years, primarily because I wrote the decision that led SSA to rewrite the regulation on the effect of state intestacy law on a federal benefit. I know that because SSA published the new reg and used it ti reverse a decision (terminating a child's benefits) I issued almost 4 years earlier which caused more than a little consternation at the time. There are just so many overpayment and technical issues that we see so rarely that I have to go back to the books quite often- the policy pertaining to "equity and good conscience" comes to mind. I won't even touch res jujdicata, administrative finality, good cause, new and material evidence and reopening issues all of which SSA has so botched with policy interpertations that it makes one's head spin. Perhaps my retention abitities have deteriorated over the decades but once you venture from the 5 step sequential evaluation process, SSA experience merely helps you spot the issue. But kudos on your post.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 20, 2010 11:55:46 GMT -5
So much for the value of my word. val, I too can vouch for pf, not as to his word (which you KNOW is good) but to the data... Heck, we have always taken you at your word. If I'm throwing out second-hand information for general consumption, I think I need to indicate as much. I understand your reasons for not posting your information, but I feel I owe it to anyone reading my post to be clear that the only thing behind your information is your word. You can question any of my information that you want and I will give you some basis for it, which is what I think I have pretty much always done in the past. Lets face it, the GAO report that is the subject of this thread was actually posted through a link for everyone to access, its hard info. Others have responded with personal anecdotal information, ie "I know several attorneys in my office..." This board is a useful vehicle for group therapy through whining and moaning about a very difficult and murky process. On the other hand, it has also been a very useful info sharing source, but with all of the inherent limitations of an anonymous posting medium. I like to try and compensate by being clear where I am getting my info from and being clear as to when I am guessing vs repeating solid or rumor based info. Don't take offense. It takes years of idol worship, self interest, and manipulation to achieve the level of unquestionability that the APA and merit-based hiring process have achieved. You'll have to excuse me now. Management has told me that I must stand on my head and I must obey... now... and unquestionably...
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 20, 2010 12:24:39 GMT -5
If I'm throwing out second-hand information for general consumption, I think I need to indicate as much. I understand your reasons for not posting your information, but I feel I owe it to anyone reading my post to be clear that the only thing behind your information is your word. You can question any of my information that you want and I will give you some basis for it, which is what I think I have pretty much always done in the past. Lets face it, the GAO report that is the subject of this thread was actually posted through a link for everyone to access, its hard info. Others have responded with personal anecdotal information, ie "I know several attorneys in my office..." This board is a useful vehicle for group therapy through whining and moaning about a very difficult and murky process. On the other hand, it has also been a very useful info sharing source, but with all of the inherent limitations of an anonymous posting medium. I like to try and compensate by being clear where I am getting my info from and being clear as to when I am guessing vs repeating solid or rumor based info. Don't take offense. It takes years of idol worship, self interest, and manipulation to achieve the level of unquestionability that the APA and merit-based hiring process have achieved. You'll have to excuse me now. Management has told me that I must stand on my head and I must obey... now... and unquestionably... You could always tell us your real name and duty location so that the transparency of your postings is clear. I mean, how do I know you are not Commissioner Astrue or Judge Christaudo? If you are, then everything you say must be viewed through that prism. If you are not, prove it. If I were Cristaudo or Astrue, you and Privateattorney would be in Gitmo by now.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 20, 2010 12:40:25 GMT -5
If I were Cristaudo or Astrue, you and Privateattorney would be in Gitmo by now. LOL! I have NO DOUBT about that! And now I know your true identity! You're Karl Rove! And if I were Rove you would be in Hell by now.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 20, 2010 12:49:21 GMT -5
And if I were Rove you would be in Hell by now. Which would mean that I was at SSA at your duty location! You are Astrue! touche
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 20, 2010 12:54:33 GMT -5
Private Attorney said: "Yes it makes sense to choose attys with SSA experience, but it isn't legal when you three strike your way through 50 or 75 lawyers to get to "your people"." How is this possible?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 20, 2010 13:03:23 GMT -5
LOL! I have NO DOUBT about that! And now I know your true identity! You're Karl Rove! And if I were Rove you would be in Hell by now. God, I've missed you val! Someday, someway, I've GOT to be able to buy you a drink or three....
|
|