|
Post by Orly on Jan 26, 2010 8:08:51 GMT -5
# of dismissals would help too. I think that info is already in there. Total dispo - Total Decisions = Total dismissals. From looking at my own numbers in the databse, I believe that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 26, 2010 8:49:10 GMT -5
If you are not in the 40 of a 10-20-40-20-10 bell curve of dispos, you probably need to think about why. If you are issuing favorable decisions in more than 75% of your cases or unfavorable in more than 50%, you may want to have a talk with your AAs and SAs for a mirror check. I see an OTR maybe once a month because our SAs do a pretty darn good job of writing the easy ones. But I can tell you from alot of experience, you can't compare cases from the rust belt of the Great Lakes, or the thousands of highly skilled workers laid-off by Corning, IBM and Eastman Kodak in western New York to those from migrant farmers and fishermen from the Eastern Shore or the red dirt folks in the South. DDS has a huge impact from state to state as do the social welfare agencies in each state. You cannot start to fathom the difference from New York and Pennsylvania to North Carolina, Virgina and Texas.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Jan 26, 2010 16:54:50 GMT -5
If you are not in the 40 of a 10-20-40-20-10 bell curve of dispos, you probably need to think about why. If you are issuing favorable decisions in more than 75% of your cases or unfavorable in more than 50%, you may want to have a talk with your AAs and SAs for a mirror check. I see an OTR maybe once a month because our SAs do a pretty darn good job of writing the easy ones. But I can tell you from alot of experience, you can't compare cases from the rust belt of the Great Lakes, or the thousands of highly skilled workers laid-off by Corning, IBM and Eastman Kodak in western New York to those from migrant farmers and fishermen from the Eastern Shore or the red dirt folks in the South. DDS has a huge impact from state to state as do the social welfare agencies in each state. You cannot start to fathom the difference from New York and Pennsylvania to North Carolina, Virgina and Texas. I can't agree more with the notion that ALJ disposition rates are vastly affected by the quality of the state DDS. My hearing office has recently embarked on providing some help to a hearing office in a neighboring state and my affirmation rate has skyrocketed. Why? because my home state DDS seems to insist everyone over 50 can do medium level work so I spend my days with "home" cases gridding case after case whereas with the state we are helping, I can go for days without seeing a single claimant over 50.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 26, 2010 18:01:52 GMT -5
SEALJ- right on. Several years ago, we did a lot of cases in Western New York. The Legal Aide folks in the Finger Lakes region were terrific and I spent a 3 hour bar-b-q feast at the New York State Fair with a DDS Doc who was genuinely concerned about developing her cases. And in several counties in NY and PA, the county social service people develop the cases to get people on federal rather than state disability rolls and even represent their clients at hearings. It was incredible. My favorables went through the roof but alas I finally had to return to the desolation of Eastern North Carolina where Purdue chicken chasers and eviserators constituted a significant portion of the docket and alot of people have the same last name. One lady had six kids on SSI and when I totalled her public housing, food stamps, medicaid for the 6 kids and cash, I figured she was drawing about 100 grand a year tax-free.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 27, 2010 16:06:24 GMT -5
Is it absolutely clear that low producers are in fact "freeloaders?" Facts are facts (as I have often said) so there is no debating the numbers, but I wonder if it can be rightfully assumed that all ALJs who fail to meet some arbitrary management objective for case resolutions are therefore lazy or incompetent. I have no doubt that there are bad apples, but isn't it equally likely that some ALJs are not properly reviewing cases, but are merely pushing the sausage through the grinder at an acceptable rate, without any real review. Aren't those ALjs really the lazy or incompetent ones? It seems axiomatic that deciding too many cases too quickly might be as bad, or even worse, than deciding too few. In other words, can we really rate an ALJ on production alone? Isn't there more to the job of an SSA ALJ than making the exact amount of widgets per day demanded by management? As an ousider, just curious what you SSA folks think about that. There is absolutely some truth to this. There are plenty of freeloaders too, but the production stat doesnt tell the full story at all. If you told the average claimant that the judge was only going to look at his/her case for an average of an hour, I'm fairly certain they would not be too happy about that. This discussion takes me back to my practice days. I used to tell clients (before seeing which judge would be assigned, usually when they asked about their chances) that there are three kinds of judges. The "bad" ones (I used words understandable by my clientele) who try very hard to turn people down no matter what the evidence is, the "good" ones who try to pay everyone no matter what the evidence is, and the "real judges" who weigh the evidence and try to come to the best decisions. I always told them that we want the "good" ones for their case because it is easier to win, but they're not acting like "real judges;" and if we get a "real judge" that we believe the facts and law will support a finding of disability by the judge. I was up front about the impact of the judge at that time, and when the judge was assigned I told them how we would adjust our presentation of the case based on the assignment (for example, making written procedural objections to preserve appeals of "bad" judges, while skipping all that to make it easier for "good" judges, etc.). My point in recounting this is that lawyers should have the awareness and integrity to recognize that failing to attempt to apply the law to the facts of any given case - no matter the outcome or the production rate - is not "judicial." It may be a prerogative of ALJs, but it does not merit respect. However, while slight (even if statistically significant) variations from the norm in production may not necessitate red flags when we judge an ALJ's competence, extremes are noteworthy. An ALJ doing over 300 decisions (not dispositions) a month HAS to cause concern. Maybe it is a HOCALJ signing off on OTRs or some other reasonable explanation, but looking into it is TOTALLY valid. Conversely, the ALJ issuing 3 decisions a month (especially when the pace is maintained for a full year or more) can have very little in the way of a reasonable excuse. (That's a salary of about $4,400 a case (gross)). I hope that those on this board, when picked or if already sitting, will be honest with themselves and whether they are being "judicial" or "bureaucratic."
|
|