|
Post by workdrone on Apr 11, 2010 9:36:47 GMT -5
But you, like val and a majority of this Board, tend to see things through the prism of ODAR and pf and I don't. After all, we aren't a part of ODAR and likely never will be. We are all creatures of our environment, no? But that doesn't mean we can't understand and learn from each other. No one has a monopoly on wisdom, and open exchange of ideas is what lead to further development and prevents stupid mistakes from happening. I agree. And this just goes to the point that despite how much we like our jobs and think what we do are important, Congress didn't give a twit until we had a huge backlog and the media and their constituents started complaining en mass. Yup. You and I are on the same page on this. Well, ODAR did have a pilot project in the Northeastern U.S. called the FedRO adjudicators. Basically it added another layer of adjudication between the DDS and the ALJ. However, it really wasn't having the bang for the buck. This is the problem. Most of the cases not paid by the FedROs still get appealed up to the ALJ level. So the FedROs are really only good for paying cases and nothing else, since this extra level of adjudication doesn't stop the claimant from appealing to ALJs. And if the FedROs are only good for paying cases, then why not just use in-house Senior Attorneys? So the FedRO pilot program got canned, and now we have Senior Attorney Adjudicators to weed out the cases that can easily be paid on the record. Without some serious changes in the current statutory/regulatory scheme, the only solution is hiring more staff, which the Agency had embarked on in the last three years with the Congress' blessing. However, if more bodies doesn't work, we can expect movements to change the status quo in a more draconian fashion. When Congress acts, it's usually a cleaver, not a scalpel. I understand. And SSA hiring issues can be resolved in the courts. If SSA gets slapped silly, it will change its ways. It's the bathwater. However, the baby is whether the SSA ALJ Corps is actually worth while. I think it is, most of the ALJs I know are dedicated and hard working, and we do our best to serve the American people in deciding cases in an fair and impartial manner. However, if there are too many slacker ALJs running around with case dispositions that can't be reasonably justified, then we're in serious trouble. At that point Agency management may be able to convince Congress to throw the baby out and make a new one. PA, you still feel the pain of being a casualty of SSA's 3-strikes. Same with PF. And I understand your anger and where you're coming from. But once you have been around for an extra 10-15 years, you'll be a lot more concerned about the big picture future of the ALJ Corps instead of hiring issues that can be resolved through traditional litigation channels. Everything in life is a slippery slope. The only question is what's on the bottom of that slope. Touche.
|
|
|
Post by wilddog on Apr 11, 2010 10:06:17 GMT -5
Just a few observations about ODAR judges, at least from my humble perspective . . .
The pressure SSA ALJs feel is not only external from the agency, I think it's internal as well - SSA ALJs WANT to do a good job (let's face it, attorneys tend to be self-motivated and driven types, right?), and so there's always a tension between quality and quantity, one that is heightened by increasing exhortations from SSA management to meet "goals." And, after all, unlike ALJs in other agencies (for the most part, anyway), our decisions directly affect people who may be in the most dire of straits, financially as well as health-wise, and inordinate delays only exacerbate things for these folks, who may be hanging on by their fingernails. This most assuredly doesn't excuse the issuance of poor decisions, but it is a factor we're aware of - or should be, anyway, given the import and affect of what we do. Even if we deny those people, I think we're all agreed that it should be done as timely as possible and for all the right reasons, of course.
Finally, I don't think it's been mentioned (or at least not for a long time) that AALJ clearly was convinced that ODAR staff attorneys would be stooges for SSA, and would therefore not give claimants a fair shake. From what I can tell, that was a chimera of Bernoski & Co. with no basis in reality, and made AALJ seem even less credible regarding its expressions of concern about the quality of ALJ candidates coming from SSA itself. I'm certainly not aware of any former agency attorneys who feel beholden to the agency such that they'd consciously or unconsciously find against claimants out of some misguided notion of fealty to SSA - if they're out there, I'd imagine they're in the vast minority.
As PA is fond of saying (as am I), though, your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by shiela on Apr 11, 2010 11:48:47 GMT -5
Another point is that the backlog at ODAR is due to two reasons; failure to properly fund SSA during the Bush years and the Azdell litigation. OPM has to take alot of responsibility for that as there was no mandate that it had to freeze ALJ hiring for so long. OPM cared not one whit that hundreds of thousands of deserving folks were hung out to dry and suffered miseries that you and val and so many Board Members listen to every day. Some died waiting. In my mind, the move was cruel and unnecessary and no one in power really called them on it (as far as I know). This observation is quite accurate and insightful. I have never heard anyone make this point before. Why do you think OPM was never called out on the hiring freeze? I watched SSA oversight hearings from 2003 until 2007. It was clear that SSA and OPM were telling Congress different stories about why ALJ hiring remained limited long after the Azdell litigation was over. As far as I recall, neither had focused on the budget.
|
|
float
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by float on Apr 11, 2010 11:59:47 GMT -5
Just a few observations about ODAR judges, at least from my humble perspective . . . The pressure SSA ALJs feel is not only external from the agency, I think it's internal as well - ....... our decisions directly affect people who may be in the most dire of straits, financially as well as health-wise, and inordinate delays only exacerbate things for these folks, who may be hanging on by their fingernails. The only pressure I feel on a daily basis, other than the honor and responsibility of serving the public as an SSA ALJ, comes from knowing how many people are waiting to be heard, and how many are still waiting to hear from us.
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Apr 11, 2010 13:09:31 GMT -5
Though I understand PF's position, and am often in disagreement, his passion for his position is well taken and true.
However, I do concur with float and wilddog.
I have been with OHA/ODAR since 1987. Prior to that I had a few years in private practice and 4+ years as an Assistant United States Attorney and a state prosecutor.
The dockets have varied and you take the dockets as you find them. But, one needs to move with appropriate speed. Justice delayed is justice denied is a maxim that is so true.
I have not seen or felt any pressure to decide a case one way or the other, but one should not be slow in moving cases. I have seen a few judges that will not exceed a certain number of dispositions per month. One did 40 and one does 45. It did or does not matter if cases were concluded and ready for signing, but they could not be released because the judge chose not do so. I find that appalling, but it is not something in my control and I would expect management to intervene, but they have not. I fail to see judicial independence as a basis for this inaction.
Claimants are entitled to a fair decision on their applications, regardless if the decision is favorable, partially favorable, or a denial. People's lives and health can depend on the decision. If a grant, in whole or in part, they can move forward; they might then be able to obtain appropriate medical treatment or save their house or savings. Why, then, an arbitrary delay, even for a month or more? If a denial, then people can at least move on with their lives or take an appeal.
I see the number of lives my work impacts on a daily basis. And I work hard to make what I feel is the right decision, one consistent with the SSR's and regulations.
I still feel that an experienced ALJ, in ODAR, should be well able to dispose of rather more than 20-25 claims per month. To do less, IMHO, is a disservice to the oath that was taken and to the many people seeking justice and a fair decision from their government.
|
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Apr 11, 2010 14:27:24 GMT -5
Maddog stated: "I'm certainly not aware of any former agency attorneys who feel beholden to the agency such that they'd consciously or unconsciously find against claimants out of some misguided notion of fealty to SSA - if they're out there, I'd imagine they're in the vast minority."
Perhaps you have it backwards -- whether the attorneys consciously or unconsciously find FOR claimants . . .
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Apr 11, 2010 14:58:29 GMT -5
I'm not saying that an ALJ does not share a similar interest, but our role is different than SSA's management. Our role is to hear the facts and make a decision. Fair statement. And as I and several other posters have mentioned, we never encountered a scenario where the agency management interfered with our decisional independence. First, PF, you're not a SSA ALJ. Never has, probably never will be based on your posts. Maybe I'm over-reading your posts, but it almost seems like you're pretending to be a SSA ALJ sometimes. Be happy and be productive for your own agency and try not to pretend to be something you're not. OK? And if that was just sloppy writing on your part and it wasn't intentional, I apologize for mis-reading your intent. Now back to your statement. On the macro level, I agree. An ALJ should not be concerned with overall agency production. But on the micro level, each of us owes a duty and obligation to our oath of office to be productive and put in an honest day's work. Maybe life at your agency is all nice and slow, but at ODAR, there is a desperate stream of people that needs to know what is going to happen to them, and to claim that we ALJs don't have an obligation to do as many cases as we reasonably can is not going to stand up to the straight face test. Tell me it's OK for some ^&&^&*( to make 160k a year and do only 20 SSA cases a month. If enough of us agree on that is OK, then we're going the way of dinosaurs next time Social Security gets tweaked. And considering the way the trust fund is going, there are going to be some tweaks with in the next couple years for sure. If individual ALJs care about the future of this program, then they'd better put in a full day's work and be efficient. I don't think anyone is going to be successful arguing about borderline cases, nor would they even try. But when you got legal geniuses who do 20 cases a month and whine non-stop about how difficult life is, it gives the rest of us a bad name. I think that's a fair statement. Unfortunately, quite a few slackers I have known use "full and fair" hearing as an excuse to slack off and not do their fair share of cases. Yes. But at the same time, each individual ALJ has an obligation to be productive as well. I do the best I can every day and I expect everyone else to do the same, and if one day my health can't keep up anymore, I'm retiring. Well, we interpret and enforce Agency regulatory schemes every day, so I think you're referring more to policy guidances and such below the CFR level. In that case, we're in agreement. Ah but PF, this is where your bias shows. I have been around the block long enough to know that no single group has a monopoly on efficiency or incompetence. Outsiders and Insiders both have their strength and weaknesses, and because selection is a zero sum game, it creates hard feeling between the groups. I have known great ALJs that were hired from the outside as well as those through the ranks from the inside. I have also known really horrible ALJs from both side of the fence. So to claim one group is superior to another in some way is really kind of silly without looking at each individual's qualifications. Statistics are great for certain things, but it's not good at measuring individual worth. I think based on the latest FALJC report, there are suggestions about how the OPM exam process can be improved, and I think they are good starting points. After all, I think most of us will agree that much improvements can be made over the status quo. As for the SSA selection aspect of it, let the MSPB and the courts sort it out. Like Azdell, while it might be hurtful to individual candidates, it doesn't fundamentally change our ALJ Corps. What's critical is probably some serious soul searching about how we remain relevant in this changing societal and budgetary environment. How our contributions are important to the American people. Because if we can't make that case to Congress in the future, we may all go back to become hearing examiners again like it was before 1978.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 11, 2010 14:59:26 GMT -5
Great discussion. Thanks all, I find it fascinating and educating. There really isn't much said to argue with here. I place more emphasis on selection process than others, but it doesn't seem to me that any of us, with a few notable and unmentioned exceptions, are that far apart in our views. I find that encouraging. One poster mentioned following CFRs as agency policy. Yes, we have to follow the regulations if the regulations promulgated by the agency are consistent with the statutory scheme. An ALJ can decide that an agency promulgated regulation is invalid under a statute. I differentiate regulations from agency policy directives, and perhaps was unclear about that earlier. I don't really care what my agency's policy is on a given matter. I decided cases based upon the statutes and the regulations. As such, technically, the reduction of the backlog, while something both good and necessary, is not really an individual ALJs concern. That's management's concern, and management's responsibility. I'm not saying that an ALJ does not share a similar interest, but our role is different than SSA's management. Our role is to hear the facts and make a decision. How many decisions get made, that is SSA's concern. They can try to streamline the process, and they can make efforts to get ALJs to hear as many cases as possible, but in the end, its not the ALJs job to reduce the backlog. SSA needs to give ALJs the support to maximize production, and that is how SSA management can achieve their goal, but again, that goal is theirs, not the individual ALJs. An agency's policy and goals, while not always different from an individual ALJs perspective, is not always an ALJs obligation to achieve. I place goals on my own docket, and keep cases moving forward because I want folks to get a full and fair hearing, and I want it done in a timely manner. My goals and the agency's goals can be the same, but the responsibility for the overall goal is not the ALJs but the agency's. Does this distinction jibe? I am not trying to split hairs but trying to explain why I digress from the concept that an agency's policies are important to me as an independent ALJ. They are not. I understand them, and may agree with most of them, but its not my job to enforce them or to set my goals to meet them. That's what makes me independent. If there is a concern about too much intra-agency hiring, its that many of the former SSA personnel have made a career following agency policy, adopting the agency's goals and directives as their own. Likely they were every good at it, which is why they got the ALJ job. Now, they have a different role, and many will adopt to that fine, but I can see from others who post here that the switch is difficult or impossible, because they tie agency success to their success, and that tie is no longer valid as an independent adjudicator. The agency's success at achieving its policiy objectives is no longer a goal. I think for many that's difficult to unlearn. PF, there is a big difference between an agency's regulatory policies and its organizational policies. Your continuing argument that the agency insiders are somehow beholden to SSA's regulatory policies only serves to spotlight your ignorance of what is a notoriously narrow and dead area of law. We aren't toeing some line designated by SSA, we're simply limited in our options by a settled are of law. Awareness of this situation allows for an unusually large and fast-moving docket. Think about how much your average time per case would fall if the time you spend determining the applicable regs were to decline by 95%. Some attorneys from the outside have a difficult time getting used to it, or even understanding it, which leads to accusations such as yours. As far as I know, former agency attorney ALJs do not have a higher remand rate that other ALJs, which would be the case if we were adhering to an agency regulatory policy that did not follow the laws and regs. Now an agency has the right to determine the organization and staffing policies of its appellate hearing process as long as it does not interfere with its ALJs' independent decision-making capacity. An agency is under no obligation to tailor these issues to the preferences of its ALJs beyond the applicable labor agreements. Here you probably see some more agreement between the insider ALJs and management, but perhaps less than you may think. My own personal goal is to do my share of the work amongst my coworkers, while maintaining quality and integrity. I include clerks, staff attorneys, and yes, even local management, as my coworkers. If they're going to bust there butts, and I don't have to sacrifice quality or integrity for it, I'll match their productivity. Its a matter of local office camraderie rather than trying to meet some ridiculously arbitrary Regional Management goal.
|
|
|
Post by wilddog on Apr 11, 2010 19:47:32 GMT -5
Maddog stated: "I'm certainly not aware of any former agency attorneys who feel beholden to the agency such that they'd consciously or unconsciously find against claimants out of some misguided notion of fealty to SSA - if they're out there, I'd imagine they're in the vast minority." Perhaps you have it backwards -- whether the attorneys consciously or unconsciously find FOR claimants . . . --------- I certainly have no agenda other than - as Southerner put it so well - to make the right decision, consistent with the Social Security Rulings and regulations, and to do so in as timely a fashion as possible. If a claimant meets their burden of proof, then they prevail, and if they don't, they won't.
|
|
|
Post by ruonthelist on Apr 11, 2010 20:41:04 GMT -5
Another point is that the backlog at ODAR is due to two reasons; failure to properly fund SSA during the Bush years and the Azdell litigation. OPM has to take alot of responsibility for that as there was no mandate that it had to freeze ALJ hiring for so long. OPM cared not one whit that hundreds of thousands of deserving folks were hung out to dry and suffered miseries that you and val and so many Board Members listen to every day. Some died waiting. In my mind, the move was cruel and unnecessary and no one in power really called them on it (as far as I know). Good point. The Azdell case was final on appeal and the stay was dissolved, in 2004. OPM waited 3 years after that to reopen the exam, and only did it then because of pressure from Congress. At the House subcommittee hearing in early May 2007 OPM Director Springer came under intense criticism, which seemed to genuinely surprise her. She kept responding that there were still over 1000 names on the register, and didn't seem to get that both SSA (Comm Astrue also testified) and Congress wanted the list to be refreshed. In that testimony she made the pledge that the exam would be reopened "in the next few days" as it was, leading to the famous May 2007 rush to the mailbox. All during the years of the Azdell stay, OPM was working on the new test. The stay obviously didn't prevent them from designing new test procedures. I know some judges who travelled to DC for meetings in the design process. Despite these years of work, OPM was not ready, or more likely, didn't see the need, to act expeditiously when the stay was lifted.
|
|
|
Post by wilddog on Apr 12, 2010 8:35:12 GMT -5
I think this thread has done more to inform me about perceptions and mis-perceptions I may have about SSA than any other. It does not change my fundamental belief that SSA's selection process is unlawful, but it is interesting to hear the dispassionate observations of so many who do this on a daily basis. SSA is a 300lb gorilla, so we focus our attention there, and rightfully so. How SSA as an agency treats its ALJs, including how they choose to discipline ALJs, enforce quotas, etc. actually does have an impact on the rest of us. Let me explain that below. First, I have absolutely no interest in becoming an ALJ at SSA now or in the future. I like my job, and very much prefer the adversarial hearings I conduct, to the difficult process you folks have have at SSA. I admire all of your collective ability to handle the workload and pressures you have at SSA. Please don't interpret my comments as disrespectful of what you folks do every day, they are not intended to be so. SSA has never been seen as an ALJ friendly agency. Accordingly, since the vast super-majority of ALJs serving in the federal government work there, the rest of us care very much about what happens in that relationship. If SSA can push the envelope on ALJ Independence, it will, and that will embolden other agencies to do the same. We are all in this one together. I do wish that this concept had not been hijacked by a few ALJs who are less than competent. It is far too important to permit that to occur. However, it is the ALJs on the margin, those who get targeted by the agency, that also risk hurting our independence. That is why we defend ALJs under attack, even some less than stellar ALJs, because we do not want to see a body of MSPB law develop that surrenders ours independence to the whims of the agency. A good case for that might be the Abrams matter that has been discussed here. That decision raises a number of concerns for ALJs outside of SSA, and it should. Its difficult to understand sometimes that whether you believe a particular ALJ to be "less than" and therefore deserving of discipline, it may be in your own interest to support that ALJ in his/her battle, because the issues may be greater than an individual's performance. No one likes to carry the load for a lazy slob that simply can't cut the mustard or chooses to treat the position as a retirement gig. But we have to be mindful that tough cases make bad law. We let a "less than" ALJ get disciplined, and the agency begins to chip away at our independence. "Failure to meet agency goals of production" as a basis for discipline is a very scary concept. That's what I talk about in the agency goals versus independence discussion above. A bad MSPB decision can really hurt the rest of us if an agency chooses to target ALJs, such as HUD has done recently. Its not always SSA that is the bad guy, but what SSA does and does not do can have a negative impact elsewhere, which is why we talk about it so much, and why someone like me, who doesn't work there and doesn't want to, still cares about what happens there. We are, for better or for worse, all in this together. We may have our disagreements, but we cannot afford to let those interfere with the role we play, and we cannot sit idly by and let any federal agency step on our independence without a fight. Likewise, I won't be silent about the abuse of the selection process. I do not believe that the ends justify the means. It doesn't matter one whit if agency attorneys are, by and large, superior ALJs at SSA. So when I hear that defense, I cringe. It is totally irrelevant to the discussion regarding the process as lawful or unlawful. However, I do agree its a matter now for the courts, so we can all just agree to disagree on that prickly issue. As I stated earlier, we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I'll step off my soapbox now. -------- I concur with much that you've said, PF, and appreciate not just what you've said, but also how you've said it. From Yahoo Answers: "When about to sign [the Declaration of Independence], Hancock, one of [Ben Franklin's] colleagues, is reported to have said, 'We must be unanimous; there must be no pulling different ways; we must all hang together.' 'Yes,' replied Franklin, 'we must hang together, or we will be pretty sure to hang separately.' "
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Apr 12, 2010 9:09:55 GMT -5
[An ALJ can decide that an agency promulgated regulation is invalid under a statute.]
PF-- I am uncertain from whence you derive this authority. Perhaps in your agency you may have such legal authority, but I am unaware of any with respect to ODAR.
Perhaps you may educate me differently.
|
|
|
Post by Well on Apr 12, 2010 9:31:55 GMT -5
I really enjoy all this but sometimes feel like its the story of the blind men and the elephant. All are correct as to the part of the elephant they have encountered.
This probably belongs in part in about four different threads but I'll let it rip anyway.
1. I'm not sure that the greatest threat to the ALJ system is SSA hiring. That threat is probably the attorney adjudicator system. The senior attorneys are clearing out those cases that just need a little bit of development to become pay cases. Sometimes its a simple as explaining the source of income that appears on the record. It can be new evidence such as an MRI or the treating physician increasing dosages or changing medications because the person is not improving.
If the senior attorneys clear those easy cases it means two things. The first is that ALJ's will have more involved cases and won't have those quick clears to help their numbers, so ALJ's will appear to become less efficient, even though they are now better focused on cases truly requiring adjudication.
The second is what will happen to the allowance rate? If an ALJ is working 45 cases a month and granting allowance in 27 that's a 60% pay rate. If the senior attorneys are clearing 6 of those easy pays you would expect the ALJ to start paying 24 or 25 of the cases reaching their docket instead of 27. If the pay rate of ALJs remains constant, the argument may be made that they have a subconscious bias of what their pay rate is rather than truly adjudicating each case, "proving" that the process is flawed.
I see this as a real risk.
2. About insiders. I worked in private practice, as a public defender and a managing public defender over the course of almost 20 years. I've been death penalty certified and a two week death trial is the definition of stress and extensive litigation. I came to the agency as a GS-11. An attorney with 5 years experience who had been a second chair at a law firm for the most part but made law review came in as a GS-12. I learned a tough lesson about using "buzz words" on government applications. You can bet my AR used nearly every phrase from the application. Will that make me an ALJ? Who knows, but it got me to the next round over people with good skills and good background that I know.
As a private attorney and public defender, I was vaguely aware of the ALJ Corps but didn't spend my time waiting for the process to open and knew little of it other than it would show up on USAJobs.gov. I missed the last two application openings out of ignorance. Working at SSA, I knew as did the people on the board that it would open at some near date. When it came open, I jumped on it with both feet as did pretty much every eligible applicant in my office.
When I went to the WD and SI I ran into several people from my training class as an SSA writer. People who had 10+ years experience before coming to SSA, who knew little to nothing of the ALJ Corps prior to joining the agency in the past two years were pretty common. This is before SSA touched the list.
This is why I ask how many insiders apply. Out here in flyover country if you don't practice disability law, you know little about ALJs. One of my compatriots had been at a large firm out in a prairie state told me all she had known of ALJ's prior to taking an SSA job to parachute out ahead of possible layoffs was that they associated counsel in DC to deal with them in their mega-business. She had no interest in living in DC and had never considered ALJ as a career path.
Another thing I learned from my WD and SI experience (I'm chatty) was that people who said they listed one to three locations were mostly people who were from outside SSA with a smattering of SSA people who had some sort of family obstacle to relocating. One private attorney stated he was only licensed in his state and a neighboring state so only picked cities in those states, apparently not understanding the process.
If I get a decent score and end up being hired, my "insider" status will certainly be a factor because I never would have applied if I hadn't been hired. Will it be a factor in SSA's thought process? I have no idea, but with two years experience with agency, I don't consider my agency experience to be my calling card.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Apr 12, 2010 11:39:44 GMT -5
I'm an outsider and have a question for the ALJs. Are you limited in the number of physical hours you work, ie. do you have to leave at 5 or 5:30?
I ask this because I know a lot of government agencies limit their employees to regular hours unless comptime is approved and they don't want people putting in an inordinate number of hours just to shine. By the same token, in private practice you are also driven first to bill for every second you breath but conversely are free to spend every waking minute on a case if you want, as long as you're actually working.
I know people work around the system but if there is a prohibition on putting in unpaid excess hours it would make getting work done at one's own pace more difficult but would also making being a goldbrick more obvious.
I'm not suggesting anyone's personal work habits are deficient if they want to work regular hours and depend on that any more than I think someone should assume they need to put in extra hours, but I'm curious. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Apr 12, 2010 12:15:55 GMT -5
carjack, yourf question requires a complicated answer but I will try to keep it simple. You are sometimes limited on the number of hours you can work. ALJs do not get overtime pay. They can earn credit hours up to a total of 24 and they also can get credit for travel during off duty hours when such travel is necessary. both credit hours and travel comp can be used in conjunction with regular leave or by itself. You can read the union contract about the limitations on earning credit hours and how to use them. You cannot earn credit hours before 6;30 A.M. or after 6:00 P.M. (not certain on the p.m.). You also have to use the travel comp time within a certain period of time (i think it might be up to a year) and if you don"t use it, it disappears. The same rules do not apply to non ALJ federal workers. There is also such a thing as Religious credit hours but being ignorant of all the rules about them I will not try to explain them. Sometimes the hours you can work is limited by the hours that the building is open. So the answers is : Yes, well maybe, sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Apr 12, 2010 12:38:10 GMT -5
Well said: "Another thing I learned from my WD and SI experience (I'm chatty) was that people who said they listed one to three locations were mostly people who were from outside SSA with a smattering of SSA people who had some sort of family obstacle to relocating. One private attorney stated he was only licensed in his state and a neighboring state so only picked cities in those states, apparently not understanding the process." Now this is interesting, as a possible factor in the number of insiders getting these jobs. I chose everywhere except Puerto Rico, mostly because of advice I read on this board. And I guess it's been mentioned before that insiders at SSA are more likely to be aware of this board.
|
|
|
Post by Well on Apr 12, 2010 14:27:47 GMT -5
Tricia, I'm chatty but not argumentative I don't have any reason to contest the arguments that three strikes or odd selection orders are used to influence some decisions, but did want to offer that as possible evidence that there are multiple factors at play.
|
|
|
Post by counsel on Apr 12, 2010 16:36:12 GMT -5
Offices vary, but at mine, we are essentially required to leave at 6 PM and cannot bring work home. So, if I need to catch up, I need to (yawn) arrive early. Not before, I think 6:30, but AM has never been an issue for me.
I have never worked at an office that had any rules that prevented you from working, but here there are plenty (do not work late, do not work at home, do not work on weekends unless a staff member is in the office). Quite a change from private practice.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 12, 2010 17:08:44 GMT -5
[An ALJ can decide that an agency promulgated regulation is invalid under a statute.] PF-- I am uncertain from whence you derive this authority. Perhaps in your agency you may have such legal authority, but I am unaware of any with respect to ODAR. Perhaps you may educate me differently. This from one of the experts in Administrative Law, a well respected law school professor and Adlaw textbook author, to my inquiry on this question. "ALJs have the clear statutory right and obligation to interpret and apply the statutes that govern the agency. Inherent in that right is the ability to conclude that a particular regulation, either on its face or as applied, is invalid under or contrary to the applicable statute." He mentions a few obvious examples that might help. I am paraphrasing here. Agency promulgates a regulation that prevents a claimant from getting benefits when the statute clearly makes the claimant eligible for these benefits. Statute trumps regulation, ALJ applies statute, finds for claimant, decides regulation is contrary to statute. He argued that doing so is "part and parcel" of what ALJs do. That being said, its pretty hard to ignore a facially valid regulation, and the agency, as you know, has generally broad authority to promulgate/interpret based upon most statutes. But the above example could occur, in that one could see an agency wishing to limit a benefit that Congress never sought to be limited, and an ALJ is entirely within her statutory responsibility and duty to make such a finding, whether at ODAR or anywhere else. But how often would you expect to see this happen? Govt agencies that pee in the face of Congress tend to develop budget issues. Even if it did happen, the ALJ's finding is binding on just the one case. And then, this hypothetical loose cannon agency could change the regs again to preclude ALJ review. What do they have to lose, since they would have already invited a district court challenge with their first regulatory move that flew in the face of a statute. You're just delaying the inevitable district court review. We're not real judges. How proper is it for a member of the executive branch to decide that the executive branch has properly or improperly interpreted a product of the legislative branch?
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Apr 12, 2010 18:48:00 GMT -5
Based on your post, I would strongly suggest that you do some reading about the job you were selected to perform, understand the statutory scheme, speak with ALJs outside your own agency, and read some case law. If you have any questions when you finished those tasks, I'd be happy to address them. PF, based on your posts in this thread telling SSA ALJs how to do their jobs when you were never in their shoes and have no understanding of SSA laws and regulations, I find this specific comment to be quite ironic. Anyway, this is a little too much. Those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Take a little time off, enjoy the fine spring weather, and mellow out a little.
|
|