|
Post by tricia on Apr 12, 2010 18:57:11 GMT -5
Well, you said: "Tricia, I'm chatty but not argumentative" Well, I wasn't arguing with you. I just said that the point you made was interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 12, 2010 19:37:49 GMT -5
There is SO SO SO much on this thread that I plan to respond to, but I don't have the time right now. So I will focus on what sticks in my mind. I apologize if others will have said this better and clearer by the time I type it (I did not read the last page before feeling the need to respond).
I do not understand where some ALJs find themselves in their mental pecking order. The impetus for this is part of PF's posting wherein he said he does not need to follow the regulations if they conflict with the statute, but I do not mean to single you out, PF, since this is a normal idea for some people.
Frankly, I don't see it around me very much. I remember having a good laugh around 1999 (albeit with the irritation of my client's case being delayed) when an ALJ decided he did not want to use the regulation on materiality of alcoholism to a determination of disability (and the resulting finding mandated by the facts of the case that it was NOT material) because he thought the regulation conflicted with the statute.
He wrote in his decision that "I know the Appeals Council is going to remand this, but I must apply the statute ..." etc.
Of course, the Appeals Council remanded it forthwith for payment. Presumably, the ALJ drew attention to his decision that way in an attempt to influence policy or register a protest, and had no qualms about my client's situation (since he, in fact, did not think the person deserved benefits). This ALJ did not keep it up for long, but simply went about applying his own idea of the statute without making it explicit, and received the periodic remands from then on.
But this does not happen often. Maybe it is because the Appaels Council is sitting there for all to invoke - I don't know if other agencies have another level of administrative review after the ALJ.
I do know that when I look up the line to ALJs' bosses, the top person is the president, not the supreme court. Someone else pointed out that ALJs are not article III judges. The scope of their power, the sources of law upon which the must rely, the rules of evidence to be applied, etc., etc., are NOT based on the fundamental nature of common law, but upon statute and regulations.
A simple example:
SSA has taken administrative notice of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (a book not updated since 1991). Everyone knows this book is obsolete and inaccurate. Nonetheless, ALJs are NOT AT ALL free to ignore it and come up with their own way of evaluating whether an individual can do a significant number of jobs in the national economy.
Of course, an ALJ can do ANYTHING, but totally random and made up law will quickly lead to some kind of agency action (quickly = 3 years, as far as I can tell from an ALJ who got active alzheimer's and made random decisions for several years before having his case load reduced to 0 - and even then, he didn't stop coming to work right away).
But this dovetails with another discussion I accidentally started in another thread - the issue of what is "binding" on ALJs. It is NOT the same as things that are binding on courts. Period.
ALJ's are not district court judges and the standards of judicial review (which presumably vary by agency - I refer to SSA's scheme since that is what I know) are NOT the standards of ALJ decision-making.
An example:
Let's say that every reasonable person would agree that evidence in a certain case establishes a 68% likelihood that a SSA claimant meets the standard for disability and 32% that he or she does not.
If an ALJ chooses to deny disability and the case goes to District Court, 32% is probably enough of a body of evidence to meet the "substantial evidence" standard of review of SSA ALJ decisions, which is "less than a preponderance and more than a scintilla." Thus, a court should affirm the ALJ's decision, despite the court's personal belief (assuming the judge is reasonable)that the person was more likely than not disabled.
This is NOT the ALJ standard. An ALJ is supposed to use the preponderance of the evidence and make the deicsion that is more likely than not. Whether or not it "holds up" on appeal is not the definition of a properly founded ALJ decision. An ALJ is "free" as a result of judicial independence, but should not consider him- or herself free from a proper, legal standpoint, to go with the 32% evidence just because he or she can and he or she has some reason other than a pure evaluation of the evidence.
The agency has the power and authority to tell ALJs that work for it what sources of law to use, how to weigh evidence, what burden of proof to use and who has it, etc. The ALJ does not get to pull from the ether the "natural law" or Due Process interpretations because the ALJ is doing a JOB for an agency, not fulfilling a judicial checks and balances role.
I don't know how it is where you are, PF, but SSA very clearly requires ALJs to follow the regulations, not statutes, and also prohibits ALJs from independently applying circuit court precedent in the absence of acquiescence rulings. ALJs do, of course. I put these things in my decisions sometimes. Getting away with it does not add it to the list of inherent judicial powers - it's just not worth the effort to review for these things. But I can run a red light 25 times (I never do) and it won't help me get out of a ticket when I get stopped.
And I reject in advance any claim one may make (not meaning to put words in your mouth, just on a roll) that the appointment as an ALJ, or the concept of judicial independence, mandates that an SSA ALJ transcends the explicit agency limitation on making independent judgments about the holding of Courts of Appeals or the meaning of statutes in ways other than those interpreted by the policy arm of the agency FOR WHOM the ALJ is rendering decisions.
An analogy:
If I were to hire an ALJ to make determinations as to whether colors mixed in a paint store are more red or more blue, and I specify in the definition of blue that it includes all yellow paint, also, the ALJ is limited to looking at paint and seeing if it is red, or if it is blue or yellow. Judicial independence means I can't give the ALJ a bucket of blue paint and say "this paint is blue, put it down as blue." I also probably can't say "it doesn't matter that the lights are off right now, you have to get 20 swatches of paint evaluated." But I sure as heck can expect the ALJ to call a can of yellow paint blue, because that's what I said the definition was and the ALJ is not entitled to go to other sources to argue that the wavelength of yellow in terms of light is more red (I actually think it's toward blue - the primary colors of light are different than pigment, with green a primary color). The reality of the situation is NOT relevant to the determination within the boundaries of the adjudicative scheme set up by the agency employing the ALJ.
As part of my inquiries into the nature of POMS in ALJ decisions, I have asked my regional counsel (who has conferred with OGC and is working on an answer) if an ALJ has the power to declare that a non-reverse offset workers' compensation state is, in fact, a reverse offset state. The regulations explain the calculus, but the list of specific states and their programs is not in the regulations (see 20 CFR 404.408(b)), it is in POMS (DI 52105.001 et seq); the agency has made uniform determinations of which states' programs qualify (see SSR 93-1). Being in POMS shouldn't make application of these uniform determinations optional when it is THE policy of the agency. I guess we'll see.
I might also have asked if an ALJ could determine that the totalization agreement we have with, for example, Germany (if there is one; I didn't look it up) is not a valid totalization agreement, if the ALJ finds that the President did not comply properly with the regulations and therefore it should be struck down. There is no statute, or regulation, or court case validating the agreement. Can the ALJ apply principles of International Law to make an independent decision about the validity of the (essentially) treaty agreement?
God, I hope everyone said "of course not."
Anyone who thinks an SSA ALJ can interpret the effect on a disability claim of principles of international law and the contents of treaties is REALLY far away from the reality in which I think I live.
So when I hear ALJs make pronouncements about what they do and don't have to follow as if there is some overarching "concept" of judicial indepdence that is different from the very specific jobs for which ALJs are hired and the very specific environments within which they are to make their decisions, I just am flummoxed.
Hopefully, I'll return in a few days to make more sense. As always, whenever I write a long thing, I expect someone will pick it apart handily and teach me an important lesson. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 12, 2010 19:42:17 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. With all due respect, I rather think your ire is pf's form over substance. And while I don't wish to debate your perogative to rule on form, I think the reliance upon SSA "misdirection" is misplaced. We ALL know that pf and val have been snippy with each other. This discourse, I thought, was rather civilized. I don't see pf lecturing SSA folks per se. Lecturing yes, but we all know pf by now. And isn't this discourse a good subject for SSA/ALJ training and thus "good fodder" for this Board, insofar as SSA has some "peculiarities"? pf has made some good points. If he is misleading folks on what to expect at SSA, then let's hope that they are big boys and girls and will learn otherwise. Yes, let's limit snarky, bad behavior. But "wrong" opinions about SSA law?
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 12, 2010 19:43:11 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. Given my excessive recent post, I bet you know I would like more info. Some academics make discussions in "ideal" worlds - textbook writers, for sure, are concerned with overarching principles, not nitty-gritty. Some of my classes in law school covered uniform codes, but not every state has them. Thus, in practice, the "clear statutory right" may not be so clear in every context. So, did your friend, by any chance, give any sort of source or reference to his opinion? I ask because your example is not at all clear to me. The aggrieved party can challenge the regulation in "real" court - district courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court are fairly experienced at making these calls and have existing bodies of law and procedure to deal with the issue. An employee of the agency simply does not "clearly" have the ability to unilaterally change the agency's properly-promulgated (rule and comment) regulation. I remain open (surprisingly) to being further educated in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by hopeful92 on Apr 12, 2010 19:45:18 GMT -5
This is a question for the new ALJ's---just curious, were all references called, including judge references and attorney references. Thanks and congratulations! Also, does anyone know the number of ALJ's hired in the Albany office and/or Manhattan office?
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Apr 12, 2010 20:12:15 GMT -5
Hi hopeful,
To answer the first part of your Q, yes, all my references were contacted. But note that your references don't necessarily have to be "judges" or "opposing counsel". The question called for, if i remember correctly, references who can vouch for your ethics, reputation in the legal community, and work habits. Having been an adjudicator for many years, I didnt' have any judicial references, but explained that my other references could speak to the criteria they were after.
edit: I contacted my references before hand of course, and explained that the interrogators were looking for answers to specific questions listed on the reference form. Of course, I left it up to them to speak to those qualifications, but wanted to make sure that they addressed them.
|
|
|
Post by Well on Apr 12, 2010 22:00:09 GMT -5
Well, you said: "Tricia, I'm chatty but not argumentative" Well, I wasn't arguing with you. I just said that the point you made was interesting. no I just meant I wasn't arguing the evil or noble intent of SSA.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Apr 12, 2010 22:57:51 GMT -5
There is SO SO SO much on this thread that I plan to respond to, but I don't have the time right now. So I will focus on what sticks in my mind. I apologize if others will have said this better and clearer by the time I type it (I did not read the last page before feeling the need to respond). I do not understand where some ALJs find themselves in their mental pecking order. The impetus for this is part of PF's posting wherein he said he does not need to follow the regulations if they conflict with the statute, but I do not mean to single you out, PF, since this is a normal idea for some people. Frankly, I don't see it around me very much. I remember having a good laugh around 1999 (albeit with the irritation of my client's case being delayed) when an ALJ decided he did not want to use the regulation on materiality of alcoholism to a determination of disability (and the resulting finding mandated by the facts of the case that it was NOT material) because he thought the regulation conflicted with the statute. He wrote in his decision that "I know the Appeals Council is going to remand this, but I must apply the statute ..." etc. Of course, the Appeals Council remanded it forthwith for payment. Presumably, the ALJ drew attention to his decision that way in an attempt to influence policy or register a protest, and had no qualms about my client's situation (since he, in fact, did not think the person deserved benefits). This ALJ did not keep it up for long, but simply went about applying his own idea of the statute without making it explicit, and received the periodic remands from then on. But this does not happen often. Maybe it is because the Appaels Council is sitting there for all to invoke - I don't know if other agencies have another level of administrative review after the ALJ. I do know that when I look up the line to ALJs' bosses, the top person is the president, not the supreme court. Someone else pointed out that ALJs are not article III judges. The scope of their power, the sources of law upon which the must rely, the rules of evidence to be applied, etc., etc., are NOT based on the fundamental nature of common law, but upon statute and regulations. A simple example: SSA has taken administrative notice of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (a book not updated since 1991). Everyone knows this book is obsolete and inaccurate. Nonetheless, ALJs are NOT AT ALL free to ignore it and come up with their own way of evaluating whether an individual can do a significant number of jobs in the national economy. Of course, an ALJ can do ANYTHING, but totally random and made up law will quickly lead to some kind of agency action (quickly = 3 years, as far as I can tell from an ALJ who got active alzheimer's and made random decisions for several years before having his case load reduced to 0 - and even then, he didn't stop coming to work right away). But this dovetails with another discussion I accidentally started in another thread - the issue of what is "binding" on ALJs. It is NOT the same as things that are binding on courts. Period. ALJ's are not district court judges and the standards of judicial review (which presumably vary by agency - I refer to SSA's scheme since that is what I know) are NOT the standards of ALJ decision-making. An example: Let's say that every reasonable person would agree that evidence in a certain case establishes a 68% likelihood that a SSA claimant meets the standard for disability and 32% that he or she does not. If an ALJ chooses to deny disability and the case goes to District Court, 32% is probably enough of a body of evidence to meet the "substantial evidence" standard of review of SSA ALJ decisions, which is "less than a preponderance and more than a scintilla." Thus, a court should affirm the ALJ's decision, despite the court's personal belief (assuming the judge is reasonable)that the person was more likely than not disabled. This is NOT the ALJ standard. An ALJ is supposed to use the preponderance of the evidence and make the deicsion that is more likely than not. Whether or not it "holds up" on appeal is not the definition of a properly founded ALJ decision. An ALJ is "free" as a result of judicial independence, but should not consider him- or herself free from a proper, legal standpoint, to go with the 32% evidence just because he or she can and he or she has some reason other than a pure evaluation of the evidence. The agency has the power and authority to tell ALJs that work for it what sources of law to use, how to weigh evidence, what burden of proof to use and who has it, etc. The ALJ does not get to pull from the ether the "natural law" or Due Process interpretations because the ALJ is doing a JOB for an agency, not fulfilling a judicial checks and balances role. I don't know how it is where you are, PF, but SSA very clearly requires ALJs to follow the regulations, not statutes, and also prohibits ALJs from independently applying circuit court precedent in the absence of acquiescence rulings. ALJs do, of course. I put these things in my decisions sometimes. Getting away with it does not add it to the list of inherent judicial powers - it's just not worth the effort to review for these things. But I can run a red light 25 times (I never do) and it won't help me get out of a ticket when I get stopped. And I reject in advance any claim one may make (not meaning to put words in your mouth, just on a roll) that the appointment as an ALJ, or the concept of judicial independence, mandates that an SSA ALJ transcends the explicit agency limitation on making independent judgments about the holding of Courts of Appeals or the meaning of statutes in ways other than those interpreted by the policy arm of the agency FOR WHOM the ALJ is rendering decisions. An analogy: If I were to hire an ALJ to make determinations as to whether colors mixed in a paint store are more red or more blue, and I specify in the definition of blue that it includes all yellow paint, also, the ALJ is limited to looking at paint and seeing if it is red, or if it is blue or yellow. Judicial independence means I can't give the ALJ a bucket of blue paint and say "this paint is blue, put it down as blue." I also probably can't say "it doesn't matter that the lights are off right now, you have to get 20 swatches of paint evaluated." But I sure as heck can expect the ALJ to call a can of yellow paint blue, because that's what I said the definition was and the ALJ is not entitled to go to other sources to argue that the wavelength of yellow in terms of light is more red (I actually think it's toward blue - the primary colors of light are different than pigment, with green a primary color). The reality of the situation is NOT relevant to the determination within the boundaries of the adjudicative scheme set up by the agency employing the ALJ. As part of my inquiries into the nature of POMS in ALJ decisions, I have asked my regional counsel (who has conferred with OGC and is working on an answer) if an ALJ has the power to declare that a non-reverse offset workers' compensation state is, in fact, a reverse offset state. The regulations explain the calculus, but the list of specific states and their programs is not in the regulations (see 20 CFR 404.408(b)), it is in POMS (DI 52105.001 et seq); the agency has made uniform determinations of which states' programs qualify (see SSR 93-1). Being in POMS shouldn't make application of these uniform determinations optional when it is THE policy of the agency. I guess we'll see. I might also have asked if an ALJ could determine that the totalization agreement we have with, for example, Germany (if there is one; I didn't look it up) is not a valid totalization agreement, if the ALJ finds that the President did not comply properly with the regulations and therefore it should be struck down. There is no statute, or regulation, or court case validating the agreement. Can the ALJ apply principles of International Law to make an independent decision about the validity of the (essentially) treaty agreement? God, I hope everyone said "of course not." Anyone who thinks an SSA ALJ can interpret the effect on a disability claim of principles of international law and the contents of treaties is REALLY far away from the reality in which I think I live. So when I hear ALJs make pronouncements about what they do and don't have to follow as if there is some overarching "concept" of judicial indepdence that is different from the very specific jobs for which ALJs are hired and the very specific environments within which they are to make their decisions, I just am flummoxed. Hopefully, I'll return in a few days to make more sense. As always, whenever I write a long thing, I expect someone will pick it apart handily and teach me an important lesson. Thanks in advance. As far as I remember, IRS does not use aljs. But let us pretend it does. What if tomorrow I filed my income tax and said that I think the system is arbitrary and that I have a specific right to have a lower tax rate and a higher deduction. And that a hypothetical IRS ALJ said, YEAH I MEAN REALLY LAWMAKER IS SUPER SPECIAL. And the regulations conflict with the statute for lawmaker and I am letting it go. Lawmaker only has to pay ten cents this year, even though lawmaker's evil twin has the same financial and personal position, lawmaker's evil twin has to pay 10k. How do you argue, in the face of Chevron, that agency regulations don't deserve a pretty high degree of respect? Isn't up to the agency to explain what they think the statute means by and through promulgated regulations?
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Apr 13, 2010 5:47:00 GMT -5
With all due respect, I rather think your ire is pf's form over substance. And while I don't wish to debate your perogative to rule on form, I think the reliance upon SSA "misdirection" is misplaced. We ALL know that pf and val have been snippy with each other. This discourse, I thought, was rather civilized. I don't see pf lecturing SSA folks per se. Lecturing yes, but we all know pf by now. And isn't this discourse a good subject for SSA/ALJ training and thus "good fodder" for this Board, insofar as SSA has some "peculiarities"? pf has made some good points. If he is misleading folks on what to expect at SSA, then let's hope that they are big boys and girls and will learn otherwise. Yes, let's limit snarky, bad behavior. But "wrong" opinions about SSA law? PA, I been following this thread very closely since my last warning. I was quite impressed by how the thread turned around and we got some of the best discussions about the role of an ALJ here until nearly the very end. Two major problems with PF's posts from yesterday: 1. Invalidating agency regulation is not something you do lightly, and it's not something you do at all in an area of law like SSA where everything is well settled from prior litigations. So if some ignorant newbie takes PF's advice to heart without putting it in the proper context, he/she is going to be in some trouble. So if anyone wants to talk about advanced and potentially dangerous areas of admin law, provide some proper context and examples (like quotations to statute and link to case law), instead of this "go talk to a law professor" excuse. 2. Snarky attitude. I think that post I quoted about was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm not a big fan of hyprocricy, and that last post broke my tolerance meter for the day. So ultimately it's a combination of the two. Anyway, hopefully everyone will be a little more mellow and civilized after this.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Apr 13, 2010 7:18:31 GMT -5
OK- I'll bite. IMHO the best example of regulatory, statute and acquiesence conflict is SSA's position with regard to "equity and good conscience" in without fault overpayment cases. SSA strictly construes its policy to be limited to the examples contained in the reg. There is, I think, a 9th Cir. (of course) opinion rejecting the strict construction and SSA has issued an acquiesence ruling limiting the court decision to the regions in the 9th Cir. I don't have time to cite the research on the issue but to me this is why I am an ALJ. I am not going to find some poor guy who was without fault to have to sell his house because SSA messed up. SSA has already butchered any reasonable application of res judicata and the statutory phrase "equity and good conscience" has a historic and plain meaning. But I certainly defer to the AC reversing me but at least the claimant can appeal the issue to the courts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2010 7:36:53 GMT -5
A recent posting asking about references has me thinking this: I have not told my current employer that I have applied for an ALJ position. I just took the WD and SI. My current employer is one of my references. (I work for a different Federal Agency). I assumed that I would tell my office about the application if I ended up with an interview, because it was at that point that my references would be contacted. Can anyone tell me whether or not I'm right? Should I tell my references NOW that I've put them down, or wait and see if I get a high enough score to receive an interview? Am I right that getting an interview is totally dependent on my score, and that there's a single interview with SSA in DC? I'm not in DC and don't want to be, so I didn't' know if I interview with the locations I've chosen, or there's just one master interview in DC. Thank you to all.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Apr 13, 2010 8:51:44 GMT -5
Propmaster
I think your color analogy is good as far as it goes. I work at the equivalent of SSA's appeals council at another agency. I agree that if the statute only discusses red and blue, within limits, the agency can by regulation define yellow to be part of blue. However, if the statute defines yellow as part of red and the regulation defines yellow as part of blue, the ALJ should follow the statute and define yellow as part of red and let the appeals council “fix it”. I do not know the appeals process in SSA but at my agency the ALJs give independent decisions (understanding the agency position as argued at the hearing and brief) and we, as the administrative appellate authority, correct errors that might differ from agency policy.
In other words, the ALJs get administrative support from the department but are independent substantively, process is determined from the regulations. We in the appellate area speak for the Secretary and must follow department policy, colored by Court of Appeals decisions, in issuing decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 13, 2010 10:54:42 GMT -5
An interesting point, Chinook, that underscores a major difference between SSA ALJs and other ALJs.
You mentioned that "at my agency the ALJs give independent decisions (understanding the agency position as argued at the hearing and brief)."
There is no agency argument or brief at SSA. The ALJ is responsible for ensuring that agency positions are understood and incorporated.
This is often referred to as SSA ALJs "wearing three hats:" 1) impartial adjudicator, 2) ensuring the agency position is included and set forth, adn 3) making sure (even in the presence of representation) that the claimant's position is set forth adequately. This is much harder than people often give SSA ALJs credit for, because it can go wrong so, so many ways.
When there is a rep involved, especially, perhaps, a rep with a bad rep (heheh), the ALJ can too easily slide into the position of agency counsel; however in an unrepped case with lots of sympathetic factors, an ALJ can also easily slide into a position of claimants' advocacy. This balancing act is far less significant (to my understanding) in ALJ scenarios including adversarial arguments and evidentiary procedures (discovery, etc.).
So, thanks for your take on it from a very different perspective than we usually hear (reviewer of non-SSA ALJ decisions).
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Apr 13, 2010 11:20:38 GMT -5
The follow-up point, in my view, is that SSA ALJs and other ALJs should not be different. They are established under the same statutory authority and given the same mandate for independence. I believe that your first two hats (impartial adjudicator and presenter of agency position) are in conflict. Now if you define the agency position as the statutes and regulations, i.e. the law governing the proceeding, then I can accept your position. If, however, it includes, policies, memos and other non-promulgated (through rulemaking) positions that can be changes at the caprice of a bureaucrat (and I am one of those) that becomes a threat to judicial independence.
To fix this would require major changes and I understand it is not going to happen, but as a pure legalistic approach, I think SSA ALJs have lost a significant portion of their statutory independence. As a practical matter, if I were ever to be hired as an ALJ at SSA I would not buck the system (at least too often).
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Apr 13, 2010 11:55:54 GMT -5
New ALJs- chinook has hit the nail on the head. He has especially differentiated the difference between law and policy and the function of ALJs vs. AAJs. ALJs make findings of fact and apply the law- it is the AAJs function to apply policy considerations for the Commish. You blur the distictions to the claimant's and public peril!
|
|
|
Post by donegal on Apr 13, 2010 12:23:20 GMT -5
Those SSA ALJs who believe themselves above agency policy may wish to consider issuing "recommended decisions" so their voices are properly heard. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.953(c).
|
|
|
Post by getready on Apr 13, 2010 14:22:25 GMT -5
Shanti, you should post your questions about references and interviews in a new thread.
I'd like to hear the answers, and I fear your query is getting lost in another discussion.
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Apr 13, 2010 14:33:34 GMT -5
Shanti & Getready,
If you land on an agency cert, that notification will include some documents that you must complete. If I recall, you will get another GAL (from which you can subtract, but not add), a credit release, a federal employment form, and a background questionnaire w/ request for references (around 9, I think). You will then have a few days to return all the docs.
This will be done a few weeks before your interview. So you may want to start thinking about who you want to include, and give them a heads up asap. Personally, I wanted to line up my references well in advance, because I wanted to make sure they were 100% supportive, and I didn't want to wait until the last possible moment and risk having a reference or employer get a call that they were unprepared for.
If you are placed on a cert for SSA, that interview will most likely take place in Falls Church, VA at the ODAR Mothership, 5107 Leesburg Pike.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2010 15:33:19 GMT -5
Ok, at the risk of seeming absurd, I ask: how do you start a new thread? I thought only the administrators of the site could do this? I realize this post may also get lost in the shuffle, but if someone would answer, I'd appreciate it. And thank you for the information on referenences. Shanti.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Apr 13, 2010 17:31:16 GMT -5
Carrick, Thanks for the information, but please clarify. We put references on the application. If we do get an interview with an agency, are we asked to provide nine more references, or is this just an opportunity to update contact information for the references on the application? The USAJobs website already has a mechanism by which we can update contact information for references.
|
|