|
Post by happy on May 3, 2010 23:40:15 GMT -5
The current Commish did not (as prevailing propaganda would have one believe) do away with OFedRO because it was not working, but rather because the huge issue getting him pummeled on the Hill was the backlog at the hearings level.
For those who do not know, this initiative was implemented in Region I using GS-13 and -14 attorney adjudicators to replace State Agency reconsideration with a federal level of review. In other words, the adjudicators at that level were not, in fact, judges.
The Commish felt that he could not invest the resources to hire 3,000 attorneys and staff for this initiative when the hearing level was bleeding red. However, the potential for this initiative was wildly popular with the Senate Finance Committee, the Social Security Advisory Board and certain OMB folks.
Would it be unreasonable to suspect that the mass promotion of Senior Attorney adjudicators may lead to a system at the hearing level somewhat like that at the Appeals Council? There, the Appeals Officers can deny a Request for Review, but cannot pay or remand. This must be done by an AAJ, but action is basically taken on the recommendation of the AO - like a magistrate kind of deal. At the hearing level, could one envision the inverse: the SAA can pay, but not deny, and denials would then be recommended for hearing by an ALJ? If anyone recalls that far back, that was, in fact, the initial vision for OFedRO.
Things that make you say: "Hmmm. . . ."
|
|
|
Post by happy on May 3, 2010 23:45:29 GMT -5
BTW - The foregoing was not to say that I think the Agency is trying to do away with ALJs. I, too, think that it would be budget-suicide to beg for funds for all these ALJ hires and then say they are no longer needed.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on May 4, 2010 6:26:23 GMT -5
Even if it was decided to get rid of the SSA ALJs, it would likely be done through attrition, rather than through a RIF.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on May 4, 2010 6:36:56 GMT -5
The usage of SAA to screen and pay straight forward cases is probably the wave of the future with the current virtual screening unit followed up with something more permanent. It makes good sense to get the services delivered and leave the difficult cases to ALJs.
The flip side is this will make ALJ dockets qualatively more difficult and logically results in more denials because all the easy cases will be gone.
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on May 4, 2010 13:14:23 GMT -5
Can anyone name a RCALJ who wasn't an AAJ on the Appeals Council? Yes, I can.
|
|
tater
Full Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by tater on May 4, 2010 20:59:32 GMT -5
Can anyone name a RCALJ who wasn't an AAJ on the Appeals Council? Yes, I can. My dear Mr. Watkins....errr Watson, come here! -Alex
|
|
|
Post by happy on May 4, 2010 23:16:00 GMT -5
Can anyone name a RCALJ who wasn't an AAJ on the Appeals Council? Yes, I can. If you are only referring to current RCALJs, I know of at least two, three if you count Actings. I'm not sure about the others, but I think there are more that were not than were.
|
|