|
Post by northwest on Jul 17, 2011 21:47:16 GMT -5
Finally, I'm deeply concerned that the minority was not given an opportunity to invite a witness. At a minimum, a representative of the Social Security ALJs should have been invited in order for members of our respective subcommittees to have a more complete picture on the issues before us. Here's a link to the AALJ's president's testimony in a different hearing before a different committee. This testimony clearly would be useful to the current committee. It also illuminates what the Commissioner probably was referring to in saying "old data that I don't think was very relevant to suggest to -- the number a little bit, below 500 might be appropriate". www.aalj.org/pdf/01a012.pdfPer Judge Frye, a 1994 study came up with a "reasonable disposition rate" of 25-55 decisions per month (or 300 to 660 per year).
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Jul 17, 2011 21:52:56 GMT -5
My understanding is that the APA is in a large part based on SSA's preexisting procedural and due process safeguards, but does not expressly apply to SSA, although the provisions are essentially identical. I recall researching years ago that it had to do with the order of passage one way or another, but I might be rusty. There's a 2002 article about this that you can read on the AALJ site if you're a member, or get off Lexis. aalj.org/legacy/members/arzt-apa.pdfor search Lexis for: ARTICLE: Adjudications by Administrative Law Judges Pursuant to the Social Security Act are Adjudications Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act Fall, 2002 22 J. NAALJ 279 Author Robin J. Arzt
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jul 18, 2011 8:35:10 GMT -5
Thanks, northwest, I'll look it up. I believe my research was done years ago and could use a refresher. Although I note people rarely write articles about settled law
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 18, 2011 9:18:47 GMT -5
I hope someone took note of deltajudge's observation of the Commiish's assertion that the APA doesn't apply to SSA ALJ hearings. If folks don't believe this is not only a relevant but material (Hope you all understand the difference) assertion, please recognize that without the protection of the APA, the Commish can interpret the "statute" (SSA Act) to rationalize whatever action he darn well pleases; note also his assertion that ALJs are bound by SSA policies without any limitation. So I guess he figures ALJs are now bound by the POMs. When will this nonsense end and AALJ find the guts to go to Court. This APA issue has been festering the past 16 years after the GC opined the Commish's assertion.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jul 18, 2011 9:36:07 GMT -5
8-)Well Decade's right. It begs the question, if SSA hearings are not covered by the APA as Astrue asserts, then why all the testimony as to his hands being tied as to discipline of ALJs?
|
|
|
Post by factfinder on Jul 18, 2011 11:42:23 GMT -5
decadealj writes:
"When will this nonsense end and AALJ find the guts to go to Court. This APA issue has been festering the past 16 years after the GC opined the Commish's assertion."
I agree, but we may have to dig deep to do this. Litigating against the Govt is hard and expensive, unless you can convince the DOJ that SSA's position is nonsense (which it is) or the SG later. It needs to be done by an experienced and vigorous litigator, not someone who may arguably be past it (or not) and does it part time for the union.
But, this all being said. We (or some judges) did inflict some of our own wounds and we (the union) do need to come up with some suggestions on how to get things done and invest political capital to make sure they get heard. Some of the ideas out there will lower the backlog and save money - read the AALJ posts and a few here). Should be music to their ears in the Congress.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jul 18, 2011 15:15:06 GMT -5
I [...edit...] guess he figures ALJs are now bound by the POMs. When will this nonsense end and AALJ find the guts to go to Court. This APA issue has been festering the past 16 years after the GC opined the Commish's assertion. After the last time this issue (ALJs and POMS), we sought a ruling from our regional office concerning the nature of POMS on binding ALJs. The answer was: POMS is not legally binding on ALJs but they always have to do what it says. Seriously. That was the answer.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jul 22, 2011 8:02:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Jul 22, 2011 8:49:20 GMT -5
propmaster, how long ago was this "ruling" issued.
|
|
skip
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by skip on Jul 22, 2011 9:53:39 GMT -5
Riddle me this: If POMS isn't at least indirectly binding on ALJs, why do Title II ALJ decisions have to be reviewed in the Program Service Center prior to effectuation? As some of you may know, if the decision contains a material error or contradicts POMS in some fundamental way, the PSC is required to submit the decision to the AC for review, where, if accepted, it is entered into CPMS as a "Bureau Protest"? (Believe me, I don't like it any more than you do.)
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jul 22, 2011 11:51:11 GMT -5
Tigerfan: This fiscal year. Skip: it all seems to depend on how you define binding.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 22, 2011 16:41:33 GMT -5
I [...edit...] guess he figures ALJs are now bound by the POMs. When will this nonsense end and AALJ find the guts to go to Court. This APA issue has been festering the past 16 years after the GC opined the Commish's assertion. After the last time this issue (ALJs and POMS), we sought a ruling from our regional office concerning the nature of POMS on binding ALJs. The answer was: POMS is not legally binding on ALJs but they always have to do what it says. Seriously. That was the answer. Does anyone really think this would pass the smell test in a USDC?
|
|