|
Post by workdrone on Jan 22, 2012 6:51:09 GMT -5
The ALJ position (at SSA at least) inherently involves high volume, simply by virtue of the sheer size of the backlog and the rate of new applications. This is the nature of the job. If there weren't around three quarters of a million people trying to get disability benefits, of whom, by any rational account, a significant percentage are actually entitled to such benefits, it would be a different story. Making momentous decisions in a few hours, hundreds of times a year, under imperfect conditions, is challenging. I've had easier jobs, but I've also had much harder ones, where the stakes were higher, the time-frames were much shorter, and the working conditions were much worse. I greatly enjoy the job, and I'm very grateful to have it. Well put. The glass is either half full or half empty, it's never quite perfect. As long as you have the right expectations for the job, it is still one of the best jobs in the federal goverment. As for the production pressure, it's always going to be there. However, as long as you do your fair share of cases in a timely manner and is not on the bottom extreme of the bell curve, there is almost nothing the Agency could or will do to you. The protections afforded by the APA and the need to go through MSPB for any real disciplinary action make the bar high enough that the Agency don't have the resources to waste on small infractions. Lastly, throughout all my years as an ALJ, no one ever told me how to rule on any case. I always had my decisional independence to rule the way I see the evidence. And in no small measure, I gain my job satisfaction from that.
|
|
|
Post by novacats on Jan 22, 2012 13:57:51 GMT -5
We don't need a new exam. We need changes to the interview process. I suspect the bad interview I had with two ALJ's at ODAR is the reason I have now been passed over thrice. These two boneheads (yes, I said it) just didn't like me -- I've been on plenty of interviews to know it. Some times you "click" with the panel, other times you know it will go bad. Mine went bad, and because of that one interview, I'm finished FOREVER!!!! ODAR's refusal to interview more than once is stupid. I even offered to pay my own way to re-interview when I made the last cert. No response, of course. Anyway, because of these two ALJ's who interviewed me two years ago, I can't get into ODAR (which essentially means I can't be an ALJ given the limited vacancies of other agencies and their practice of hiring only sitting or retired ALJs). I don't even know why I'm on this forum again.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jan 22, 2012 17:16:51 GMT -5
I don't think they are just looking at the exam, the interview may change as well. I, too, think that the one interview per person (or per register) can be a real issue if the one interview doesn't go well, for reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with whether the person would be a good ALJ. Inerviewees on a subsequent cert should be able to be interviewed at their own expense. I don't think my interview went badly, but you can (almost ) always do better!
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Jan 22, 2012 18:16:23 GMT -5
I don't think they are just looking at the exam, the interview may change as well. I, too, think that the one interview per person (or per register) can be a real issue if the one interview doesn't go well, for reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with whether the person would be a good ALJ. Interviewees on a subsequent cert should be able to be interviewed at their own expense. I don't think my interview went badly, but you can (almost ) always do better! Congrats Observer 53 on reaching the 1K mark in posts. May I suggest changing your monicker to "Observer1K"? More "on thread" ... it seems apropos that a new fairly large cert is anticipated for June, since I just moved my practice to a new firm. But, seeing as how, the likelihood of my selection appears slight (given past non-selection) I will continue to ply my trade. For those waiting to get on the register I would advise you to continue living and planning your lives as if the call will never come. Because, for many of us, regardless of the nature of the test or the whim of the interviewers we draw, that will be the case. Complete the AR when the register is opened. Take the WD and attend the SI (whatever their form might be). But, above all else, continue to live life and ply your trade. For only one third of you will be pleasantly surprised. The rest of us need to remain "pleasantly unsurprised." ht
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jan 23, 2012 0:24:18 GMT -5
Average cases 300-500 pages of evidence. Hearing 1 to occasionally 2 hours. A prime example of why it is hard to compare numbers across the country. At least half the files I see have less than 200 pages of medical
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jan 23, 2012 6:11:04 GMT -5
I don't think they are just looking at the exam, the interview may change as well. I, too, think that the one interview per person (or per register) can be a real issue if the one interview doesn't go well, for reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with whether the person would be a good ALJ. Interviewees on a subsequent cert should be able to be interviewed at their own expense. I don't think my interview went badly, but you can (almost ) always do better! Congrats Observer 53 on reaching the 1K mark in posts. May I suggest changing your monicker to "Observer1K"? More "on thread" ... it seems apropos that a new fairly large cert is anticipated for June, since I just moved my practice to a new firm. But, seeing as how, the likelihood of my selection appears slight (given past non-selection) I will continue to ply my trade. For those waiting to get on the register I would advise you to continue living and planning your lives as if the call will never come. Because, for many of us, regardless of the nature of the test or the whim of the interviewers we draw, that will be the case. Complete the AR when the register is opened. Take the WD and attend the SI (whatever their form might be). But, above all else, continue to live life and ply your trade. For only one third of you will be pleasantly surprised. The rest of us need to remain "pleasantly unsurprised." ht Thanks, ht, I had not noticed. Excellent advice to all of us.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 23, 2012 12:40:21 GMT -5
Our Chief Judge has said she thinks 2 1/2 hours is adequate to review, order development, re-review, develop pertinent questions for the hearing, develop RFC's, have a non-adversarial hearing, wait for post development to come in, re-review material in order to write instructions, edit the decision, and close the case. Average cases 300-500 pages of evidence. Hearing 1 to occasionally 2 hours. She has been expecting 500-700 cases a year and is now asking for a 10% increase by asking for an additional 5 cases each month.. Even pay cases are now being reviewed for quality. All of the cases we hear are the tougher ones. The obvious are paid at the lower level.. Most all ALJ's take off 5-6 weeks a year for Fed. holidays and vacation/sick leave. Some locations pay $118,000.00 a year. I don't know an ALJ that doesn't work extra hours/weekends and isn't exhausted when they leave the office. Please give real consideration prior to leaping into this position. I agree with all of the above, except I am unable to take off "5-6 weeks" due to production pressures. I take off maybe 10 days and the rest gets donated to whoever needs it.
|
|
|
Post by Buffalogal on Jan 23, 2012 13:22:17 GMT -5
I am glad for the emphasis on trial experience. My agency handles complex, multi-party litigation. We need ALJs with that type of experience. In spite of having two and a half decades of that type of experience, the current system for determining ratings gives me a rating so low, I wonder if I'll ever make a cert.
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jan 23, 2012 16:27:22 GMT -5
I just was to comment of the whole interview thing. Sometimes you just don't really know how it went. I thought my interview went terrible for a number of reasons. I was convinced my ride was over. Then I got picked. I have had friends who felt their interviews were great and not get picked up. So who knows what they are really looking for or what sticks with them?
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jan 23, 2012 18:10:16 GMT -5
I just was to comment of the whole interview thing. Sometimes you just don't really know how it went. I thought my interview went terrible for a number of reasons. I was convinced my ride was over. Then I got picked. I have had friends who felt their interviews were great and not get picked up. So who knows what they are really looking for or what sticks with them? Yep, mine went fine, but I had a wide open GAL. The ALJ next door said she burst into tears after her interview because she knew she had blown it. Of course, she got hired and only had one hearing office on her GAL.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 23, 2012 22:54:25 GMT -5
I would like to see a much stronger preference for those with medical backgrounds. Being able to go through the sometimes voluminous med records efficiently to pick out what are the strongest/weakest aspects of a claimant's record is IMO the single most valuable skill an ALJ can have.
Unlike what others have posted, I would rate having trial/litigation experience as having very low value to the hearing process. 99% of the time there is little that a claimant can say in the hearing that should sway your decision, when there is scant/no objective evidence in the record to support the testimony.
|
|
|
Post by Buffalogal on Jan 24, 2012 6:35:57 GMT -5
My agency has no need for medical knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 24, 2012 7:04:04 GMT -5
Prescient, while I would totally agree with the need for medical background, I am not sure about the rest of your opinion. In some areas there is very poor medical care for the unemployed, poor claimants. As such those ALJ's have to base some of their decision on the testimony and perceived credibility of the claimant. I am seeing fewer and fewer CE's in our files and we have been told we don't have access to ME's. Not saying that is the way it should be, but with the push on productivity, it appears to be more prevalent every day. Any feedback?? TIA.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Jan 24, 2012 10:55:00 GMT -5
My agency has no need for medical knowledge. And your agency has how many ALJs out of approximately 1700+ ALJs in the Federal government? SSA has about 1400+, OMHA has another 70+, and both of those agencies deal with extensive medical records.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jan 24, 2012 12:19:51 GMT -5
After many, many years as a state ALJ, I "speak doctor".
|
|
|
Post by eldanar on Jan 24, 2012 12:26:37 GMT -5
Anyone who has reviewed medical records for 2-3 years probably has as much medical experience as they need. This is where agency experience with SSA as a DW, or something comparable, would be helpful. I tend to agree that trial advocacy is not as important; and tend to think attorneys with backgrounds that dealt with high volume, fast turnover, and short deadlines are going to have a smaller learning curve.
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on Jan 24, 2012 12:46:52 GMT -5
As a former law clerk, state ALJ, SSD attorney, trial attorney, I think trial advocacy is important. I think having a background dealing with disabled people in a court/hearing setting is as important as the other factors in this discussion. I have found it helps assess credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Buffalogal on Jan 24, 2012 12:55:23 GMT -5
An ALJ's job is to develop an accurate and complete record and issue a fair and equitable decision in a formal adjudication proceeding. A lawyer with litigation experience will clearly be able to do that better than someone without. Yet the current register gives equal weight to those who have never been in a hearing room--to those who've only written orders.
If you add to that registry rating, some kind of credit for medical experience, you produce an even less relevant register to the other agencies that draw from the register. They hear matters including: antitrust, banking, securities, commodities, education, environmental, food and drug, housing, energy, immigration, international trade, labor, mine safety, occupational safety, postal rates, and telecommunications. These other agencies hear matters complex enough to also benefit from (non-medical) subject matter expertise, often multidisciplinary. But more than that, their proceedings need ALJs with even stronger litigation skills because, unlike SSA, their proceedings are adversarial, multi-party, and involve large dollars.
There are models for agencies that have subject matter experts as judges, like the Administrative Judges at the NRC. Agencies used to be able to hire people based on the requisite subject matter expertise but the present scheme of having ALJs rather than those "hearings examiners" arose as a result of concerns about the independence of the resulting decision makers. Also, Federal judges are not experts in the medical field yet they somehow do an excellent job in handling appeals of cases from SSA.
Remember, we are talking about the examination by which candidates qualify for the general registry. I'm sure that once a candidate is on the registry and is chosen to interview by an agency, the agency can and does take subject matter expertise into consideration in hiring. But doing so for purposes of creating a general registry of qualified ALJ candidates is inappropriate given the general purpose of the register.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 24, 2012 13:23:24 GMT -5
An ALJ's job is to develop an accurate and complete record and issue a fair and equitable decision in a formal adjudication proceeding. A lawyer with litigation experience will clearly be able to do that better than someone without. Clearly? based on what? Maybe for the agencies you're referring to, but at least in SSA, which comprises the vast majority of ALJs, having litigation experience provides no benefit in one's ability to determine disability. As I stated above, IMO the biggest impediment to getting prepared for a case, from a SSA perspective, is adequately assimilating the medical evidence, which at least in my part of the country, is often mountainous, ie 1,500p+. Having medical experience clearly would serve as a benefit. In my theoretical scoring system, one would be given a "bonus" score for med experience that applies only in terms of hiring for agencies where it would actually be useful. Also, Federal judges are not experts in the medical field yet they somehow do an excellent job in handling appeals of cases from SSA. Umm. The utter inconsistency in decisions that involve medical issues is a primary reason why there is a growing push to implement specialized medical courts, compromised solely of judges with medical expertise.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 24, 2012 17:32:56 GMT -5
Prescient, while I would totally agree with the need for medical background, I am not sure about the rest of your opinion. In some areas there is very poor medical care for the unemployed, poor claimants. As such those ALJ's have to base some of their decision on the testimony and perceived credibility of the claimant. I am seeing fewer and fewer CE's in our files and we have been told we don't have access to ME's. Not saying that is the way it should be, but with the push on productivity, it appears to be more prevalent every day. Any feedback?? TIA. Although I'm not prescient (and not just in username), the issue of credibility is entirely dependent upon the judge. What you find to be credible testimony can easily be deemed non-credible by another judge. With the exception of a case with absolutely no medical evidence, credibility can go either way at the whim of the judge. How each person evaluates another's credibility is personal to them, regardless of whether it's an ALJ or a guy listening to a sales pitch. Yes, there are guidelines you're supposed to follow in the regulations and 96-7p, but at the end of the day, the individual makes their own determination of the claimant's credibility and will be able to find support for their finding in the record somewhere. I wanted to also say something about the advantages of a litigation/trial background in developing the record or being an effective ALJ, particularly with ODAR. I don't believe trial work, in and of itself, is of any great benefit to an ALJ other than the possible benefit of honing your ability to think on your feet. Litigation work can be beneficial to an ALJ, particularly in developing the record. But I'd point out that the majority of the record developing in litigation (doc review, depositions, discovery requests, etc.) is largely done by baby lawyers, at least in the private sector. Record development isn't a high-level lawyering skill, which is why it's pawned off on associates on a routine basis. It shouldn't be difficult for a lifetime insider to learn techniques to do so, assuming they haven't already through their own medical record reviews and listenings of hearing recordings.
|
|