|
|
Post by northwest on Dec 21, 2012 22:32:30 GMT -5
Per socsecnews.blogspot.com/:... Astrue took a swipe at attorneys and others who represent Social Security claimants by ordering that the identity of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) remain a secret until the day of a claimant's hearing. The secret ALJ policy has been a major annoyance for people like me who represent Social Security claimants. The response to the secret ALJ policy has been to make requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to learn the identity of the ALJ. Once Social Security finally declined the FOIA requests, litigation followed. I don't have a link but Social Security has recently settled one of these FOIA lawsuits (Hoaglund v. Social Security Administration, Western District of Washington) by revealing the name of the ALJ and paying attorney fees. If this is true, then we should soon be seeing the end of the annoying "secret ALJ" program. It will be good for all concerned if the reps know who the ALJ will be. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Dec 22, 2012 11:25:02 GMT -5
Those of you who are SSA ALJs, especially those who were in the job before the secret ALJ policy, fill me in. When you did know the identity of the ALJ before the hearing, what options did you have for a change of judge, if any, if you wanted to do that? If you could get a change, did that delay the new hearing?
In my state ALJ position (referring to my agency only) parties have by statute one change of judge per side. Unfortunately, they have to allege bias, prejudice, etc., (even if there really isn't any) instead of just getting one free change without stating any reason for it, as would be allowed here in Superior Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Dec 22, 2012 23:14:53 GMT -5
The identity of the ALJ was generally revealed when the Notice of Hearing was received as it was signed by the ALJ who would hear the case. It was almost impossible to have the Judge changed. Some attorneys would try to get a different Judge by withdrawing the request for hearing and having the claimant file a new application and hope for a different Judge when another request for hearing was filed. However, the office that I was in got wise to this and would assign the second request for hearing to the same Judge.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Dec 23, 2012 13:43:55 GMT -5
If you google "Hoagland v SSA" and go to the justicia.com entry, you can see the court's order at pdf document 14, in which SSA, under FOIA, has produced the name of the ALJ on the claim.
I'd give you the direct link, but I don't subscribe to justicia.com.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Dec 23, 2012 21:44:28 GMT -5
In short, SSA produced the name of the secret ALJ and paid $1,000 in attorney fees.
|
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Dec 26, 2012 19:56:13 GMT -5
8-)The common way to "judge shop" was to request a postponement if a "low pay" judge was assigned. In normal rotation, it would be reassigned to another judge to keep the case moving. The simple solution was to leave it on the original judge's docket, and not reassign it. Of course, this never occurred to those management geniuses up yonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Dec 27, 2012 11:53:43 GMT -5
Actually, I have been in 3 offices, 2 as an ALJ. In each of those offices, if a postponement was requested, it remains with the same ALJ and is scheduled in the next available mutually agreeable hearing slot. So there is no advantage to requesting a postponement, unless you know that the ALJ is leaving the office.
|
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Dec 27, 2012 13:05:22 GMT -5
8-)I've been gone a while, and as we all know, things with OHA/ODAR were and are a state of flux. If they changed to leaving it with the original ALJ, why go secret? Looks like the claimant would get wise and pissed with all the postponements and delay of his /her case.
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Dec 27, 2012 14:32:03 GMT -5
8-)I've been gone a while, and as we all know, things with OHA/ODAR were and are a state of flux. If they changed to leaving it with the original ALJ, why go secret? Looks like the claimant would get wise and pissed with all the postponements and delay of his /her case. Delta, Your info is outdated. This new rule has to do with the ready availability of an ALJ's pay rate on the Internet, the absolute right to refuse video hearings, and the new National Hearing Centers, which only do video hearings. You add the three together and you got a ready-made recipe for ALJ shopping by the reps when they are docketed with the NHCs. The agency's new rule to keep the judge's name secret until the hearing date is misguided. It should just take away the right to refuse video hearings. |
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Dec 27, 2012 14:50:43 GMT -5
Another relatively recent policy change: when video hearings with the NHC are declined, the case gets put on a list for an in-person hearing conducted by a traveling NHC judge. In general, this results in a delay of about six months, as the in-person hearings are not scheduled until there are enough declinations at the particular location to make it worthwhile to send an NHC ALJ to the location (which translates to about 18-24 cases, 3 days with 6-8 cases daily). Before the policy change, video declination cases were relinquished by the NHC and sent back to the local hearing office.
|
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Dec 27, 2012 20:56:52 GMT -5
8-)As I said, the machinations of OHA/ODAR management are in a constant state of flux. To stay one step ahead of others, they are constantly stumbling over themselves. Enjoy, it don't git no better.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Dec 28, 2012 0:02:45 GMT -5
Another relatively recent policy change: when video hearings with the NHC are declined, the case gets put on a list for an in-person hearing conducted by a traveling NHC judge. It also occurs when a represented claimant resides more than 75 miles from their ODAR and the ODAR also has a satellite office which is closer to the claimant's residence. The rep will decline a VTC - with the ALJ at ODAR and the claimant and rep at the satellite office - and instead request an in person hearing with the ALJ at the satellite office. |
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Feb 23, 2013 12:12:23 GMT -5
Another update on this issue at socsecnews.blogspot.com. Attorneys who request the names of the ALJ in a FOIA request are now getting the names promptly. And some offices apparently have been authorized to release the names of the ALJs. I suspect all offices will get more formal guidance soon. So at last this silliness of hiding the identity of the ALJ will end. |
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Mar 19, 2013 8:47:33 GMT -5
Here we are 3 months down the road, and the Agency still has not changed its policy, but is granting the FOIA requests as they are made. The cost to the Agency? Per information received by the author of the Social Security News blog, socsecnews.blogspot.com, 10 full time employees to deal with the 10,000 FOIA requests. |
|
frev
Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by frev on Mar 19, 2013 14:14:28 GMT -5
Here we are 3 months down the road, and the Agency still has not changed its policy, but is granting the FOIA requests as they are made. The cost to the Agency? Per information received by the author of the Social Security News blog, socsecnews.blogspot.com, 10 full time employees to deal with the 10,000 FOIA requests. Wow, ridiculous. Does any ALJ think this policy is a good idea? I have never met one who does. All this policy does is generate work, annoyance, and waste time - SSA's and the reps. |
|
|
|
Post by x on Mar 19, 2013 20:25:08 GMT -5
If you look back at my posts here (a scary thought), you can see that I am pro-agency to the point of having once been accused of being a "troll."
However, I have nothing to say in defense of "Judge Anonymous." It has no support anywhere. It serves only to undermine the agency's credibility and to give a (tiny) edge to insiders who can read the tea leaves of hearing times and assigned rooms to infer the assigned ALJ and/or take the energy/time to FOIA.
Every day this rule persists is another monument to bureaucratic inertia.
|
|
|
|
Post by costco on Mar 20, 2013 22:11:03 GMT -5
Northwest,
Can you explain, what's the big deal? Are the judges so different?
As X mentioned: insiders ... can read the tea leaves of hearing times and assigned rooms to infer the assigned ALJ....
I'm usually in one hearing room every Wednesday and, similarly, the same (but different) hearing room two other days a week. Other judges have easier schedules. The same hearing room the same three days a week.
Wouldn't it be easier just to use an Excel spread sheet?
By the way, I don't prep the cases differently based on who the rep is.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Mar 21, 2013 0:15:30 GMT -5
Northwest, Can you explain, what's the big deal? Are the judges so different? Well, of course some ALJs have a higher pay rate and there are differences in how thoroughly they review the evidence. And some will grill the reps more... "Oh, you say fibromyalgia? Please advise me where in the record it shows the claimant meets the diagnostic criteria?" So I think the reps will prepare more for some ALJs. Also, different ALJs have different expectations in terms of presentation of evidence. For example, I tell the reps that when there's self employment income, I expect certain types of evidence so I can determine whether it's substantial gainful activity. What I'm hearing now with the "Secret ALJ" rule is: "Well, I don't know if you're going to be the ALJ, and not all ALJs ask for that". Also, I have heard that some reps will actually advise their clients to withdraw the hearing request and just reapply if they learn they've pulled an ALJ who is thorough and might write a scathing opinion that will forever taint the claimant's future chances of being awarded benefits. The main reason that I, as an ALJ, don't like the Secret ALJ rule is that I'm tired of hearing reps say that they don't prepare because they don't know who their ALJ will be. Also, I sometimes would like to issue a prehearing order (denying a request for a subpoena or some other procedural request) and I'm not allowed to do that. (I've asked my HOCALJ if I can draft it and have it issued in the HOCALJ's name, but no dice). PS: If I were a rep, I'd also like to know the identity of the ALJ so I could prepare my client on what to expect -- for example with respect to the topics that will be covered, whether they ALJ is always happy to allow sitting/standing at will, or whether it's a bad idea to moan and writhe throughout the hearing. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 21, 2013 6:30:48 GMT -5
Northwest, Can you explain, what's the big deal? Are the judges so different? Well, of course some ALJs have a higher pay rate and there are differences in how thoroughly they review the evidence. And some will grill the reps more... "Oh, you say fibromyalgia? Please advise me where in the record it shows the claimant meets the diagnostic criteria?" So I think the reps will prepare more for some ALJs. Also, different ALJs have different expectations in terms of presentation of evidence. For example, I tell the reps that when there's self employment income, I expect certain types of evidence so I can determine whether it's substantial gainful activity. What I'm hearing now with the "Secret ALJ" rule is: "Well, I don't know if you're going to be the ALJ, and not all ALJs ask for that". Also, I have heard that some reps will actually advise their clients to withdraw the hearing request and just reapply if they learn they've pulled an ALJ who is thorough and might write a scathing opinion that will forever taint the claimant's future chances of being awarded benefits. The main reason that I, as an ALJ, don't like the Secret ALJ rule is that I'm tired of hearing reps say that they don't prepare because they don't know who their ALJ will be. Also, I sometimes would like to issue a prehearing order (denying a request for a subpoena or some other procedural request) and I'm not allowed to do that. (I've asked my HOCALJ if I can draft it and have it issued in the HOCALJ's name, but no dice). PS: If I were a rep, I'd also like to know the identity of the ALJ so I could prepare my client on what to expect -- for example with respect to the topics that will be covered, whether they ALJ is always happy to allow sitting/standing at will, or whether it's a bad idea to moan and writhe throughout the hearing. So basically you have attorneys (or are they non-attorneys?) admitting before their clients that they don't prepare? I've had attorneys appear before me who were lazy, stupid, un-prepared, arrogant, and just basically clueless and I always make an effort to let them and their clients know that. If you are creative, there are a number of ways to do that and still afford civility and due process. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 21, 2013 8:09:11 GMT -5
Northwest, Can you explain, what's the big deal? Are the judges so different? Also, I have heard that some reps will actually advise their clients to withdraw the hearing request and just reapply if they learn they've pulled an ALJ who is thorough and might write a scathing opinion that will forever taint the claimant's future chances of being awarded benefits. That happened a lot in our office, although not out of fear of a scathing opinion. Rather, it was from the knowledge they were going before a judge with a 90+% denial rate. Out of curiosity, what sort of scathing decision would hurt a claimant's chances for getting future benefits? I'm not sure I've heard of a judge reviewing a decision from a prior application. |
|
