|
Post by bartleby on Mar 21, 2013 8:49:18 GMT -5
If you happen to be in Region 5, they have Drummond and Dennard, which require you to apply prior ALJ findings unless there has been a change. Also, I think most Judge's review prior decisions as they are Res Judicata and they are looking to see what is different and could make this a pay case this time. Further, some Reps and claimant's might have a tendency to alter their story from last time regarding impairments, limitations, etc. It is not a bad idea to see what the claimant testified to the last time around and what the Judge had to say about it. It can actually save you some time by doing so. This doesn't mean that you don't decide the case on it's merits, it just means you are gather information.. It may bring to light some further questioning you may wish to engage in..
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 21, 2013 10:24:03 GMT -5
If you happen to be in Region 5, they have Drummond and Dennard, which require you to apply prior ALJ findings unless there has been a change. Also, I think most Judge's review prior decisions as they are Res Judicata and they are looking to see what is different and could make this a pay case this time. Further, some Reps and claimant's might have a tendency to alter their story from last time regarding impairments, limitations, etc. It is not a bad idea to see what the claimant testified to the last time around and what the Judge had to say about it. It can actually save you some time by doing so. This doesn't mean that you don't decide the case on it's merits, it just means you are gather information.. It may bring to light some further questioning you may wish to engage in.. Interesting. Thanks for the response.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Mar 21, 2013 11:52:44 GMT -5
8-)Bartleby, correct me if I'm wrong, because things change. When I was there, the subsequent ALJ was only bound by the finding as to exertional level, i.e., he/she couldn't make a finding of a higher level.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 21, 2013 15:09:43 GMT -5
Deltajudge, that is correct. Dennard applied to past relevant work. Unless there had been a change since the last decision, which was usually the case but you had to read the whole thing to find out. This usually created a problem when somebdy gave a 52 year old a light RFC and then they came back at 55 and you were stuck in a quagmire if the original RFC had been wrong or at least seemed that way..
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Mar 21, 2013 20:37:32 GMT -5
8-)I know, been in that boat many times. The next to last HOCALJ I worked with, was an idiot who got up every morning and bowed down in the direction of the regional office, and toed the management line strictly, and of course, as you know, production was the main prod. He came up with the bright idea, to speed things up, the prior file would not be ordered during pulling, unless we requested it. I reminded him of Dennard, and advised him I had a blanket request on all files with a prior hearing and decision, and the other ALJs agreed and that was the end of that.
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Mar 22, 2013 7:20:47 GMT -5
Can you explain, what's the big deal? Are the judges so different? Yes. In my office, we have judges who hold 15 minute hearings, while one scheduled an hour and a half; most go about 45 minutes. Some ALJs like to do most of the questioning, others like to let the rep question first. Some judges really want briefs or certain forms completed, others don't care. Frankly, some judges are warm and friendly, while others can be borderline rude. If I was a rep, I would want to know. Many of the claimants we see have limited intellectual functioning and many have issues with anxiety. If the rep knows who the judge is, he can better prepare what will happen in the hearing room.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 22, 2013 10:35:02 GMT -5
This rule was implemented because of widespread judge shopping. Unfortunately, I don't see it changing anytime soon. Hope I am wrong. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by alj on Mar 23, 2013 12:18:20 GMT -5
This is one of the relatively rare circumstances where reps and ALJ's agree. This policy is horrible. And now mgt has decided that the office security guard can no longer even have a redacted a list of hearings for the day. Because, hey, why would the guard need to know who is supposed to be here and who may just be dropping in? I haven't heard that one yet. Must be a different region than the one I am in.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Apr 1, 2013 12:12:34 GMT -5
It was confirmed in a management call this morning that ALJ names will again go on hearing notices starting on 4/22. Office staff are to disclose ALJ names immediately to claimants/reps if asked.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Apr 1, 2013 14:52:31 GMT -5
Email received by all EEs in our ODAR today:
This morning on an all managers call we were given guidance regarding ALJ Name Disclosure. As of April 20th the ALJ’s name will be printed on the Notice of Hearing. The name will also appear on a Representative Case Status Report which the representative can view if they have electronic access to the files.
Effective today we can release the name of the ALJ assigned to a case verbally if asked by a claimant or representative. If you have any questions please see your supervisor. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by booney58 on Apr 6, 2013 9:58:48 GMT -5
Our HOD recently notified us that the ALJ's name will once again be on the NOH. I must say, I have never seen a bigger bunch of whiners than claimant's reps. Every year at the SSA CLE in our region, the class deteriorates into a major "whine fest" of reps. "How can we possibly know how to prepare for these cases if we don't know the judge?!?" I can answer that: thoroughly. I was taught to know my case backwards & forwards, and show up on time ready to argue it. No matter what judge, no matter what jurisdiction. Honestly, what is so hard about that? Yes, I realize there are some really good reps out there who ARE prepared and many who have actually met their client face to face before the hearing! Amazing! But sad to say the majority seem to be the complainers who want to do as little as possible to pick up that $6000 check. Really, people. Grow up and do what you're being paid to do.
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on Apr 6, 2013 15:38:51 GMT -5
I was a prosecutor in an office that appeared before 54 different State judges, each with his or her own idiosyncratic (unpublished) rules. If you served process the way Judge Smith liked it, Judge Jones would not accept it. We kept a book in the office where we wrote the rules down, changing them as needed. So yes, in that case it made a substantive difference which judge you had. At SSA, although practices vary some from judge to judge, the actual rules are standardized (set by the agency). I agree that the only way to prepare is to know your case really well. What if the judge you über-prepared for is out sick, and a different one is subbing? Know your case, and you'll do fine with any judge.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Apr 6, 2013 17:00:40 GMT -5
8-)In this day and age, also with Obama's "transparency," What's was the big deal hiding the ALJs identity? We are becoming so childish.
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on Apr 6, 2013 17:47:13 GMT -5
It was said the point was to decrease forum shopping. Sooner or later, though, the parties know who their judge is, if only when they walk into the hearing. It does not seem to make much difference one way or the other. Ironically, much of the time the judge does not know whether the claimant will show up, or the designated rep, or a last-minute substitute rep. But that doesn't make much difference either...
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Jun 14, 2014 11:20:10 GMT -5
Aargh! They suddenly swooped down and reinstated the Secret ALJ policy, this time by a published rule! www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201404&RIN=0960-AH37SSA RIN: 0960-AH37 Publication ID: Spring 2014 Title: Changes to Scheduling and Appearing at Hearings (3728F) Abstract: We will revise our rules to protect the integrity of our programs and to address public concerns regarding the removal of an administrative law judge's name from the Notice of Hearing and other prehearing notices. To accomplish both objectives, these final rules state that we will provide an individual with notice that his or her hearing may be held by video teleconferencing and that he or she has an opportunity to object to appearing by video teleconferencing within 30 days of the notice. We have also made changes that allow us to determine that claimant will appear via video teleconferencing if a claimant changes residences while his or her request for hearing is pending. We anticipate these changes will increase the integrity of our programs with minimal impact on the public and result in more efficient administration of our program.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jun 14, 2014 17:42:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Jun 15, 2014 10:45:03 GMT -5
Not quite. The secret ALJ policy is still dead and buried. This new rule has to do with VTC declination, time limit on claimant's request to reschedule hearings, and give the ALJ the authority to direct telephone hearings in certain circumstances. Thanks. You're right. Whew
|
|