|
Post by redsox1 on Jul 3, 2016 10:50:57 GMT -5
no prob. I don't know of any maximum number of cases permitted to be heard. I believe only 75 cases can be assigned to an alj any one month and There is a ceiling of 700 dispositions a year. This was done due to the Huntington 2,500 a year. There is talk of increasing to 800.
|
|
|
Post by banks on Jul 3, 2016 11:13:35 GMT -5
"banks, I can agree that the best hearing would be where the Judge has no need to look at the record and can engage the Claimant like Pat Sajak on Wheel of Fortune."
Privateatty, Can you direct me to where I said that was the standard? Also, a careful reading of my initial post says, "if true." The attorney on the CLE appeared to be a seasoned attorney who was shocked by ALJ's conduct. But, as I stated before, I was not there. Nevertheless, even though I qualified it by saying "if true" about this unidentified ALJ, perhaps I went to far by saying it was a disservice. Or maybe not.
In any event, perhaps a solution would be to explain in the preliminary comments that it would be necessary to be reviewing materials and the claimant could be assured that she was listening to him. If true, of course.
Thanks and enjoy your Sunday. Going out to cut the lawn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 13:31:58 GMT -5
I have long ago appeared in front of an extremely competent ALJ who looked directly at the claimant, VE, rep, the entire time of the hearing; eg. whomever was speaking. Never looked down or away. Of course he never took a single note by pen, pencil or mouse during the entire hearing either. Kept his hands held loosely together across his lap, thumbs twiddling the entire time as he rocked back in his chair. And ALJ issued very good decisions.
I appeared in front of another ALJ who lets just call frenetic. Never looked up once during a hearing as he was always busy shuffling paper, pen or typing during the entire hearing, while having a painful "I am so lost" look always painted on his face. And the ALJ issued very good decisions.
And I have appeared for hearings where I, the claimant, the VE, the ME, the US rep and the AJ each never once physically saw each other the whole duration of the hearing as completely done by telephone. And these were much more complicated hearings that SSA hearings, with rules of evidence, pre-hearing conferences, briefs submittals, discovery etc applicable. And the AJ issued very good decisions.
For a rep to cry foul or unfair because a decision maker did not appear to be looking at him or her, IMHO bemoans
1. a rep who was ill-prepared and seeking to throw blame for his loss, or 2. a rep who vastly overvalues his worth of presence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 14:28:02 GMT -5
In looking at this thread I would encourage brand new ALJs to reread several of the posts on here as from very good ALJs who well know the pressures of the position and are giving good personal advisory tips on how to handle and fit mostly smoothly into your new position. One of those very good ALJs herein; Hopefalj; did make a reference to "Daugherty" in regard to the numbers we are all throwing out on here helter skelter. If you as a new ALJ do not know of the meaning of this Daugherty reference you should and you may well wish to review some past national news on same. I would suggest you start here in 2012 with a detailed US Senate Subcommittee report on assorted ALJ hearing practices and procedures that have occurred. The report will give you a 3rd party view reading of actual hearing scripts and ALJ practices/decisions that will lead you to perhaps forming a personal checklist of what NOT to do in hearings and decisions. The report does as well present a very good synopsis of the 5 steps of the disability analysis, the appellate process etc, for newly hired ALJs. This is the html version of the file www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/report-psi-minority-staff-report_-social-security-disability-programs-improving-the-quality-of-benefit-award-decisions. Advisory prior to reading: This report is presented for informational purposes only as to what TPTB do impliedly look for and oversee in the SSA ALJ hearing process. I am not presenting it with any opinion as to the actual merits of the findings made therein. Those heated arguments erupted in 2012 and continue through today between management, the Union , the politicians. as just recently criminal law enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 3, 2016 18:32:27 GMT -5
I had to finish up mandatory CLE so I decided to watch a SSA CLE. The conversation turned to video hearings and one of the attorneys representing claimants said he had one with an ALJ in California. All he saw was the back of her head because she never looked up. He said she could have been working on something else. I've appeared before some truly horrible judges but I think they have all looked up. If true, time for that ALJ to get another gig. It is a disservice. I do video hearings, approx. 98% of the time. The rep's comment make no sense either logically or physically.I face the video. The rep and claimant's face their video camera. In all cases the cameras are permanently mounted in position and cannot be moved. The only physically possible way that one could ever see the back of my head in any video hearing is by myself spinning completely around on the bench and I hold the hearing, talking to the back wall. That again would not be logically possible as then how would I physically access my computer and keyboard which are now not only behind me, but behind my desk chair. As far as working on something else during a hearing, who does not? When I, the claimant and the VE have already fully discussed the case and then the ill-prepared rep steps in only to begin mindlessly reading a pre-printed script wherein she asks, verbatim, the same questions I have already covered or begins reading a long pre-printed objection to the VE's qualifications, yes, I am going to do other things: answer blinking lync messages, emails, etc. at least until, the claimant have had enough regurgitation. I think the rep meant to say he only saw the top of her head rather than the back of her head. You're right seeing only the "back of her head" makes no sense logically or physically. BTW, nice paragraph breaks. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jul 3, 2016 22:17:58 GMT -5
I thought talking to the top of an ALJ's head was a required skill - since both the OPM and ODAR structured interviews with ALJs were exercises in doing precisely that as they feverishly were bent over their note pads trying to transcribe my answers!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 4, 2016 10:31:26 GMT -5
"banks, I can agree that the best hearing would be where the Judge has no need to look at the record and can engage the Claimant like Pat Sajak on Wheel of Fortune." Privateatty, Can you direct me to where I said that was the standard? Also, a careful reading of my initial post says, "if true." The attorney on the CLE appeared to be a seasoned attorney who was shocked by ALJ's conduct. But, as I stated before, I was not there. Nevertheless, even though I qualified it by saying "if true" about this unidentified ALJ, perhaps I went to far by saying it was a disservice. Or maybe not. In any event, perhaps a solution would be to explain in the preliminary comments that it would be necessary to be reviewing materials and the claimant could be assured that she was listening to him. If true, of course. Thanks and enjoy your Sunday. Going out to cut the lawn. You said what you'd been told was that the Judge kept her head down the whole hearing and that as such what she did was a disservice. And I will admit that most people/Claimants will assume that the Judge is not listening to them if they are reading. This, of course, is a fallacy as we have to be able to do both from the get go. So who is really at fault here? The Judge who kept her head down or the Claimant and/or their rep who was ignorant? Or maybe what we have here is "...a failure to communicate?" (Sorry Strother, RIP).
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Jul 5, 2016 10:10:08 GMT -5
[/quote] no prob. I don't know of any maximum number of cases permitted to be heard. I just hear what I am scheduled to hear. If that number goes way over max, so be it, as long as done properly. Hence, you may get the distinct impression that I (as a union member) do not agree with the union's on going wars about how many dispositions etc an ALJ should or should not do per year. To me, such battles only encourage the other judiciary's view that the job is nothing more than a production line chicken deboner; that ALJs are only mentally competent to do so many XXX cases per year and then no more or no less. There is a huge backlog of cases. To myself (and many others do differ) putting self-imposed limits on our ability to hear cases is SNAFU. Doesn't matter to me where, how, when or how often one does cases, just get them heard, competently, and move on. But I digress. Is there a limit on the number case that an ALJ can decide in a year? I'm doing a little light summer reading while I'm waiting to see if I make to the next round and just finished reading "Social Security Disability Programs: Improving the Quality of Benefit Award Decisions" MINORITY STAFF REPORT PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE which states"...In 2011, the Commissioner unofficially capped the number of cases each ALJ can decide at 1,200, which he did by limiting their assignments to no more than 100 per month....." Is the Senate report correct?
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Jul 5, 2016 10:37:34 GMT -5
[/quote] Is there a limit on the number case that an ALJ can decide Is the Senate report correct?[/quote] It is in flux. My understanding is that an ALJ can be assigned no more than 60 cases a month and issue no more than 720 dispositions a year but there is talk of removing the cap. I suspect the days of 4 figure dispositions are over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 12:12:38 GMT -5
The most recent AALJ newsletter (today's) contains a commentary on the never ending argument of how many cases can be assigned to ALJs.
The AALJ noted that there is one (1) ALJ in the nation whom, and this per the AALJ article itself, "was struggling to keep up with 50 hearings a month" was being requested to schedule 6 case per day/5 days per week, for a total of 60 cases per month.
Other than that very obtuse description of a singular ALJ out of the nation, the newsletter then jumped to having heard vague "rumblings" that management is pushing a 600 case disposition rate per year. Notably there was absolutely no objective information provided as to these rumblings and there was no discussion of the possibility that the singular ALJ in focus, whom admittedly was struggling with what is perceived to be a rather ordinary docket load, may have been simply scheduled more hearings so as to not to continue to fall further and further behind in his duties.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but if I heard such extremely vague and unsubstantiated statements in a hearing from an expert, or even the claimant, I would necessarily be giving same little to no weight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 14:35:34 GMT -5
Harsh, IMO, calling the judges out by name when it was not necessary to illustrate the perceived problems. The US Senate was very genteel in their treatment of past and/or sitting ALJs in comparison to the openly public naming and defaming of current ALJs on disabilityjudges.com. You want to see harsh go peruse there. Not only harsh language but direct threats, etc. are openly lobbed against named ALJs. All openly made, worldwide, without one shred of substantiation by the posters and without any oversight or concern by FPS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 14:57:53 GMT -5
ALJs are public employees. Your work, your salary, your duties etc are all open to public investigation. The Senate has no choice on same. Sunshine laws, Open records act, FOIA, etc. Relevancy is a non-issue.
|
|
luna
Full Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by luna on Jul 5, 2016 15:00:26 GMT -5
The DOT being so incredibly far out of date really bothers me. I hope that this really does get updated as the report suggests.
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Jul 5, 2016 15:19:04 GMT -5
Harsh, IMO, calling the judges out by name when it was not necessary to illustrate the perceived problems. The US Senate was very genteel in their treatment of past and/or sitting ALJs in comparison to the openly public naming and defaming of current ALJs on disabilityjudges.com. You want to see harsh go peruse there. Not only harsh language but direct threats, etc. are openly lobbed against named ALJs. All openly made, worldwide, without one shred of substantiation by the posters and without any oversight or concern by FPS. Having read the Senate report, I also thought that calling out the ALJs by name seemed unfair as it appeared that they were not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. While I understand that much of any public servant's life is an open book and subject to scrutiny, I think that in this report it was unfair to specifically identify the ALJ by name, without providing the complete record so that the reader could see what the ALJ saw when he or she made their decision. The report provides selective facts, selected by a Senate staffer, who may, or may not, know a whole lot about the law and then an egregious example of what the ALJ did.
I'm glad to hear that others have similar concerns about disabilityjudges.com. As someone who is hoping for a job on a rather limited GAL, in perverse way, I was glad to look at disabilityjudges.com and discover that the cities on my GAL had some of the worst back logs in the land, figuring that if these cities are behind they are more likely to get new positions added; however, the list of intemperate comments about judges from disgruntled claimants is a part of the job that has no upside. Fortunately, I have a very thick skin, but I know that I would not enjoy this. Ultimately, I think that it must be a matter of remaining true to oneself, and making the decision that you believe is right based on the facts and the law.
ALJs do no have the exclusive franchise on being the victims this sort of unfounded, mean spirited attack in what is dsiguised as a "review." See what happens when someone decides to go after you on Avvo. One of my friends who is an outstanding contractor will not go on Angie's list because too many other good contractors that he knows have been taken down by one irate review.
Unfortunately, this is the online world that we live in.
|
|