Union sues SSA

[valkyrie]

This thread is a delightfully entertaining study in denial. Congress and the people have spoken my friends, and they definitely prefer McDonalds to Chez Paul. I can just picture the outrageous French Chef bellowing, "How dare zay tell me zay prefer zees disgusting burgers to my magnifique souffle!" Its called fastfood law folks, and it is THE menu. Here's my question, is the Union going to ask Congress for enough hiring to double the number of "dilligent" ALJs, or is it going to ask Congress to be satisfied with half our current production based upon a more "dilligent" standard? I think your best bet now is a cheezy little 80's movie montage where the quirky employees of your scrappy little "dilligent" restaurant band together to reopen the joint and defeat the evil Mega-Burger franchise...

[westernalj1]

Based upon your comments, you are neither a good attorney nor a good judge. Good attorneys and good judges are ethical, conscientious, and diligent. While there are excellent ALJs who are able to meet the Agency's production goals -- primarily because their files are not particularly large and they are fortunate to be in well-run hearing offices, many excellent ALJs are not able to come close to meeting those goals. As you belittle "diligent" ALJs, you, "my friend" are an Agency hack and an embarrassment.

First, while you certainly know and seemingly have adopted what former Commissioner Astrue and the Agency want, you have no idea what Congress or the "people" want. To the extent you think you do, presumably based on select comments from various Congressman, those Congressman would likely have different opinions if they were better informed, but, unfortunately, most of their information comes from disingenuous Agency managers and inarticulate union officers.

Second, your job, and professional duty, is to do the right thing -- not the personally convenient or expedient thing. That you apparently are ignorant of your professional responsibilities or, worse, knowingly ignore them to meet the Agency's "goals," exemplifies your decided lack of character and fitness for the position. In addition, even assuming arguendo that certain Congressman prefer ALJs to place production over accuracy and the legal demands of the position, so what? ALJs do not owe their duty to individual Congressman, but to the American people, as a whole, and to the demands of the law.

Third, placing production over accuracy is an insult to all claimants and the American public. Each claimant deserves that their ALJ treats them as an individual -- not as a number or a disposition. Each of them deserves to be treated with courtesy and respect, and the only way to do so is for the ALJ to spend the time becoming fully familiar with their record, so that the ALJ knows what, if any, development needs to be done, and whether their complaints, while perhaps not well supported by the objective medical findings, are, nonetheless, consistent and credible. Similarly, the American public equally deserves that ALJs are fully familiar with the record, such that the ALJ will know when the claimant's complaints are inconsistent and not credible, which is not likely from a cursory review of the record.

Lastly, if any of your family or friends were in the unfortunate position to be applying for disability benefits, I am sure you would want them to appear before one of the "diligent" ALJs who you mock. I do not believe you would be pleased if they received a hearing before an ALJ who hurried them through their hearing, and who issued a quick and legally sufficient denial, which failed to adequately and accurately address all of the medical opinions, mischaracterized their testimony, and failed to weigh their credibility in accordance with the Commissioner's controlling regulations. Claimants, ALJs, and the American public would be best served if you would learn and remember that it is not the wants, wishes or "goals" of a HOCALJ, ROCALJ, OCALJ, or the Commissioner which control an ALJs actions -- it is the Commissioner's regulations which control an ALJs actions. Read them some time, you might be surprised by what you find there. While you are at it, read the HALLEX provisions and SSRs, which add to those demands. The regulations and controlling law do not demand "Chez Paul," but they most certainly do require more than "Ronald McDonald."

[moopigsdad]

Jun 10, 2013 23:50:38 GMT -5 westernalj1 said:

Based upon your comments, you are neither a good attorney nor a good judge. Good attorneys and good judges are ethical, conscientious, and diligent. While there are excellent ALJs who are able to meet the Agency's production goals -- primarily because their files are not particularly large and they are fortunate to be in well-run hearing offices, many excellent ALJs are not able to come close to meeting those goals. As you belittle "diligent" ALJs, you, "my friend" are an Agency hack and an embarrassment.

First, while you certainly know and seemingly have adopted what former Commissioner Astrue and the Agency want, you have no idea what Congress or the "people" want. To the extent you think you do, presumably based on select comments from various Congressman, those Congressman would likely have different opinions if they were better informed, but, unfortunately, most of their information comes from disingenuous Agency managers and inarticulate union officers.

Second, your job, and professional duty, is to do the right thing -- not the personally convenient or expedient thing. That you apparently are ignorant of your professional responsibilities or, worse, knowingly ignore them to meet the Agency's "goals," exemplifies your decided lack of character and fitness for the position. In addition, even assuming arguendo that certain Congressman prefer ALJs to place production over accuracy and the legal demands of the position, so what? ALJs do not owe their duty to individual Congressman, but to the American people, as a whole, and to the demands of the law.

Third, placing production over accuracy is an insult to all claimants and the American public. Each claimant deserves that their ALJ treats them as an individual -- not as a number or a disposition. Each of them deserves to be treated with courtesy and respect, and the only way to do so is for the ALJ to spend the time becoming fully familiar with their record, so that the ALJ knows what, if any, development needs to be done, and whether their complaints, while perhaps not well supported by the objective medical findings, are, nonetheless, consistent and credible. Similarly, the American public equally deserves that ALJs are fully familiar with the record, such that the ALJ will know when the claimant's complaints are inconsistent and not credible, which is not likely from a cursory review of the record.

Lastly, if any of your family or friends were in the unfortunate position to be applying for disability benefits, I am sure you would want them to appear before one of the "diligent" ALJs who you mock. I do not believe you would be pleased if they received a hearing before an ALJ who hurried them through their hearing, and who issued a quick and legally sufficient denial, which failed to adequately and accurately address all of the medical opinions, mischaracterized their testimony, and failed to weigh their credibility in accordance with the Commissioner's controlling regulations. Claimants, ALJs, and the American public would be best served if you would learn and remember that it is not the wants, wishes or "goals" of a HOCALJ, ROCALJ, OCALJ, or the Commissioner which control an ALJs actions -- it is the Commissioner's regulations which control an ALJs actions. Read them some time, you might be surprised by what you find there. While you are at it, read the HALLEX provisions and SSRs, which add to those demands. The regulations and controlling law do not demand "Chez Paul," but they most certainly do require more than "Ronald McDonald."

Well stated westernalj1. You are correct regarding what the rules and regulations, Hallex and SSR's require to be done on a claimant's case in determining his/her disability. The true issue is the number of ALJs is too small to support the increasing caseloads. Unfortunately, the political environment with both sides digging in means a stalemate with not much chance of relief coming soon. No two cases are the same, some require more time, others less time to adjudicate.

Are there ALJs that are too deliberative and slow, sure there are some. Are there ALJs who are rushing to make as many decisions as they can without careful deliberation, sure there are some. However, by and large, the majority of ALJs take their job seriously and try their best to make proper decisions that affect a claimant's life forever. I just don't think there is an answer to solve all the issues and ills in the SSA process short of hiring more ALJs at some point in the future. Time will tell if it ever becomes a reality and the politicians realize the necessity of doing so. As to those ALJs on the extremes of the process, there probably needs to be retraining given on proper decision making. Just don't hold your breath thinking anything will change soon.

[hod]

the answer is never to short change the job and duty all that does is provide a bad product and support the argument that the demands are reasonable. there is a point where one has to take the evidence provided and make a decision, but the adjudicator needs to call that point. if the cases build up because there are not enough staff then Congress and the agency needs to resolve that problem. solutions are not found by redefining the problem to fit a convenient response. I am sure that there is a number that we all could agree is not enough, but beyond that-if you do your job honestly and with integrity that is what we are called to do. If someone threatens one of you for not producing enough-your job of defending yourself would be much easier if we all were focused on doing our job rather than achieving goals. Imagine another area with arbitrary goals - surgeons must complete x number of surgeries a day, firemen have x amount of time to put out a fire, police must solve x.cases per month.
I know that this is somewhat pollyanna but if we all give a full days work and do the best we can for the American public-then any problems must be resolved elsewhere.
that being said, we all know people who do not give 100 percent, people who take advantage of the system and people who simply do not care. we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently protect the inadequate while throwing the diligent under a bus.

[valkyrie]

I've found my new Patriotsfan!!! Westernalj1 you jump to so many conclusions for such a self-avowed paragon of due process. I like how you charactarize the Commissioner of Social Security getting blistered by every member of a Congressional Committee as, "select comments from various Congressmen," that were apparently bamboozled by, "disingenuous Agency managers and inarticulate union officers." As I recall, we got hammered by the press, we got hammered by Congress, and we got hammered by public opinion, because we had a huge case backlog. So tell us Westernalj1, what is the appropriate amount of time to spend on an average case file? How long is the hearing, how many hours on the prehearing workup, and how many hours should we spend on the post-hearing work? I'm just curious to know how much time a "dilligent" ALJ should spend on a typical file. Lets assume that you are an excellent judge in a well-run office with a normal size case file. You're not doing Chez Paul or the McDonald's hours, so tell us how much time we can expect from TGI Fridays or Applebee's.

[bartleby]

Well, it would appear that 500-700 cases a year comes out to somewhere between 2-3 hours per case and that is not adequate time..

[moopigsdad]

Jun 11, 2013 9:59:56 GMT -5 bartleby said:

Well, it would appear that 500-700 cases a year comes out to somewhere between 2-3 hours per case and that is not adequate time..

I would even say you cannot adequately review any two hundred-plus page case in three hours, if you truly want to be properly prepared and informed, subsequently making a correct decision on it. Now, if there were only fifty to one hundred pages of medical or less in a case, it might be possible. However, there are not many cases that size. I don't know how, unless you are just flipping through pages without reading them, that you would truly understand the file of most clients in a three hour span of time.

[bartleby]

I had 8 cases last week. I had 4,358 pages of medical records.. Go Figure..

[decadealj]

barleby- how many pages were material or even relevant? If an ALJ doesn't know the difference, how sad. Until SSA comes up with a reasonable evidence admission process (AALJ??) there will be no solution to the production problem. Amen.

[valkyrie]

Jun 11, 2013 10:40:00 GMT -5 moopigsdad said:

Jun 11, 2013 9:59:56 GMT -5 bartleby said:

Well, it would appear that 500-700 cases a year comes out to somewhere between 2-3 hours per case and that is not adequate time..

I would even say you cannot adequately review any two hundred-plus page case in three hours, if you truly want to be properly prepared and informed, subsequently making a correct decision on it. Now, if there were only fifty to one hundred pages of medical or less in a case, it might be possible. However, there are not many cases that size. I don't know how, unless you are just flipping through pages without reading them, that you would truly understand the file of most clients in a three hour span of time.

It all depends on what part of the file you are looking at, and how much of it is really relevant. Do you really spend much time looking at the A, B, or C sections? Sometimes even the D section isn't relevant because the claimant has no work history, or things are pretty clear cut as to the end of work activity or its nature. The E section is only as relevant as the F section medical evidence makes it. Then some of the medical can immediately be ignored. Reps are notorious for submitting evidence that is completely irrelevant by subject, (OBGYN records in a back case, almost every gall bladder surgery, etc.), or age related, (evidence from five years priot to the alleged onset, and has nothing to do with the alleged impairments). Sometimes you are just familiar with the provider and know that their records have no evidentiary value at all. There are so many tricks to the trade that have nothing to do with cutting corners, hating America, or otherwise shredding the Constitution and proffessional ethics. Management certainly doesn't do much to foster a pleasant relationship regarding many of these issues, and certainly a competent HOCALJ would cut an ALJ some slack in Bartleby's excessive medical records situation. Generally these things have a way on evening each other out, (one case with only two CEs for evidence followed by a 1200 page VA case).

[moopigsdad]

Jun 11, 2013 13:34:01 GMT -5 valkyrie said:

Jun 11, 2013 10:40:00 GMT -5 moopigsdad said:

I would even say you cannot adequately review any two hundred-plus page case in three hours, if you truly want to be properly prepared and informed, subsequently making a correct decision on it. Now, if there were only fifty to one hundred pages of medical or less in a case, it might be possible. However, there are not many cases that size. I don't know how, unless you are just flipping through pages without reading them, that you would truly understand the file of most clients in a three hour span of time.

It all depends on what part of the file you are looking at, and how much of it is really relevant. Do you really spend much time looking at the A, B, or C sections? Sometimes even the D section isn't relevant because the claimant has no work history, or things are pretty clear cut as to the end of work activity or its nature. The E section is only as relevant as the F section medical evidence makes it. Then some of the medical can immediately be ignored. Reps are notorious for submitting evidence that is completely irrelevant by subject, (OBGYN records in a back case, almost every gall bladder surgery, etc.), or age related, (evidence from five years priot to the alleged onset, and has nothing to do with the alleged impairments). Sometimes you are just familiar with the provider and know that their records have no evidentiary value at all. There are so many tricks to the trade that have nothing to do with cutting corners, hating America, or otherwise shredding the Constitution and proffessional ethics. Management certainly doesn't do much to foster a pleasant relationship regarding many of these issues, and certainly a competent HOCALJ would cut an ALJ some slack in Bartleby's excessive medical records situation. Generally these things have a way on evening each other out, (one case with only two CEs for evidence followed by a 1200 page VA case).

I don't disagree that sometimes cases even out, but the "F" Section is sometimes well over two hundred or more pages (sometimes even a thousand pages). Should you discount evidence from any treating source, even if from a different specialty or from a "recognized name"? I think not. Sometimes, you will find a new impairment that may have been overlooked by DDS and is very disabling. Hence, you would need to send the case back to DDS for a new work-up on the newly discovered or uncovered disabling condition that was not in the claimant's record in the past until now. Also, just because you think you know how a physician or treating source deals with clients doesn't follow that you discount his/her records based upon his/her actions in past cases. So, yes there are cases that can be reviewed in the requisite time, but there are many more that cannot. If you are truly making an informed decision on a case, it requires due diligence to do things in a proper manner. I am not making judgment on how you prepare for hearings or decide cases, all I am saying is that many ALJs do find it difficult to prepare and decide a distinct requisite number (500 to 700) of cases depending upon the size of medical located in those cases. No two cases are exactly alike, nor are any two claimants.

[factfinder]

2080 possible hours in a year. There are about 11 holidays - 80 hours there. Average judge earns 200 hours AL. Then there is mandatory training and meetings. Then there is plain old inefficiency and traveling for cases for some judges. Thus an average judge has less than 1600 available hours presuming she/he is never sick and she/he is perfectly efficient doing 500 cases where there is a VA hospital, or DoD hospitals in the area, which is heavy lifting because there are so many records. Same if there is a major medical center that treats the poor. Sure you get better at detecting the important stuff, but stuff hides or gets misplaced and you have to request CEs, etc., plus an occasional expert and every decision is not perfect from the decision writers. Then there are last minute submissions to consider. My point is a simple one - even a darn robot will have a hard time doing a good job for 500 dispositions.

[hopefalj]

Jun 11, 2013 17:45:04 GMT -5 factfinder said:

2080 possible hours in a year. There are about 11 holidays - 80 hours there. Average judge earns 200 hours AL. Then there is mandatory training and meetings. Then there is plain old inefficiency and traveling for cases for some judges. Thus an average judge has less than 1600 available hours presuming she/he is never sick and she/he is perfectly efficient doing 500 cases where there is a VA hospital, or DoD hospitals in the area, which is heavy lifting because there are so many records. Same if there is a major medical center that treats the poor. Sure you get better at detecting the important stuff, but stuff hides or gets misplaced and you have to request CEs, etc., plus an occasional expert and every decision is not perfect from the decision writers. Then there are last minute submissions to consider. My point is a simple one - even a darn robot will have a hard time doing a good job for 500 dispositions.

Are dismissals counted towards the 500 dispositions?

[decadealj]

A very simple solution- require the rep to certify the record is complete, submit a brief on theory of the case and evidence that supports claim and schedule within 30 days. Is that to hard???

[philliesfan]

Yes, dismissals count as dispositions. In fact, in offices with a significant number of unrepresented cases, if done correctly, no show dismissals can result in many dispositions without all of the file review, decision draft editing, etc.

[Orly]

Jun 11, 2013 8:45:48 GMT -5 valkyrie said:

I've found my new Patriotsfan!!!

Ahh... those words bring back memories.

[bartleby]

Decadealj noted, "A very simple solution- require the rep to certify the record is complete, submit a brief on theory of the case and evidence that supports claim and schedule within 30 days. Is that to hard???" Actually, an ALJ cannot require a Rep to submit a brief and also cannot require a Rep to certify that the record is complete.. Further, in my office most of the time we do not know who will be a no show or not so I have to prepare as if every case scheduled will be heard and spend hours preparing for them. I further would note that one cannot "correctly" dismiss a no show without reviews etc. This is based upon the fact that if one schedules a preliminary hearing to see if one will show or not, one cannot dismiss the case without further work. If one schedules a hearing, one may dismiss a no show, but if one shows, one has to go forward with the hearing.. Therefore, the ALJ must have reviewed the file and be ready to proceed.

[valkyrie]

Still laughing Orly! That was great!

[privateatty]

Orly is not the only wistful one...

[ssaer]

The comments on quality vs. quantity made me again thankful for the model used in the National Hearing Centers (NHCs). We (the ALJs) each have two assigned attorneys who are available to review our cases and prepare prehearing summaries (on an exhibit by exhibit basis) in advance and who, by virtue of having done so, gain a familiarity with the cases that enables them to more quickly draft decisions after the hearings have been held. While I still review all of my cases before the hearings, the prehearing reviews done by the attorneys enable me to do so far more quickly and, as a result, I am able to schedule far more hearings than I used to when I was in a conventional hearing office. When I add to this the fact that we are heavily involved in the attorney selection process and supervise and guide the work of our assigned attorneys, I can see no disadvantages to the NHC model. Perhaps its time to consider its expansion into the hearing offices?