|
Post by marten77 on Jun 11, 2013 23:06:54 GMT -5
I've found my new Patriotsfan!!! Ahh... those words bring back memories. Where's the like button for this post?
|
|
|
Post by westernalj1 on Jun 12, 2013 0:00:20 GMT -5
As I stated before, many ALJs may be able to meet the Agency's dispositional goals, in part, because their files are relatively small, and many other ALJs cannot because their files tend to be large. Subsequent posts make clear that we do not all have the same workloads. Valkyrie asks how long should it take to dispose of a typical file. Well, it depends on what you mean by "typical." How many pages are in the file, is it well-pulled, are duplicates removed, are the records in chronological order, how much post-hearing evidence is submitted, and do decision drafts need significant editing.
Some posts referenced files that have appx. 200 pages of medical records. Bartleby stated he did 8 cases this week, which totaled appx. 8400 pages of medical records or appx. 550 pgs/file. Valkyrie stated that "certainly a competent HOCALJ would cut an ALJ some slack in Bartelby's excessive medical records situation." Well, don't be so certain that all HOCALJs and ROCALJs are as "competent" as Valkyrie believes them to be.
I have done this job for several years, and in my office a file with 200 pages of medical records is exceptionally rare and a file with 550 pages of medical records is not excessive or unusually large, but is quite average. If an ALJ schedules more hearings in an effort to increase their production, their ALPOs and EDITs necessarily back-up, and management directs them to move their ALPOs and EDITs. On the other hand, if an ALJ schedules fewer cases in an effort to keep their pipeline moving, management directs them to schedule more hearings. The size of the file means nothing to management. Indeed, our ROCALJ has stated it is our public service duty to meet the Agency's production goals. Further, never have I heard my ROCALJ, the Chief Judge, anyone from the Commissioner's office, or the Commissioner state the size of an average file or that the 500-700 production goal does not apply to ALJs who regularly deal with files that contain "excessive" medical records.
If you are in an office with smaller files and you find the Agency's goals to be within reach, you should be glad for your good fortune. You should not, however, belittle and mock "diligent" ALJs who work under a much heavier workload than do you and work under a much more hostile regional office than do you.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 12, 2013 9:07:39 GMT -5
Size file is a very interesting topic because it truly does impact work flow. As a writer or a judge it is always a relief to see a file with just two CEs and a few ER visits, or even better, a 2500 page VA case that turns out to be an SGA denial. For my current service area, I would say the average uninsured claimant's file is around 200 pages of medical. That also assumes an onset date of about 2 years prior to the hearing date. Typically an insured claimant would have twice that, or about 400-500 pages. On the other hand, it is much easier to eliminate the irrelevant evidence from the insured claimants because, due to their access to medical care, they have a significant amount of treatment that is unrelated to any severe/alleged impairments. VA records remain a special sort of hell, and I won't try and play them down. While the objective tests are pretty easy to locate and review, the progress notes consistently contain all sorts of relevant nuggets spread far and wide and need to be viewed page by dreary page. I would guesstimate that in a usual 24 case hearing week I will have 1-2 VA cases. How many VA cases is everybody else seeing?
Privateattorney, always a pleasure. Mr. Poochkins sends his regards!
Westernalj1, I must admit to being truly awed by your huge case files, experience, and integrity. You and Mr. Poochkins have GOT to meet!
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jun 12, 2013 11:56:49 GMT -5
The NHC model is very close to the team system we had 25 years ago. As for the "simple solution", it is the process I followed until forbidden to do so by the RCJ. All I am suggesting is that AALJ do something useful by way of improving the hearing process.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jun 12, 2013 14:59:49 GMT -5
8-)Decade, you took the words right out of my mouf. Back to the future.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jun 12, 2013 15:10:27 GMT -5
8-)I never sent a show cause on no shows that occurred on a hearing trip or detail. My theory was, if the office and staff had gone through the trouble of pulling and getting the case ready for hearing, sending out the notices of hearing, and not getting a notice from the PO that the notice was not deliverable, and I had gone through the trouble of traveling to the remote site, or some distant city, and the alleged unemployed claimant couldn't take the time to notify he/she couldn't make it for whatever reason, I had no qualms getting his/her attention with a dismissal. Excuse the long sentence.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jun 12, 2013 15:20:52 GMT -5
Delta, I know, but they have since tightened up procedures. Claimant friendly, world clas service, and non-adverserial, don't ya know?? I felt the same way as you, as all they have to do is appeal to the Appeals Council and they get right back into the Hearing Room. Even more fun with the overpayments that don't show, appeal, get another hearing, no show, appeal, get another hearing, etc, while still getting benefits the whole time..
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jun 12, 2013 16:43:54 GMT -5
You may not believe it but our RO referred to claimants as "clients". Non-adversarial? ?
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jun 12, 2013 19:12:22 GMT -5
:Decade, those that be in what is laughingly referred to management in the structure of what was OHA and now the aptly named ODAR, has no clue what adversarial or non-adversarial means and can't even spell it. Their choice of words confirms their ignorance. Not too long before I retired they were referring to claimants as "customers" now "clients." I guess since ALJs have always been considered to wear 3 "hats," I guess wearing one of those hats, the claimant could be considered our "client." Glad I'm out of it, the latter years I worked for that agency, I considered it easily the most unprofessional bunch of people I had ever came into contact with.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jun 13, 2013 10:57:31 GMT -5
Amen.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jun 15, 2013 15:17:30 GMT -5
8-)Bart, I knew what they wanted us to do. We always joked about it, Send somebody out the last known address of the claimant, see what his/her problem was, if nobody there, mount a search. I didn't care, it was my case and I didn't fool around. Whatever crap they have come up with to cater to the claimant, customer, client, I would still do the same and let the chips fall.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Jun 25, 2013 20:49:39 GMT -5
The NHC model is very close to the team system we had 25 years ago. As for the "simple solution", it is the process I followed until forbidden to do so by the RCJ. All I am suggesting is that AALJ do something useful by way of improving the hearing process. We DO need a "like button" here~
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jun 28, 2013 16:09:32 GMT -5
What would cause a problem with adopting the NHC model throughout ODAR? At the least, it would sddress some of Judge Snooks's comments before Congress about accountability. My guess is that ODAR punted to the unions about 15 years ago and can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 12:01:43 GMT -5
aljhopeful2 - astute analysis. At a minimum, a motion for more definite statement seems likely. And even if you reach the substance of the allegations, I think there is a big leap, indeed a huge chasm, between the fact that management has implemented stringent production goals, and the legal conclusion that claimants are being denied due process. I just hope the union has given due consideration to how these claims could be viewed as spurious in nature and the very real impact this could have on the OPM/SSA legislation currently being considered on the Hill. If there are real examples of miscarriages of justice that cannot be attributed to poor decisions by wayward judges, but, instead, are attributable directly to management policy, those examples should be set forth with specificity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 18:09:41 GMT -5
Valkyrie's views are cynical but I think he has captured the essence of it. Others have also expressed the solution which is that yes, even ALJs are human. You can raise the quota from 500 to 700, or even to 1,000. It doesn't matter. Human limitations eventually kick in. If you want more cases processed you simply have to increase the number of ALJs, pure and simple. Incentivizing "approvals" versus "denials", by requiring time-consuming justifications only exacerbates the problem. I can totally relate to management's dilemma. They do the same thing any of us would do if we were responsible for reducing the back-log with a finite number of ALJ bodies. The link to Jeffrey Lubber's testimony last year is: waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/lubbers_testimony.pdfGWU Law Professor Pierce has even more scathing testimony, but many people on this board have first-hand information about the proposed legislation and its current status than I do. I don't think the answer is to increase quotas/goals to 800 or 1,000. Neither do I think the answer is to sue management. We should produce the information about case processing that needs to be brought to light and propose specific solutions.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Aug 1, 2013 8:09:01 GMT -5
At the bare minimum level of expected production, you have around 3 hours to do prehearing preparation and read the file (at ALJ training they tell you that you have to know the file better than anyone else in the hearing room), conduct a full and fair hearing, perform any development thereafter necessary to adjudication, draft comprehensive instructions, do your little CPMS/case mgmt stuff, read, edit and sign drafts returned by the writers. And each of these decisions is expected to be of high quality. Of course the drafts you receive will not necessarily be of high quality since there is considerable variation in talent among the writers. Many of them have no concept of how to write persuasively. Many of them lack the fundamentals of composition. Therefore, you must supply that in your review of the drafts. This can take an hour or two or more. In short, there is insufficient time to do a good job and to make sure that all parties receive due process.
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Aug 1, 2013 9:32:51 GMT -5
And each of these decisions is expected to be of high quality. Management just wants just "legally sufficient". But if the decision is not high quality, there's a good chance of remand by the Appeals Council or a court. I believe that if the decision is sloppy, uses bad grammar, or uses the wrong gender referring to the claimant, the chances of remand are enhanced, because it creates the impression that the ALJ was not paying attention. They won't give that as the reason for remand, however. They'll find, for example, some third party statement or ARNP opinion that the decision failed to address sufficiently. In one of the supplemental trainings we were told that time spent editing was time well spent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 12:12:22 GMT -5
I would like to see the ALJ CBA too but I can't access the AALJ website. Let's hope our friends send us a link. I don't know of any CBA however that would over ride management's ability to set "reasonable" goals (and I realize this begs the question) that it believes makes fair use of the agency's human capital and resources to accomplish the agency's mission. Courts tend to give management great leeway in making these calls. Even if the 12(b)(6) hurdle can be met, the end game should be considered before filing these things.
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Feb 28, 2014 8:15:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 28, 2014 9:07:45 GMT -5
So has the AALJ ever filed a complaint with OSC? If so, when, and what was the basis of their complaint? Did OSC ever investigate?
|
|