SSA Workplace

[deltajudge]

8-)As a lot of people on the board know, I am an old(now) retired ALJ. Back in the day, didn't have a big problem with "evidence dumping." Reps would bring in new medical, and I knew the problem of getting medical out of medical sources, so I would browse through it, seeing if there was anything significant, note and let it in, and go on with the hearing. The rare times when we were swamped with too much to review, I would not postpone the hearing, just rely on the medical evidence in the record, review what was submitted, evaluate it, and base my decision on both, and if it didn't hold up, let the appeals council sort it out and send it back to me. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[cafeta]

May 16, 2013 19:50:04 GMT -5 deltajudge said:

8-)As a lot of people on the board know, I am an old(now) retired ALJ. Back in the day, didn't have a big problem with "evidence dumping." Reps would bring in new medical, and I knew the problem of getting medical out of medical sources, so I would browse through it, seeing if there was anything significant, note and let it in, and go on with the hearing. The rare times when we were swamped with too much to review, I would not postpone the hearing, just rely on the medical evidence in the record, review what was submitted, evaluate it, and base my decision on both, and if it didn't hold up, let the appeals council sort it out and send it back to me. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Unfortunately, these days the courts are all over the late evidence/records and whether the ALJ decisions remain supported by substantial evidence, whether the new evidence was late to the ALJ, or to the AC. At least in the 9th circuit, a single page conclusory and unsupported document can get the whole case sent back to the agency. Justice even further delayed, unless of course the court just decides to become the fact finder and pay the case.

[bartleby]

Let me remind you folks that think "our" in the Reg's applies to the Agency. There is only one John Hancock attached to every decision and that is the ALJ. If it goes wrong the ALJ is the cat holding the bag and even though the Agency not only knows about any wrongdoing but in fact maybe condones it, they will look the other way as soon as it goes down. When the AC or District Court looks as these decisions and sees errors, such as the record not being properly developed they discuss what idiots and nincompoops the dumb ALJ's are. The Agency is blameless. At our training we had a District Court Judge speak to us and that was pretty much what he said. Some Judgesare a little more vocal and really cut loose.

[Justice-Dude]

May 16, 2013 21:07:28 GMT -5 bartleby said:

Let me remind you folks that think "our" in the Reg's applies to the Agency. There is only one John Hanthingy attached to every decision and that is the ALJ. If it goes wrong the ALJ is the cat holding the bag and even though the Agency not only knows about any wrongdoing but in fact maybe condones it, they will look the other way as soon as it goes down. When the AC or District Court looks as these decisions and sees errors, such as the record not being properly developed they discuss what idiots and nincompoops the dumb ALJ's are. The Agency is blameless. At our training we had a District Court Judge speak to us and that was pretty much what he said. Some Judgesare a little more vocal and really cut loose.

The Agency is not blameless, everyone knows SSA hired those ALJs.

[hod]

Social Security Disability has always (well mostly) been a non-adversarial process. YEars ago it was not uncommon for a large percentage of the docket to be unrepresented. The agency sends letters out to claimant prior to the hearing asking about their medical records, doctors etc. We even send out a letter saying has there been any other medical visitis since (last date we updated). When a claimant states that he has seen doctor x and been hospitalized at y-we need to make sure that we have those records. Generally when the case is worked up for hearing-the clerk sends out a letter to all known sources to get updates. This may vary when the claimant has a representative, but even here-if the record makes it obvious that we are missing pertinent medical information we are obligated to go after it. Further if a claimant is poor, homeless or gets all of his treatment at quickly doc in boxes, we SHOULD get a CE to at least give us an idea of the limitations that the individual has. Not everyone is savey enough to get their own records, not every representative is good enough to make a complete file -in the end, if we do not develope and the AC or Court thinks we needed to do more-the case comes back and justice IS delayed. Not always the ALJ fault. Sometimes things jsut happen. But if an ALJ sees that there is a need for evidence that may help in deciding a claimant's RFC, he/she should get it.

That being said, there is a time when evidence gets to be cumulative and getting another treatment record from Dr. X is only going to give you what the last ten records said. There is some judgment to this. The AC is supposed to look at new records and determine whether they could possibly have made a difference in the case. MRI's X-rays tests and the like are more likely to get a remand than maybe another office visit or therapy session. Reps often will send in later letters from Treating sources saying the claimant is disabled and can't do x y or z. The AC should also look at whether the TS has records supporting the statement prior to sending it back. Sometimes it is a tough call. It is especially difficult when there is a culture of weighing everything in the light most favoarable to the claimant. I actually think it might be better to have a more adversarial process so that the ALJ does not have to wear every hat in the system. But I don't know-appaarently they did that years ago and it was dropped.

[bartleby]

The problem is, due to the production push, almost all ALJ's are looking at the case anywhere from the week before or the day before the hearing. The cases are supposed to be developed by the SCT's, read their job description. This is not being done and the results are a mess. Quality versus quantity is not working. Very few Judges are willing to put the case into post development and then have to offer the Rep the opportunity for a supplemental hearing..

[workdrone]

Bart, you sure there isn't a better job for you out there? Sometimes when I read your posts it sounds like you're in a different world than me even though we both do the same job.

For everyone else, the SSA ALJ job is good if you accept it for what it is - a demanding job in an imperfect system. You try and make the best decision you can with the cards you are dealt, day after day, year after year. You will make a significant difference in the lives of individual citizens, and enjoy an excellent quality of life. However, in the grand scheme of things, you are still just a cog in the machine. An important cog, but still just a small part of a massive system that don't really care much about you as an individual.

Thus, If you are pining for an Article 3 gig or something more glorious, you'll probably end up like poor Bart, venting his frustration on an Internet forum.

[Administrator ALJ]

Can anyone provide me with a little help on these acronyms:

CE
SCT
RFC

Gotta love the alphabet soup that is government-speak.

[hopefalj]

May 17, 2013 10:34:39 GMT -5 Administrator ALJ said:

Can anyone provide me with a little help on these acronyms:

CE
SCT
RFC

Gotta love the alphabet soup that is government-speak.

Consultative examination (a doctor performs these at SSA's request to provide an independent physical or psychological examination of the claimant and provide additional medical evidence-reps will sometimes pay for their claimants to have these done as well, although the independence of these is occasionally suspect)

Senior case technician (I think senior anyway)

Residual functional capacity (the claimant's maximum retained ability to function in the workplace given their impairments- the formal definition can be found online-typically the key finding by an ALJ in a disability case)

[hod]

May 17, 2013 10:34:39 GMT -5 Administrator ALJ said:

Can anyone provide me with a little help on these acronyms:

CE
SCT
RFC

Gotta love the alphabet soup that is government-speak.

CE = Consultaive Exam or Consultative Examiner (the doctor)

SCT Senior Case Technician a person who has the job of "preparing the case for hearing" by developing the case, making sure it is in some kind of order, making an exhibit list, culling out the voluminous duplicates that seem to appear with every case and coordinating all the players in the action VE ME ALJ Att/Rep and Claimant. These job duties are performed with the proficiency that the time allowances permit, just like every other job duty process. :-)

[hod]

Then I realized someone else beat me to the answer. :-)

[hopefalj]

May 17, 2013 10:53:10 GMT -5 hod said:

Then I realized someone else beat me to the answer. :-)

Despite working with a few of them, I couldn't have told you exactly what an SCT does. So I appreciate your answer. :-)

[bartleby]

Workdrone, this isn't the first time you have taken pot shots at me. The poster asked for information about life at ODAR and I provided what is happening in my office and others around me. I have been in the organization for over 15 years and I can see it deteriorating as time goes by. You admit it is a demanding job in an imperfect system. Perhaps if you continue to accept the deterioration it will get better?? I have seen Judges resign because they couldn't or wouldn't lower their personal standards and integrity enough to continue working for ODAR. This job is not for everybody and to gloss it over does no favors to anyone. Some offices are better than others, but it is an imperfect system and we as professionals are looked upon to raise the system to our bar, not lower ours to the level of the non-professionals. When I sign my name as a Judge to a document, I want it to be correct and that I can honestly say I have offered every claimant a full and fair hearing. Without this you might as well be a hearing officer..

[notyet]

May 17, 2013 9:18:34 GMT -5 workdrone said:

Bart, you sure there isn't a better job for you out there? Sometimes when I read your posts it sounds like you're in a different world than me even though we both do the same job.

For everyone else, the SSA ALJ job is good if you accept it for what it is - a demanding job in an imperfect system. You try and make the best decision you can with the cards you are dealt, day after day, year after year. You will make a significant difference in the lives of individual citizens, and enjoy an excellent quality of life. However, in the grand scheme of things, you are still just a cog in the machine. An important cog, but still just a small part of a massive system that don't really care much about you as an individual.

Thus, If you are pining for an Article 3 gig or something more glorious, you'll probably end up like poor Bart, venting his frustration on an Internet forum.

-

I think Bartebly appropriately, as we are public servants, describes things as they are as has WesternALJ1 in rebuttal to southeastALJ as was captioned on this board earlier this week. To remain silent, that is not to acknowledge the opposing approaches to how things are done throughout ODAR, risks having ODAR operations not analyzed properly.

--


May 15, 2013 at 2:15pmsoutheastalj said:

I really find it nonsense for people to say they can't hold hour long hearings and issue 500 dispositions a year. I hold hour to hour and a half hearings and have issued 600 decisions or so every year. If you only do 12 cases a week for only 45 weeks out of the year you've heard 540 cases and taken almost 2 months off. If you can't manage that you've chosen the wrong position.

In rebuttal, WesternALJ1 posted as follows on May 15, 2013:

To say it is nonsense to be unable to do 500 dispositions a year is nonsense. Disposition rates depend on many factors, including the size of the files, whether the files include multiple duplicates, whether substantial amounts of evidence are submitted on the day of the hearing or afterwards, quality of decision drafts, number of dismissals, pay-rate, simple or more detailed writing instructions, and whether the particular ALJ reads the whole file. If a judge can issue 500 dispositions, hold hearings that last 1-1.5 hours, and take 2 months vacation, that ALJ should be very glad to be in an office with small files, little late evidence, well pulled files, and very good decision writers or they are more interested in numbers than doing a professional job, give the evidence a cursory review, and rely on the writers to figure things out and get the decision right. Without knowing the particulars of your office, I can't say which group you fall into. However, if it is the latter, you've chosen the wrong profession -- you should not be a judge or a lawyer. To all new ALJs (and current ones, too), please be professional. If you can do the numbers because you are lucky enough to be in an "easy" office, do them; but if you cannot do the numbers without taking unprofessional short-cuts, simply do not do the numbers.

[workdrone]

All I'm doing is providing another prospective. Everyone's mileage differ in this job. Some people, like me, are content with the job and do our best within the system constraints.

Others have a different view and they should be aired. However, Bart makes the job sound so awful at times that I just can't help but take the bait.

I fled the AALJ forum years ago to avoid people like him and have no desire to see this place turn into it.

[hod]

Yes the system has problems. And some offices have problems that are different from other offices. I always thought it was a bit unfair for a manager in a small hearing office from some small town with a couple judges and local support staff that had been around for a billion years to get the same rate of pay as a manager in a combat zone of an office with 14 contentious judges, a virtual United Nations of employees, demographics that filled every possible pigeon hole and a claimant base that was similar to the make-up of the office. The job is quite different depending upon where you work and the culture of the office. I know-I have been in a number of different offices. The point is that some offices deserve combat pay. But that is not how things work.

On the other hand I fled private practice because I could see my children growing up without my input (might have been better-who knows), I had a husband who I had a nodding relationship with and clients that ran the gamut from absolutely unreasonably nuts to people who were in such need and did not have the law on their side. Not to mention senior partners who thought nothing of calling at 8am and tell you to handle some case that was starting in an hour because they have been held up somewhere. I admire those that do all this and I will be the first to say that we need those people-but having a 37 year marriage and four grown children who are contributing members of society and reasonably well rounded and still speak to me was an important goal.

I am more than willing to put up with some of the issues that the agency has. I try to change what I can and accept the rest. Personally, from a merit protection board standpoint, if you can show that the reason that you do not have the 500 or so cases is because you get undeveloped cases and thick overwhelming medical evidence, I am willing to bet that the agency will not/cannot fire you. Most of the people that they have gone after (and I am not saying all) were simply not pulling their weight. No one should be donating time to the agency and if lots of people are doing that-then it makes the statistics unfair for those who put in their forty expected hours and work. Personally, I am probably slower than your average bear-always been a problem-but I stay within the field of people who are not targeted. I also give an appearance of following the rules so that no one gets jealous and tries to go after me. (and by appearance I mean I do follow the rules.) Are there better jobs out there? Probably. Are there worse? Definitely. I think that we would all have a list of what is on our priority list that might differ by person. For me, a paycheck every two weeks; no billing of clients that cannot afford to pay; no finding clients who could pay and time with my family outweigh all the inconveniences of the job. Not that I don't complain (read my earlier comments on the OPM (Other Peoples Misery) and the fiasco of the ALJ application process. But once I vent and think about it-I can usually live with what I got.

[maquereau]

If you can bear to sign your name to mediocrity, if you can blissfully ignore errors in the process, if you don't care whether your decision holds up on appellate scrutiny, then this is your perfect job.

[Administrator ALJ]

Hopefalj and hod...thank you both for the explanations!

[deltajudge]

8-)I Think overall, Bart is being very objective. The main point is, if management would provide adequate staff, and let the ALJs do their job, there would be no problem, especially if management paid attention where the real problems were, and make a concerted effort to correct those. But no, go after the Judges.

[fletch40]

May 17, 2013 19:27:57 GMT -5 deltajudge said:

8-)I Think overall, Bart is being very objective. The main point is, if management would provide adequate staff, and let the ALJs do their job, there would be no problem, especially if management paid attention where the real problems were, and make a concerted effort to correct those. But no, go after the Judges.

Management going after judges? A little paranoid, no? Having worked in various positions within the bargaining unit and management, I can assure you that the last thing management wants to do is go after judges. It is very time consuming, causes a huge disruption within offices, results in grievances and complaints that consume additional time, and hardly ever results in the sought-after outcome. That being said, there are individuals that are ill-suited to being ALJs, just as there are individuals that do not perform well as attorneys, paralegals, SCTs, etc. I have worked in offices where the judges work diligently and are respectful to the general staff, and I have worked in dysfunctional offices where judges shun work and/or are rude to the staff and the public. The latter make us all look bad. I have no qualms with management trying to make people actually do the job they're paid for, or disciplining them for not. That stands true for an attorney that may be a terrible writer as well as the ALJ that cannot make a decision or harasses others in the office. The agency has 1500+ ALJs, with massive hires the last few years, yet how many have actually been removed in the last decade? A handfull? Moreover, judging from the lastest MSPB decisions, the timeframe it takes to discipline an ALJ appears to be about 3 years since the initial attempts to improve conduct/performance. That's three years of opportunities to do better before the MSPB decides the proper remedy. It takes a lot of effort to not find a way to do a better job in that sort of timeframe.

Now, there are certain people on this board -- and we all know who they are -- that constantly paint the agency as a terrible place to work because management is evil incarnate. Again, I just don't see it in my day-to-day life. Yes, deltajudge, if we had more staff, things would be easier all around. Perhaps you haven't been watching the news, but Congress has not been very loose with the purse strings. The agency can hire more ALJs or it can hire more staff, but with continuing resolutions and a shrinking budget, it can't do both. If you think it's hard work at ODAR, go to one of the district offices and see what they have to put up with on a daily basis. The fact is that the pay, status, and workload of the ALJ position is still paradise compared to the daily headaches of other federal jobs. It may not be quite what the perpetually malcontent around here imagined or desired, but I for one came into the job with my eyes wide open, and I haven't seen anything to justify the depth of bitterness and vitriol that the same few individuals post on this board.