SSA Workplace 2.0

[Administrator ALJ]

I know that my prior thread has been locked, but I actually found the exchange quite helpful. Looking past the emotions involved, it becomes apparent that the pull between quicker decisions for claimants and high process rates for management and the legal/ethical requirement for substantial evidence on which to base any decision is a daily consideration for federal ALJs.

Not surprisingly, I have questions related to this gordian knot. If claimants (or maybe more accurately, representatives) are commonly data dumping on the judge at hearing, does the judge have the ability to reschedule the hearing? How about issue interrogatories or the like after the hearing if questions from the information arise? In state agencies we have this tool. While it takes some adjusting to, as ALJs we have the ability to ask questions of the claimants/parties in interrogatories issued from the bench.

As always, I appreciate the information provided by all who contribute.

[oldschool]

The ALJ has the ability to reschedule the hearing but it should be done sparingly, utilizing common sense, but never as a punitive measure. The reason for that is because the person who is being hurt the most by the postponement is the claimant. The things the ALJ should consider are the volume of the records, how much time there is to review them, and whether the records represent continuity of care or some new impairments that need to be fleshed out. I'm sure there are additional considerations but these strike me as the most important off the top of my head. It is incumbent upon the ALJ to ask intelligent hypos of the VE, and the ALJ should be sufficiently well versed with the file to be able to do that. Sometimes the volume of records and the nature of the medical issues discussed make it nearly impossible to ask appropriate questions of the VE, and postponement may be the best option. Interrogatories are an option but again, they only delay things. I am not quoting chapter and verse from any authority, but these are the considerations that I have learned over time. I have tried to have this discussion with reps when evidence comes in late to try to get evidence in on a more timely basis, with mostly good results.

[hopefalj]

May 20, 2013 10:17:51 GMT -5 Administrator ALJ said:

I know that my prior thread has been locked, but I actually found the exchange quite helpful. Looking past the emotions involved, it becomes apparent that the pull between quicker decisions for claimants and high process rates for management and the legal/ethical requirement for substantial evidence on which to base any decision is a daily consideration for federal ALJs.

Not surprisingly, I have questions related to this gordian knot. If claimants (or maybe more accurately, representatives) are commonly data dumping on the judge at hearing, does the judge have the ability to reschedule the hearing? How about issue interrogatories or the like after the hearing if questions from the information arise? In state agencies we have this tool. While it takes some adjusting to, as ALJs we have the ability to ask questions of the claimants/parties in interrogatories issued from the bench.

As always, I appreciate the information provided by all who contribute.

The answer to both questions is yes, although the practicality of either is questionable. It's possible the rep dumps another load of records the day of the rescheduled hearing; plus you're making a claimant, who possibly drove a hundred or more miles to the hearing and possibly waited an hour or more in the waiting area, leave without having been heard with instructions they come back and do it again in a month or two.

I know judges that use interrogatories when post-hearing evidence is submitted that a medical expert at the hearing obviously could not review before giving an opinion. It can be a lengthy process, and once the interrogatories are received, they must be proffered to the rep. It's very likely that the rep will then request a supplemental hearing on the new evidence and ME's responses. I'm not sure of any reason to issue interrogatories to a claimant based on new evidence. They usually are good about telling you how they feel at the time of the hearing and the extent of their limitations.