|
Post by funkyodar on Jul 26, 2013 10:56:44 GMT -5
"In reality, the hearings are important, but most of your work and decisions will be based on medical records. Get used to talking like a doctor." I actually love pouring over medical records. At one point when I was doing defense work, I looked into going to medical school and becoming a neurologist but it was too much of a long haul. Then this may be right up your alley hopeful2. Between the medical jargon and government acronym jargon, any outsiders listening in on a discussion in an odar office would likley be baffled. I had a pretty good grip on med terminology from my past doing pharmaceutical class actions and med mals...but the acronyms were tough. i remember my first day and getting hit with "HOCALJ," "HOD," "SCT" "CPMS" "FIT" "DART" "CDB" "CDR" "DIB" "DI" "PII" and the like and thinking I had landed on some insane planet. Good news is, after about a week it becomes second nature. i can pretty much acronym anything in conversation now. Like. "I have to GTW now on a DWB/DIB/DI UF with DLI problems and move it in CPMS before COB or my HOD will be a SOB."
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 26, 2013 16:24:55 GMT -5
"In reality, the hearings are important, but most of your work and decisions will be based on medical records. Get used to talking like a doctor." I actually love pouring over medical records. At one point when I was doing defense work, I looked into going to medical school and becoming a neurologist but it was too much of a long haul. Just be prepared to be reading thousands of pages of medical, week in and week out. Sure there will be weeks with less medical to review, but usually there is more than you will want to see and read. I am glad you love medical because you will get your fill and then some.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 26, 2013 16:27:22 GMT -5
"In reality, the hearings are important, but most of your work and decisions will be based on medical records. Get used to talking like a doctor." I actually love pouring over medical records. At one point when I was doing defense work, I looked into going to medical school and becoming a neurologist but it was too much of a long haul. Then this may be right up your alley hopeful2. Between the medical jargon and government acronym jargon, any outsiders listening in on a discussion in an odar office would likley be baffled. I had a pretty good grip on med terminology from my past doing pharmaceutical class actions and med mals...but the acronyms were tough. i remember my first day and getting hit with "HOCALJ," "HOD," "SCT" "CPMS" "FIT" "DART" "CDB" "CDR" "DIB" "DI" "PII" and the like and thinking I had landed on some insane planet. Good news is, after about a week it becomes second nature. i can pretty much acronym anything in conversation now. Like. "I have to GTW now on a DWB/DIB/DI UF with DLI problems and move it in CPMS before COB or my HOD will be a SOB." Nothing like a lot of acronyms to brighten your day, especially if your HOD or HOCALJ is a SOB or DA?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jul 26, 2013 19:53:29 GMT -5
Can someone tell me exactly what the job of an SSA SLJ entails? I had assumed that you prepare for hearings, hold hearings, and then write opinions. I was wondering how that volume was possible. What do the the brief writers do? Prepare drafts and then the ALJ finalizes them? I would assume that if you get an incompetent brief writer, you are screwed. Do the advocates for both parties appear? Do they write briefs or provide paper besides medical testimony? Is expert testimony confined to that of treaters? And I assume the treaters are the experts and their opinions are contained in the medical records? Sorry for all the questions but I was surprised that there are brief writers. Thanks! Ok. I'm gonna give this a shot and if I miss something or get something screwed up someone jump in. A claimant files for ss benefits. The state agency (dds) denies and the clmt requests a hearing. When the case arrives at odarits pretty thin. Case techs assemble the file and request med records. At this point the case is not assigned to an alj. If a rep requestsit or if the clmt meets certain criteria based on age or impairment the case is reviewed by a senior attorney to see if it can be paid on the record (at least this is how it is done in my office though the ability of saas to screen cases is diminishing). Then the case is assigned to an alj. The aljs assigned case tech (though the alj has no supervisory capacity or authority over this person) the uses the aljs standing orders to order consultative exams request additional recs and what not. The case is then scheduled for a hearing usually several months out. Prior to the hearing the alj reads through all the assembled records and tries to discern the issues that need to be addressed in the hearing. Hearing: There are no advocates for both parties. There is only one party. Ssa has no rep to oppose the clmt who may or may not have a rep. Most hearings the alj is in the tiny hearing room with a hearing monitor (person paid to press record on a tape deck and to take pretty shoddy notes that would get a real court reporter fired) and the vocational expert. The ve may appear by phone however. the clmt and their repif they have one are usually appearing via video though they can be there in person. Rarelyis a med expert used (in my office only if there is a novel med issue or a case that is clearly close to listing level) if a ME is used it is almost always by phone. The alj or rep may lead the questioning. This is very general but it essentially follows a path of work history, why they say they can't work now, daily activities and the most they can still do. There is no cross examination. The alj then questions the ve regarding the general nature of the clmts past work and then proposes hypo questions about a person being able to do that work or any work with the clmts remaining abilities, called the rfc residual functional capacity. Several hypos are usually offered and the ve gives an opinion on each. After the hearing the alj determines which if any of the clmts alleged impairments are severe, when they became severe and which of the rfc hypos the alj gave the ve actually represents the clmts rfc. if that rfc leads to a conclusion that the clmt can't return to past work and can't do other jobs the clmt is paid. If not the claim is denied. Either way the alj writes up his findings on an instrution sheet and the case goes to an attorney or paralegal writer. These wordsmiths marshall all the med records testimony and law into a written decision that hopefully provides legally sufficient support for each of the aljs findings. The alj has no authority over the writers either. in nhcs and some offices aljs have assigned writers, in most its just a pool ranging from very good to barely literate. Once writing is completed the decision goes to the alj for editing and signing. Each case is diff and may have something that slightly changes this pattern but its generally how it happens. Doesn't sound like all that much till you remember that an alj is supposed to dispose of 500 to 700 cases a year. that math means you have an average of about 2.5 hours to review all ev, hold the hearing, do your post hearing findings and instructions, edit the decision and sign it.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 27, 2013 5:32:41 GMT -5
It also sounds as if there could be some inherent tensions between the brief writers and ALJ's? Quite frankly, it sounds like the brief writers do most of the heavy lifting? There must be some resentment, leading to crappy writing and round and round we go. I would say that is a very astute observation hopeful. In some offices, there exists some real tension just beneath the surface between AAs, SAAs, ALJs, the HOCALJ and the HOD (not even including other staff). Hence, some of the reason for transfers other than to get "closer to home".
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Jul 27, 2013 7:33:26 GMT -5
I'd like to add that if a claimant is represented by a good atty or rep, then the rep will update all medical records (dds usually does a fair to poor job getting medical records at the initial stage), the rep will also provide a prehearing brief regarding the issues of the case, whether the claimant meets or equals any listings or grid rules, etc. in those situations, the ALJ can compare the brief to the evidence and make a fully favorable decision without the need for a hearing. Approximately 1 out of every 8 of my cases are won without ever going to a hearing. But that is all based on those cases specific facts.
Also, at least in the ODARs that I am most familiar with, our hearings are almost always done in person and our experts appear in person. And we have medical experts in about 1/3 of all of our cases, including children's cases.
I think the difficulty level regarding the amount of prehearing or post hearing work largely depends on the rep, which the ALJ does not control. If you have a good rep, prior to the hearing the judge shouldn't have to do anything other than review the brief.
I can't speak to the ins and outs behind the scenes, as I am not an "insider". But I know that some of our judges have never looked at the medical evidence of record (MER) prior to the hearing. The ALJs, after the opening statement, will question the reps on where particular parts of evidence are contained in the record. For example, I may say my client is limited to less than a full range of sedentary by Dr. X, is closely approaching advanced age, has limited education, and has no past relevant work or unskilled past relevant work, therefore the claimant meets the grid rule. The ALJ may ask where Dr. X limits the claimant to sedentary in the record. I then tell the judge, he or she will check what I said, and I may very well get a bench decision after just a few questions to the claimant. In a situation like that, virtually no work is required post hearing because the bench decision is simply reduced to a written decision.
About half of the ALJs that I deal with on a regular basis require prehearing briefs. This forces those reps who otherwise are lazy and want a check for making the agency do his or her job, actually do their job. It forces the rep to familiarize himself with the case and the evidence. And it gives a short cut for the judge in his or her prep. Maybe the ALJs don't see it that way, but that's how the reps see it. And for those of us who actually do their job, it's not a bother at all.
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Jul 27, 2013 7:50:59 GMT -5
When I was representing claimant's I prepared a brief in every case and always made sure the medical record was complete at least 10 days before the hearing date. When I became an ALJ I assumed I would see the same thing. In reality in most of the cases I hear the representative is submitting significant numbers of pages of medical records within a few days of the hearing, a handful are submitting records the day of the hearing, some require additional time after the hearing to submit records, and a couple consistently submit records (including medical source statements) after the hearing even though they have already told me that the record is complete. To me that is the most frustrating part of what I do; trying to train the representatives. Also, a few, by far the minority, of the representatives submit pre-hearing briefs. I assumed I would rely on those briefs and it would reduce my prep time. Unfortunately, I have found far to many instances where the brief doesn't address the negative aspects of the evidence while highlighting only the portions that support a favorable decision. Thus, I will read the brief to get an idea of the overall evidence and the theory of the case (sadly the majority of the briefs I see simply recite the favorable evidence and then say something like "as you can see the claimant is eligible for benefits.") but will then do a complete review of the evidence anyway. I still appreciate the briefs, and am working on educating the representatives about what I need to see in a brief and I am trying to train the representatives to make sure the evidence is submitted timely. Those few reps I see who do complete the record and provide useful and complete and accurate briefs are very much appreciated by this ALJ, if to few in number.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jul 27, 2013 8:45:10 GMT -5
Lurker is right, a good rep can make life easier for the alj. I will say tho that I don't know any alj in my office that hasn't spent some time looking at the med ev before the hearing no matter how good the rep is.
Unfortunately cougarfan is also right. I would guesstimate about 75% of the clmts in my office have reps. Sadly I think around 50% of those repped clmts don't meet their rep until about 15 minutes before the hearing and the the rep largely just sits there during the hearing. Of the other 50% of repped clmts, probably half of those have the reps cougarfan mentions that throw ev at the alj just prior, during or after the hearing. If they submit a brief its a paragraph that says disabled based on one piece of favorable ev and ignores the 1200 pages of drug and alcohol treatment.
As to lurkers observation that the set up can cause animosity between the writers and aljs, that's true for 2 reasons. First, the pressure the writers feel is to move cases as quickly as possible, quantity over quality, in order to meet the office dispositional goals. The judges (except for the hocalj) don't really care about the office goal (at least in my office) they care more about their own goals and their remand rates. Thus they want quality writing from people who are being told by their managers to take all available short cuts.
The second reason is the nature of the beast, this is a govt job. Thus you have some great writers in the pool and some that just lean on the shovel. Aljs get no control over who writes their decisions. They may get one from a great writer that they know they won't have to edit then get one from a writer that couldn't get an A on on a 5th grade book report.
The vice is also the versa. A writer may be assigned one case by an alj that has done their job right and gives clear instructions on all findings, points to ev support in the record for each finding and gives the writer all they need. That same day the writer may get a case from a crappy alj (they do exist) that gives an rfc that wasn't presented to the ve, doesn't address whether the clmts primary complaint is a severe impairment or not and is essentially no more useful than if they had simply written "pay" or "don't pay" on the instruction sheet. Yet, these judges also expect perfect decisions from the writers.
The sad truth is this job, at all levels of odar, is just like every other govt bureacracy job from the dmv to the va. Some judges, writers, case techs are hardworking well educated conscientious devoted public servants. Some, even At the alj level, know they can half a$$ the job and still get paid without any real fear of losing their job. Those two groups will always be at odds.
|
|
|
Post by trekker on Jul 27, 2013 9:27:29 GMT -5
As an outsider who has been representing claimants for many years, I have a slightly a different approach (although I would aspire to be more like Lurker than I am). My limitations are based on the realities of working for legal aid. We can't afford to hire experts or pay providers for detailed opinions. That is not to say that we don't try to obtain them. We do and we try very hard to build a case for our clients. Some clients contact us well in advance of the hearing and we sometimes have been working with them from the initial denial forward. But more often than not, we get the clients who have gone to their first hearing pro se and were told by the ALJ to go get an attorney. Or the rep they thought they had dumped them right before the hearing. That doesn't give us much time to prep and although most attorney's would not take the last minute case, LSC funded programs don't always have the luxury of just saying no (some local funding sources place an emphasis on quantity and not quality). I always try to submit the evidence in advance as well as a hearing brief. I also try to address the negatives in the evidence as well. But some cases really hinge on the testimony and credibility of the client and it is hard to right a winning brief in those cases.
Obtaining medical records is easier than it was in the past, but not every provider is timely and if I am working for a program that does not have the funds to pay for the evidence, I am at the mercy of the provider and the ALJ. I am working on a case right now (that is not scheduled for a hearing but the client is about to lose his/her housing) where I requested the medical evidence two months ago and haven't heard back from the provider. In some cases the evidence comes in a week or two or months after the hearing. Thanks a lot provider -- I even paid you for it and sent you multiple letters requesting it. And if you are in certain parts of the country, the clients do not have access to health insurance (including Medicaid) and just don't have any medical records. Just because they don't have a provider does not mean they are not disabled. (If you read the papers, just look at what happened in Utah this week -- 2200 people with a MI lost their provider.) DDS is supposed to order CE's in those cases but they don't always do it nor do they do it correctly (sends them to the wrong specialist). And in DDS' defense, there are not a lot of doctors who want to do a CE for the rather insignificant reimbursement some DDS agencies are allowed to pay. I know what I will be up against if I am given the opportunity to be an ALJ. It really is a Clint Eastwood movie: The good, the bad and the ugly. But all of the claimants, despite their rep, are entitled to a fair and meaningful hearing.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 27, 2013 9:46:17 GMT -5
As an outsider who has been representing claimants for many years, I have a slightly a different approach (although I would aspire to be more like Lurker than I am). My limitations are based on the realities of working for legal aid. We can't afford to hire experts or pay providers for detailed opinions. That is not to say that we don't try to obtain them. We do and we try very hard to build a case for our clients. Some clients contact us well in advance of the hearing and we sometimes have been working with them from the initial denial forward. But more often than not, we get the clients who have gone to their first hearing pro se and were told by the ALJ to go get an attorney. Or the rep they thought they had dumped them right before the hearing. That doesn't give us much time to prep and although most attorney's would not take the last minute case, LSC funded programs don't always have the luxury of just saying no (some local funding sources place an emphasis on quantity and not quality). I always try to submit the evidence in advance as well as a hearing brief. I also try to address the negatives in the evidence as well. But some cases really hinge on the testimony and credibility of the client and it is hard to right a winning brief in those cases. Obtaining medical records is easier than it was in the past, but not every provider is timely and if I am working for a program that does not have the funds to pay for the evidence, I am at the mercy of the provider and the ALJ. I am working on a case right now (that is not scheduled for a hearing but the client is about to lose his/her housing) where I requested the medical evidence two months ago and haven't heard back from the provider. In some cases the evidence comes in a week or two or months after the hearing. Thanks a lot provider -- I even paid you for it and sent you multiple letters requesting it. And if you are in certain parts of the country, the clients do not have access to health insurance (including Medicaid) and just don't have any medical records. Just because they don't have a provider does not mean they are not disabled. (If you read the papers, just look at what happened in Utah this week -- 2200 people with a MI lost their provider.) DDS is supposed to order CE's in those cases but they don't always do it nor do they do it correctly (sends them to the wrong specialist). And in DDS' defense, there are not a lot of doctors who want to do a CE for the rather insignificant reimbursement some DDS agencies are allowed to pay. I know what I will be up against if I am given the opportunity to be an ALJ. It really is a Clint Eastwood movie: The good, the bad and the ugly. But all of the claimants, despite their rep, are entitled to a fair and meaningful hearing. Well said trekker regarding a fair and meaningful hearing for claimants.
|
|
|
Post by minny on Jul 27, 2013 10:37:48 GMT -5
Thank you, finky, lurker2active, cougarfan and trekker. All of this is very valuable information to those of us who are truly outsiders. The dynamics within the administrative agencies, and between the agencies and reps, appears to be basically the same as what I deal with in the labor and employment arena, but I think the stakes are higher.
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Jul 27, 2013 11:12:43 GMT -5
Much of what has been posted above about ODAR hearings is correct. However, there are things that occur regularly during a hearing that drive me nuts. At the beginning of the hearing, I ask the rep if they have reviewed the exhibits, have any objections to their admission, and if there is any other evidence they wish to submit or that I should hold the record open for. The answer frequently is that the record is complete. During the hearing, I always ask the claimant about who treats them and for what. It is surprising how many times, they will tell me about a treating source that they see every month, but the evidence from that source is over six months old, or testing such as an MRI that was done recently. If I can find this out 15 minutes into a hearing, why can't the rep? Usually because they just met the claimant in our lobby 20 minutes before the hearing. That means generally I will have to keep the record open so that the rep can submit this evidence. This happens most often with the large national firms.
Briefs can be useful sometimes, particularly in cases where the rep is arguing a Listing that has a lot of technical and laboratory results required. However, some reps think that the longer the brief the better. I have received a 29 page brief in a routine case. I told that rep that it is called a brief for a reason and that it should be no more than three pages long.
If you become an ODAR ALJ, you will see mostly the same reps, some of whom are excellent and some of whom would have problems handling a parking ticket and pretty quickly you will know which is which. You can let the rep do the questioning, but be prepared for many leading questions. I generally just let that go, but if reaches the point where the rep is testifying, I usually will stop it. However, I usually ask most of the questions and it is surprising how many reps don't listen because I often hear them ask they same questions I have asked. Remember that most of the rules of evidence do not apply in these cases. About the only objection is that some evidence is not relevant or is for some other person.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 27, 2013 13:36:04 GMT -5
Much of what has been posted above about ODAR hearings is correct. However, there are things that occur regularly during a hearing that drive me nuts. At the beginning of the hearing, I ask the rep if they have reviewed the exhibits, have any objections to their admission, and if there is any other evidence they wish to submit or that I should hold the record open for. The answer frequently is that the record is complete. During the hearing, I always ask the claimant about who treats them and for what. It is surprising how many times, they will tell me about a treating source that they see every month, but the evidence from that source is over six months old, or testing such as an MRI that was done recently. If I can find this out 15 minutes into a hearing, why can't the rep? Usually because they just met the claimant in our lobby 20 minutes before the hearing. That means generally I will have to keep the record open so that the rep can submit this evidence. This happens most often with the large national firms. Briefs can be useful sometimes, particularly in cases where the rep is arguing a Listing that has a lot of technical and laboratory results required. However, some reps think that the longer the brief the better. I have received a 29 page brief in a routine case. I told that rep that it is called a brief for a reason and that it should be no more than three pages long. If you become an ODAR ALJ, you will see mostly the same reps, some of whom are excellent and some of whom would have problems handling a parking ticket and pretty quickly you will know which is which. You can let the rep do the questioning, but be prepared for many leading questions. I generally just let that go, but if reaches the point where the rep is testifying, I usually will stop it. However, I usually ask most of the questions and it is surprising how many reps don't listen because I often hear them ask they same questions I have asked. Remember that most of the rules of evidence do not apply in these cases. About the only objection is that some evidence is not relevant or is for some other person. Wow--you have my sympathy. How to be of proper judicial demeanor in light of incompetence or laziness? And then to approve a fee? I'm glad I don't have to do that. In every other forum I have ever been in this would have been disallowed unless you had a really good excuse. And in the process there would be some crow on the menu. Most of these excuses can be found in the rules of practice and procedure and of course some of it most practitioners just know. And I know, things are different at ODAR. How does a record ever close? I don't understand why an attorney would get a fee when you have done his or her job? I think I'd rather do a remand of a disallowed fee than approve incompetency.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Jul 27, 2013 16:35:23 GMT -5
The discussions of the SSA ALJ job seem to me remarkably good. One caveat is that what goes on at one hearing office may be entirely different from what goes on at another, so a very accurate description of what happens in Richmond may be entirely inaccurate if you are in Miami.
As somebody who has been an SSA ALJ now for almost 20 years, I would like to add a couple of rather simple comments and suggestions [not matching the subtlety and detail of the above] for people who may be considering this job.
If you have a legal job that you find stimulating and professionally satisfying, please do not leave it to become an SSA ALJ, which is barely a legal job at all. To call OHA a factory would be an insult to most factories these days, because factories have quality control. OHA has no interest in or for that matter any understanding of quality.
On the other hand, if you have a crappy job [and my guess is that most legal jobs are pretty crappy, especially these days], then being an SSA ALJ may well not be much crappier than what you are doing now. As crappy jobs go, I am sure it's better than many. But you should be careful. I thought the jobs that I had before coming to ODAR were pretty bad. Also, in at least one of these jobs I had quite a bit of contact with OHA so I thought I understood how dreadful an outfit it was. It turned out I had no idea. The job I had before was in many ways ridiculous and stupid, but it was nothing like this. Inter alia, it gets really tiresome to work for an agency the top management of which has nothing but contempt for what you do . Unless you work here, you have no idea. If you are an outsider, you need to lower your expectations as much as you can, and then lower them some more.
There is another consideration that is beginning to become more important for me as I get older. I suspect that for many, probably most of us, this will be the last job we will ever have. As I approach retirement, it is more than a little bit depressing that the last 20 years of my professional [with apologies for using the word 'professional' in something having to do with OHA] life have been spent involved in the soul-deadening stupidity of ODAR/OHA.
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Jul 27, 2013 17:39:13 GMT -5
I hope my earlier comments aren't taken to mean I don't enjoy the job, because I do enjoy it. I am happier and more satisfied by this job than I was as a solo practitioner, a partner in a small (5 lawyers) firm or my time in a large firm.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 27, 2013 18:48:05 GMT -5
and I want to comment there are plusses to working here. On many levels, although I am not a judge, I understand extang's frustration. Def take his seasoned advice to heart. Yes, the job I do, as an attorney here, is not as legal or as intellectual satisfying as a job on the outside. That being said, I have been involved in some cool stuff here. We are working with people daily and the judges make important decisions that have financial ramifications for the claimants. Management provides its own set of challenges as extang noted. However, having met people that came from the outside, many enjoy a more sane work schedule here(despite an insane workload) and as people have pointed out, there are huge quality of life benefits to working here that would not generally be found in private practice. there are also several great fringe benefits, including ALJ's get to work at home 4 days a month, lots of vacation time, retirement, and the list goes on. I made a decision early on to stay here as an attorney as I decided these benefits outweighed the intellectual stimulation I might find elsewhere. Take care
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 27, 2013 18:50:03 GMT -5
The discussions of the SSA ALJ job seem to me remarkably good. One caveat is that what goes on at one hearing office may be entirely different from what goes on at another, so a very accurate description of what happens in Richmond may be entirely inaccurate if you are in Miami. As somebody who has been an SSA ALJ now for almost 20 years, I would like to add a couple of rather simple comments and suggestions [not matching the subtlety and detail of the above] for people who may be considering this job. If you have a legal job that you find stimulating and professionally satisfying, please do not leave it to become an SSA ALJ, which is barely a legal job at all. To call OHA a factory would be an insult to most factories these days, because factories have quality control. OHA has no interest in or for that matter any understanding of quality. On the other hand, if you have a crappy job [and my guess is that most legal jobs are pretty crappy, especially these days], then being an SSA ALJ may well not be much crappier than what you are doing now. As crappy jobs go, I am sure it's better than many. But you should be careful. I thought the jobs that I had before coming to ODAR were pretty bad. Also, in at least one of these jobs I had quite a bit of contact with OHA so I thought I understood how dreadful an outfit it was. It turned out I had no idea. The job I had before was in many ways ridiculous and stupid, but it was nothing like this. Inter alia, it gets really tiresome to work for an agency the top management of which has nothing but contempt for what you do . Unless you work here, you have no idea. If you are an outsider, you need to lower your expectations as much as you can, and then lower them some more.
There is another consideration that is beginning to become more important for me as I get older. I suspect that for many, probably most of us, this will be the last job we will ever have. As I approach retirement, it is more than a little bit depressing that the last 20 years of my professional [with apologies for using the word 'professional' in something having to do with OHA] life have been spent involved in the soul-deadening stupidity of ODAR/OHA. Nobody forced you, extang, to stay at a job you seemed to have dispiesed for twenty years. You should have left and did something you felt would have been more meaningful for you and gave you more self-satisfaction. If you were doing the job solely for the money, then I truly feel sorry for you. One's own self-satisfaction and happiness is worth much more than all the money you could earn at a job that you truly hate to go to each day. I hope you can find the true happiness you seek in retirement.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jul 27, 2013 19:07:54 GMT -5
Wow extang, that's depressing that you have spent 20 years at a job you hate. I told mrs funky some of what I had written on here about the job and she sort of echoed hopeful2's sentiments. Asked me whya I even wanted the gig. Thisis essentially the response I gave: I did the big firm thing and made big money but then gave that up for supposedly more time with the family. Ran my own office until economics, insurance and a realization that while I was in the same area as my family I was with them no more than before made me want out of that. When I came to odar I sacraficed a larger salary and the adrenaline rush of trying cases for good med insurance, good retirement benefits, being home for dinner every night, the ability to make every dance recital and t-ball game and never having a weekend interupted by a brief, trial prep or a client "emergency". I certainly miss running my own place and putting on a courtroom show, but not enough to give up what I have by returning to private practice. And I'm not "burned out" and need a change like many writers. I am friends and colleagues with enough aljs to know that gig is not gonna fill my litigation void. For me it is really simple. As a odar senior attorney I have hit a ceiling. To go any higher in my career I either have to make alj or take a management gig. If the alj gigis not that great, odar management is worse. They have more responsibility and less authority that even the aljs. Plus, that route would be a complete withdrawal from the practice of law. At least aljs have a shadow of real legal work. So, for me the alj gig is the only natural progression. An alj friend that was a senior attorney thinks I'm nuts cause he said the saa position is the best in the agency and he regrets leaving it for alj. But he was older, had topped out gs13 and doesn't realize the saa program has drastically morphed into the odar bastard whipping boy. Saa positions are now just slightly glorified writers instead of the former agency view that they were essentially diluted aljs. I'm to young to sit still in this position, don't want to be in management and alj is the next rung up. But, if I didn't already have time in the system, if I wasn't already spoiled to the benefits and if I could make it in private practice I wouldn't be trying for alj. I believe in public service and feel there are those in odar that are the epitome of that calling. Further, I think a job as an alj or any odar gig offers benefits and family time that few private jobs match. But, I echoes extangs sentiments,if you find fulfillment and satisfaction in your current job don't leave it. If you are easily frustrated by standingin lines and filling out paperwork at the dmv, if you want the job to be called "your honor," if you crave the thrill of snatching victory from defeat or need that high from nailing a witness in a perfect cross ex...save your time and money. Thisis not the gig for you.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jul 27, 2013 19:14:58 GMT -5
The discussions of the SSA ALJ job seem to me remarkably good. One caveat is that what goes on at one hearing office may be entirely different from what goes on at another, so a very accurate description of what happens in Richmond may be entirely inaccurate if you are in Miami. As somebody who has been an SSA ALJ now for almost 20 years, I would like to add a couple of rather simple comments and suggestions [not matching the subtlety and detail of the above] for people who may be considering this job. If you have a legal job that you find stimulating and professionally satisfying, please do not leave it to become an SSA ALJ, which is barely a legal job at all. To call OHA a factory would be an insult to most factories these days, because factories have quality control. OHA has no interest in or for that matter any understanding of quality. On the other hand, if you have a crappy job [and my guess is that most legal jobs are pretty crappy, especially these days], then being an SSA ALJ may well not be much crappier than what you are doing now. As crappy jobs go, I am sure it's better than many. But you should be careful. I thought the jobs that I had before coming to ODAR were pretty bad. Also, in at least one of these jobs I had quite a bit of contact with OHA so I thought I understood how dreadful an outfit it was. It turned out I had no idea. The job I had before was in many ways ridiculous and stupid, but it was nothing like this. Inter alia, it gets really tiresome to work for an agency the top management of which has nothing but contempt for what you do . Unless you work here, you have no idea. If you are an outsider, you need to lower your expectations as much as you can, and then lower them some more.
There is another consideration that is beginning to become more important for me as I get older. I suspect that for many, probably most of us, this will be the last job we will ever have. As I approach retirement, it is more than a little bit depressing that the last 20 years of my professional [with apologies for using the word 'professional' in something having to do with OHA] life have been spent involved in the soul-deadening stupidity of ODAR/OHA. Nobody forced you, extang, to stay at a job you seemed to have dispiesed for twenty years. You should have left and did something you felt would have been more meaningful for you and gave you more self-satisfaction. If you were doing the job solely for the money, then I truly feel sorry for you. One's own self-satisfaction and happiness is worth much more than all the money you could earn at a job that you truly hate to go to each day. I hope you can find the true happiness you seek in retirement. You are a smart guy MPD and I value the friendship we have forged in this lil virtual world. But you are a lil pollyanna here. it would be a wonderful world if we could all do jobs that make us happy and satisfied life and family and other obligations often interfere and make us do what we have to do instead of what we dream of doing. Afterall, everyone here is applying to be an alj or already one. As much as we may glorify the gig with the title of judge its really just a administrative procedure position. No one I know ever grew up saying they wanted to be a bureaucrat.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 27, 2013 19:31:02 GMT -5
Nobody forced you, extang, to stay at a job you seemed to have dispiesed for twenty years. You should have left and did something you felt would have been more meaningful for you and gave you more self-satisfaction. If you were doing the job solely for the money, then I truly feel sorry for you. One's own self-satisfaction and happiness is worth much more than all the money you could earn at a job that you truly hate to go to each day. I hope you can find the true happiness you seek in retirement. You are a smart guy MPD and I value the friendship we have forged in this lil virtual world. But you are a lil pollyanna here. it would be a wonderful world if we could all do jobs that make us happy and satisfied life and family and other obligations often interfere and make us do what we have to do instead of what we dream of doing. Afterall, everyone here is applying to be an alj or already one. As much as we may glorify the gig with the title of judge its really just a administrative procedure position. No one I know ever grew up saying they wanted to be a bureaucrat. True, funky, but to have been truly miserable in a job for TWENTY YEARS? I've been an ALJ (non-Fed) for 25-- to imagine being that unhappy for that period of time (making a lot less money than extang) -- I would have found something else long before now.
|
|