|
Post by goldenticket on Sept 5, 2013 17:51:54 GMT -5
For those that care about such things, judges hired this round went to- Newark Charleston WV Huntington Morgantown Greenville 2 Knoxville Macon Middlesboro Paducah Tupelo Columbus Fort Wayne Indianapolis Mt pleasant 2 Toledo 2 Valparasio Alexandria Dallas north 2 Shreveport 2 Columbia MO Omaha St. Louis 2 Eugene
|
|
|
Post by goldenticket on Sept 5, 2013 17:53:29 GMT -5
Sorry, goofed on posting too quickly. For those who have cared about such in the past. I also saw the list that was emailed to alj's. There were only 8 out of 30 that had any SSA experience. So, for those who tried to project that ODAR wanted to "reach down" and get their people, that does not seem to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Sept 5, 2013 19:10:13 GMT -5
From that list I only count 29 hires. Did someone refuse or did they just not do 30?
|
|
|
Post by sunshine51 on Sept 5, 2013 21:33:32 GMT -5
No hires for my cities. Well ... That helps. Thanks for sharing. Back to enjoying my life!
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Sept 6, 2013 7:32:58 GMT -5
Privateatty, thanks for your cogent post, as always. The anomalies occur far too often in this selection process, but as you put it, that's life. Even with the anomalies, my best guess is that the past rate of selection for those who make it onto the register, is somewhere around 50%, which ain't bad, really. I have no math to back this up, Ed, except to say that I defer on the high mathematical issues to funkyodar. His methodology appears earlier in this thread and makes perfect sense to me. Someone said that in this situation, the past may not be useful in predicting what ODAR will do on future registers. Of course, the opposite could be true, as well. It is just helpful to me to know what ODAR has done on past registers. I also thought it was interesting to see that hires were done in cities where current ALJs were sitting on the transfer list. I wonder if this indicates that management wanted to get an insider off the register. This could be one of the many anomalies that Privateatty alludes to.
|
|
|
Post by slulawkid on Sept 6, 2013 11:29:17 GMT -5
Insider or outsider, it is still the same process. You can look at it a million different ways, but it still boils down to the same as any other position and that is a person, looking at you and your file, and finding they believe you will fit the job. Taco Bell, WalMart, OPM, IBM are all looking for a fit and the decsion is made by humans. There is no logic, no reason, nor rhyme. If you have ever hired someone for a position, think of what tipped the scale for one applicant over another. A person looking at your process without knowing your internal conversation on the matter would be totally baffled.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 6, 2013 11:36:07 GMT -5
I also thought it was interesting to see that hires were done in cities where current ALJs were sitting on the transfer list. I wonder if this indicates that management wanted to get an insider off the register. This could be one of the many anomalies that Privateatty alludes to. Or it could be nothing more than the ones on the transfer list declined the offer to move at this particular time. That has happened over and over in my office. Same people on the list have turned down the transfer and they get shuffled to the bottom. I wouldn't read into it too much.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 6, 2013 11:58:08 GMT -5
I also thought it was interesting to see that hires were done in cities where current ALJs were sitting on the transfer list. I wonder if this indicates that management wanted to get an insider off the register. This could be one of the many anomalies that Privateatty alludes to. Or it could be nothing more than the ones on the transfer list declined the offer to move at this particular time. That has happened over and over in my office. Same people on the list have turned down the transfer and they get shuffled to the bottom. I wouldn't read into it too much. Declining the transfer does seem to happen a lot. Timing is everything, And sometimes, it seems as though they just want a new hire in the office, so a slot is left for that purpose.
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Sept 6, 2013 12:54:05 GMT -5
I know one ALJ has declined transfer at least two if not three times because that ALJ wants to go to the other city AFTER the kids get out of school in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Sept 6, 2013 13:02:12 GMT -5
As far as the filling of only 30 slots out of 90, this is not the recent past practice. Astrue wanted every ALJ desk filled. I do not know what the desire of the Acting Commissioner will be. Rumor had it she was an operations person, so there may be more push on the operations/field side of the Agency. Time will tell. Can't work down the back log without Judges though. I am sure that after offers are excepted there will be an official list posted as to who got what where, so be patient. There may be one or two refusals or offer turn downs, so there may be a tiny bit more action.. Sure you can just raise the expectation from 500-700 to 700-900.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Sept 6, 2013 17:56:57 GMT -5
Latest rumor is that the current top end of the goal, where they cut off scheduling for Judges may decrease from 960 to 840.. They have recently cut back the ability of SAA's to utilize their signatory ability by only allowing them to sign meets or grid cases. Not all offices have implemented this yet. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 7, 2013 11:40:35 GMT -5
Latest rumor is that the current top end of the goal, where they cut off scheduling for Judges may decrease from 960 to 840.. They have recently cut back the ability of SAA's to utilize their signatory ability by only allowing them to sign meets or grid cases. Not all offices have implemented this yet. Go figure. We got an email that there was going to be a conference call to all SAAs on this issue, but nothing yet. The email did say exactly the same thing....only meets or grids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2013 13:41:58 GMT -5
Latest rumor is that the current top end of the goal, where they cut off scheduling for Judges may decrease from 960 to 840.. They have recently cut back the ability of SAA's to utilize their signatory ability by only allowing them to sign meets or grid cases. Not all offices have implemented this yet. Go figure. What is this goal? Is this disposition or cases scheduled at any given time.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Sept 7, 2013 19:56:28 GMT -5
Disposition 500 - 700 per year
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Sept 7, 2013 22:28:13 GMT -5
Certain Judges heard and disposed of as many as 3,600 cases a year. A year or so ago, the Commish decided the most any judge could dispose of in one year was 960 cases. Rumor is that will drop to 840 shortly. Some of the public embarassment the Agency has recently suffered has been due to some of the super producers, such as the West Virginia debacle..
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Sept 8, 2013 5:51:13 GMT -5
Certain Judges heard and disposed of as many as 3,600 cases a year. A year or so ago, the Commish decided the most any judge could dispose of in one year was 960 cases. Rumor is that will drop to 840 shortly. Some of the public embarassment the Agency has recently suffered has been due to some of the super producers, such as the West Virginia debacle.. This is no longer a rumor. Last week, management was instructed not to assign more than 840 cases annually, or 70 per month, to any judge as of the coming fiscal year.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 8, 2013 9:01:03 GMT -5
Certain Judges heard and disposed of as many as 3,600 cases a year. A year or so ago, the Commish decided the most any judge could dispose of in one year was 960 cases. Rumor is that will drop to 840 shortly. Some of the public embarassment the Agency has recently suffered has been due to some of the super producers, such as the West Virginia debacle.. This is no longer a rumor. Last week, management was instructed not to assign more than 840 cases annually, or 70 per month, to any judge as of the coming fiscal year. ssaer & Bart know this but for other who do not: Keep in mind that some of those 840 will end up being dismissals which still count as a disposition. The 700-840 numbers are "dispositions" not all are actual hearings. So for those "outties" this number does not mean 70 full hearings per month. It will dwindle, and some will be ugly 2000 page medical cases, some 200 pages. Some will be remands. They all count. It varies greatly. So don't let the number get all you math sorts to calculating out how much time it would take to get to the magic number. Like anything in life, keep somewhere in the middle of the bell curve and you will be fine. Stay out of the limelight so to speak. It's all good, it will all work out!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2013 10:32:11 GMT -5
This is no longer a rumor. Last week, management was instructed not to assign more than 840 cases annually, or 70 per month, to any judge as of the coming fiscal year. ssaer & Bart know this but for other who do not: Keep in mind that some of those 840 will end up being dismissals which still count as a disposition. The 700-840 numbers are "dispositions" not all are actual hearings. So for those "outties" this number does not mean 70 full hearings per month. It will dwindle, and some will be ugly 2000 page medical cases, some 200 pages. Some will be remands. They all count. It varies greatly. So don't let the number get all you math sorts to calculating out how much time it would take to get to the magic number. Like anything in life, keep somewhere in the middle of the bell curve and you will be fine. Stay out of the limelight so to speak. It's all good, it will all work out! Thank you for the clarification and education. The numbers seem to be huge to someone like me. I cannot see how someone can do over 3K dispositions a year unless they were doing their job incorrectly. Seems that it is difficult to meet the 500 if you really want to thoroughly read the file, take notes and have a substantive hearing. In reading all of the material on this board it appears to me that this is not what the agency wants. The agency prefers the judge to get to the meat of the file, give the claimant their 15 minute hearing to ensure due process, make a decision and move on to the next case. It is good to know this going in.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Sept 8, 2013 14:02:42 GMT -5
From what I've heard, 500 is reachable, esp since dismissals would be in there I think. I've heard 700 is a challenge. some consider 600 to 620 to be a reachable amount.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Sept 8, 2013 16:58:59 GMT -5
From what I've heard, 500 is reachable, esp since dismissals would be in there I think. I've heard 700 is a challenge. some consider 600 to 620 to be a reachable amount. Typically about 10-20% of the dispos are dismissals, depending on your geographical location. So if you're shooting for 500, you're really only going to be deciding about 400-450 cases on the merit. Additionally, at least in my area, about 20-30% of the cases on the merit are fairly straight forward without a large number of medical records. So if you are diligent and proficient with Social Security laws, 500 annual dispositions can be done without breaking a sweat. I have been doing low/mid 600s for three years now. It requires full concentration, no wasted motion, and could be quite taxing at times. If I really want to, low 700 is doable. However, it would require me donating most of my annual leave as well as working for free at least 1-2 Saturdays a month. So I am perfectly happy where I am.
|
|