|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 25, 2014 21:37:07 GMT -5
8-)I think management ineptness is kinda like an epidemic. Probably been beneath the surface for a long time, but is now breaking out. Like decade said, PC is rampant also. Look at the latest Pentagon move, beards and turbans. I thought joining the military was voluntary, if you signed up, you should have known you had to give up certain of your civilian comforts, like our guys and gals in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Jan 28, 2014 1:15:29 GMT -5
Since people are bidding time . . . could SSA take the entire hiring process out of the OPM process if they decided they no longer want ALJs under the APA? Immigration judges, for example are not ALJs, but are paid ALJ rates.
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Jan 28, 2014 7:24:32 GMT -5
Since people are bidding time . . . could SSA take the entire hiring process out of the OPM process if they decided they no longer want ALJs under the APA? Immigration judges, for example are not ALJs, but are paid ALJ rates. They could. In the current environment they could probably get congress to sign on to such a change, but the logistics of setting up and phasing in a replacement system would be fairly daunting and probably more than an acting(or even permanent) comissioner would like. Congress for their part could take up the issue on their own. Given the coverage not just from WSJ, but other new sources (WaPo and NPR for example), it looks like outside interests have an axe to grind with the disability program in general, and ALJ's being used in particular. It seems to be a general consensus that the political winds are blowing towards a reform of the disability program. Whether that will affect ALJs any more than it already has probably depends alot on the "sucess" of the PD change and how well the ALJ's off the new register perform. That's just what I have been thinking of while I consider whether this is a boat I want to get into or not in the event I am offered a spot.
|
|
|
Post by gottabeme on Jan 28, 2014 8:41:14 GMT -5
"First, how do they know that the “writer” obtained an amended onset. This is not the prerogative of the writer but the judge’s. This was not my decision but I am sure that my colleague had instructed the writer to do that, as the writers know they cannot just ask a rep to amend an onset without consulting with the judge, as this is clearly beyond the scope of the writer’s duties".
It is my understanding that although AA's write the decision, they are merely writing a draft for the ALJ. Therefore the final writing would be by the ALJ and he becomes the "writer".
|
|
|
Post by papresqr on Jan 28, 2014 9:00:56 GMT -5
"First, how do they know that the “writer” obtained an amended onset. This is not the prerogative of the writer but the judge’s. This was not my decision but I am sure that my colleague had instructed the writer to do that, as the writers know they cannot just ask a rep to amend an onset without consulting with the judge, as this is clearly beyond the scope of the writer’s duties". It is my understanding that although AA's write the decision, they are merely writing a draft for the ALJ. Therefore the final writing would be by the ALJ and he becomes the "writer". True in a sense, but the attorneys and paralegals are the ones actually referred to as "writers." In any case, the decisions are being reviewed before they get to the ALJ, so the writer being referred to is the attorney or paralegal.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 28, 2014 9:05:29 GMT -5
"First, how do they know that the “writer” obtained an amended onset. This is not the prerogative of the writer but the judge’s. This was not my decision but I am sure that my colleague had instructed the writer to do that, as the writers know they cannot just ask a rep to amend an onset without consulting with the judge, as this is clearly beyond the scope of the writer’s duties". It is my understanding that although AA's write the decision, they are merely writing a draft for the ALJ. Therefore the final writing would be by the ALJ and he becomes the "writer". At the time these decisions are pulled by QA, the judge hasn't seen the decision yet. They're taken from the writer as the my are moving them to the judge for review. As this process reviews SAA, AA, and paralegal writing, I would say the writer in this case means the writer, not the judge.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 28, 2014 9:42:20 GMT -5
"First, how do they know that the “writer” obtained an amended onset. This is not the prerogative of the writer but the judge’s. This was not my decision but I am sure that my colleague had instructed the writer to do that, as the writers know they cannot just ask a rep to amend an onset without consulting with the judge, as this is clearly beyond the scope of the writer’s duties". It is my understanding that although AA's write the decision, they are merely writing a draft for the ALJ. Therefore the final writing would be by the ALJ and he becomes the "writer". At the time these decisions are pulled by QA, the judge hasn't seen the decision yet. They're taken from the writer as the my are moving them to the judge for review. As this process reviews SAA, AA, and paralegal writing, I would say the writer in this case means the writer, not the judge. IMO The alj instructions were probably for a partially favorable later onset. The writer called the rep to amend the onset date to the date the alj wanted to pay.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 28, 2014 11:42:34 GMT -5
8-)When the Department of Health and Human services of which SSA was then not separate but a component of, they took the welfare services of the states and from that came SSI. Civil Service would not let them appoint ALJs under the APA, so the agency established instated their own hiring process and hired hearing officers, I know because I went through it and was selected, but turned it down. If you passed that exam you were also qualified for the black lung program, which DHHS slso administered through SSA. It was almost identical to the Civil Service ALJ exam.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 29, 2014 17:19:36 GMT -5
At the time these decisions are pulled by QA, the judge hasn't seen the decision yet. They're taken from the writer as the my are moving them to the judge for review. As this process reviews SAA, AA, and paralegal writing, I would say the writer in this case means the writer, not the judge. IMO The alj instructions were probably for a partially favorable later onset. The writer called the rep to amend the onset date to the date the alj wanted to pay. I have completely different experience than you. I can't think of writers in my office who want to get involved in calling back and forth to representatives and waiting for uploaded evidence when they could just draft a partially favorable and move along. In my experience, the ALJ writes instructions and says at the top something like, "call the rep and get an amended onset date, I am sure they will agree," and does not even provide instructions for the unfavorable portion of the partially favorable, because he or she is so sure his or her logic will prevail. Of course, a rep and claimant have very little incentive to amend an AOD with a reputable ALJ who will find the same date through a partially favorable decision because the claimant would be forgoing an appeal potential for no practical benefit - the date of favorable decision will be the same. On the other hand, the disreputable ALJs who are essentially saying "agree to less back benefits or I won't pay you at all" when they suggest an amended AOD will likely bring it up at the hearing to put maximum pressure on the claimant to give up appeal rights in exchange for having some form of current benefit. In my office, it is unheard of (and would be poorly received) for a writer to get an amended onset date without ALJ instruction.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 29, 2014 18:17:03 GMT -5
I would guess 50% of my fully favorable were based on amended onset dates, most often based on new evidence of a deteriorating condition, a birthday (grids), or a new impairment narrowing the RFC. I always set forth my rationale on the record, explained to the rep and claimant that it wasn't lets make a deal and never accepted an amended AOD without conducting an extensive Q & A to ensure that the claimant understood a waiver of appeal right and a voluntary decision after consulting with the rep. I never had one returned by the AC because the claimant alleged coersion. The benefit to the claimant was my explanation as to why I couldn't find an earlier onset which would yield a partially favorable and reps knew I wrote all my own favorables within a week of the hearing. I think the key was my analysis of the case and the evidence relevant to my decision ON THE RECORD.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 29, 2014 18:22:06 GMT -5
In my office, it is unheard of (and would be poorly received) for a writer to get an amended onset date without ALJ instruction. This was my initial reaction as well, but then I thought perhaps there are more brazen writers out there than I am.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 29, 2014 19:16:37 GMT -5
Decadealj, I totally agree and do many amended onset dates due to medical evidence of record.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 29, 2014 19:23:00 GMT -5
8-)Decade, I never had any trouble with writers as to a AOD, because I had already made up my mind before I submitted it to them to write. If I decided that the alleged OS date did not agree with the evidence, but later evidence indicated a meeting of the listings or other indications established disability on a later date, I suggested an amended OS date, and invited the rep and claimant to discuss it. This was on the record, and if they did not agree, we proceeded with a hearing on the merits.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 29, 2014 21:56:30 GMT -5
In my office, it is unheard of (and would be poorly received) for a writer to get an amended onset date without ALJ instruction. Why? It only involves a 5 minute phone call. It accomplishes exactly what the ALJ wanted, but now has almost completely eliminated the chance for remand. The reality is, that 90% of later onsets have an EOD that is difficult to firmly establish. IE The ALJ feels the claimant is clearly disabled now, and clearly not disabled at the AOD. But when exactly should the EOD be set? I have found that later onsets have a high rate of remands due to the difficulty in justifying the EOD. In the time one wastes writing 1 later onset, 3 fully favorables could have been written. I guess if in your neck of the woods, the reps are going to try to engage in some type of negotiation, then of course it wouldn't be worth doing; but in my experience, this almost never happens.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 30, 2014 8:26:51 GMT -5
In my time writing and judging, I'd say that easily 6 - 7 FFs could be written in the time it takes to write a PF/later onset. The later onset is two decisions in one. One of the two is UF, and it is ALMOST ALWAYS hard to justify a particular EOD. That said, the claimant and rep often don't have really good rationales for their AOD either.
In fact, the two areas in the decision that are often given the shortest shrift are the ones that need the most justification. One is the onset date and the other is treatment of opinions. I think I used to spend more time on the opinions in a file than on anything else. I almost always find that an opinion (except a "dead man RFC" in a UF) can be somewhat credited rather than wholly discarded. But writers are loath to take the time to explain the subtle or not-so-subtle differences in opinion and the reasons for giving the opinion less than full weight.
I guess it must be the pressure of numbers that we're all under.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 30, 2014 8:51:42 GMT -5
8-)That's why the ALJ should try to get the rep. and claimant agree to amend the O/S date, then it is a ff, also wrote ever now and then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2014 9:42:34 GMT -5
There have been several comments made in this thread by myself and others about what the AALJ is doing, or should be doing, about the position description. The most recent newsletter came out and I think the answer is that it is very very complicated. More complicated that I would have imagined. It seems to me that they're playing chess here, thinking many moves ahead. So, I am somewhat comforted. I think the short answer is that this thing will not play itself out quickly and we may not have an answer in the next year. If you don't get the newsletter or haven't read it, you can find it here: www.aalj.org/system/files/documents/aalj_newsletter__january_27_2014.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Jan 30, 2014 10:43:25 GMT -5
Thank you robg, that is a very important link for us to read. I like the brief; it is well-written and offers a significant argument.
I am interested in a line from page 3 of the memo at the start of the link:
" Moreover, the Agency would defend the [new Position Description] by contending that it was OPM who made the change as it has no authority to do so, an argument that may well prevail."
So who made the change to the PD? I thought all along it was SSA, not OPM. It refers to "the Agency," presumably SSA, subordinating the judgment of ALJs to "the Agency". As such, I thought it would be limited to SSA ALJ positions. Apparently I thought wrong?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 30, 2014 14:15:00 GMT -5
Thank you robg, that is a very important link for us to read. I like the brief; it is well-written and offers a significant argument. I am interested in a line from page 3 of the memo at the start of the link: " Moreover, the Agency would defend the [new Position Description] by contending that it was OPM who made the change as it has no authority to do so, an argument that may well prevail." So who made the change to the PD? I thought all along it was SSA, not OPM. It refers to "the Agency," presumably SSA, subordinating the judgment of ALJs to "the Agency". As such, I thought it would be limited to SSA ALJ positions. Apparently I thought wrong? You ever hear a reporter say that the case was thrown out of court on a technicality? I know nothing of federal labor law, but its SSA's PD, not OPM's. That OPM helped to implement it may or may not be key. Judge Frye is assessing his troop strength and boosting morale before his next Campaign. I may not agree with everything he does, but too many on this Board were too quick to judge.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 30, 2014 14:41:10 GMT -5
8-)DHHS and SSA came up with eeparate hearing office corps for SSI and Black lung, they were bit appointed under the APA, and that is why DHHS/BHA set up their own hering corps. later grandfathered in the ALJ corps. Look up the history.What's keeping them from doing it now?
|
|