|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 9, 2014 17:22:35 GMT -5
8-)Bartleby, it's a different world. I found that out in earlier posts on the board,and had to back off. I came off the street many years ago, and back then BHA was a professional organization, management was mostly made up of lawyers or those with legal backgrounds. Ran smoothly, ALJS had their own units which they ran, and supervised, evaluated and fired or transferred those in the unit that did not measure up. You actually had control of your dockets, and everything else to do with your cases. That began to change in the late 70s and early 80s, with the "grid" and "reconfiguration," when we lost our units, and they slowly evolved into the pooling of staff, and the HOM and HOD set-up, all designed to remove the ALJ from any supervisory capacity, or control of his/her cases. Many management initiative disasters followed, none worse than HPI. By the time I retired, OHA and soon after ODAR was a shambles.
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jan 9, 2014 21:47:20 GMT -5
What galls me here is the way mgmt out-maneuvered the corp here. A few ALJs abused the system by issuing a preposterously high number of decisions, with outrageous pay rates. No one who has been following this can believe that mgmt was unaware of this; but mgmt did nothing because the numbers were being made.
Make no mistake - mgmt could have done something, but did not.
When the press came sniffing, mgmt was shocked to learn there was gambling in Casablance. Instead of admitting to their disingenuousness, mgmt went in front of an ideologically-driven congressional committee (where was the committee investigating the low payers?) and said the problem was judicial independence. They then went behind closed doors with the congressional staffers of this ideoligically-driven committee to come up with strategies.
Meanwhile, the union is filing lawsuits over production(which made apoplectic those politiciasns who decry bloated, lazy, federal employees), and going on 60 minutes, saying things like "if the public knew what was going on, half would be outraged, and the other half would file for disability."
Let me repeat - there are just a few ALJs who caused this mess, mgmt could have addressed it and didn't. But now the union has played right into the hands of those who would believe that the ALJ corps is comprised of loose cannons.
So the new PD comes out and has been effectuated. See the headlines? "SSA tightening the reins on ALJS," etc. etc. And although the PD had been in the works for some time, it was released at the just the right time.
Unfair labor practice? Maybe, but I have my doubts. We are not an independent corp; we work for the agency. They decide what the mission of the agency is, and how to further that mission, and therefore what the PDs are for those chaged w/furthering the mission. Also, consider this: every govt employee who has had their PD changed under them probably feels that changing the PD without input from the rank and file was an unfair labor practice. But if that were the case, it would be well-settled law by now, and I doubt that mgmt - who spend the better part of year working this up - would have missed something so obvious.
So, who among the policy makers is going to be receptive to complaints of mgmt heavy-handedness now that congress - with the unwitting assistance from the AALJ - feels that the corp is out of control?
There may be legal challenges over judicial independence. So, how does mgmt avoid that? By eroding the very concept of the utility of judicial independence in setting of disability hearings.
As J. Garcia wrote, "set up, like a bowling pin... knocked down, it gets to wearing thin."
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Jan 10, 2014 8:24:09 GMT -5
I read this last post and wonder if management knew about the how producers with high approval rates, didn't the union also know about them? I am a lowly line judge and I knew about them. Every judge's numbers are on the SSA public website. What did management do the rein them in? Nothing. What did the union do the rein them in? Nothing. Seems like venting about management's lack of action is the pot calling the kettle black. Neither was proactive but no one seems to be holding the union accountable for any of this. Seems the union bears responsibility for this fiasco as well. Where is the leadership?
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jan 10, 2014 10:32:03 GMT -5
Carrick, I appreciate everything you posted (especially the Garcia quote) except for one thing - ULP. Changing a PD is not in and of itself a ULP. IMHO it is the negotiability of the PD change that is bothersome to some folks on this board. An agency has a right to change a PD, I believe that is well-settled law. However, my concern is the lack of notice and lack of negotiation with a supposed bargaining unit. I do not pretend to be a labor law expert, but as a federal employee, and current agency counsel, my command does not make a move without consulting the unions first - maybe it is a 'belt and suspenders' approach to dealing with the unions. Maybe it is easier to defend agency action when we can say "we provided notice and an opportunity to bargain to the union" prior to posting. Maybe my counsel is a scaredy cat - but I do know we pay a lot more than lip service to the unions in our shop. This summer was quite frankly a nighmare when we negotiated furlough actions with the several unions - only in that it slowed the process and created a hodge-podge of different furlough days and weird work schedules - but it was the right and necessary thing to do. As an outsider, it doesn't appear that SSA gives one wit about ALJs and their supposed union, but again I am an outsider and don't know the whole story. It is really great to read posts from current and retired ALJs in regard to SSA antics - keep posting so that we can keep learning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2014 11:50:31 GMT -5
I appreciate Sealaw's input. I have limited experience in labor law, so I have many questions about what is happening with the PD, and it's good to hear from someone in the field. I did many many searches looking for case law which says that modification of a position description is or is not a change in working conditions, and I just could not find a case one way or another. If Sealaw has a cite, I'd love it if he could pass it on.
But, in an attempt to educate myself, here is some required reading:
5 U.S.C.A. § 7106. Management Rights
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude any agency and any labor organization from negotiating--
(1) at the election of the agency, on the numbers, types, and grades of employees or positions assigned to any organizational subdivision, work project, or tour of duty, or on the technology, methods, and means of performing work; (2) procedures which management officials of the agency will observe in exercising any authority under this section; or (3) appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by the exercise of any authority under this section by such management officials.
Association of Administrative Law Judges v. F.L.R.A., 397 F.3d 957 C.A.D.C.,2005. The Agency reassigned the ALJ's parking spaces. The argument that this was a change in working conditions that required bargaining was sustained by the FLRA, but ultimately over-turned as de minimis. (Agreed. Reasonable decision.)
National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 437 F.3d 1248 C.A.D.C.,2006. Treasury Management had the authority to unilaterally altered policy regarding employees and firearms under a right to control internal security. (Agreed. Another reasonable decision.)
But See: American Federation of Government Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 446 F.3d 162, C.A.D.C.,2006. When Management unilaterally cut way back on firearm training for border patrol agents, the Court held that it was not a de minimis change and had an appreciable effect on working conditions.
Medco Health Solutions of Las Vegas, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 701 F.3d 710 C.A.D.C.,2012 Program intended to create incentive for employees to work harder or be more productive qualifies as “condition of employment” within meaning of NLRA. National Labor Relations Act, § 1 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
Frankl v. HTH Corp., 832 F.Supp.2d 1179 D.Haw.,2011 An employer's regular and longstanding practices that are neither random nor intermittent become terms and conditions of employment, within meaning of National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), even if these practices are not required by collective-bargaining agreement; as result, these past practices cannot be changed without offering unit employees' collective-bargaining representative notice and opportunity to bargain. National Labor Relations Act, § 8(a)(1, 5), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1, 5).
(Could a 20 year old PD count as a regular and longstanding practice?)
Frankl v. HTH Corp., 192 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2202 D.Haw.,2011 An employer's past practices which have become terms and conditions of employment cannot be changed without offering the unit employees' collective bargaining representative notice and an opportunity to bargain.
S.E.C. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 568 F.3d 990 C.A.D.C.,2009 At the very least, the proponent of the necessary functioning defense to unfair labor practice charges against an agency, under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, must establish that agency's unilateral implementation of change was necessary for the agency to effectively perform its mission and that it was necessary to make the change at the time it was made. 5 U.S.C.A. § 7116(a)(1, 5).
(Was the change in the PD necessary?)
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jan 10, 2014 13:01:44 GMT -5
Rob, I'd add that 5 USC 7106(a)(2)(B) is also required reading as this contains the agency's authority to change your PD. Challenging the necessity of the changes will not win any points, it is management's prerogative to do so. Can't say I've found as many cases to read up on as you have (I actually have to get back to work!), but I found the discussion and opinion of 57 FLRA 240 to be helpful in understanding the potential posture the union could take in challenging the new PD - "Hey SSA, you forgot to negotiate with us on the methods and means of performing our duties" - or something to that effect. Thanks for all the cases you found, I will read them a little later...
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 10, 2014 17:12:13 GMT -5
I am sorry propmaster, while I can respect your right to state your opinions, I cannot respect your calling out other Board members for their right to state their opinions. An ALJ's decision is like an opinion and you evidently probably issue many opinions everyday. You may think your opinion is always correct, but others may not, including claimants, attorney representatives, the Appeals Council, or Federal Courts. Hence, when people give opinions, it is their beliefs based upon the facts (and law and regulations) of the situation as he or she sees it. Nobody made you the final arbiter of others' opinions, so please respect others' opinions. People can have differences of opinion and this is what makes us human. If everyone's opinion was the same, there wouldn't be freewill of the human spirit. I can say one part of all your posts stood out to me the most and it was, I quote: "Is the agency hatching a nefarious plan to steal ALJ power? Maybe. Porbably? Maybe. Do I care? Even as an applicant for the job, I say "No" because I haven't seen power going to good use anyway. Hearing officers? Fine. I'll do that job at my current pay because I bet I'd like it better than my job anyway. If not? If I don't like it? I'll change back or to a different job. Or retire." This to me, tells me all I need to know about your opinions on the matter. Now, I can respect your right to say this statement and it being your opinion for what it says and I hope you can respect other peoples' opinions, which are different from yours, but if you don't want to do so on this Board, then I say you are the "lesser" person for it. Have a nice day! Point well taken. I apologize for my tone and my approach. I do not believe that every opinion someone can have (like a racist opinion, for example) is 'valid,' even if truly held, but that certainly doesn't apply to the things we discuss on this board. I did not mean to come off as chilling debate or very judgmental, although I acknowledge that I did so. I think one of my posts was even removed, which I am both embarrassed about and sorry for. Thanks for your post, moopigsdad, I don't know where I was yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 10, 2014 21:24:05 GMT -5
8-)Again I say, please read Bartleby's, Decade's and my posts. If there is any doubt as to the animosity of SSA's attitude to the so-called independent status of OHA/ODAR and the long ago BHA and its ALJs, should be forever removed. I ceased to be a fan of AALJ long before I retired. They literally suck. They saw this coming, as a lot of us old timers did. To change the PD of ALJs appointed under the APA is a major violation of the act. So let's see.
|
|
|
Post by alj on Jan 10, 2014 23:28:52 GMT -5
8-)Again I say, please read Bartleby's, Decade's and my posts. If there is any doubt as to the animosity of SSA's attitude to the so-called independent status of OHA/ODAR and the long ago BHA and its ALJs, should be forever removed. I ceased to be a fan of AALJ long before I retired. They literally suck. They saw this coming, as a lot of us old timers did. To change the PD of ALJs appointed under the APA is a major violation of the act. So let's see. The AALJ saw this coming? A lot of old timers saw it coming? I know a bunch of old timers. In fact I am an old timer. I don't know of anyone who saw it coming. Can you explain your statement? And please explain how the AALJ saw it coming. This bit of prescience is news to me.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 10, 2014 23:53:37 GMT -5
I am sorry propmaster, while I can respect your right to state your opinions, I cannot respect your calling out other Board members for their right to state their opinions. An ALJ's decision is like an opinion and you evidently probably issue many opinions everyday. You may think your opinion is always correct, but others may not, including claimants, attorney representatives, the Appeals Council, or Federal Courts. Hence, when people give opinions, it is their beliefs based upon the facts (and law and regulations) of the situation as he or she sees it. Nobody made you the final arbiter of others' opinions, so please respect others' opinions. People can have differences of opinion and this is what makes us human. If everyone's opinion was the same, there wouldn't be freewill of the human spirit. I can say one part of all your posts stood out to me the most and it was, I quote: "Is the agency hatching a nefarious plan to steal ALJ power? Maybe. Porbably? Maybe. Do I care? Even as an applicant for the job, I say "No" because I haven't seen power going to good use anyway. Hearing officers? Fine. I'll do that job at my current pay because I bet I'd like it better than my job anyway. If not? If I don't like it? I'll change back or to a different job. Or retire." This to me, tells me all I need to know about your opinions on the matter. Now, I can respect your right to say this statement and it being your opinion for what it says and I hope you can respect other peoples' opinions, which are different from yours, but if you don't want to do so on this Board, then I say you are the "lesser" person for it. Have a nice day! Point well taken. I apologize for my tone and my approach. I do not believe that every opinion someone can have (like a racist opinion, for example) is 'valid,' even if truly held, but that certainly doesn't apply to the things we discuss on this board. I did not mean to come off as chilling debate or very judgmental, although I acknowledge that I did so. I think one of my posts was even removed, which I am both embarrassed about and sorry for. Thanks for your post, moopigsdad, I don't know where I was yesterday. I understand propmaster that sometimes we all have a less than stellar day. No worries and I agree by the way that not all opinions are due respect because of their absurdity or other issues.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 11, 2014 9:01:52 GMT -5
8-)Read the posts. Has SSA management ever tried to strengthen the authority of an ALJ? They have been fairly patent as to their intentions.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 11, 2014 11:59:08 GMT -5
8-)Again I say, please read Bartleby's, Decade's and my posts. If there is any doubt as to the animosity of SSA's attitude to the so-called independent status of OHA/ODAR and the long ago BHA and its ALJs, should be forever removed. I ceased to be a fan of AALJ long before I retired. They literally suck. They saw this coming, as a lot of us old timers did. To change the PD of ALJs appointed under the APA is a major violation of the act. So let's see. The AALJ saw this coming? A lot of old timers saw it coming? I know a bunch of old timers. In fact I am an old timer. I don't know of anyone who saw it coming. Can you explain your statement? And please explain how the AALJ saw it coming. This bit of prescience is news to me. dj, your point about the level of animosity between the CALJ Office and AALJ is well documented, but from what I've heard about how the PD came about, alj is correct. I would hope that AALJ is noting the scholarly work done by robg. What I think must be emphasized is that first the CALJ has to identify what is their goal. Is it to curb fraud? How is the fraud documented and to what degree does it permeate the system? Do you really contend that following the Commish's Policy (through a new PD) over what, a loose interpretation of the GRID system going to improve that? Is the fact that you have what, 50 or 100 Judges who pay at 80-90%? Is it not within the realm of reason and good practices to appeal such cases and when they are remanded or reversed to counsel the Judges or send them to training? Why not fashion a Reg or practice that would send in the OGC to his/her hearings to challenge the Claimant and make it harder for the ALJ to pay such a case, legally? Call out the CALJ and emphasize reason and law over fact-devoid hysteria whipped up by yellow journalism.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 11, 2014 12:56:06 GMT -5
I am very reluctant to weigh-in anymore because I no longer have a dog in this fight. But when deltajudge says you should have seen this coming, he is referring to the incremental steps SSA has taken over the last 35 years to reign in and control ALJs, which has been accelerated by the electronic business process where management has instantaneous supervision of case processing. And unless you have experienced the piece meal interference with ALJ decision making over the last quarter century, you wouldn't notice it. And if you are in a good hearing office, the changes haven't affected line ALJs as much as offices that demand and treat ALJs as robots. In 25 years, the production goal has gone from 30 a month, (25 a week with an occasional travel docket) to 40 a month when Frank Christado was Chief judge, to whatever it is now. But what hasn't changed is how long it takes to develop the record, conduct a hearing and issue a supportable decision. The electronic business practices aggravated the situation by permitting reps to dump literally a thousand pages of mostly irrelevant evidence the day before or morning of the hearing and the elephant in the room is ODAR's malfeasance in complicating and micro-managing the process. The real difference in the new PD, other than crowning the HOCALJ, is the emphasis on agency policy (HALLEX), POMS, etc.) trumping case law and interpretation of the regs. Final thought- you don't know what is changing if you don't know where you have been.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 11, 2014 13:03:01 GMT -5
8-)Privateatty, it was not my intention to indicate the problem was between the CALJ and AALJ. He/she is only doing the bidding of SSA. My mention of the "grid" was merely to show the gradual chipping away of the ALJs authority, in this his/her discretion in determining disability, also removing any supervision of staff, etc.They know what they are doing, and are becoming less subtle about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 10:17:32 GMT -5
Sorry again for the long, long post.
Still deeply, deeply, in the weeds on this, but continuing to try to educate myself. Learning a lot, though. It is somewhat amazing to me that I have been in this job a number of years now and have never read some of this stuff.
Sealaw directed us to 5 USC 7106(a)(2)(B), which involves management’s rights:
(2) in accordance with applicable laws-- (B) to assign work, to make determinations with respect to contracting out, and to determine the personnel by which agency operations shall be conducted;
Only one case is cited, though, and it involves the “contracting out” provision. So, in my mind, I’m still not certain that this language would allow an Agency to fundamentally alter a position description without conceding that such a change would result in a change in “condition of employment.”
Going off on a slight tangent, I did get some hits on the “in accordance with applicable laws” portion of the above. My question was, to what extent does the APA constitute an “applicable law” that would place some limitation on Management’s ability to change the PD, if any?
For the record, the APA, found here at 5 U.S.C.A. § 551 et. Sec., is some frustratingly vague, and somehow very dense, material. It is easier to poke around in the Digests, it seems.
More required reading: 1. West's Key Number Digest, Administrative Law and Procedure 443.1 The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that administrative-law judges appointed under 5 U.S.C.A. § 3105 may preside at the taking of evidence in a formal administrative proceeding.[FN1] Administrative-law judges, formerly known as "hearing examiners,"[FN2] are appointed by the respective agencies[FN3] in accordance with regulations established by the Office of Personnel Management.[FN4]
The APA was enacted in recognition of the fact that agency heads, unable to personally conduct hearings, would be forced to delegate that duty, and one of the primary purposes of the APA was to establish a pool of qualified, impartial hearing officers who are not mere rubber stamps for the agency's prosecutor.[FN5] In order to further assure the independence of administrative-law judges from the prosecutors of an agency,[FN6] the statutes provide that the judges are to be assigned to cases in rotation, so far as practicable.[FN7]
2. AMJUR ADMINLAW § 312. Powers of presiding officers or administrative law judges
3. 5 U.S.C.A. § 556 Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision
Another question that had occurred to me was the change in the PD which seemed to restrict ALJ authority to Agency policy and regulations. My immediate question was, what if there was a conflict between Agency policy and, say, a recent District Court ruling? Aren’t there some over-riding issues of law, (due process, evidence, etc.) that would require a broader scope of ALJ authority? Here’s some cites that appear to back up that supposition.
CJS PUBADLAW § 143 Procedure—Applicability of evidentiary rules Evidentiary rules are particularly relaxed where the administrative officer or body is performing a duty that is not an incident of, or related to, the discharge of judicial duties.[FN4] The rule has been held applicable even when administrative agencies are exercising quasi-judicial functions.[FN5] An administrative agency may utilize evidentiary rules applicable in judicial proceedings, however, as long as it does not apply such rules in an arbitrary or oppressive manner that deprives a party of the right to a fair hearing.[FN6]
On the other hand, such officials or bodies may not disregard the fundamental rules of judicial proof,[FN7] or relax the standards for the admission of evidence to an extent that demonstrates disregard for parties' due process and fundamental rights.[FN8] Accordingly, the evidence on which their actions are based and decisions made must be material,[FN9] competent,[FN10] and sufficient,[FN11] and have rational probative force.[FN12] Accordingly, an agency can exclude privileged, irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or incompetent evidence,[FN13] although administrative tribunals may consider evidence which may be incompetent in a judicial proceeding,[FN14] including hearsay evidence.[FN15]
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jan 13, 2014 11:06:23 GMT -5
Excellent research robg. Thank you.
As I am not an alj (just a wannabe that's currently a senior attorney), I haven't waded into the PD change issue but have been following this thread with great interest.
I have a question. I'm not sure this is the appropriate thread, but I have seen herein some references to suggestions on changes that could improve the hearing process. So, I will post my question here and if it would be better in a different thread someone direct me there.
A few have mentioned that allowing the agency to have a rep (a "prosecutor" for lack of a better word) to contest the claimant's allegations at the hearing would be helpful. Thus, turning the hearing adversarial. I've been with odar almost 5 years but most of my career has been spent litigating in criminal and civil trials. Coming to odar from that background made the nonadversarial system difficult to grasp.
Due to that difficulty, in my mind as I wrote decisions and later reviewed files for possible on the record decisions, I have continued to see the process as "adversarial." On one side is the claimant and rep submitting argument and evidence in support of the position that the claimant is disabled. The other side is the state agency dds. Their finding is, in my mind, the argument against disability, their medical/mental consultants expert witnesses.
Sure, dds is not represented at the hearing but I look at the hearing more as a deposition of the claimant offered in support of their position. It acts more as a deposition given the relaxed evidentiary rules etc.
So, when reviewing or writing a case, I am essentially determining whether the preponderance of evidence supports the claimant, the dds denial or some middle position.
The one problem I see with this view is the fact that the record is allowed to remain open and dds not allowed to respond to evidence submitted after their denial.
So, to my mind, closing the record is the best step that could be taken. To me, having an agency rep isn't necessary, they already have one in dds. Is that a flawed position?
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Jan 13, 2014 11:26:53 GMT -5
.... Sure, dds is not represented at the hearing but I look at the hearing more as a deposition of the claimant offered in support of their position. It acts more as a deposition given the relaxed evidentiary rules etc. So, when reviewing or writing a case, I am essentially determining whether the preponderance of evidence supports the claimant, the dds denial or some middle position. The one problem I see with this view is the fact that the record is allowed to remain open and dds not allowed to respond to evidence submitted after their denial. So, to my mind, closing the record is the best step that could be taken. To me, having an agency rep isn't necessary, they already have one in dds. Is that a flawed position? Good analysis, Funky. As an experienced litigator, but outsider, I'd say your analysis makes eminent sense in the current framework. The current system seems heavily weighted toward favoring the claimant, and not just for some of the reasons you mention. I'd prefer to see some agency representation, however. It would assist the trier of fact in focusing the issues and highlighting the weaknesses of the claimant's case. It could be used to require a more complete and current set of medical records and evidence be submitted to the ALJ, rather than closing the record (possibly) prematurely on a given claimant. I understand having a system that doesn't want to pit an unsophisticated but deserving claimant against the power of the agency, but if we swing too far the other way then unscrupulous claimants and attorneys can game the system for undeserved awards. It seems there should be a fair and procedurally candid middle ground here.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Jan 13, 2014 13:12:17 GMT -5
The idea of an attorney representing SSA at the hearing strikes me as one of those that is easily proposed but difficult to actually implement. Where do you house these attorneys? You can't put them in the hearing office with the judges. First of all, most offices have no room for them. Second, having everyone in one office does not exactly preserve an idea that the judge and attorney are independent of each other. How many do you hire? One per ALJ? Does one handle an entire docket? What about travel expenses if the judge travels? And staff for these attorneys? So in these times of tight budgets, where do you propose to get money for these additional expenses?
This reminds me of a lawsuit handled by a firm I worked for. The state refigured an intersection. Plaintiff came along one night, was unaware of the project, and exited where the road use to be, running into a berm. Part of his argument? The state should have put a warning sign up. Sounds easy but what exactly would that sign say? Road gone?
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Jan 13, 2014 14:11:13 GMT -5
The idea of an attorney representing SSA at the hearing strikes me as one of those that is easily proposed but difficult to actually implement. Where do you house these attorneys? You can't put them in the hearing office with the judges. First of all, most offices have no room for them. Second, having everyone in one office does not exactly preserve an idea that the judge and attorney are independent of each other. How many do you hire? One per ALJ? Does one handle an entire docket? What about travel expenses if the judge travels? And staff for these attorneys? So in these times of tight budgets, where do you propose to get money for these additional expenses? This reminds me of a lawsuit handled by a firm I worked for. The state refigured an intersection. Plaintiff came along one night, was unaware of the project, and exited where the road use to be, running into a berm. Part of his argument? The state should have put a warning sign up. Sounds easy but what exactly would that sign say? Road gone? This is what stopped the agency the last time they studied the issue (and that was a very long time ago). They came to the same conclusion as you that the attorneys would have to have their own offices separate and apart from the hearing offices to avoid the appearance of impropriety. There would also need to be substantial amendments to the social security act, it wouldn't be able to be done simply through changing the regulations. It would cost billions if dollars to get off the ground and hundreds of millions if not billions per year to operate. Anything is possible thigh in the current political environment I suppose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 15:37:30 GMT -5
I think its a completely valid argument, Funky. Myself, I really prefer my hearings to be as non-adversarial as possible. There's really no need for a lot of ya-ya-ing back and forth, and losing ones temper. There's no jury, so no need for grandstanding, or scoring points, etc. I dislike it when the personalities of the representative and the VE clash, and I do everything I can to shut that down. For me, a hearing has a lot more to do with getting relevant facts on the record than debating argument and counter-argument.
So, for me, the idea of throwing another lawyer in the room sounds like a bad idea. Longer and more contentious hearings would be likely results, with little to show, I think, in terms of quality.
R
|
|