|
Post by sealaw90 on Jan 21, 2014 11:27:29 GMT -5
First of all, with AALJ duties, I don't think ALJ Frye has enough experience to speak about what happens in actual hearings, at least not recently. He is wrong about the agency denying the ability to order psychological CEs, because it happens all the time. He must be thinking of the MMPI, and by referring to it as being able to tell if the claimant is telling the truth, he is the first ALJ I have heard admit that he used the MMPI as a lie detector, in contravention of the test and the regulations, so this is the first time I have supported banning it... ...I'm probably most amused, though at ALJ Frye's use of his official title in a writing to provide benefit to his organization, AALJ, and in the process releasing information he admits is not generally known to the public, but was gathered in the course of his federal employment - both violations of the regulations on use of your title, position, and work-related information to further the interests of yourself or a third party/organization. Propmaster, this is exactly why I question whether I would pay dues to this organization, no matter how 'important' they are to my well-being and existence at SSA. Why is the President of AALJ so inexperienced, or better yet, why isn't an 'old-timer' willing to take the reigns? I am dismayed that there does not appear to be a disclaimer attached to his letter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 9:03:41 GMT -5
It absolutely could have been written better. My first thought when I scanned it was that the authors had deliberately 'dumbed down' the content to appeal to a broader, specifically non-lawyer, audience. It is a letter to editor, I suppose, and not a law review on the argument for and against government representation at hearing. This reads more like a public relations release than anything else. Trying to influence a perhaps poorly informed electorate, or their equally poorly informed representatives?
Suggesting we become more like common courtroom T.V. shows was a particularly poor argument.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 22, 2014 11:35:12 GMT -5
The one thing AALJ doesn't need is another dent in its armor. There is a place for Mr. Frye's concerns- its called the U. S. District Court; maybe a Writ of Mandamus.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 22, 2014 17:02:41 GMT -5
8-)When I became an ALJ many years ago, I joined what what was then just the AALJ, the association of aljs. Back then most of the ALJs came out of private practice, middle-aged or better, and a lot of them very well politically connected in their respective states, so was I. The onslaught began with then BHA Director, Robert Trachtenberg and his henchman, John Poore. They and their minions came up with the "grid." We were able to put this off and delay it as we did with the really first big attempt to undermine the ALJIC and ALJs, the hearing office manager(HOM), to reduce the ALJIC's supervision of staff, which in turn reduced the ALJs supervision of his unit. They also came up the idea of Hearing Analysts, wherein certain hearing assistants, through a competitive application process would be eventually trained as writers, further eroding the legal process in BHA by easing out attorney advisors. We managed to delay the "grid" and the HOM and analyst program for a while and saved the attorney advisors, but there is just so much you can do. Eventually all these programs came to be in one form or another. Analysts were changed to Para-legals, HOM to HOD, and on and on.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 23, 2014 12:14:02 GMT -5
I think the best hope for ALJs is for ODAR to adopt the NHC model to all hearing offices. Maybe there is something negative about it that I am not aware of but it would be difficult for the agency to object to a model it itself adopted to improve efficiency and productivity.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 23, 2014 12:24:00 GMT -5
They don't pull their own cases and it seems like there is not much accountability. Somehow, we end up with their remands... They are more like a slam, bam, thank you ma'am, type of operation from what I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 23, 2014 13:24:59 GMT -5
My bust-sorry. I thought it was more like the old Medicare set-up in Falls Church. There were some super folks handling that massive caseload for those of us who traveled up there to do cases.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 23, 2014 20:09:17 GMT -5
8-)Decade and Bartelby, think the way it was done when we came on board, is over in all aspects. Just hope ALJs retain some identity.
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jan 24, 2014 5:34:52 GMT -5
The one thing AALJ doesn't need is another dent in its armor. There is a place for Mr. Frye's concerns- its called the U. S. District Court; maybe a Writ of Mandamus. For those that missed it, in 06/11 Sam Johnson from the House ways & means/SS subcommittee solicited this 03/12 report from OIG in order to justify dismantling statutory ALJ protections. This was the hole in the d**e from which the new PD spurted, w/more erosion to come, methinks. oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/audit-reports/A-07-12-21234edit: the word "d-i-k-e" was censored by the filter
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jan 24, 2014 10:12:39 GMT -5
The one thing AALJ doesn't need is another dent in its armor. There is a place for Mr. Frye's concerns- its called the U. S. District Court; maybe a Writ of Mandamus. For those that missed it, in 06/11 Sam Johnson from the House ways & means/SS subcommittee solicited this 03/12 report from OIG in order to justify dismantling statutory ALJ protections. This was the hole in the d**e from which the new PD spurted, w/more erosion to come, methinks. oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/audit-reports/A-07-12-21234edit: the word "d-i-k-e" was censored by the filter Thanks for sharing that. Don't have time to read it in detail, but a brief scan tells me that the new PD certainly adddresses the concerns in the report, whether by coincidnce or by design.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 24, 2014 12:02:18 GMT -5
8-)SSA/OHA/ODAR has always used the "shotgun" or meat cleaver approach in addressing problems, instead of using a scalpel. In this case, a few bad eggs are tarring the whole ALJ corps. It is a shame, but this is the opening the agency and its management have been waiting for a long time. Hopefully, as they have done in so many of their "initiatives," their incompetence will cause them to screw it up.
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Jan 24, 2014 12:26:43 GMT -5
I read through the IG report and had to shake my head a bit on their reference to QRBs (Plural). As I recall, back when I was an AA we had a training session with The QRB attorney (singular). I am pretty sure I recall him saying that the plan was to have multiple folks in the QRB but that he was the one and only hire. Seems strange that the IG report refers to multiple QRBs when (if my recollection is correct) the QRB had a staff of one.
Funky and the rest of yall still at SSA, is my recollection incorrect??
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 24, 2014 16:30:59 GMT -5
Something from Region 2:
"I wish you were attending yesterday’s meeting (invitation below). While it is not in the “tentative agenda” below, the first part of the meeting took about an hour with Judge XXXX reading us the new ALJ position description. After that – and for this please stay seated – he went over two “quality reviews” performed on two decisions in our office. According to him, these are performed on random cases that are in Edit, pending for us to review and sign, and are made by people who are not judges. The GSs were there at the meeting too, and they explained that if a case is under the so-called “quality review”, the judges cannot access it, as a pop up window comes up indicating that the case is being reviewed. The GSs receive a bullet list document with the “errors” encountered, and they are not supposed to show that document to the writer, but they are required to discuss them with the writer and have them incorporated in the decision. The ALJs are not given this document, but Judge XXXX instructed the GSs at the meeting to give us copy of the document. The “errors” in one of the “quality reviews” he shared with us (without PIIs, of course) include the following: The onset date is not reflective of the facts. The claimant stopped working in 2009 but was not diagnosed with breast cancer until May 2011. The writer obtained an amended onset date of 5/1/11. It is not clear why this particular date was selected. A mammogram and sonography [sic] dated 5/16/11 disclosed the malignancy in the claimant’s left breast. The onset date should correspond to that study since it appears to be the first objective sign of the claimant’s impairment. 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. Second, the ALJ has discretion to move the date to the beginning of the month if he/she finds it is reasonable to conclude the cancer was already there on that date. It is a matter of articulation, which the ALJ could have caught while making his/her own review of the draft, and either come up with the explanation himself/herself, or instruct the writer to do so. I asked if these “quality reviews” occurred before the new PD was distributed because it says that “the incumbent’s decisions may not be substantially reviewed before issuance, but may be reviewed by the Appeals Council after issuance.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, these “quality reviews” are even against the new PD. Judge XXX responded that they still do the reviews like that even after the PD was distributed. How about that?"
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 24, 2014 16:52:33 GMT -5
8-)Ugh Oh!
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 24, 2014 17:11:23 GMT -5
Believe it or not- about 15 years ago (before electronic case processing) I received an AC remand of a decision I had supposedly electronically signed with blank spaces to summarize the issues and evidence. I immediately scheduled a hearing and asked the rep if he had the original decision. He did and it was also electronically signed. I signed every decision I ever released with the same pen and the same ink (parker blue-black) of which he had seen at least a hundred or more. I asked him if he was a bit suspicious before appealing to the AC. I had never even written a decision memo let alone sign a decision. Of course he wanted to submit additional evidence so I had to schedule another hearing. I took the electronic decision to the HOD, because I was fairly certain the rotten HOCALJ had probably ordered it to reach his number. (I have mentioned this HOCALJ before and will not dwell on his perceived lack of character, to use a nice word). The HOD shook his head and said he knew nothing about it. AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE NEW PD!! Heaven help you all.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 24, 2014 17:46:46 GMT -5
Something from Region 2: "I wish you were attending yesterday’s meeting (invitation below). While it is not in the “tentative agenda” below, the first part of the meeting took about an hour with Judge XXXX reading us the new ALJ position description. After that – and for this please stay seated – he went over two “quality reviews” performed on two decisions in our office. According to him, these are performed on random cases that are in Edit, pending for us to review and sign, and are made by people who are not judges. The GSs were there at the meeting too, and they explained that if a case is under the so-called “quality review”, the judges cannot access it, as a pop up window comes up indicating that the case is being reviewed. The GSs receive a bullet list document with the “errors” encountered, and they are not supposed to show that document to the writer, but they are required to discuss them with the writer and have them incorporated in the decision. The ALJs are not given this document, but Judge XXXX instructed the GSs at the meeting to give us copy of the document. The “errors” in one of the “quality reviews” he shared with us (without PIIs, of course) include the following: The onset date is not reflective of the facts. The claimant stopped working in 2009 but was not diagnosed with breast cancer until May 2011. The writer obtained an amended onset date of 5/1/11. It is not clear why this particular date was selected. A mammogram and sonography [sic] dated 5/16/11 disclosed the malignancy in the claimant’s left breast. The onset date should correspond to that study since it appears to be the first objective sign of the claimant’s impairment. 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. Second, the ALJ has discretion to move the date to the beginning of the month if he/she finds it is reasonable to conclude the cancer was already there on that date. It is a matter of articulation, which the ALJ could have caught while making his/her own review of the draft, and either come up with the explanation himself/herself, or instruct the writer to do so. I asked if these “quality reviews” occurred before the new PD was distributed because it says that “the incumbent’s decisions may not be substantially reviewed before issuance, but may be reviewed by the Appeals Council after issuance.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, these “quality reviews” are even against the new PD. Judge XXX responded that they still do the reviews like that even after the PD was distributed. How about that?" Please see my post on this exact same issue in the last thread. This is a review of the WRITER work product not the ALJs. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/post/48945/thread
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jan 24, 2014 17:58:38 GMT -5
8-)Dream on.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jan 24, 2014 18:16:42 GMT -5
Make no mistake, if you are an attorney with ssa you have a target on your back.
At the risk of outing myself and upsetting some, I will say my relatively short time with the agency has shown me an ingrained bias against those of us with jd degrees.
I have especially seen this with folks that came up thru the field offices before coming to odar. I've had an ex claim examiner that took an odar job tell me they don't think its fair that aljs make so much when they really don't do anything more than a claims examiner.
case techs have grumbled about the lawyers getting office and work from home when they work in cubicles and can't work from home. non attorney supervisors that seem to relish theidea of putting an attorney in their place.
Unfortunately almost all attorneys go the alj route. this leaves management to those that come up thru the agency as nonattorneysand many harbor that anamosity. When upper management has so little respect, understanding of what we do and often pure disdain for attorneys,is it any wonder they implement policies designed to "reign in" aljs and attorney advisors?
Just my 2/100ths.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 24, 2014 18:47:31 GMT -5
Well, maybe I drank the koolaid back in 2007, but I have found the job to be quite good when compared to other jobs I have had. Then again, comparing my work in a busy county hospital ER as an RN for many years makes anything look good. LOL! I see where you get this though Funky, on occasion I see a disgruntled person here and there who harbors ill will toward those who have a higher pay, better title, or whatever. Frankly, I don't see this as any different than in any job that I have had in the past though. There are ALWAYS people who have bad attitudes, biases, and generally poor social skills. Add up how many of those are in your office, put it on a bell curve against all the GOOD people, and I bet it isn't too bad. That's my 1/100ths mixed with a Pollyanna drank the koolaid attitude. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jan 25, 2014 12:45:51 GMT -5
Just an observation (somewhat reevantt after dinner with a bunch of old fuds last night): Leadership (in SSA the antithesis of management) = office morale. Gung ho (roughly translated means pulling together) = mission accomplishment. Congress needs to make "boot camp" a prerequisite to a management appointment or promotion! But alas even today senior military leadership has become management and politically correct.
|
|