|
Post by ALJD on Dec 3, 2014 20:38:51 GMT -5
Amazing how we ended up resurrecting a topic from 6 years ago randomly.
2014 posts moved from the ALJ hiring thread to here for clarity and completeness.
|
|
|
Post by jonsprag1 on Dec 3, 2014 20:54:53 GMT -5
so what did the MSPB eventually do with the case?
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Dec 3, 2014 21:18:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Dec 3, 2014 23:05:06 GMT -5
Ok Bart - I agree that the lack of repercussions for management is more than disturbing.
BUT - at the risk of picking at this too much - back to the double-dipping ALJ. The supposition that he did BOTH jobs satisfactorily is immaterial. He basically was double-billing - collecting 2 full-time salaries while performing 1 full-time job. A private practice attorney who routinely bills out 36 hours a day across his or her clients is going to be brought up on at the very least ethics charges, even if he did a bang-up job for each of those clients, and even if his superiors approved and encouraged it. A doctor caught routinely double-billing Medicare for two procedures when her or she only performed one gets prosecuted and loses his or her medical license, even if the procedure was a sucess and his or her superiors are pleased as punch at his or her revenue stream.
And you know - all of those folks - the double-billing private attorneys, the double-billing doctors -- they too all have families and retirements and real-life concerns that are going to get very messy when they get caught. And if there was some reliance on the fact that the superiors knew and encouraged it, then just like the 36-hour-a-day attorney, there's also got to be a fair amount of denial, because in the end, it comes down to personal integrity, not what the superiors are encouraging or condoning, and not what the repercussions for the innocent family may be. At some point the ALJ had to know that he was breaking the law. And that draws more opprobrium because, well, at least by job title he is a JUDGE and supposed to enforce the law.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Dec 3, 2014 23:14:15 GMT -5
Tigerlaw, the problem is is that the Judge produced work and should be paid for it. No one has ever questioned the quality of his work, I believe it is called quatum meruit. I think as an attorney you could make an arguement for this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 7:17:45 GMT -5
Interesting thread with viable argument on both sides. So I read the MSPB decision and the FedCir decisions and would observe as follows:
The ALJ in question was a cluster when it came to his legal arguments on appeals. Regardless of the merits, quantum or otherwise, as to what could'a, should'a, might'a been, this ALJ virtually conceded to the US to each and every charge leveled against him.
The real issue here as I read the appeal is not whether the ALJ was right or wrong, justified or not, but just how poorly crafted and argued were the defensive arguments on appeal by the ALJ (i.e., his counsel). This case was dead in the water the initial minute the ALJ opened his mouth.
In other words; both arguments in this thread are correct. The ALJ likely had a viable defense to his dual position that may have been successful if properly argued. However due to the incredibly poor argument on appeal the US won. By proceeding in such a poor manner, the ALJ managed to turn an otherwise viable position into bad law for everyone else. %$@! happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 8:14:33 GMT -5
This is the quote from the letter posted by the ALJ who was removed. It is his explination, of course, and must be seen as what it is, his side of the story. But, it does answer the question as to how he was able to review and sign cases while deployed. The simple answer appears to be that ODAR sent them to him. I suppose they could have fed him an endless number of dismissals or on-the-records to sign, but I can't see any validity to the argument that he was actually performing the job. Surely he had to know this was wrong. Surely. Surely managment and office staff knew it was wrong. Surely. Regardless, here it is.
SSA continued to send disability cases to Judge __________ by email for review and decisions for editing even while he was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait.
When he redeployed from Iraq to the United States in order to attend and eventually graduate from the prestigious U.S. Army War College, Judge _________ would at periodic times use a combination of accrued/carryover annual/military/advanced leave and while in a Flexi-place/ADS work status conduct Social Security disability hearings and issue decisions.
Using accrued/carry over annual, military, and advanced leave, together with being placed in a Flexi-place/ADA work status by SSA, Judge ________ continued to receive his salary from Social Security for the hearings conducted and disability case dispositions accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 4, 2014 8:28:50 GMT -5
Is there a reason people are avoiding referring to the ALJ by name? His name is given in all the documents for which links have been posted. (I have avoided using his name in this post in case there is a valid reason for not using his name of which I'm not aware.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 9:21:51 GMT -5
No reason, I suppose. The name is easily obtainable. I just know if I had screwed up that bad, I would hope people weren't plastering my name everywhere. Maybe a misplaced sense of professional courtesy?
|
|