Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:16:59 GMT -5
Funky and those that have missed me, it's been a busy week. I responded to OMHA, so everybody wish me good luck on getting the job!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 11, 2014 16:18:54 GMT -5
Did I wake a sleeping Tiger? LOL! Just kidding you Tigerlaw. It's nice to see you back to your original name. Just remember I said nothing, nothing at all that should wake the sleeping Tiger. By the way, good luck Tigerlaw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:20:59 GMT -5
Did I wake a sleeping Tiger? LOL! Just kidding you Tigerlaw. It's nice to see you back to your original name. Just remember I said nothing, nothing at all that should wake the sleeping Tiger. I know you didn't! I wish everybody would get the gig as I truly wish no ill will towards my fellow attorneys. But, I will go back to napping.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 11, 2014 16:44:10 GMT -5
"Val, one of your earlier posts hit the nail on the head for me, including myself: "Second, everyone on this board, including Yours Truly, is a whiner, has a narcissistic personality disorder, delusions of grandeur, a gambling addiction, or is clinically bored, or some sort of combination of all of the above."" How can one not comment upon this (BTW, I have yet to learn how to highlight and paste a partial post)? I would think that a few personality quirks or clinical diagnosis(es) were left out; like OCD, depression, borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia. Please, folks, chime in if you feel left out.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 11, 2014 16:46:55 GMT -5
Funky and those that have missed me, it's been a busy week. I responded to OMHA, so everybody wish me good luck on getting the job! What's changed 5 o'clock some...sorry, Tigerlaw? I thought you'd decided not to do the omha interview? Don't get me wrong, I'm sending you good luck thoughts by the pantload. Just wondering what changed your mind.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 11, 2014 16:52:26 GMT -5
Fascinating discussion. In any game (used in the scientific, not pejorative sense of the word) all participants will apply the rules to maximize their outcome. When the rules here allow an ALJ to significantly decrease his hassle factor by simply paying if in doubt, then many will take that option. When the ALJ has to be the fact-finder, prosecutor, devil's-advocate, sympathizer, and finally judge he is being made to wear too many hats, and different ALJs will have different preferences and this leads to inconsistent outcomes. The problem is not the ALJs, but the system. I believe 99% come to this job wanting to "do their best", but it is uncertain just what metrics determine the "best." Our outsider's traditional litigation "adversary" system is far from perfect, but it is better than the mish-mash of rules and motivations that is being volleyed back and forth here. I don't know whether an adversary system would be better or not. There are pros and cons. An adversary system would not, however, insult claimants, punish claimants, require jury trials, require appointing counsel for indigent claimants, require much in the way of motion practice, implement the Federal Rules of Evidence, implement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or require full federal civil discovery. Good point, Gary. When I season my gumbo, I add just enough file' to make it taste good; I don't dump in the whole jar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:54:23 GMT -5
Funky and those that have missed me, it's been a busy week. I responded to OMHA, so everybody wish me good luck on getting the job! What's changed 5 o'clock some...sorry, Tigerlaw? I thought you'd decided not to do the omha interview? Don't get me wrong, I'm sending you good luck thoughts by the pantload. Just wondering what changed your mind. It's a dry run interview that doesn't cost me anything. So if I march my arrogant arse in there and blow it, then I can be better prepared for ODAR and you and I can drink beer at Falls Church together, my treat.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 11, 2014 16:54:39 GMT -5
Fascinating discussion. In any game (used in the scientific, not pejorative sense of the word) all participants will apply the rules to maximize their outcome. When the rules here allow an ALJ to significantly decrease his hassle factor by simply paying if in doubt, then many will take that option. When the ALJ has to be the fact-finder, prosecutor, devil's-advocate, sympathizer, and finally judge he is being made to wear too many hats, and different ALJs will have different preferences and this leads to inconsistent outcomes. The problem is not the ALJs, but the system. I believe 99% come to this job wanting to "do their best", but it is uncertain just what metrics determine the "best." Our outsider's traditional litigation "adversary" system is far from perfect, but it is better than the mish-mash of rules and motivations that is being volleyed back and forth here. I don't know whether an adversary system would be better or not. There are pros and cons. An adversary system would not, however, insult claimants, punish claimants, require jury trials, require appointing counsel for indigent claimants, require much in the way of motion practice, implement the Federal Rules of Evidence, implement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or require full federal civil discovery. Oh, I can remember my "Administrative Law" hornbook. Hearsay and relaxation of the the rules regarding admission of documents--particularly business related (a hearsay exception) and medical (a first cousin of the former) are hallmarks. After that then one focuses on due process and judicial independence. And as to an "adversary system" at ODAR if the ALJ can wear the two hats successfully (and I think its a foregone conclusion) then issn't it a question of giving him/her more tools to ferret the truth and hopefully effectuate justice? Hiring another 1000 attys at OGC to do ODAR cases isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 11, 2014 17:01:23 GMT -5
I agree with privateattorney that the number of ALJs that apply for the wrong reasons is closer to 10-20%,... Still, if there is just one of these idiots in every office, it is enough to have a significant impact. IMHO,
It's a job folks, anyone can apply and ALL LAWYERS are qualified to do the job. Actually, no, they aren't. I'm not interested in the least in debating you, but I will just state my opinion that there are a good number of lawyers who would make lousy ALJs at the federal or state level, for a variety of reasons that even this testing, interviewing and reference checking may not ferret out.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 11, 2014 17:17:05 GMT -5
What's changed 5 o'clock some...sorry, Tigerlaw? I thought you'd decided not to do the omha interview? Don't get me wrong, I'm sending you good luck thoughts by the pantload. Just wondering what changed your mind. It's a dry run interview that doesn't cost me anything. So if I march my arrogant arse in there and blow it, then I can be better prepared for ODAR and you and I can drink beer at Falls Church together, my treat. I will hold you to that. And, really, good luck on the interview.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 11, 2014 18:46:15 GMT -5
Still, if there is just one of these idiots in every office, it is enough to have a significant impact. Very true. Still, having just one such judge would be a marked improvement in some offices. Marked, of course, meaning more than moderate but less than extreme.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 11, 2014 19:22:09 GMT -5
Hopefalj, exactly and definitely where we must interpret the Reg's since you gave the only definition we have for marked, which of course is on SSA forms, but does not suffice to be used for RFCs... And don't forget, two marked equals one meets...
|
|
|
Post by minny on Apr 12, 2014 8:01:19 GMT -5
I don't know whether an adversary system would be better or not. There are pros and cons. An adversary system would not, however, insult claimants, punish claimants, require jury trials, require appointing counsel for indigent claimants, require much in the way of motion practice, implement the Federal Rules of Evidence, implement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or require full federal civil discovery. I agree, Gary. I presently work in an adversarial federal administrative system where the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are thought of (briefly and occasionally) as guidelines to be ignored for the most part. Many of the "claimants" are pro se and still get their day in court, so to speak, without appointed counsel or jury trials.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 12, 2014 9:50:18 GMT -5
I don't know whether an adversary system would be better or not. There are pros and cons. An adversary system would not, however, insult claimants, punish claimants, require jury trials, require appointing counsel for indigent claimants, require much in the way of motion practice, implement the Federal Rules of Evidence, implement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or require full federal civil discovery. I agree, Gary. I presently work in an adversarial federal administrative system where the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are thought of (briefly and occasionally) as guidelines to be ignored for the most part. Many of the "claimants" are pro se and still get their day in court, so to speak, without appointed counsel or jury trials. The difference between the Social Security system and almost every other Federal agency is that SSA affects every person in one way or another (SSI/SSDI/OASI) while most other agencies do not. Furthermore, most people have a vested interest in SSA and it's decisions. There would be a human outcry should Congress attempt to make drastic changes, while with the exception of one or two other Federal agencies any changes made wouldn't lead to such a human outcry. The one thing politicians know is if you upset the majority of your electorate you will not be in office any longer. There is a sense of entitlement to SSA that you don't see anywhere else. I am not saying it is a deserved sense of entitlement, but it is one that exists. I am just saying mess with someone's SSA as a politician and see what happens to your political career.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 12, 2014 10:59:11 GMT -5
Again, the claimants are before us because they have applied for a government benefit and have had their request denied for failing to meet the required criteria. There is no implied assumption that they have violated a government law or regulation. An adversarial system is by definition an insult to the claimant. Here's a fun hypothetical. Many of you are about to be scheduled for an interview with a pair of ODAR management ALJs, along with a HOD present taking notes. After all of the effort you have put into the ALJ selection process, this is your best opportunity to make your personal appeal as to why SSA should hire you. Now Mr. Smith walks in and introduces himself as an OGC attorney who will also be questioning you and presenting arguments to the management ALJs as to why you are unfit for the position. As we have discussed to death in this forum, SSA has a major interest in making sure they do not hire idiots. Why not add an additional level of adversarial protection in the hiring process? Weeding out problem ALJs before they are hired would probably do much more to protect the trust fund then making the claimant's face off against a government attorney.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 12, 2014 11:19:57 GMT -5
Again, the claimants are before us because they have applied for a government benefit and have had their request denied for failing to meet the required criteria. There is no implied assumption that they have violated a government law or regulation. An adversarial system is by definition an insult to the claimant. Here's a fun hypothetical. Many of you are about to be scheduled for an interview with a pair of ODAR management ALJs, along with a HOD present taking notes. After all of the effort you have put into the ALJ selection process, this is your best opportunity to make your personal appeal as to why SSA should hire you. Now Mr. Smith walks in and introduces himself as an OGC attorney who will also be questioning you and presenting arguments to the management ALJs as to why you are unfit for the position. As we have discussed to death in this forum, SSA has a major interest in making sure they do not hire idiots. Why not add an additional level of adversarial protection in the hiring process? Weeding out problem ALJs before they are hired would probably do much more to protect the trust fund then making the claimant's face off against a government attorney. An adversarial system does not implicitly assume anyone has violated a government law or regulation. And it is certainly not "by definition an insult to the claimant." Here's a more pertinent hypothetical: An insured makes a claim for benefits with his/her insurer. The insurer does not believe the insured is entitled to benefits, and so denies the claim. The insured sues. That the insurer is entitled to defend in court is not an insult to the insured, "by definition" or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 12, 2014 15:06:44 GMT -5
Valkyrie is correct and to change the SSA system to an adversarial system will not work and will lead to severe public outcry. Nor is making a SSA disability hearing adversarial something Congress will ever do or fund due to it's sacred cow status and lack of money to hire an adequate number of OGC attorneys to keep the process moving and not overloaded.
|
|