Adversarial Hearings

[tatersalad]

What is the talks of adversarial hearings? Government attorneys at the hearing arguing with the representatives in front of the ALJS?

Is the feasible? Pre hearing conferences might loosen the back log for the judges, but would it lessen the hiring of future ALJS?

 Would it not, however, create another step in the long process and cost more money?  Also, what about the 800,000 CDR's coming next year? The dam is about to break! 

[Loopstok]

If ALJ is not in the cards for me, if I wind up stranded in the nether regions of the current register, I'd welcome the opportunity to become a government representative during the hearing while I'm waiting for That Call.  I have not heard any serious talk of such a proposal within my region, though. Who would be appointed to do such a job, were it to be created within ODAR?  The existing corps of senior attorney-adjudicators?  Many ODARs would need to hire a lot more SAAs, presumably, at a time when SAA authority is being reduced generally.  You might not need one SAA/gov't rep for every ALJ within a given ODAR or NHC, but you would certainly need to get close to that 1:1 ratio in order to make the gov't rep position attractive to prospective hires.  I'd personally (as a non-management Insider) rather see the money spent on more ALJs and SAAs (assuming that the SAA program survives the recent evisceration of our signatory authority), instead of fundamentally altering the nature of the hearing process..

[christina]

tater, what are you talking about? is this speculation or have you heard something i and others have not heard yet? I know this idea has been bounced around from time to time but I have not heard about it being implemented.

[bartleby]

The Union is and has pushed for it. Also, more SAA's would be great to work with the CDR's that may/are coming..

[deltajudge]

8-)Adversarial hearings would require a complete revamp of the ODAR hearing process.Think about it.

[Loopstok]

Also, to make a much shorter version of the points I was dancing around above... adding government representation at the hearing would require a reversal of the recent ODAR trends of dis-empowering ALJs and SAAs. Giving the ALJ actual trial powers seems to conflict with the revised PD, and then you'd need more SAAs (or an SAA-type attorney) hired, at a time when SAAs can barely issue decisions in their own name. So I don't see anyone in DC/Baltimore/Falls Church signing off on government representation at the hearing, for exactly these reasons.

[hopefalj]

Apr 30, 2014 16:55:43 GMT -5 bartleby said:

The Union is and has pushed for it. Also, more SAA's would be great to work with the CDR's that may/are coming..

I like the idea of SAAs doing CDRs. I wonder if that will get discussed at some point.

[tatersalad]

Senator Coachran (I believe the spelling is close, google it) has proposed this at the hearing not long ago.  I do not know, but in these budget times and the lawsuit against SSA by the ALJ Union, the former is not going to do much I would think. I only know what I read on the net including this board.

[tatersalad]

SSA's can no longer issue decisions in their own name. The ALJ job description can be changed but I doubt it in todays claimant. Just hope you can get on board as an ALJ.

[tatersalad]

Here here! What he said! Truthfully, I think it is going to be more with less....

[JudgeRatty]

May 1, 2014 8:51:22 GMT -5 tatersalad said:

SSA's can no longer issue decisions in their own name. The ALJ job description can be changed but I doubt it in todays claimant. Just hope you can get on board as an ALJ.

Actually this is partially true. We can issue decisions in our names if they are from the NSU selected cases and meet the now limited criteria.

[valkyrie]

I would much rather have the two old guys from the Muppets in the hearings to provide entertaining commentary on the incompetent ALJs, moronic reps, and particularly dishonest claimants...