|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jun 12, 2014 21:32:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on Jun 13, 2014 1:31:30 GMT -5
Don't be too worried. This suggestion was made in the 80s and likely other times according to some ALJs still working that remember this happening before. These may seem like quick solutions to the problem of excessive spending and curtailing the "outlier" ALJs. However, quick fixes such as these just push the problem somewhere else. The Hearing Office serves an important purpose to the Administrative process and exists in many other agencies as you all well know. The claimants see this step as a legal analysis by a qualified judicial officer with a legally supported decision. Before this step, the case is not analyzed by qualified experts in the law or supplemented by vocational experts. If they were to reduce this step of the process to a hearing officer status instead of through an ALJ, the appeals process would have to be changed as the legal decisions that are now written could not come from hearing officers. More than likely, the balance of these cases would continue to be appealed to the Federal District Court system for a final legal decision and likely overwhelm it. As it is, many of the cases end at this step of the process because of the legal analysis that is performed. fewer cases go to the Appeals Council and fewer cases still go further filed as complaints before the Federal District Court. Congress often likes to make demonstrations for political purposes, but rarely make such large changes to the bureaucracy. The effects would be disastrous for the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jun 13, 2014 8:42:35 GMT -5
The real issue, IMHO, is that the system does not allow appeals of outlier or just plain wrong favorable decisions. If it did, there would be no reason for this showmanship. I think some defense of the initial determination is warranted. An advocate would have to be appointed to take such an appeal. In my opinion, the senior attorney program could be expanded to cover this - they could have all favorables reviewed by SAA from outside the issuing ALJ's office. If there were serious problems with the law or evidence cited, the reviewing SAA could simply refer it to a team out of the regional counsel's office. It would create somewhat of an adversarial relationship between the regional counsel and their ALJs, but it would be at least 1 additional set of eyes, and an agency opportunity to walk back a poorly supported favorable opinion. Just my $0.02. |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jun 13, 2014 13:25:05 GMT -5
Much of this goes back to the agency's emphasis on quantity over quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 13, 2014 15:34:50 GMT -5
Even assuming, arguendo, that the PTB at SSA could convince Congress (and the President) to dissolve the ODAR ALJ Corps and make Agency appartchik hearing officers, it would not necessarily "fix" the outlier issue. There will always be outliers, its just the nature of the Beast. That the Press Corps could credibly infer that 4 ALJs out of 1500 some is a "problem" that requires a house burning boggles my mind, but then the Press has become so partisan of late one should read the advertising first for the real news.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 13, 2014 19:21:41 GMT -5
Even assuming, arguendo, that the PTB at SSA could convince Congress (and the President) to dissolve the ODAR ALJ Corps and make Agency appartchik hearing officers, it would not necessarily "fix" the outlier issue. There will always be outliers, its just the nature of the Beast. That the Press Corps could credibly infer that 4 ALJs out of 1500 some is a "problem" that requires a house burning boggles my mind, but then the Press has become so partisan of late one should read the advertising first for the real news. EXACTLY. There is not a job in the economy where there is not some sort of "bell curve" of how people perform, act, and react to their job. Outliers will always exist and should be dealt with according to the specific facts of the situation. Granted these particular 4 outliers were quite an astonishing bunch....it was like watching a train wreck....sad, shameful, and embarrassing. At least there were several folks who tried to reiterate that these 4 were NOT indicative of the ALJ Corps. This testimony should be a must see for everyone in SSA and anyone seeking to part of SSA--it will explain many things, like why following the law and policy is so imperative! The APA does not give free reign to break the law or policy....just my 2 cents. www.oversight.house.gov for those who have not watched yet. |
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on Jun 13, 2014 21:20:37 GMT -5
The real stakeholders are the claimants and the taxpayers. Claimants are entitled to some form of due process before their application for benefits can be denied. Whatever the exact trappings, and whatever you may call the reviewers (ALJ, AJ, hearing examiner, adjudicator...) it must somehow add up to an opportunity to be heard, probably in person, to produce evidence, and to call witnesses. I doubt the courts would ultimately sanction a paper-only process. The claimants are entitled to an attorney or other rep. I don't see any viable impetus to change that. With those elements, the result must surely look a lot like a traditional hearing (even if only by video). Lawyers putting on testimony will require someone to wrangle the process. That person is going to look awfully like a judge (like an awful judge?). The wrangler must also see to it that the process does not automatically result in all favorables. (That's the bugaboo of the moment.) Claimant's rep versus empty chair = automatic win for claimant unless there is opposing counsel (and passive arbiter) or an active arbiter (wearing the hat of a taxpayer protector or trust fund protector). Counsel for the agency is an intriguing concept, but currently has no credible champion due to budgetary and logistical obstacles. The role of active arbiter, ensuring both due process and adequacy of evidence, keeping at bay attorneys with lucrative practices at stake, requires, for all practical purposes, a fairly capable attorney who can also render a written decision that will hold up in district court. Congress can downgrade, demonize, or denigrate that arbiter/referee/bureaucrat position all it wants, but such a position requires certain essential qualifications. If the position is greatly diminished, qualified people will apply their skills in more attractive avenues.
|
|
