|
Post by cougarfan on Jul 5, 2014 20:28:06 GMT -5
Hopefalj,. I had a writer tell me that she had been told by a GS to just make up exhibit numbers because it didn't matter.. well that's just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jul 5, 2014 21:31:05 GMT -5
Cougarfan, I concur, but when bonuses are based on numeric, what can you do? I am hopeful positive changes will come out of some of this.
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Jul 5, 2014 23:46:38 GMT -5
Cougarfan, I concur, but when bonuses are based on numeric, what can you do? I am hopeful positive changes will come out of some of this. I've been fortunate with excellent offices (even in "crap land") and feel fortunate to have never seen this sort of behavior.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jul 6, 2014 8:40:07 GMT -5
I had a writer tell me that she had been told by a GS to just make up exhibit numbers because it didn't matter.. OMG, this is shameful. If this is actually true (if the writer actually understood correctly and repeated it to you correctly) then that GS needs to be counseled. It is completely unacceptable behavior. When faced with something like this, you should move that information up the food chain for corrective action. Something is broken here, either the writer or the GS --but there are PLENTY of folks out there who WILL do the ethical right thing in their jobs and not something as fraudulent as this, so they should be grateful to have a good Federal job with benefits like ours. And yes, anything that is purposeful and intentional like this, I would consider it to be deceitful. Sorry, this just really sat wrong with me. Not shooting the messenger Bart--I am directing all of this toward the person you are calling out, not you by any means. I sure hope that writer went to the HOD or to someone else in the direct line of chain of command! Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jul 6, 2014 11:07:47 GMT -5
Cougarfan, I concur, but when bonuses are based on numeric, what can you do? I am hopeful positive changes will come out of some of this. What can you do? YOU, as an ALJ, report it up the chain. It's simple, Bart. That's what you do.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jul 6, 2014 13:14:23 GMT -5
I don't think you understand, it came down the chain of command. When you have a HOD telling everyone that we are going to be number one in Georgia, number one in the Region, and number one in the Nation (and number one is only based on numbers) I think you got a problem with the chain of command. This is the problem of quantity versus quality. You start making waves funny things happen, like scheduling you for 25-30 hearings a month when you are asking for 40-50.. Like assigning you an SCT that causes more trouble than you can believe. Try making waves.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jul 6, 2014 13:36:55 GMT -5
I don't think you understand, it came down the chain of command. When you have a HOD telling everyone that we are going to be number one in Georgia, number one in the Region, and number one in the Nation (and number one is only based on numbers) I think you got a problem with the chain of command. This is the problem of quantity versus quality. You start making waves funny things happen, like scheduling you for 25-30 hearings a month when you are asking for 40-50.. Like assigning you an SCT that causes more trouble than you can believe. Try making waves. Well that's not right Bart. I'm sorry that is happening in your office. The focus is on quality (which is different than in years past as we all know) and finding that balance. The quality message is the message coming from Sklar. All I can say is do the right thing and keep on keepin on. You can only control your part of the process and hopefully anyone in your chain who is not following the message of timely legally sufficient decisions gets on board soon! This is where differences in offices can really matter and make a difference in how happy how likely ALJs are to stay in one location. I sure hope those in top management look at these things as factors in why ALJs move around and leave certain locations.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 6, 2014 13:45:26 GMT -5
Hopefalj, 488 versus 500 might not make a qualitative difference, but 488 versus 600 could. Requirements are now 600 for Flexiplace. I understand what you are saying and I can guarantee that all kinds of things in an office can make a difference. All I am hoping for is some kind of recognition by someone of power that the most important thing is quality. I have seen the quality of decisions deteriorate as the GS's and HOD's put more pressure on everyone doing 100 or 125% of the monthly writer goal. This does slow me down, so.. I had a writer tell me that she had been told by a GS to just make up exhibit numbers because it didn't matter.. I understand what you're saying with respect to the 600 per year, but is there a single ALJ that holds 100% of their scheduled hearings every month? "But you still have to review the postponed or no-show hearing!" you say, and this is true. But if you do a thorough review and make adequate notes, and I have little reason to doubt you do, you shouldn't have to do anywhere near as substantial a review if/when it is rescheduled. Plus, now you have an extra 45 to 90 minutes (depending on how long you schedule your hearings) to do other things, like edit decisions, draft instructions, or research those nuanced issues. With respect to the GS you mention, I think that brings up a big issue that I don't feel comfortable talking about, but I'm not going to disagree that the instance was wrong. Management does a lot of things wrong, but I guess I take issue with some of your posts because all they do is blame management and/or production goals. It's simply an erroneous statement that production goals are the cause of all of our problems or that they're the reason these ALJs rubber-stamped thousands of approvals every year. Just because management didn't do anything to curb their mass approvals doesn't absolve these four ALJs of any wrongdoing.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jul 6, 2014 14:10:44 GMT -5
Quality is not the purview of the ALJs at ODAR alone even though our names go on the decisions. The workup and the writing also have to be of quality if we want to send a good product out the door. ALJs catch the heat, politically, but there are many things out of our control. I like to issue thoughtful and thorough instructions; I have written for judges who don't care about that. I guess they felt pressured. I do my best to slog through ill prepared files and very poorly written drafts, but there is a limit on the kind of quality control I can provide. I mean, I'm here on Sunday writing this because I'm doing more quality control today, but there are not enough hours in the day or the week or the month to try to fix all the mistakes. If I were not pressured to produce 500 or more, perhaps I could catch the innumerable errors in the drafts that come across my desk. Maybe not; I don't know.
But at least let's not pretend there isn't a trade-off when pushing for greater productivity.
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Jul 6, 2014 15:56:40 GMT -5
I know of three ALJs, who as a general rule, do not read the draft decisions and just sign them, but they did that before the 500-700 goal was established. I also know 90+% payers who were 90+% payers before the goal was established. I don't know any ALJ that I have worked with who paid cases just to meet the goal and I have worked in three offices. I certainly don't.
I read every word of every draft, even though our decision writing crew is superb, because even great decision writers will make a mistake now and then. I try to make the right decision in each case. I will say that our management does not try to play games as have been described by others and do not pressure the decision writers to do 100% or more, although some do make that goal.
I am not defending the goals. Just that they are not the reason for all of the problems that have been discussed. Some of these problems predate the goals.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 6, 2014 17:14:44 GMT -5
Quality and writing factually correct and legally sufficient decisions should be paramount. While I understand the need to bring down the backlog of cases and trying to "persuade" ALJs to do a certain number of cases, this "persuasion" (quota) shouldn't interfere with quality. When it does, this is when problems occur. When ALJs pay 90% of their cases or deny 90% of their cases, it isn't because of quotas, it is due to their individualized outlook on how cases should be decided. It wouldn't matter if they only decided 10 cases or 100 cases or 1000 cases a year, those ALJs are predisposed to making that same percentage of approvals or denials on cases they decide. Quality and quantity have little to do with their decision-making. I personally believe strongly in the first sentence of this post.
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Jul 6, 2014 18:27:38 GMT -5
Quality and writing factually correct and legally sufficient decisions should be paramount. While I understand the need to bring down the backlog of cases and trying to "persuade" ALJs to do a certain number of cases, this "persuasion" (quota) shouldn't interfere with quality. When it does, this is when problems occur. When ALJs pay 90% of their cases or deny 90% of their cases, it isn't because of quotas, it is due to their individualized outlook on how cases should be decided. It wouldn't matter if they only decided 10 cases or 100 cases or 1000 cases a year, those ALJs are predisposed to making that same percentage of approvals or denials on cases they decide. Quality and quantity have little to do with their decision-making. I personally believe strongly in the first sentence of this post. I also believe strongly in the first sentence of your post. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a claimant's representative who told me once that he tells his clients there are two kinds of ALJs 1) the kind who are very much by the letter of the law an strictly apply the law; and 2) those who make their decisions, favorable or unfavorable, based on their moral view of the claimant, how they feel about the claimant personally.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jul 6, 2014 18:38:36 GMT -5
I also talked to a rep and he said his firm said doesn't prepare for the hearings because they have a 50% win rate and if they don't win, they prepare when they go to the AC... I do agree with Cougarfan and I have heard the same she has about the two types of ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Jul 6, 2014 19:04:06 GMT -5
I get pretty testy when it's clear the rep is not prepared for the hearing; but that's a different discussion.
I don't know if what the rep said about ALJs is true; but I think it supports the assertion that the 90% paying ALJs and the 20% paying ALJs would be the same regardless of expectations.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 13, 2014 11:18:58 GMT -5
Unles things have changed drastically over the past 4 years, SSA has created a policy mess with rulings, POMs and HALLEX instructions that make it very difficult to deny an appeal, especially in mental health and DA&A cases. That is especially true when you can't send the claimant out for a good, independent aassessment. MEs can only assess the evidence before them and other than opining that the objective evidence before them doesn't warrant a finding of a listing level impairment. And the longer the process takes, the longer the reps have to find the "right" TS and pile-on the assessments of disability. I was probably a bit lower on the pay side than avarage but I held my nose and paid many a case that I could not ignore the weight of the evidence. Until SSA changes the grids, allows for post-hearing CEs and closes the record at some point before the hearing, the present situation will only get worse.
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Jul 13, 2014 12:50:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you cannot obtain post-hearing CEs. I just ordered one on Friday and I have three or four other cases in which I am waiting for the reports from post-hearing CEs. Other ALJs in my office order post-hearing CEs. The requests have never been denied.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 13, 2014 13:51:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you cannot obtain post-hearing CEs. I just ordered one on Friday and I have three or four other cases in which I am waiting for the reports from post-hearing CEs. Other ALJs in my office order post-hearing CEs. The requests have never been denied. Our judges do it, too, without problem. Now when they don't proffer that evidence or proffer it then deny a request for a supplemental hearing before issuing an unfavorable decision, well...
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 13, 2014 17:42:26 GMT -5
If the post-hearing CEs you order includes all the evidence in the record, great. Never saw it myself- a CE that is based on a single interview of the claiamant is almost worthless compared to a longitudinal rercord offered by the rep. SSA doesn't pay a CE Enough to analyze the record and you can't send it back to the DDS so there is no agency opinion to rebut the latest and greatest. Now if you could have a CE and then an ME great. But SSA doesn't like that- they are not willing to pay the piper to do the job right and in my experience all of this "evidence" is submitted post DDS or at the hearing which means the hearing was pointless except as a prehearing conference. SSA doesn't like ALJs doing that either. If you continue to beleive that SSA really wants a fully developed record, I have got a terrific deal on a bridge you may be interested in.
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Jul 13, 2014 18:30:35 GMT -5
I guess it depends on why you order a CE. I only order them when, for whatever reason, I cannot obtain updated records from treating sources. I generally get updated records and I do not order many CEs pre or post-hearing. I also rarely use an ME, unless ordered to do it on a remand. I do not find they add much to the process. Further, at least in our area, they are hard to come by.
What I am looking for in a CE are the objective findings, especially in some kind of physical CE, orthopedic, internal, neurologic, etc. I am not looking for the CE to decide the case for me and I rarely rely on medical source statements from a CE. I find that many times there is little correlation between the objective findings and the medical source statement. This also true of medical source statements from treating sources.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 14, 2014 0:01:18 GMT -5
pf- I never ordered an ME or CE to decide a case for me- what I wanted was some evidence to evaluate when the claimant (rep) suddenly developed a mental disorder after the DDS opinion with no evidence of a mental impairment (until I was denied for my original claim and now I am depressed). If you haven't seen this garbage, you are indeed blessed! I never saw a claim on appeal that remotely resembled the claim filed. And the longer the case festers, the worse it gets. You are not hearing an appeal of a DDS decision but a new claim with little if any DDS evaluation!
|
|