|
Post by saaao on Oct 19, 2014 7:19:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by surfdude on Oct 19, 2014 12:09:06 GMT -5
Everyone should read this article. Thanks for posting it!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 19, 2014 13:49:12 GMT -5
It's an interesting read.
One thing in the article that struck me was a statement given by ALJ Timothy Maher during an interview:
“'There’s a pretty good chance you don’t have a terrible heart condition' if you’re swimming that much, Maher said later, in an interview after the hearing was over."
This statement appears to have been made after the hearing but before the decision.
If this were from an Article III judge I would find it highly questionable for the judge to comment after a hearing on his weighing of the evidence in a case in which the decision has not yet been announced. Is it just as questionable for an ALJ to make such a statement?
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on Oct 19, 2014 14:31:20 GMT -5
A pretty reasonable summary overall, putting aside Prof. Pierce's self-promoting blather.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 19, 2014 15:53:28 GMT -5
Simple solution...
Freeze all new applications. During the freeze, reconfigure/clean up the law, adjust the grids, and get the DOT or other vocational guide up to date.
Have the 1450 judges review 3 files per day, hold three hearings a day, and sign three decisions per day. Allow them their 4-5 weeks of leave (if they've got it) and give them a week for CLE/ALJ Conference. Subtract two more weeks for federal holidays.
3 decisions * 5 days * 44 weeks* 1450 judges = 957k decisions. Voila! Backlog essentially eliminated. Reopen applications and start it all over again with a streamlined and modernized process.
And no, not a serious post. There are no simple steps to fix the system.
|
|
|
Post by hal3000 on Oct 19, 2014 19:22:30 GMT -5
Does anyone besides me see a problem with these judges discussing cases involving specific claimants with the media? What about the next claimant who comes before these judges, and who has read this article? Wouldn't they have a reasonable argument that under the circumstances, they do not think that these judges can give them a fair hearing?
|
|
|
Post by jonsprag1 on Oct 19, 2014 19:39:53 GMT -5
It's an interesting read. One thing in the article that struck me was a statement given by ALJ Timothy Maher during an interview: “'There’s a pretty good chance you don’t have a terrible heart condition' if you’re swimming that much, Maher said later, in an interview after the hearing was over." This statement appears to have been made after the hearing but before the decision. If this were from an Article III judge I would find it highly questionable for the judge to comment after a hearing on his weighing of the evidence in a case in which the decision has not yet been announced. Is it just as questionable for an ALJ to make such a statement? He might have thought his comment would not be published in the Post
|
|
|
Post by Gram Pop on Oct 19, 2014 19:44:54 GMT -5
I understand that there are at least 600 or so well qualified, eager applicants who would gladly accept the challenge of working down the backlog. Just sign us up and we will get to work. We will even supply our own robes!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 19, 2014 19:46:42 GMT -5
It's an interesting read. One thing in the article that struck me was a statement given by ALJ Timothy Maher during an interview: “'There’s a pretty good chance you don’t have a terrible heart condition' if you’re swimming that much, Maher said later, in an interview after the hearing was over." This statement appears to have been made after the hearing but before the decision. If this were from an Article III judge I would find it highly questionable for the judge to comment after a hearing on his weighing of the evidence in a case in which the decision has not yet been announced. Is it just as questionable for an ALJ to make such a statement? He might not have thought his comment would be published in the Post
The statement was given during an interview with a Washington Post reporter.
|
|
|
Post by jonsprag1 on Oct 19, 2014 21:00:29 GMT -5
He might not have thought his comment would be published in the Post
The statement was given during an interview with a Washington Post reporter. Yep--and most of us know that anything we tell a reporter in an interview is likely to be published---
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Oct 19, 2014 21:12:45 GMT -5
I liked the comparison between the well trained lower level decisionmakers, and the ALJ, who is merely a lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Oct 19, 2014 22:55:39 GMT -5
I liked the comparison between the well trained lower level decisionmakers, and the ALJ, who is merely a lawyer. At least, in most states, they are physicians. Although Mr. Pierce articulated his point rather crudely, the fact remains -- does it make sense to continue to hire SSA ALJs who do not have extensive medical knowledge? The translation of a claimant's medical/education records into an RFC is the single most important job an ALJ has. 4 weeks in Falls Church is not nearly enough medical training to permit an ALJ, who has never read medical records as part of their career, to be able to do this job duty with any type of expertise. Why can't OPM create 2 registers? One for SSA which makes medical experience a required element, and a separate register for everyone else?
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Oct 20, 2014 0:55:33 GMT -5
Does anyone besides me see a problem with these judges discussing cases involving specific claimants with the media? What about the next claimant who comes before these judges, and who has read this article? Wouldn't they have a reasonable argument that under the circumstances, they do not think that these judges can give them a fair hearing? Yes. I think it is inappropriate to discuss a case with the media period. I also wonder if the judge had any evidence in that record that someone with a heart condition could not swim for exercise. Those are the kinds of analytical leaps that make people question whether judges are making medical decisions rather than decisions based on medical evidence. And, FWIW, I work in a prototype state. I routinely see state agency consultants who are psychologists do a MRFC. I rarely (and I mean VERY rarely) see a decision at that level where a physician (either a state agency consultant or consultative examiner) has done a physical RFC except on CDRs.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Oct 20, 2014 7:37:34 GMT -5
Does anyone besides me see a problem with these judges discussing cases involving specific claimants with the media? What about the next claimant who comes before these judges, and who has read this article? Wouldn't they have a reasonable argument that under the circumstances, they do not think that these judges can give them a fair hearing? I think in ordinary circumstances that this is a real ethical dilemma. The ALJ should not be discussing the merits of the case with ANYONE outside the hearing. Period. Authorization or not, it gives a bad impression to the public. Claimants could be thinking... do they talk about my case with others like that? Shudder. This comment is my focus: “There’s a pretty good chance you don’t have a terrible heart condition” if you’re swimming that much, Maher said later, in an interview after the hearing was over. Now, with that said, we do not know what kind of authorization there was in place. After all, the claimant clearly gave authorization for this reporter to attend the hearing. Was there additional authorization to speak to the reporter about her case outside of the hearing process? Maybe so, we do not know. So before we judge the judge, let's remember there is always more to the story. Even WITH authorization from the claimant, I have difficulty with this entire process. The judge and the entire process lost impartiality when the facts were open for discussion outside of the hearing and prior to a decision. My question: Was the HOCALJ or the RCALJ or the CALJ even aware of this reporter being allowed into the courtroom? Would they have given authorization for this? I think not. But I could be wrong....
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 20, 2014 7:49:44 GMT -5
Are you all aware that an ALJ can have a medical expert (M.D.) testify on each case, so there is no need for the Judge to be medically trained... Some Judges routinely have an ME and in some regions almost all the time. Expensive? Yes, but a better decision?? Questionable. The problem with the M.D.'s at the lower level is that there is hardly ever any medical evidence for them to review prior to making their decision. Most development is done between the initial denial and the hearing. Further the M.D. at the lower level does not have the benefit of hearing the claimant's testimony or the representative's arguement.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Oct 20, 2014 7:57:15 GMT -5
Does anyone besides me see a problem with these judges discussing cases involving specific claimants with the media? What about the next claimant who comes before these judges, and who has read this article? Wouldn't they have a reasonable argument that under the circumstances, they do not think that these judges can give them a fair hearing? I think in ordinary circumstances that this is a real ethical dilemma. The ALJ should not be discussing the merits of the case with ANYONE outside the hearing. Period. Authorization or not, it gives a bad impression to the public. Claimants could be thinking... do they talk about my case with others like that? Shudder. This comment is my focus: “There’s a pretty good chance you don’t have a terrible heart condition” if you’re swimming that much, Maher said later, in an interview after the hearing was over. Now, with that said, we do not know what kind of authorization there was in place. After all, the claimant clearly gave authorization for this reporter to attend the hearing. Was there additional authorization to speak to the reporter about her case outside of the hearing process? Maybe so, we do not know. So before we judge the judge, let's remember there is always more to the story. Even WITH authorization from the claimant, I have difficulty with this entire process. The judge and the entire process lost impartiality when the facts were open for discussion outside of the hearing and prior to a decision. My question: Was the HOCALJ or the RCALJ or the CALJ even aware of this reporter being allowed into the courtroom? Would they have given authorization for this? I think not. But I could be wrong.... As to your last paragraph, I had lunch with a colleague yesterday - he has been with the Agency much longer than I have and said he too doubted that inviting the press into a hearing was authorized by management, even if the claimant waived PII. As to the comment about the swimming, I also wondered if, when the claimant said, sure you can sit in on my hearing, she intended for that permission to extend to a discussion about the merits of her case, touching on her credibility, as part of that consent. As a former judicial clerk and arbitrator I was trained that even after a decision is rendered, the only appropriate comment if a decision is questioned is to say, "It stands on its own" then stop talking. This is very difficult to do because there's a real temptation to try to do a better job of explaining if, after reading what you wrote, the individual still has questions. As a result, I am surprised about the distinction drawn between discussing a case before and after a written decision. Maybe the world of SSA is different in that regard and ALJ's discuss cases after a decision is issued. (I am talking about with the parties and reps, here, not the press.)
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Oct 20, 2014 8:01:07 GMT -5
I think in ordinary circumstances that this is a real ethical dilemma. The ALJ should not be discussing the merits of the case with ANYONE outside the hearing. Period. Authorization or not, it gives a bad impression to the public. Claimants could be thinking... do they talk about my case with others like that? Shudder. This comment is my focus: “There’s a pretty good chance you don’t have a terrible heart condition” if you’re swimming that much, Maher said later, in an interview after the hearing was over. Now, with that said, we do not know what kind of authorization there was in place. After all, the claimant clearly gave authorization for this reporter to attend the hearing. Was there additional authorization to speak to the reporter about her case outside of the hearing process? Maybe so, we do not know. So before we judge the judge, let's remember there is always more to the story. Even WITH authorization from the claimant, I have difficulty with this entire process. The judge and the entire process lost impartiality when the facts were open for discussion outside of the hearing and prior to a decision. My question: Was the HOCALJ or the RCALJ or the CALJ even aware of this reporter being allowed into the courtroom? Would they have given authorization for this? I think not. But I could be wrong.... As a result, I am surprised about the distinction drawn between discussing a case before and after a written decision. Maybe the world of SSA is different in that regard and ALJ's discuss cases after a decision is issued. (I am talking about with the parties and reps, here, not the press.) That is an excellent point. You are right, even after the decision there should not be a discussion about the case!
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Oct 20, 2014 8:06:39 GMT -5
Are you all aware that an ALJ can have a medical expert (M.D.) testify on each case, so there is no need for the Judge to be medically trained... Some Judges routinely have an ME and in some regions almost all the time. Expensive? Yes, but a better decision?? Questionable. The problem with the M.D.'s at the lower level is that there is hardly ever any medical evidence for them to review prior to making their decision. Most development is done between the initial denial and the hearing. Further the M.D. at the lower level does not have the benefit of hearing the claimant's testimony or the representative's arguement. Excellent point. I think many outside critics of the process do not fully comprehend how little is in the record at the time the initial decision is made compared to when the hearing is held.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Oct 20, 2014 8:07:16 GMT -5
Are you all aware that an ALJ can have a medical expert (M.D.) testify on each case, so there is no need for the Judge to be medically trained... Some Judges routinely have an ME and in some regions almost all the time. Expensive? Yes, but a better decision?? Questionable. The problem with the M.D.'s at the lower level is that there is hardly ever any medical evidence for them to review prior to making their decision. Most development is done between the initial denial and the hearing. Further the M.D. at the lower level does not have the benefit of hearing the claimant's testimony or the representative's arguement. I hope the MEs in your neck of the woods are substantially better than the ones in mine, because most of the time their testimony/opinion adds little to no value to the decision making process. IE it's like they didn't even read the entire file
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Oct 20, 2014 8:07:45 GMT -5
Sounds like this would be a good hypothetical question for the next incarnation of the ALJ exam on refresh.
|
|