|
Post by gary on Nov 22, 2014 18:35:12 GMT -5
People keep on saying the ALJ job is sedentary like that's a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Nov 22, 2014 19:40:06 GMT -5
People keep on saying the ALJ job is sedentary like that's a bad thing. LOL! I agree. But if there are ALJ candidates who are coming from busy fast paced practices where they do a lot of walking from office to office or to the courthouse and back... it's a bit of a change of pace. This is primarily computer based work except for the actual hearing time, and even that is sedentary and may not involve anyone in the room with you... it may all be by video. And they need to be ready for no travel, no variation, and the same ole same ole. It would not be good to have the shock of a complete sedentary job like this coming from a completely different way of doing things and realize it after you accepted the offer. Better to know now.
|
|
|
Post by jonsprag1 on Nov 22, 2014 20:57:12 GMT -5
People keep on saying the ALJ job is sedentary like that's a bad thing. LOL! I agree. But if there are ALJ candidates who are coming from busy fast paced practices where they do a lot of walking from office to office or to the courthouse and back... it's a bit of a change of pace. This is primarily computer based work except for the actual hearing time, and even that is sedentary and may not involve anyone in the room with you... it may all be by video. And they need to be ready for no travel, no variation, and the same ole same ole. It would not be good to have the shock of a complete sedentary job like this coming from a completely different way of doing things and realize it after you accepted the offer. Better to know now. Sounds lot like my current job (which I like) right down to the two computer screens(real good for reviewing the record and writing the hearing script-decision at the same time) but with better pay. When I first started over 5 years ago, we traveled all over the country for hearings but gradually we have gone almost exclusively to teleconference hearings---haven't had a road trip in over a year. But I don't really miss the travel as much as I thought I would--the current system is quicker and allows me to keep up with my decision writing better. Compared to private practice, its humdrum, doesn't have the highs and excitement but also doesn't have the stress and financial strain of running your own practice. Not a bad trade off.
|
|
|
Post by Who Me? on Nov 22, 2014 21:32:15 GMT -5
Well, I suspect that most ALJ positions, whether fed or state, pretty much follow the same protocol. Review files; conduct hearings; work on decisions and orders. Best advice I can give is to take a long walk during your lunch hour. Eat at your desk so you have more time to walk. If that doesn't work, join a gym and go workout after work. If that's not your style; then gain about 50 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Nov 22, 2014 22:07:13 GMT -5
Sratty, agree completely. Our disabled shouldn't have to wait two years. If we punished the fraudulent applicants enough, it would stop and those disabled would get hearings quicker. I am not talking about the marginal ones that think they are disabled and may or may not, I am talking about the bad actors and the ones that blatantly lie under oath. Some reps are also involved as are some doctors that complete MSS that are nowhere supported by the treating notes.
|
|
|
Post by Who Me? on Nov 22, 2014 22:40:12 GMT -5
Makes me recall a case I defended many years ago. The plaintiff sued the county for employment discrimination, ADA violations, and whistle-blower protection.
In the course of discovery, I found a transcript of a labor grievance arbitration hearing where the plaintiff testified, under oath, that his doctor cleared him to return to work on Labor Day (Sept.) and he could not understand why the county would not give him his old position? Hmmmn, IME perhaps?
Then in December of the same year, the plaintiff filed for total disability benefits with SSA, claiming he has been unable to work since the initial accident (pre-dating Sept. by several years) and wasn't sure if he would ever be able to return to work.
Let's see. Able to go back to work in Sept.; but totally disabled in December. Fraud?
I reported it to SSA, but don't know if they investigated his claim.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Nov 24, 2014 22:49:04 GMT -5
@ bartleby I'm speaking as a complete outsider who has no clue how things really work at SSA. My understanding is that claimants who appear before an ALJ have already had two bites at the apple and have been rejected (denied? disallowed?) both times. I recall that when I worked for a state appellate court, our reversal rate for criminal convictions was around 5%. With that background, it seems to me (again as a total outsider) that a similar percentage should hold true for claimants who have been denied twice at administrative levels. If an ALJ is approving even 40% of the claims that reach his or her level, it seems to me the administrative reviewers are doing a poor job of vetting the claims. I would think that a 10% approval (again, I'm not sure of the correct terminology) rate would be on the high side. I am sure you can correct the fallacy of my reasoning, but that is how it appears to a novice on the outside looking in. In my experience, the majority of the evidence isn't of record until the hearing level. When the doctors aren't seeing large amounts of medical evidence, it's difficult for them to have an accurate idea of what's really going on and making an accurate RFC. Sometimes borderline claimants grid out after a certain point. Sometimes the state vocational consultant finds something to be past relevant work when it isn't. But the lack of evidence is probably the biggest reason.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Nov 25, 2014 7:42:45 GMT -5
It is usually around two years between when they were denied on initial and on reconsideration before the hearing. A lot can happen in that two years. In my humble opinion, there are four reasons we see a higher pay rate at the hearing level. And none of these reasons have been adequately expressed to the Gentleman from Oklahoma that seems to have such a....aroused condition...about the job we ALJs are doing.
1. As Hope noted above, a whole bunch of new evidence comes in in that two years. The record is never closed and claimant's send in stuff the lower levels never saw. They even do that at the appeals council level and we get remands based on evidence we never saw all the time.
2. The claimant gets older. Under the grid rule system, age makes a huge difference. A lot of times, even if we find the exact same RFC the lower level found, the fact the claimant changed age categories in the interim means they now qualify when they didnt before.
3. The lower level never questions the claimant. Their decision is based entirely on med evidence and they can only find disability if the claimant meets a listing or grids out. At our level, we have many more considerations like the SSRs that can lead to paying a case.
and
4. At our level the claimant has, or can choose to have, a representative. Some are worthless seat warmers but some are really good and can make all the difference in swaying a close decision.
Our system is, therefore, no way analogous to the criminal or civil appeals process in article three courts. Our hearings are completely de novo with usually reams of new evidence and avenues and considerations not open to the lower level and the claimant has a rep arguing for them the first time. Apples and orange colored wax fruit.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Nov 25, 2014 8:28:33 GMT -5
The other thing that nobody ever talks about is the actual number in the pool of applicants on appeal. Its not 10, 20 or 40 percent of the original applicant pool. The pay/deny rate on appeal is a percentage of the original pool who choose to appeal to that level. The numbers are not nearly as dramatic as one crawls through the appeals process. Much like this ALJ selection process. My chance for selection was one in 6000 gazillion or so in the beginning. My chance of being picked up increased as time went on because the pool got smaller. Also some States do not have a reconsideration stage, so that's going to skew the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Nov 25, 2014 8:50:39 GMT -5
The only cases paid at the initial level are the catastrophic devestating cases, the quadriplegic, the baby born without arms, the horribley deformed, the fatally ill. We almost never see such cases. We see the degenerative cases that tend to degenerate in a period of two years. Arthritis gets worse. The mental condition deteriorates. Without medical care, due to lack of insurance, almost all illnesses and injuries worsen. Time does not heal all wounds successfully. Another problem is that due to the delay in the past and now, many reps and claimant's figured out that if they had a hangnail, it might just possibly fester and cause their hand to fall off in two years, the time it would take to get a hearing, so file early and file often.. We see an entirely different claimant than the initial level sees. The reconsideration level is a rubber stamp joke. In the 2-3 month period between the initial and recon, there is very little if any change in anything. The hangnail case is hte one that thinks this is a lottery and you can't win if you don't play. They come into the hearing room with bilateral CTS splints on claiming that they can't work or do anything, including wiping their own butt. They tell you this under oath and their rep points out that they surely meet a listing or GRID out. The CID investigation, if requested, reveals the claimant hand weaves fishing nets on the side running a profitable under the counter business.... But I digress.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 25, 2014 9:16:11 GMT -5
The war stories about hearings never cease to amaze me as I could tell you many as well based upon 30 years as a claimant's representative. Not all claimants are equal, just as not are all ALJs are equal. I am not talking about pay rates, but I am talking about seriously listening to the testimony of the claimant. I have seen ALJs read newspapers, clip their finger nails, pick their nose, sleep, etc. to name a few abnormalities during the course of a hearing. All I have ever requested is an ALJ who actually knows the medical in the file and listens carefully to the testimony with an open mind. I am not picking on ALJs because the vast majority take their job seriously and I appreciate that very much.
No, I am not excusing claimants as there are fraudulent claimants that have walked in my door and were sent back out without me representing them at hearing. I have ethics and know after 30 years of practice whether someone is actually having medical issues or is faking it....but as Bartleby says I digress with my musings here since we are talking about war stories in the hearing room.....
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Nov 25, 2014 9:51:24 GMT -5
Funky raises an important point in why some claimants are paid by the ALJ but denied by DDS. Sometimes it is a matter of just seeing the claimant. A doctor's report saying varicose veins with brawny edema is not enough to meet the applicable listing. But when the claimant shows you the leg and it is discolored from the ankle to the knee, he does. Also the forms leave something to be desired regarding the demands of the claimant's past relevant work. DDS determines the claimant did one job, but after you question him, the VE describes something entirely differently. That claimant does not have transferable skills and the grid rules direct a finding of "disabled." And where do these forms give us any insight about the supervision the claimant may or may not need on the job? There are people with borderline intelligence or other mental conditions who can do unskilled jobs with ordinary supervision. There are others who cannot, but this is only apparent after the ALJ has had the opportunity to question them. For example, if your claimant is paranoid to the point that she cannot tolerate a coworker asking any personal questions, even the innocuous "how are you doing," how is that person going to get through the training period when she has to work closely with a peer or supervisor to learn the job?
I agree with Bartleby about the litany of woe that we hear in a lot of these proceedings. And heaven knows I want one of those families that swoops in and does everything for me--cooks, cleans, shops, pays my bills. But I believe we can agree that in these hearings, what makes the applicant credible is often something that no one can coach them to say. In the midst of the routine, you hear that tidbit that is totally unrehearsed and spontaneous. And that's what I explore further in my questioning and go off script. Again,the paranoid claimant. The script question was how did she get along with her coworkers when she did work. She said she didn't. When asked to explain, that's when the true extent of her paranoia first became evident. Her response was something like "why do they need to know more than my name?" okaaay. Let's talk about this. You seldom find this kind of info in the file.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Nov 25, 2014 9:52:08 GMT -5
Funky raises an important point in why some claimants are paid by the ALJ but denied by DDS. Sometimes it is a matter of just seeing the claimant. A doctor's report saying varicose veins with brawny edema is not enough to meet the applicable listing. But when the claimant shows you the leg and it is discolored from the ankle to the knee, he does. Also the forms leave something to be desired regarding the demands of the claimant's past relevant work. DDS determines the claimant did one job, but after you question him, the VE describes something entirely differently. That claimant does not have transferable skills and the grid rules direct a finding of "disabled." And where do these forms give us any insight about the supervision the claimant may or may not need on the job? There are people with borderline intelligence or other mental conditions who can do unskilled jobs with ordinary supervision. There are others who cannot, but this is only apparent after the ALJ has had the opportunity to question them. For example, if your claimant is paranoid to the point that she cannot tolerate a coworker asking any personal questions, even the innocuous "how are you doing," how is that person going to get through the training period when she has to work closely with a peer or supervisor to learn the job?
I agree with Bartleby about the litany of woe that we hear in a lot of these proceedings. And heaven knows I want one of those families that swoops in and does everything for me--cooks, cleans, shops, pays my bills. But I believe we can agree that in these hearings, what makes the applicant credible is often something that no one can coach them to say. In the midst of the routine, you hear that tidbit that is totally unrehearsed and spontaneous. And that's what I explore further in my questioning and go off script. Again,the paranoid claimant. The script question was how did she get along with her coworkers when she did work. She said she didn't. When asked to explain, that's when the true extent of her paranoia first became evident. Her response was something like "why do they need to know more than my name?" okaaay. Let's talk about this. You seldom find this kind of info in the file.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 25, 2014 9:58:29 GMT -5
You are so right redryder. I am glad you truly look at all the necessary factors in making a determination on a claimant's file. Bravo for you taking the actions you do to ensure that claimants that are truly deserving actually receive their benefits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 11:05:19 GMT -5
Interesting posts: after decades in private practice representing claimants and now standing/sitting on the other side of the bench, I can honestly say that the award/deny statistics regurgitated by certain internet ALJ/ranking sites and some political offices are simply nonsensical garbage.
Here is why.
When representing claimants on the private side, I could and would carefully review, weigh, weed out the viables, the wastes of time and the completely fraudulent claims. I would intentionally select the viable cases. Thus my "award" statistics compared to the number of cases I represented was correspondingly tilted over to the win side. Sensical/logical/mathematical. So I could say yes my win rate was 80% of cases I chose to represent. (just making that number up folks, it is not actually relevant, read on). I am comparing my "award" size to a pre-selected initial class size and type (i.e. winners). The 20% loss would simply be a statistical anomaly.
However from the ALJ chair there is no review, no weeding out, no selection of cases. ALJ's must accept, review and decide every case that comes through the hearing room door. That means the viables, the wastes of times and the fraudulent. Thus citing or quoting an award/deny rate for any specific ALJ is not only nonsensical it actually means nothing statistically. There is no starting point with which to begin a statistical comparison. Thus the logic and math is doomed from the start. E.g., the ALJ awards 65% of cases heard. Uh.....what "kind" of cases heard? 65% of....what? The viables? The wastes of times? The fraudulent ones? Of the entire 600 cases the ALJ heard in 2014 how many were viable, how many were wastes of time, how many were fraudulent? Who knows? Nobody knows in the review committees, government, the SSA, the Congress, etc., because (1) admittedly no one keeps track as such and (2) again the ALJ cannot pre-select and carefully itemize his inital subject class or group. He or she gets everything the comes through the door. So any ALJ award/denial rate quoted by any internet watchdog site, political office, etc. is in reality complete and utter nonsense and means nothing.
Unless and until the govt and/or ALJ's are permitted to pre-review and segregate incoming cases into the viables, the wastes of times and the fraudulent, then any keeping track of gross award/denial percentages by any ALJ simply means nothing and is nonsensical.
Whenever dealing with percentages always remember that a percentage is per se a division or a subset sample (i.e., a ration or a division) "of" a specific class of something. One cannot have a percentage "of" ...an unknown. Any reference to an award/deny ration or percentage of any unspecific class of anything that walks en masse through the door is meaningless. One must first describe exactly what is the specific group that is going to be subject to scrutiny and ration.
<object style="position: absolute; z-index: 1000;" id="plugin0" width="1" type="application/x-dgnria" height="1"><param name="tabId" value="{F817F005-6776-4344-B0C4-792F0BB5B403}"></object>
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Nov 25, 2014 12:03:48 GMT -5
Welp....this just got way too damn smart for me. I like it Papa, but won't pretend to have the intellectual ability to fully grasp it. Not this close to running out the door for a holiday. Keep up the good fight though.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Nov 25, 2014 13:19:52 GMT -5
Yes, please unring the bell!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 25, 2014 13:32:37 GMT -5
Yes, please unring the bell! If you manage that, one of my hands will clap.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Nov 25, 2014 13:35:21 GMT -5
Yes, please unring the bell! If you manage that, one of my hands will clap. Looks like someone actually did manage it!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 25, 2014 13:46:09 GMT -5
LOL! The power of the unrung bell.
|
|