|
Post by saaao on Dec 19, 2014 13:27:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 19, 2014 13:32:18 GMT -5
Thanks for posting! Ugh on that recommendation. I hope they hurry and get the full 250 planned hire completed as soon as possible before some yahoo decides that halting ALJ hiring is a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Dec 19, 2014 13:39:18 GMT -5
Every ALJ and every ALJ applicant should read this report. It is scathing in its detail of the unrelenting focus of the agency to pay down the backlog by every means possible. A true cautionary tale for everyone about standing up for what is right and not for what is easy.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 19, 2014 14:00:52 GMT -5
This particular note is worrisome: "The agency should halt its plan to hire 200 new ALJs until it develops a strategy to evaluate the quality of its existing ALJs."
Teaching new ALJs the right way, and focusing on the issues brought out in this report would better serve the public than halting hiring. We are already behind the curve with thousands and thousands of applications in the pipeline.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Dec 19, 2014 14:08:31 GMT -5
How disheartening for those of us who are ready, willing and able to do the job the right way.
The fault lay not just with the corrupt ALJs but also with the management who condoned and encouraged the corruption. As for the solutions, I believe one valuable step would be the institution of an adversary, along the lines of the bankruptcy trustee, to focus and sharpen the hearing process. It would also relieve the ALJ of carrying the irreconcilable burden of being both adversarial inquisitor and impartial judge.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 19, 2014 14:12:26 GMT -5
How disheartening for those of us who are ready, willing and able to do the job the right way. The fault lay not just with the corrupt ALJs but also with the management who condoned and encouraged the corruption. As for the solutions, I believe one valuable step would be the institution of an adversary, along the lines of the bankruptcy trustee, to focus and sharpen the hearing process. It would also relieve the ALJ of carrying the irreconcilable burden of being both adversarial inquisitor and impartial judge. Isn't that how they do it in France? Or something like that (inquisitorial Judges).
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Dec 19, 2014 14:15:17 GMT -5
Wow, the report says the same thing I've been saying for years. When I first came on board as an ALJ, a veteran judge told me that "no one at SSA has ever been fired for producing $#!+, - - - - just for not producing enough of it."
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 19, 2014 14:16:10 GMT -5
As very interested as I am in this document, I note immediately that the entry for ALJ Cristaudo says he was interviewed in May 2014, but the footnote citing his testimony says it was taken in 2013. That's a bit ambiguous.
Typo page 6 - Compiled = complied.
Maybe I am too hard on the decision writers in my office....
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 19, 2014 14:26:17 GMT -5
Another comment. The following from page 17 is not necessarily correct:
Because ALJ XXXX’s award of benefits in this case was not based on substantial evidence, it is likely that the claimant in this case was improperly placed into a federal disability program.
One aspect of efficient decision-making is recognizing fact patterns. I would venture to guess that most cases awarded with a legally insufficient decision can be awarded with a legally sufficient ones, and the same for unfavorable decisions. The above statement (despite its relation to an 88% paying ALJ) is a conclusory statement that could easily be backed up with facts (e.g., a random review of CDRs in those cases, or independent analysis of the evidence), but isn't. Thus, I can't give it much weight.
Another error, which was also present in the Senate report:
In these three examples alone, ALJs who failed to properly assess the work ability of individual claimants cost taxpayers an estimated $3.58 billion in overall lifetime benefits that they awarded.
The implication is that 3.58 billion dollars of claims were erronously paid. If the nationwide approval rate os 50% and the ALJs in question had approval rates of 90%, that means it is more likely than not (ignoring the entire concept of a "zone of choice") that only 44% of that amount "cost" the taxpayers above and beyond the appropriate pay rates. The report reads as if no one at all who had these ALJs should have been paid.
Likewise, the report conflates on page 34 the number of cases pending per ALJ in a quote by ex-Commissioner Astrue and the number of dispositions expected per ALJ. Reports like this make great soundbites for radio or TV, or politicizing, but don't capture the precisely accurate picture of what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 19, 2014 14:33:33 GMT -5
Well, I agree that this is true, but it is true regardless of the numbers of cases decided by each ALJ:
SSA ALLOWED INCOMPETENT AND NEGLIGENT ALJS TO CONTINUE DECIDING CASES, THEREBY FAILING TAXPAYERS AND THE TRULY DISABLED
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 19, 2014 14:35:17 GMT -5
Another interesting tidbit (to me): Although the agency is hesitant to remove ALJs who refuse to correctly apply federal disability law and policy, the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), the ALJ union, believes that the SSA has a right to discipline and remove ALJs for performance failings. According to an AALJ memo, “it is well settled law that a[n] [ALJ] can be disciplined and removed because of performance, including performance during the course of an adjudicatory proceeding, and that a[n] [ALJ] is not immune from review for incompetence or other failings; indeed, the MSPB has upheld discipline and removal proceedings against SSA [ALJs].”126 126 The Real Issue …, Association of Administrative Law Judges (Dec. 2012), available at www.aalj.org/system/files/documents/the_real_issue_12_12.pdf.
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Dec 19, 2014 14:49:40 GMT -5
SSA ALLOWED INCOMPETENT AND NEGLIGENT ALJS TO CONTINUE DECIDING CASES, THEREBY FAILING TAXPAYERS AND THE TRULY DISABLED It's more than "allowed"--it encouraged and facilitated these judges. Thousands of cases were shipped into offices to be paid by these incompetent ALJs--when the agency knew these judges were just paying down the backlog without reviewing the file or even holding hearings. One judge was shipped around the country to multiple offices to pay cases. I wonder how many bonuses were paid to non-ALJ management to reward them for this behavior?
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on Dec 19, 2014 15:47:06 GMT -5
Thanks for posting! Ugh on that recommendation. I hope they hurry and get the full 250 planned hire completed as soon as possible before some yahoo decides that halting ALJ hiring is a good idea. For us less versed in the ways of Washington, what weight does this house oversight committee recommendation carry? And what would have to be done to see that it is implemented? Being on the cusp of potentially getting offered a position (enough hedge?), this scares the sheets out of my bed.
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Dec 19, 2014 15:58:26 GMT -5
Being on the cusp of potentially getting offered a position (enough hedge?), this scares the sheets out of my bed. I doubt they will stop hiring. I do hope they do away with the quota until there is a time study validating how much time a judge should take to dispose of a case. I wrote to the CALJ last year asking her how long I should take per case (given that each of my cases averaged 500 pages of evidence) but she never bothered to even acknowledge my email.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 19, 2014 16:00:08 GMT -5
Thanks for posting! Ugh on that recommendation. I hope they hurry and get the full 250 planned hire completed as soon as possible before some yahoo decides that halting ALJ hiring is a good idea. For us less versed in the ways of Washington, what weight does this house oversight committee recommendation carry? And what would have to been done to see that it is implemented? Being on the cusp of potentially getting offered a position (enough hedge?), this scares the sheets out of my bed. According to the report itself, when Congresspeople asked SSA to stop using disposition goals, SSA said "no." So I expect there is no short-term worry that SSA will change its plans based on this report. Although I am not a Washington insider and could be completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 19, 2014 16:05:05 GMT -5
I hope Propmaster is right. I imagine if there was such an effort to stop hiring, it would be met with great opposition from the agency.
|
|
|
Post by tatersalad on Dec 19, 2014 16:35:09 GMT -5
If I got a call next week, I would no longer give up my practice to be an alj. Way to much of a gamble now.
|
|
|
Post by tatersalad on Dec 19, 2014 16:36:09 GMT -5
For us less versed in the ways of Washington, what weight does this house oversight committee recommendation carry? And what would have to been done to see that it is implemented? Being on the cusp of potentially getting offered a position (enough hedge?), this scares the sheets out of my bed. According to the report itself, when Congresspeople asked SSA to stop using disposition goals, SSA said "no." So I expect there is no short-term worry that SSA will change its plans based on this report. Although I am not a Washington insider and could be completely wrong. Have they hired any aljs this year?
|
|
|
Post by tatersalad on Dec 19, 2014 16:38:19 GMT -5
I suspected this 10 years ago. As a former insider, I saw the waste and corruption first hand. Now being an outsider, I long for some fact Hearing Examiners to decide these case- Former Adjudication Officer
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on Dec 19, 2014 18:08:58 GMT -5
I appreciate the input on the issue of the committee's recommendation. It sounds as though it's not immediately fatal to this register and current hiring process.
I have two further comments/questions regarding the report. Given the backlog and the committee's recommendation that the existing decision making goals be reduced, shouldn't the committee be recommending the hiring of more ALJ's to appropriately handle the backlog? And second, how does the recommendation affect the current policy to withhold telecommuting privileges to those that don't meet the agency's stated quotas? What will the union's position be?
|
|