Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 18:45:02 GMT -5
But isn't the national grant rate currently within 41-44%? With the exception of Hawaii and to some extent, Puerto Rico, aren't the vast majority of judges within the 30-60% grant range in 2014? Is this a case of politicians retroactively jumping on the 60 Minutes Bandwagon in order to look like responsible financial stewards to their constituents when, in fact, the problem of easy grant judges is fast on its way to being resolved- as indicated by the current stats? To me, this is House of Cards gamesmanship. Focus on past mistakes to gain votes at the expense of affirming all of the present reformations and improvements. It also reflects the histrionic media of our day- focus on the few bad apple ALJs and ignore the vast majority who are responsibly and fairly deciding cases and turning out good work product at a steady pace. And as for claimant's reps lining their pockets with easy grant money. Yeah, those days ended at least two years ago, if not more in many parts of the country.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 19, 2014 18:58:27 GMT -5
But isn't the national grant rate currently within 41-44%? With the exception of Hawaii and to some extent, Puerto Rico, aren't the vast majority of judges within the 30-60% grant range in 2014? Is this a case of politicians retroactively jumping on the 60 Minutes Bandwagon in order to look like responsible financial stewards to their constituents when, in fact, the problem of easy grant judges is fast on its way to being resolved- as indicated by the current stats? To me, this is House of Cards gamesmanship. Focus on past mistakes to gain votes at the expense of affirming all of the present reformations and improvements. It also reflects the histrionic media of our day- focus on the few bad apple ALJs and ignore the vast majority who are responsibly and fairly deciding cases and turning out good work product at a steady pace. And as for claimant's reps lining their pockets with easy grant money. Yeah, those days ended at least two years ago, if not more in many parts of the country. DOUBLE LIKE!!!! Yes, I completely agree. The VAST majority of ALJs are within the ranges in the center of the bell curve, do a good job, produce decisions within the range outlined by management (500-700), and at the same time produce legally sufficient decisions. Now, can everyone improve? Always! But this entire focus is exactly what you point out, naming the bad apples and using them as if they represent the entire Corps. And how easy it is to point fingers when all the data is laid out in retrospect.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Dec 19, 2014 22:59:24 GMT -5
Finally skimmed through this. Some of my decisions were included in that report as I wrote for one of the offender's back in the day. Exciting stuff without an easy solution.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Dec 20, 2014 0:31:25 GMT -5
I also wrote for one of the offenders in the past. I think the problem is not that it is a few bad apples, but that a few bad apples may be wasting millions or billions of taxpayer dollars (which Congress would rather spend elsewhere). Also the problem is the attitude of the Agency. Perhaps the answer of "no" when requested to drop the quota at this time may be why Colvin's nomination was fought and may now be in jeopardy.. I am glad to see such a good discussion regarding these problems. I have often felt like Chicken Little crying the sky is falling. I know that anyone that has not dealt with the Agency finds this stuff hard to believe because it goes against common sense. As the book notes, "An Agency at War With Itself". I am proud of you all and hope you all come on board and help us make it at least better if we can't make it right..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 9:35:14 GMT -5
I recently discovered this book at a flea market and it is proving to be very insightful in helping me to understand what makes for a successful business model, and government model: "Kinds of Power: A Guide to Its Intelligent Uses" by James Hillman. In the Introduction he writes: "We will lay out two kinds of heroics, calling them old and new. Growth and efficiency will be balanced out with service and maintenance. From the perspective of the old heroics, service and maintenance seem rearguard actions, cleanup operations, necessary evils. So the task before us requires new ways of thinking about service and maintenance since they occupy a major place in all business planning, in all operations of human life." For me, this concept gets to the heart of the issue presently before the agency. How does it keep up with the numbers and expectations of efficiency, while still honoring and fostering the virtues of service and maintenance? The ship's work product should grow as efficiently as possible, but the crew should be rewarded and affirmed for its hard work and not grow disheartened by harrassment. Good workers should not be driven out by the fixation on only growth and efficiency. There should be a balance between reaching the numbers required, and doing so not only in an effective manner, but in a manner that retains good workers, boosts their morale, and assures the public that we are on the right path.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Dec 20, 2014 9:37:49 GMT -5
i have not read whole report but was happy to see it addressed agency oversight as a huge contributor to these issues, and that 2.5 hours is arbitrary and could be inferred from the report is not enough time for an ALJ to work on a case. the 3 to 7 hour average actaully sounds about right. most will not take 7 hours but some real big files certainly could or a case that legitimately needs multiple hearings would rack up the hours.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Dec 20, 2014 15:23:39 GMT -5
One major thing that is missing from the recommendations, in my opinion, is that the regulations, andODAR's application of them, have to change. Otherwise, the TF will likely exhaust. Even if the TF was unlimited, the way the regs are, SSA could hire 10,000 ALJ's and never catch up. I realize that was not the focus of the report but it would have bed worth mentioning.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 21, 2014 9:30:00 GMT -5
There are five recommendations starting on page 39. The recommendation to immediately halt ALJ hiring is not one of the official recommendations, so I wouldn't worry about it. Even if it were an official recommendation, the agency is unlikely to take any steps that would reduce its ability to process cases. This is a non issue as to new judge hiring. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by alj on Dec 21, 2014 11:33:52 GMT -5
I agree with Pixie that this is a non issue.
The agency's complicity in this atrocious waste of taxpayer's money and subversion of the system has now come back to bite the agency on the butt. It is a big issue.
I was in a hearing office where one of these high producers came to hold "hearings." He asked for 20 cases a day to be set on his docket. This was our first indication that something wasn't right. I think he wanted them all set at 9:00. It was complete chaos. We had 50 or 60 people associated with his docket, along with claimants, attorneys and witnesses associated with other hearings that day.
The waiting room was designed to hold about 20. That meant we had about 50 people standing in the waiting room and in the hallway by the elevators. People couldn't get in the waiting room because it was full--hearing office gridlock. That meant they couldn't go through security. The front desk, as well as security, were both overwhelmed, as were the hearing reporters on the other cases set that day.
It could take as long as 15 minutes on each case for the other hearing reporters to collect attorneys, claimants, witnesses and get them through security. Multiply this times 6 cases on one judge's docket, times 4 other dockets, and the wasted time becomes evident. And this is for people not on this high producer's docket. Those unlucky enough to have been scheduled on his docket would wait even longer, much longer. Some of the attorneys on this judge's docket told me they were at the hearing office from 8:30 AM until after 5:00 PM for one hearing. And remember, this chaos was repeated each day for the five days he was at our office holding "hearings."
Now, a word about his "hearings." I found out later that he would swear the witnesses, say a few words to the claimant and ask the attorney what proof he had to support his case. The attorney would tell him, and there might be some brief discussion between them. The judge would say, "Thank you, I will let you know by written decision, which will be mailed to you." End of hearing, show them the door. Scribble a few notes for the decision writer. Next case. This was the procedure for both favorable and unfavorable cases.
The claimant was seldom allowed to give testimony, and when he was, it was brief and cut short by the judge. After all, there were 20 cases on the docket that had to be heard that day. Often, it took longer for the hearing reporter to round up the attorney, claimant, witnesses, if any, and get them through security than it took to conduct the hearing. This was repeated 20 times a day. 5 days a week. 100 times for the week.
Several of the decision writers who had been assigned his cases came to me with his instructions. They were by far the worst I have ever seen, and I have seen some bad ones. There was no VE present, so no non exertional limitations should be included in the RFC. Of course the DDS RFC, in almost all cases, included non exertional limitations, both physical and mental. What to do? Just use the grid rules! And not to worry that the grid rules contemplate no non exertional limitations. So, that is the way they were written.
All of the unfavorable cases with attorneys were appealed. Of course they all came back. And there were a bunch of them. All for the hearing office to process and hear again, thankfully without the "assistance" of the high producing judge.
During this period of time, one of the popular sayings of central office was, "We provide world class service."
Did this judge, and other agency high producers, provide "world class service" to the claimants whose cases they heard and to the taxpayers who ultimately payed the bill? I will leave the answer to that question to be determined by those in a higher pay grade than me.
EDIT NOTE; I should have mentioned in the post above that Congress is equally to blame for the problems discussed in the report. The agency was woefully underfunded for years, yet Congress was putting the pressure on to get the hearings held and the cases out the door. When the backlog began to grow, Congress was even more insistent and asked even more questions of the agency leaders.
I read most or all of the responses from the agency back then, and not once did I see any commissioner or higher up mention one of the major reasons why cases were languishing in the understaffed offices.
In one of my offices during that time, we had 8 judges and we were down to one (1) clerk (case technician, now). That's right, one clerk. We had to take legal assistants (now the senior case technicians) off of their job of working up cases and have them do the work of the clerks that we didn't have. So, cases didn't get worked up, and judges didn't have enough worked up cases to fill their dockets. The backlog grew, and grew quickly.
So, all of this wasn't the fault of the agency. Congress deserves some of the blame.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Dec 21, 2014 16:30:13 GMT -5
It has always seemed to me that no one who has not actually worked for this agency can know how dreadful it is. Although it is difficult to dispute that conditions have become considerably worse in the last few years, management's obsession with quantity and incomprehension of and/or casual contempt for any concern with quality and professionalism were present long before. The comparison to a factory is an insult to factories because most if not all factories these days have some form of quality control.
This report is the first thing I have seen that might give an outsider some idea of the ODAR culture.
I entirely agree with the comments above by fighter and bartleby.
|
|
|
Post by alj on Dec 21, 2014 17:57:45 GMT -5
For us outsiders, what does "HPI" stand for? If I remember correctly, it stood for Hearing Process Initiative. Started about 2000.
|
|
|
Post by Loopstok on Dec 21, 2014 19:13:42 GMT -5
The report does seem obsessed with this idea of ALJs overturning State agency decisions. This places unwarranted assumptions on the quality of State agency decisions. Which, for reasons exhaustively discussed elsewhere on the board (the dearth of med recs, the lack of opportunities for the claimants and especially reps to build an argument, and the laughingstock that is "the consultative examination"), State agency denials are quite possibly a bigger joke than many ALJ reversals of said denials.
I say this as one who's argued against SSA as a rep and written/decided cases for SSA as a senior attorney-adjudicator. If the oversight committee couldn't grasp this salient fact, I reckon that one needs to ask how much of the rest of their report is also based on unwarranted assumptions.
Let's take a look at another assumption... just what is proper use of a VE? How useful is a VE... when much VE testimony is based on a book that's been out of print for 25 years. "Proper" use of a VE, per outgoing Chairman Issa and his writers, would result in lots more denials placing thousands of claimants in non-existent jobs like ampoule sealer, surveillance system monitor, nut sorter, and cigar hand-bander... Also, how are VEs properly vetted? What competence must one display to become a VE? (or an ME, for that matter, but that's a story for anotjher day).
Lastly, singling out the 49 ALJ outliers out of the entire cast of 1200 is used to wrongly cast aspersions on all the other ALJs who sit properly within the bell curve. This report assumes that EVERY ALJ is a rotten apple. I know lots of ALJs (many of whom don't share Chairman Issa's political philosophies) who produce exactly the kind of work this Committee wants. How about a report celebrating their very, very hard work?
All that said, I agree with large portions of the Committee's report (in broad practical and experiential strokes, not narrow philosophical ones). I've won cases, and written FF decisions, on cases where lots of treating source medical records (never minding the RFCs) contained lots of adverse evidence: work activity, medication non-compliance, missed appointments. But it takes time to write denials for cases with evidence like that, and it also requires intelligent cross-examination of the claimant at the hearing. More judges deciding fewer cases (say, arbitrarily, 300-500 rather than 500-700) would almost certainly result in lower grant rates, higher agree rates, and more efficient use of government resources.
Reps would have to do a little more careful case screening under the kind of model I privately favor, but certainly would remain with healthy profit margins.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Dec 21, 2014 20:42:22 GMT -5
loopstock, totally agreed on the overturning state decision point esp as the judges are not bound by those decisions and the judge is supposed to conduct a de novo and independent review. You raised several other good points too and not all cases need a VE for that matter, including step 5 FF's, something else the committee did not have a good grasp on.
|
|
|
Post by alj on Dec 21, 2014 22:06:40 GMT -5
Hal3000: Paragraphs are a reader's best friend. They eliminate the "wall of words" that are so intimidating to the reader. That said, I do agree with your post.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Dec 22, 2014 10:15:13 GMT -5
The report, in my opinion, sheds no new light. Anyone who has worked for odar or repped claimants in the last fifteen years or so knows of the backlog numbers push. They also know there have always been a few aljs that are either incompetent or willing to betray their oath and responsibilities to curry favor with management. It is also hardly a surprise that management uses sports metaphors, carrots and what sticks they have to push for goal attainment.
I've written for two of the judges mentioned. I've seen the less than five minute hearings, tried to decipher horrid instructions and labored in vain to save a decision from remand. None of what's in the report is surprising to me or even new.
I do have a few observations, all from my own perspective and opinion, however.
1. Now we know why the Colvin nomination was held up. It wasn't that they didn't have time for the debate or that there are investigations about a failed computer system that predated her tenure. Can you imagine the political fallout if people went to bat publicly for any member of ssa management, pushed it through then a week later this report dropped? This reeks of political arse cover.
2. Regardless of the truthes in the report, the fact that it comes from Darrel Issa is more than enough for its findings and legitimacy to be suspect in my book. In his tenure the investigation committee, one that is supposed to be as bipartisan as possible, has become the epitome of the rancid partisanship that has infected congress. He has shown repeatedly his willingness to ignore facts contrary to his preconceived notions and goals, to cut off witnesses that contradict his theory and to stop hearings without allowing counterpoint evidence. In the present case, he completely ignores evidence of faulty decision making at the state agency "expert" level. Loopstock nails it above. And, Issa is a known and devoted follower of the "do away with SSA" contingent. Whatever political wind direction in which you blow, the messenger matters and Issa is the wrong person to bring this message of reform.
3. Our union sucks. How is it a known opponent of SSA and organized labor can make a better argument for a union's position than the union itself? Also, the examples of egregious behavior cited in the report...no doubt the union has or will jump to defend the offenders. Huge sums has or will be spent defending the indefensible mspb or grievance proceedings. For the love of all that's holy, learn to pick your battles. When we had our union spiel at training they proudly boasted of the vast sum they had spent defending one particular judge against bias complaints. How about, after say twenty, we consider that just maybe that judge is biased?
4. Finally, why no mention in the report of congressional complicity in the "quantity over quality" culture? For years SSA has testified in one hearing room in the morning that they need more funding for judges and staff to keep up with the filings. They have not once received what they needed. Then they pack up and walk across the hall to a different hearing room in the afternoon and get browbeaten about the growing backlog. The congressional message has been clear. "We won't give you what you need to do the job right, but fully expect you to do something about all the angry constituents waiting for hearings." At some point, the "do less with more" ideal leads to poor quality. Any idiot who has ever been to a McDonald's knows that. But, then again, we are dealing with congress.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 22, 2014 10:44:56 GMT -5
Amen funkyodar and this resonates such truth: "For the love of all that's holy, learn to pick your battles. When we had our union spiel at training they proudly boasted of the vast sum they had spent defending one particular judge against bias complaints. How about, after say twenty, we consider that just maybe that judge is biased?" It's like the cry wolf story, enough already! And you nailed it with Congress. Easy for them to point fingers and REPEATEDLY point to the same ALJs over and over, yet scream at SSA for the backlog but not give more funding. It's all about political spin.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Dec 22, 2014 11:34:26 GMT -5
The report, in my opinion, sheds no new light. Anyone who has worked for odar or repped claimants in the last fifteen years or so knows of the backlog numbers push. They also know there have always been a few aljs that are either incompetent or willing to betray their oath and responsibilities to curry favor with management. It is also hardly a surprise that management uses sports metaphors, carrots and what sticks they have to push for goal attainment. I've written for two of the judges mentioned. I've seen the less than five minute hearings, tried to decipher horrid instructions and labored in vain to save a decision from remand. None of what's in the report is surprising to me or even new. I do have a few observations, all from my own perspective and opinion, however. 1. Now we know why the Colvin nomination was held up. It wasn't that they didn't have time for the debate or that there are investigations about a failed computer system that predated her tenure. Can you imagine the political fallout if people went to bat publicly for any member of ssa management, pushed it through then a week later this report dropped? This reeks of political arse cover. 2. Regardless of the truthes in the report, the fact that it comes from Darrel Issa is more than enough for its findings and legitimacy to be suspect in my book. In his tenure the investigation committee, one that is supposed to be as bipartisan as possible, has become the epitome of the rancid partisanship that has infected congress. He has shown repeatedly his willingness to ignore facts contrary to his preconceived notions and goals, to cut off witnesses that contradict his theory and to stop hearings without allowing counterpoint evidence. In the present case, he completely ignores evidence of faulty decision making at the state agency "expert" level. Loopstock nails it above. And, Issa is a known and devoted follower of the "do away with SSA" contingent. Whatever political wind direction in which you blow, the messenger matters and Issa is the wrong person to bring this message of reform. 3. Our union sucks. How is it a known opponent of SSA and organized labor can make a better argument for a union's position than the union itself? Also, the examples of egregious behavior cited in the report...no doubt the union has or will jump to defend the offenders. Huge sums has or will be spent defending the indefensible mspb or grievance proceedings. For the love of all that's holy, learn to pick your battles. When we had our union spiel at training they proudly boasted of the vast sum they had spent defending one particular judge against bias complaints. How about, after say twenty, we consider that just maybe that judge is biased? I 4. Finally, why no mention in the report of congressional complicity in the "quantity over quality" culture? For years SSA has testified in one hearing room in the morning that they need more funding for judges and staff to keep up with the filings. They have not once received what they needed. Then they pack up and walk across the hall to a different hearing room in the afternoon and get browbeaten about the growing backlog. The congressional message has been clear. "We won't give you what you need to do the job right, but fully expect you to do something about all the angry constituents waiting for hearings." At some point, the "do less with more" ideal leads to poor quality. Any idiot who has ever been to a McDonald's knows that. But, then again, we are dealing with congress. You hit it on the head with all your points Funky. I personally know two of the ALJs from the report who at one time were very conscientious, but pressure from above made them issue many more decisions than they would have done. I am not excusing their actions by any means, but when you are getting pressure to get up your numbers, you do what you have to do. It's a shame Congress won't take some of the blame. Anything coming from Congressman Issa is tainted by his rose colored glasses. Is there room for improvement? Yes. However, it will only happen with more ALJs onboard to lighten the load for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by jonsprag1 on Dec 22, 2014 11:38:34 GMT -5
Agree totally on your comments on partisanship--I suspect if it was a republican nominee up for the position, the report would have been full of praise as to the effectiveness and timely decisions made by the ALJs who do 800 in a year. Also you are spot on when it comes to the push pull(dare I say passive aggressive) nature of Congress--it seems that an agency is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't--on one hand congress bringing pressure to produce more with less and on the other complaining when the quality goes down as a result.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Dec 22, 2014 12:32:02 GMT -5
The report, in my opinion, sheds no new light. Anyone who has worked for odar or repped claimants in the last fifteen years or so knows of the backlog numbers push. They also know there have always been a few aljs that are either incompetent or willing to betray their oath and responsibilities to curry favor with management. It is also hardly a surprise that management uses sports metaphors, carrots and what sticks they have to push for goal attainment. I've written for two of the judges mentioned. I've seen the less than five minute hearings, tried to decipher horrid instructions and labored in vain to save a decision from remand. None of what's in the report is surprising to me or even new. I do have a few observations, all from my own perspective and opinion, however. 1. Now we know why the Colvin nomination was held up. It wasn't that they didn't have time for the debate or that there are investigations about a failed computer system that predated her tenure. Can you imagine the political fallout if people went to bat publicly for any member of ssa management, pushed it through then a week later this report dropped? This reeks of political arse cover. 2. Regardless of the truthes in the report, the fact that it comes from Darrel Issa is more than enough for its findings and legitimacy to be suspect in my book. In his tenure the investigation committee, one that is supposed to be as bipartisan as possible, has become the epitome of the rancid partisanship that has infected congress. He has shown repeatedly his willingness to ignore facts contrary to his preconceived notions and goals, to cut off witnesses that contradict his theory and to stop hearings without allowing counterpoint evidence. In the present case, he completely ignores evidence of faulty decision making at the state agency "expert" level. Loopstock nails it above. And, Issa is a known and devoted follower of the "do away with SSA" contingent. Whatever political wind direction in which you blow, the messenger matters and Issa is the wrong person to bring this message of reform. 3. Our union sucks. How is it a known opponent of SSA and organized labor can make a better argument for a union's position than the union itself? Also, the examples of egregious behavior cited in the report...no doubt the union has or will jump to defend the offenders. Huge sums has or will be spent defending the indefensible mspb or grievance proceedings. For the love of all that's holy, learn to pick your battles. When we had our union spiel at training they proudly boasted of the vast sum they had spent defending one particular judge against bias complaints. How about, after say twenty, we consider that just maybe that judge is biased? 4. Finally, why no mention in the report of congressional complicity in the "quantity over quality" culture? For years SSA has testified in one hearing room in the morning that they need more funding for judges and staff to keep up with the filings. They have not once received what they needed. Then they pack up and walk across the hall to a different hearing room in the afternoon and get browbeaten about the growing backlog. The congressional message has been clear. "We won't give you what you need to do the job right, but fully expect you to do something about all the angry constituents waiting for hearings." At some point, the "do less with more" ideal leads to poor quality. Any idiot who has ever been to a McDonald's knows that. But, then again, we are dealing with congress. Thank you Funky. All four points should have been said awhile ago, as always, a breath of fresh air to hear it from you now that you're wearin' the robe. I've been back and forth about the union for awhile now. Some positions it takes are head scratchers for me, as in what is the union's value added to the future of the ALJ corps and what is the level of professionalism we hope to maintain? Or is it a union shop mentality that we protect every member, no matter how indefensible the ALJ might be? Not sure I want that, because we are a member of a profession first, not a bunch of tradesmen - or has SSA made ALJs feel that low on the totem pole?
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Dec 22, 2014 13:28:35 GMT -5
Huge sums has or will be spent defending the indefensible mspb or grievance proceedings. For the love of all that's holy, learn to pick your battles. When we had our union spiel at training they proudly boasted of the vast sum they had spent defending one particular judge against bias complaints. How about, after say twenty, we consider that just maybe that judge is biased?
The Union has a legal obligation to defend the Grievant. I am not personally familiar with this union and therefore I am not defending its every move. Unions try hard to settle grievances before they go to arbitration or the MSPB, but sometimes it doesn't work out. Sometimes they're stuck defending and spending a lot of money on people they wish management could get rid of. But still, they have to give it their best shot.
Today, I am delivering the coup de grace to a grievant who should not be in the position of public trust he has been in for a long time. The Union knows it as well as the public employer he works for. The union is tired of defending him but all they can do is give him a good defense and hire an arbitrator who knows enough to fire him.
As far as the report is concerned, I don't think it will count for much. Rep Issa got a chance to get another federal agency in his sights. The tome will be printed, it's in the Record, and I think it will be forgotten. Even the timing of issuing the report says a lot. That's not saying anything about the merits of it, if there are any. But right before Christmas and right before a new House is going to be sitting in January is not the time to issue anything that anyone cares about.
|
|