|
Post by Loopstok on Dec 22, 2014 17:14:39 GMT -5
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. Lizdarcy, with regards to the report's (practically-footnoted) assertion that SSA should cease and desist from hiring the 200 new ALJs... I sincerely hope you are right in believing that the report will be forgotten! Meanwhile, I believe that Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) will be succeeding Mr. Congressman Issa as chairman of the oversight committee. Is there any hope to be had that Mr. Chaffetz will have a more understanding and compassionate view of ODAR's burden in general and the ALJs' burden in particular?
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Dec 22, 2014 17:25:29 GMT -5
" Is there any hope to be had that Mr. Chaffetz will have a more understanding and compassionate view of ODAR's burden in general and the ALJs' burden in particular? " My guess is... probably not. I also don't think a House report is going to stop this year's hiring.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 22, 2014 17:57:14 GMT -5
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. Lizdarcy, with regards to the report's (practically-footnoted) assertion that SSA should cease and desist from hiring the 200 new ALJs... I sincerely hope you are right in believing that the report will be forgotten! Meanwhile, I believe that Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) will be succeeding Mr. Congressman Issa as chairman of the oversight committee. Is there any hope to be had that Mr. Chaffetz will have a more understanding and compassionate view of ODAR's burden in general and the ALJs' burden in particular? Pixie put to rest the idea that hiring will cease as the result of this report. I believe her. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/post/69338/thread
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 22, 2014 23:24:22 GMT -5
SRatty said: "Pixie put to rest the idea that hiring will cease as the result of this report. I believe her. " Thank you SRatty, pixies are magic; everyone should believe in them. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Dec 23, 2014 9:17:42 GMT -5
Not hiring new judges may be a suggestion but it is not very practical. Disabiity applicants are some of the most vocal constituents of our senators and representatives. If nothing else, their staffs want more judges to get that backlog under control and reduce the calls/complaints to their offices.
The more likely outcome of all of this is a larger AC to accommodate the requests for review from the claimants as well as performing meaningful on-motion review of fully favorable decisions. And no one, from the commissioner on down in management or the union, can feign ignorance of the outliers anymore.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Dec 28, 2014 12:28:24 GMT -5
It's not as if the ALJ corps is actually getting any bigger than it was last year. The hiring is really just for replacement, so I don't think this is going to be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 29, 2014 13:03:12 GMT -5
A note regarding outliers that I think was importantly missed in the report. The report compared the number of ALJs over the 85% pay rate (if I recall correctly) to the number under 15%. I believe I have heard the agency make similar statements. Placing the outlier definition points equidistant from 50% implies that 50% is the average/mean, the top of the bell curve. It is not. If the average payrate is 55%, for example, the equivalent outlier point for an 85% payrate (30% over the mean) would be 25% (30% under the mean). It does not help that SSA computes payrates differently in different contexts - sometimes as a percentage of dispositions (including dismissals), other times as a percentage of decisions (not including dismissals). I just wanted to point out that the report could be completely wrong about whether there are an equivalent number of low-paying outliers based on comparing apples and applesauce.
|
|
|
Post by factfinder on Dec 31, 2014 21:41:30 GMT -5
You know, it is funny. I watched one of the management culprits identified in Issa's Report persecute one of our judges who had a low pay rate and processed a reasonable number of cases. They did not like him because he paid so few cases and wrote articles criticizing what they did. They wanted him to use VE's even when he found a residual capacity that guaranteed there were jobs in the national economy. He is now a judge at another agency and happy as a clam.
Yet, at the same time Daugherty and the creep who handled the 3000 cases were running amuck and nothing was said to them or their HOCALJ - one of whom was a fat toad and taught at the new judge course - where Cristado also would show up. These folks are being told they are butt naked and they are not hearing the message. I think regardless who wrote the report, the Dems will agree with large parts of it also.
I think 400 cases is enough - I have argued the math of how many hours we have, minus leave, training, weather, an occasional outlier, etc., only support such a number or less.
As for the Union - please, they in cooperation with some FALJ members, want to float an arguably harebrained proposal to change the administrative judiciary in the face of the most hostile Congress in the last 100 years. With friends like that - - - -
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jan 2, 2015 9:18:21 GMT -5
You know, it is funny. I watched one of the management culprits identified in Issa's Report persecute one of our judges who had a low pay rate and processed a reasonable number of cases. They did not like him because he paid so few cases and wrote articles criticizing what they did. They wanted him to use VE's even when he found a residual capacity that guaranteed there were jobs in the national economy. He is now a judge at another agency and happy as a clam. Yet, at the same time Daugherty and the creep who handled the 3000 cases were running amuck and nothing was said to them or their HOCALJ - one of whom was a fat toad and taught at the new judge course - where Cristado also would show up. These folks are being told they are butt naked and they are not hearing the message. I think regardless who wrote the report, the Dems will agree with large parts of it also. I think 400 cases is enough - I have argued the math of how many hours we have, minus leave, training, weather, an occasional outlier, etc., only support such a number or less. As for the Union - please, they in cooperation with some FALJ members, want to float an arguably harebrained proposal to change the administrative judiciary in the face of the most hostile Congress in the last 100 years. With friends like that - - - - --- factfinder, please continue, I am intrigued by your observations. This discussion may be an old rehash of ALJ vs. Agency concerns for the last decade, or may be the crest of a new wave, but forewarned is forearmed.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 2, 2015 10:15:09 GMT -5
You know, it is funny. I watched one of the management culprits identified in Issa's Report persecute one of our judges who had a low pay rate and processed a reasonable number of cases. They did not like him because he paid so few cases and wrote articles criticizing what they did. They wanted him to use VE's even when he found a residual capacity that guaranteed there were jobs in the national economy. He is now a judge at another agency and happy as a clam. Yet, at the same time Daugherty and the creep who handled the 3000 cases were running amuck and nothing was said to them or their HOCALJ - one of whom was a fat toad and taught at the new judge course - where Cristado also would show up. These folks are being told they are butt naked and they are not hearing the message. I think regardless who wrote the report, the Dems will agree with large parts of it also. I think 400 cases is enough - I have argued the math of how many hours we have, minus leave, training, weather, an occasional outlier, etc., only support such a number or less. As for the Union - please, they in cooperation with some FALJ members, want to float an arguably harebrained proposal to change the administrative judiciary in the face of the most hostile Congress in the last 100 years. With friends like that - - - - Interesting take in your post on the Board factfinder. In particular, the above item highlighted in red leads me to some pause regarding your argument. So, in your opinion, it is okay for an ALJ to not use a vocational expert as long as he can deny cases and determine on his own there is a functional capacity allowing the claimant to work somewhere in the national economy? Isn't the reason for using vocational experts to make sure the case is not overturned on appeal to federal district courts because the ALJ relied on an expert in the field who could find jobs existing in the national economy for a claimant based upon a hypothetical from an ALJ? Unless the ALJ finds the client can return to PRW or the client is a "younger individual", there is a reason why SSA usually wants an ALJ to use a vocational expert. Perhaps, I am missing something and the ALJ, of whom you speak, had a Masters' Degree in vocational rehabilitation. Short of that, it would be somewhat presumptuous of an ALJ to make a vocational decision on someone "approaching advanced age" or of "advanced age" on his own without a vocational expert to give advice on the availability of jobs in the national economy (of course if the claimant is capable of performing very heavy work or heavy work in a proper RFC, then the ALJ might not need a vocational expert).
In my opinion, the ALJs who pay too little, as well as those ALJs who pay too much, are both "outliars" and need to be looked at for possible retraining or be removed from the corp. The idea is to make a fully informed and fair decision on the entire case file reviewing all of the medical and the oral testimony of the claimant in the matter. It is not for ALJs to make predetermined decisions one way or the other on cases in front of the ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jan 2, 2015 10:18:58 GMT -5
I interpreted that to mean that the claimants gridded.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 2, 2015 10:29:05 GMT -5
You know, it is funny. I watched one of the management culprits identified in Issa's Report persecute one of our judges who had a low pay rate and processed a reasonable number of cases. They did not like him because he paid so few cases and wrote articles criticizing what they did. They wanted him to use VE's even when he found a residual capacity that guaranteed there were jobs in the national economy. He is now a judge at another agency and happy as a clam. Yet, at the same time Daugherty and the creep who handled the 3000 cases were running amuck and nothing was said to them or their HOCALJ - one of whom was a fat toad and taught at the new judge course - where Cristado also would show up. These folks are being told they are butt naked and they are not hearing the message. I think regardless who wrote the report, the Dems will agree with large parts of it also. I think 400 cases is enough - I have argued the math of how many hours we have, minus leave, training, weather, an occasional outlier, etc., only support such a number or less. As for the Union - please, they in cooperation with some FALJ members, want to float an arguably harebrained proposal to change the administrative judiciary in the face of the most hostile Congress in the last 100 years. With friends like that - - - - Short of that, it would be somewhat presumptuous of an ALJ to make a vocational decision on someone "approaching advanced age" or of "advanced age" on his own without a vocational expert to give advice on the availability of jobs in the national economy (of course if the claimant is capable of performing very heavy work or heavy work in a proper RFC, then the ALJ might not need a vocational expert).
Like Mamaru pointed out, I also took it to mean the ALJ found a full range of an exertional level and used a grid rule without the need for VE testimony. Now, if there are mental impairments with corresponding limitations, that can be a problem. But a full medium or light can still result in "not disabled" under the grids (depending on the age of course) without a VE. EDIT: I know you know this moopigsdad ! I was just point it out in case there are new ALJs reading this and also to explain why I assumed the ALJ was coming up with a grid rule so a VE was not needed. This may not be the case, and thus the real problem.
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Jan 2, 2015 10:59:18 GMT -5
In my experience, it is rare to find a full range of work within an exertional level--especially when the DDS has added additional physical and mental restrictions during their review of the case. I don't understand ALJs who refuse to schedule VEs for their hearings. You may not need to use the VE, but I think you should always have one available to testify.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 2, 2015 12:30:25 GMT -5
In my experience, straight-up grid denials are fairly rare. Generally there are other restrictions that make the use of a VE necessary. Out of thousands of cases, I'd say that probably 30 or fewer were simple grid denials.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 2, 2015 12:59:06 GMT -5
I agree, I have seen very few straight grid denials. But some ALJs do not utilize VEs making it very difficult to write the denials. It seems almost every case has a mental component. The mental would have to be nonsevere to have a straight grid denial. Thankfully, there are less and less ALJs who refuse to use VEs. It is frustrating to the writers when those who do not use them insist on RFCs that really do need VE testimony. We get dinged for the case when the case comes back on remand through the AC agreement rate, and there is nothing we can do about it. Some issues are not curable no matter how skillfully written.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 2, 2015 13:17:11 GMT -5
In my experience, it is rare to find a full range of work within an exertional level--especially when the DDS has added additional physical and mental restrictions during their review of the case. I don't understand ALJs who refuse to schedule VEs for their hearings. You may not need to use the VE, but I think you should always have one available to testify. Yes, it is very cheap insurance.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 2, 2015 13:27:18 GMT -5
Not that I would ever advocate not using a VE, but it's not impossible or entirely incorrect to draft decisions with additional limitations beyond the full range of an exertional level. 83-10, 85-15, 96-9p, etc. provide guidance on instances where non-exertional limitations would result in minimal or no erosion in the number of jobs represented in a certain grid rule. Of course, relying on these rules can be playing with fire with the way the AC reviews things, and using a VE is almost always preferable to dancing around the grid rules.
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Jan 2, 2015 16:08:37 GMT -5
Not that I would ever advocate not using a VE, but it's not impossible or entirely incorrect to draft decisions with additional limitations beyond the full range of an exertional level. 83-10, 85-15, 96-9p, etc. provide guidance on instances where non-exertional limitations would result in minimal or no erosion in the number of jobs represented in a certain grid rule. Of course, relying on these rules can be playing with fire with the way the AC reviews things, and using a VE is almost always preferable to dancing around the grid rules. You are correct on both points: There are instances where SSRs allow you to get away without using a VE BUT doing so is playing with fire since the AC doesn't seem to remember these SSRs. We have a judge who used to use those SSRs to avoid a VE. After years of remands, he has finally conceded that a VE is cheap insurance.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jan 2, 2015 16:16:20 GMT -5
To elaborate, I understand that straight grid denials are rare and that we writers have probably all had occasion to write the kind of denials Hopeful just mentioned. From a writer's perspective, I see no reason not to schedule a VE if there is any question one will be needed and if I am a lucky winner of a black robe I intend to do that. It has always seemed to me that by making a predetermination that a claimant will grid and skipping the VE, the ALJ is signaling that the testimony received at the hearing is not going to make much difference. I can see the claimant's bar complaining about a judge who doesn't use VE's for that reason and some heat being applied from management in response to that. It's always possible to do VE interrogs after the hearing, but it seems like the good VE's often have probative questions about the claimant's work history that relate to PRW or transferable skills that rarely come back in interrogatory responses. If either is an issue there is still vulnerability on AC review.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 2, 2015 17:21:34 GMT -5
Short of that, it would be somewhat presumptuous of an ALJ to make a vocational decision on someone "approaching advanced age" or of "advanced age" on his own without a vocational expert to give advice on the availability of jobs in the national economy (of course if the claimant is capable of performing very heavy work or heavy work in a proper RFC, then the ALJ might not need a vocational expert).
Like Mamaru pointed out, I also took it to mean the ALJ found a full range of an exertional level and used a grid rule without the need for VE testimony. Now, if there are mental impairments with corresponding limitations, that can be a problem. But a full medium or light can still result in "not disabled" under the grids (depending on the age of course) without a VE. EDIT: I know you know this moopigsdad ! I was just point it out in case there are new ALJs reading this and also to explain why I assumed the ALJ was coming up with a grid rule so a VE was not needed. This may not be the case, and thus the real problem. You are correct sratty, I read it to mean something different than you. Also, if the claimant is over age 50 and in a light RFC category it is difficult to use grids without a VE. It is an easy remand or more from AC or federal district court. I have done it frequently to ALJs who failed to use VE's. You are right I understand the rules well and I appreciate you spelling it out for others not understanding the process.
|
|