Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2014 20:59:39 GMT -5
As always, I can only speak from experience. The many Senior Attorneys that I have known either become ALJs over time, or choose retirement over the ALJ path. They are incredibly knowledgeable (often far more so than the ALJs that they write for) and therefore the system should capitalize on their knowledge and expertise. Here, we're using DDS adjudicators to fill in a 10% or so grant rate on recon when we can get it right, and in a more detailed manner, by Sr. Attorneys on the record at the hearing level who know their stuff. Frankly, I think that the Federal Government needs to think more like private enterprise and get off the tenure track. Give authority to the most educated and experienced attorneys and stop handing the decision making role to DDS adjudicators. Many DDS adjudicators are terrific, I agree, I deal with them everyday. But to limit Sr. Attorneys to CDRs in the future is a big mistake. Hire more Sr. Attorneys and honor their experience and legal knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Dec 29, 2014 22:35:43 GMT -5
I don't disagree with anything you have said about senior attorneys. However, I'd rather use their expertise and legal knowledge to review cessations, develop the record, and make the determination of whether a hearing on the cessation is needed at a point where the claimant is likely unable to get any help. The next time I see a rep at a cessation hearing will be the first. Obviously that is based on the way the compensation system is set up, so I do understand the reality of why this happens, but in my humble opinion, senior attorneys could keep a lot of cessation hearings off the docket in the future. I anticipate more and more cessations being appealed in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 29, 2014 23:12:28 GMT -5
OTRs for deserving SAAs will be re-introduced via a new format soon. I think this is going to be similar to the VSU and NSU with specific SAAs who will be in a core group with specific authority for OTRs. Tight control. My question is WHO gets to be in that core group and how will they be chosen? Competitive basis? AC agreement rate mixed with a productivity factor? It will be interesting to see who the "deserving" ones are and on what basis they are chosen.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Dec 30, 2014 6:57:55 GMT -5
sratty, what you are saying would not suprise me at all. I think using the Senior Attorneys (SAA's) at the CDR is actually a great idea. if we are going to get bombarded as stated, having SAA's help with that would be a great use of them as a resource. Having the SAA's do reviews of CDR's as well as potential OTR's would be great and would help in both areas. that may not be possible once the CDR's start rolling in though. hannah, thank you for your supportive words of the Senior Attorneys. I also hope Central loosens up the current tight controls on the SAA's. That degree of control is counter productive. Also, i believe at the National Hearing Centers, attorneys review files before the hearing and write a review for the judges. How is that working? and last, i agree on eliminating the recon. i have seen it in operation in what are called prototype states and it works fine.
|
|