|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 4, 2016 14:19:03 GMT -5
I would really love to hear from somebody who has made the transition on the similarity between DW training and ALJ training - I know some of it is the same but I would hope it's much broader. The DWs can help with the substantive law, but there's plenty ALJs do that the DWs are clueless about. I would enjoy hearing from an ALJ that was a DW first as well. Would be interesting to hear the differences in training. I would also like to hear about the "plenty" that DW are "clueless" about. Obviously if I am clueless about it, I don't know that I am clueless about it, so I can't really argue that point, but some examples would be nice.
I've gotten a lot of confidence from being a DW that I could be an excellent ALJ. There are a wide range of competencies in the ALJs that I have been asked to write for. Most of the ALJs do an amazing job of weighing evidence and assigning credibility and figuring out the best "guess' at what to do. But I have seem quite a few ALJs that seem to do this...
1) Read through a steps in a hearing sheet, inserting claimant's name in the blanks. 2) propose a range of hypos based on the claimant's impairments. 3) pick the hypo that matches the VE opinion that matches whether you feel like paying the case or not. 4) give the DW a 5-steps checklist and some hand written notes to go write an opinion (that won't get remanded by the AC) that justifies whether the ALJ wanted to pay or not.
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It is once again a shame that Tiger Law imploded before he could give a stentorian response here, so I will try to do him justice in factual, but not presentation style, terms. Your use of quotation marks around plenty and clueless and your subsequent confidence that you would be an excellent ALJ cause my legal mind to be suspicious that we are being trolled here. Please don't take that as an insult. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. But since I do not have a medical mind, I cannot help but think that you are fitting into a stereotype of decision writers in such a perfect way as to be almost uncanny. 1) As a decision writer, you have specific things to do in order to be considered to have done your job correctly. Your work is assigned at a rate that you can accomplish, with time off resulting in no significant piling up of work. If you are given an unwritable case, you can return it or get clarification. In many cases, you do not even have to deal with the issues on a case because they are dealt with before it gets to you. 2) An ALJ has more control over his or her own work process, but less predictability as to the quality of support work he or she receives. Some files might be worked up very poorly. Some decision drafts may be so bad they cause tears. The ALJ (except in the NHC) does not have direct control over any of this and must work through an often hostile management to obtain any systemic corrections. 3) As a decision writer, you have few appointments and lots of time flexibility. As an ALJ, hearings are scheduled months in advance and you must remain organized through all of those hearings to get them completed on time. 4) As a writer, you look at a case, read through it, and write the draft (usually) without having to stop, prepare 14 other cases for the week, then hold 15 hearings, and then write decisions on those cases, trying to remember which facts are which. 5) As a writer, you are given the outcome of the case, so you do not need to evaluate the close calls and make a decision with which you can sleep at night (although you might feel like you are doing so while reviewing the evidence, the actual weight of responsibility is not something to scoff at). 6) As a writer, you do not put your name on the decision. The ALJ does. The ALJ puts his or her name on many decisions, which means that if you have pride in your work, you can always deliver a good draft, but as an ALJ, you can only release a quality decision if you are provided with at least a basic quality draft. If not, you must sign off on minimally sufficient decisions in order to accomplish the objective (which is not numbers, per se, but helping people get their decisions, whether favorable or not, as quickly as possible within minimal quality constraints). 7) As a writer, you can look at the evidence and say that there is nothing to establish the RFC and the ALJ just made it up. As the ALJ, you must make up the RFC because that is your job. Not all ALJs are good at developing an RFC based on evidence without express functional limitations, but it is an integral part of the adjudication. Most of these things are "understandable," because, as you can see, I just identified them. But to truly understand the ALJ job before doing the ALJ job is like trying to understand being a bird and what it feels like to fly under your own power. I hope this is of assistance to your understanding. Thanks for your excitement and please continue to participate in the board.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 4, 2016 14:23:28 GMT -5
Mamaru: Regarding specifically training, the legal training is virtually identical for ALJs and DWs - I think they used, or at last until recently used, the same modules for training. The ALJs have a lot of ethical stuff the DWs do not have, as well as training on running the hearings in a timely and efficient way, making sure not to run afoul of procedural errors most DWs do not have to know (like dealing with subpoenas or questioning experts). There is discussion about the extent of ALJ training in another recent thread, if you read through them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 14:39:12 GMT -5
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. I am very new to the board, and will try to lurk more. There are so many pages of threads, I don't see a manageable way to go back, and "catch-up" on what's been discussed. Has anyone ever considered breaking the "General" board into sub topics?
I hope you see that I was observing the behavior of the few lesser-competent ALJs I have written for. As I state, most of the ALJs are excellent and are doing an impressive job.
Your observations about the pressures an ALJ works under are apt. I think they also argue why AA/DW agency-only experience isn't as useful as a litigation practice background. I spent ten years in private practice trying deportation hearings, criminal defense jury trials (without co-counsel) and handling a range of cases that caused feelings and emotions similar to the emotional pressure it sounds like an ALJ is capable of experiencing. I have had the sleepless nights before an opening argument, after a hearing, second guessing every decision I have made as someone's life is about to change forever. I am not saying it the same experience being the advocate verses being the decision -maker, I am just saying it could be possible to have some idea what it's like.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 4, 2016 14:43:54 GMT -5
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. I am very new to the board, and will try to lurk more. There are so many pages of threads, I don't see a manageable way to go back, and "catch-up" on what's been discussed. Has anyone ever considered breaking the "General" board into sub topics?
I hope you see that I was observing the behavior of the few lesser-competent ALJs I have written for. As I state, most of the ALJs are excellent and are doing an impressive job.
Your observations about the pressures an ALJ works under are apt. I think they also argue why AA/DW agency-only experience isn't as useful as a litigation practice background. I spent ten years in private practice trying deportation hearings, criminal defense jury trials (without co-counsel) and handling a range of cases that caused feelings and emotions similar to the emotional pressure it sounds like an ALJ is capable of experiencing. I have had the sleepless nights before an opening argument, after a hearing, second guessing every decision I have made as someone's life is about to change forever. I am not saying it the same experience being the advocate verses being the decision -maker, I am just saying it could be possible to have some idea what it's like.
I know this will sound trite, but I mean it in the most literally helpful way possible, because it sometimes doesn't occur to people - there is a search bar at the top. You may have used it already, but since you didn't mention it, I just want to bring it to your attention. It is, indeed, daunting to find things here. We often, often stray off topic, and only for the most important things will a thread be retitled and reconstituted. Usually, the best thing is to see if there is a thread about your topic. And try to stay more recent, obviously. For very specific things, you could try a general text search. Some people, like Gaidan, are good about linking to threads. I just type again. His way is better. Again, welcome and good luck.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 4, 2016 14:45:23 GMT -5
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. I am very new to the board, and will try to lurk more. There are so many pages of threads, I don't see a manageable way to go back, and "catch-up" on what's been discussed. Has anyone ever considered breaking the "General" board into sub topics?
I hope you see that I was observing the behavior of the few lesser-competent ALJs I have written for. As I state, most of the ALJs are excellent and are doing an impressive job.
Your observations about the pressures an ALJ works under are apt. I think they also argue why AA/DW agency-only experience isn't as useful as a litigation practice background. I spent ten years in private practice trying deportation hearings, criminal defense jury trials (without co-counsel) and handling a range of cases that caused feelings and emotions similar to the emotional pressure it sounds like an ALJ is capable of experiencing. I have had the sleepless nights before an opening argument, after a hearing, second guessing every decision I have made as someone's life is about to change forever. I am not saying it the same experience being the advocate verses being the decision -maker, I am just saying it could be possible to have some idea what it's like.
Try this. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/730/search-function-read-before-post
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 4, 2016 14:46:00 GMT -5
See? Gaidan is more helpful with less effort.
Edit: Or at least, less typing.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 4, 2016 14:46:53 GMT -5
I am very new to the board, and will try to lurk more. There are so many pages of threads, I don't see a manageable way to go back, and "catch-up" on what's been discussed. Has anyone ever considered breaking the "General" board into sub topics?
I hope you see that I was observing the behavior of the few lesser-competent ALJs I have written for. As I state, most of the ALJs are excellent and are doing an impressive job.
Your observations about the pressures an ALJ works under are apt. I think they also argue why AA/DW agency-only experience isn't as useful as a litigation practice background. I spent ten years in private practice trying deportation hearings, criminal defense jury trials (without co-counsel) and handling a range of cases that caused feelings and emotions similar to the emotional pressure it sounds like an ALJ is capable of experiencing. I have had the sleepless nights before an opening argument, after a hearing, second guessing every decision I have made as someone's life is about to change forever. I am not saying it the same experience being the advocate verses being the decision -maker, I am just saying it could be possible to have some idea what it's like.
I know this will sound trite, but I mean it in the most literally helpful way possible, because it sometimes doesn't occur to people - there is a search bar at the top. You may have used it already, but since you didn't mention it, I just want to bring it to your attention. It is, indeed, daunting to find things here. We often, often stray off topic, and only for the most important things will a thread be retitled and reconstituted. Usually, the best thing is to see if there is a thread about your topic. And try to stay more recent, obviously. For very specific things, you could try a general text search. Some people, like Gaidan, are good about linking to threads. I just type again. His way is better. Again, welcome and good luck. Thanks for the props Prop.
|
|
|
Post by st8shooter on Feb 4, 2016 14:57:28 GMT -5
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. I am very new to the board, and will try to lurk more. There are so many pages of threads, I don't see a manageable way to go back, and "catch-up" on what's been discussed. Has anyone ever considered breaking the "General" board into sub topics?
I hope you see that I was observing the behavior of the few lesser-competent ALJs I have written for. As I state, most of the ALJs are excellent and are doing an impressive job.
Your observations about the pressures an ALJ works under are apt. I think they also argue why AA/DW agency-only experience isn't as useful as a litigation practice background. I spent ten years in private practice trying deportation hearings, criminal defense jury trials (without co-counsel) and handling a range of cases that caused feelings and emotions similar to the emotional pressure it sounds like an ALJ is capable of experiencing. I have had the sleepless nights before an opening argument, after a hearing, second guessing every decision I have made as someone's life is about to change forever. I am not saying it the same experience being the advocate verses being the decision -maker, I am just saying it could be possible to have some idea what it's like.
Since you have months before the new application process is opened up, I recommend that you take the time and read all the relevant threads that you can.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Feb 4, 2016 16:00:20 GMT -5
Mamaru: Regarding specifically training, the legal training is virtually identical for ALJs and DWs - I think they used, or at last until recently used, the same modules for training. The ALJs have a lot of ethical stuff the DWs do not have, as well as training on running the hearings in a timely and efficient way, making sure not to run afoul of procedural errors most DWs do not have to know (like dealing with subpoenas or questioning experts). There is discussion about the extent of ALJ training in another recent thread, if you read through them. Thanks for having my back props. My question was intended to be an opening of a discussion about how the jobs differ, not the training itself. While I was in the midst of taking a deep breath in order to draft a polite response you stepped in and shared some of my thoughts and added more of your own. Well Done. I am aware that the modules are the same and former DWs have been known to snore through that part of ALJ training. I was thinking of the ethical stuff and training on doing the hearings which are not part of DW training. I understand the ALJs are also taught more of the systems/operational things you need to move cases through the system. Your suggestion about going back to the other thread regarding the training is a good one for anyone who wants more information about the process. As I said, I was really more focused on the distinctions between the two jobs than the training itself.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 4, 2016 17:56:49 GMT -5
As an AA turned SAA turned ALJ I will say the first two weeks of new alj training was identical to writer training and bored me near to tears. Those without SSA experience found it intimidating, exhilarating and immensely helpful.
The third week was somewhat better. The fourth week, when we actually did some mock hearings, was outstanding.
I found that, up until the last week, I learned much more from the trainers in one on one situations where they talked about their own personal experience and manner of doing the job to be much more valuable then rehashing what I learned in writer training. But, I also recognize that the vast majority in my class had not been DWs with the agency and needed that training.
Funk
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 4, 2016 17:57:30 GMT -5
And...excellent post Prop. As usual.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Feb 4, 2016 19:57:49 GMT -5
As an AA turned SAA turned ALJ I will say the first two weeks of new alj training was identical to writer training and bored me near to tears. Those without SSA experience found it intimidating, exhilarating and immensely helpful. The third week was somewhat better. The fourth week, when we actually did some mock hearings, was outstanding. I found that, up until the last week, I learned much more from the trainers in one on one situations where they talked about their own personal experience and manner of doing the job to be much more valuable then rehashing what I learned in writer training. But, I also recognize that the vast majority in my class had not been DWs with the agency and needed that training. Funk Ditto on the same path and the same experience. First 2 weeks... very boring and looking for nuances to keep interest was hard because asking questions with so many others who did not have the insider advantage made asking questions difficult. In fact, asking detailed in the weeds questions was discouraged because most were not insiders. So I drank a lot of caffeine and planned the evening dinners. LOL! The rest of training was awesome. Just getting past that first two weeks... just shoot me. The trainers were very good and I had a great experience overall.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Feb 4, 2016 20:08:50 GMT -5
I would enjoy hearing from an ALJ that was a DW first as well. Would be interesting to hear the differences in training. I would also like to hear about the "plenty" that DW are "clueless" about. Obviously if I am clueless about it, I don't know that I am clueless about it, so I can't really argue that point, but some examples would be nice.
I've gotten a lot of confidence from being a DW that I could be an excellent ALJ. There are a wide range of competencies in the ALJs that I have been asked to write for. Most of the ALJs do an amazing job of weighing evidence and assigning credibility and figuring out the best "guess' at what to do. But I have seem quite a few ALJs that seem to do this...
1) Read through a steps in a hearing sheet, inserting claimant's name in the blanks. 2) propose a range of hypos based on the claimant's impairments. 3) pick the hypo that matches the VE opinion that matches whether you feel like paying the case or not. 4) give the DW a 5-steps checklist and some hand written notes to go write an opinion (that won't get remanded by the AC) that justifies whether the ALJ wanted to pay or not.
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It is once again a shame that Tiger Law imploded before he could give a stentorian response here, so I will try to do him justice in factual, but not presentation style, terms. Your use of quotation marks around plenty and clueless and your subsequent confidence that you would be an excellent ALJ cause my legal mind to be suspicious that we are being trolled here. Please don't take that as an insult. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. But since I do not have a medical mind, I cannot help but think that you are fitting into a stereotype of decision writers in such a perfect way as to be almost uncanny. 1) As a decision writer, you have specific things to do in order to be considered to have done your job correctly. Your work is assigned at a rate that you can accomplish, with time off resulting in no significant piling up of work. If you are given an unwritable case, you can return it or get clarification. In many cases, you do not even have to deal with the issues on a case because they are dealt with before it gets to you. 2) An ALJ has more control over his or her own work process, but less predictability as to the quality of support work he or she receives. Some files might be worked up very poorly. Some decision drafts may be so bad they cause tears. The ALJ (except in the NHC) does not have direct control over any of this and must work through an often hostile management to obtain any systemic corrections. 3) As a decision writer, you have few appointments and lots of time flexibility. As an ALJ, hearings are scheduled months in advance and you must remain organized through all of those hearings to get them completed on time. 4) As a writer, you look at a case, read through it, and write the draft (usually) without having to stop, prepare 14 other cases for the week, then hold 15 hearings, and then write decisions on those cases, trying to remember which facts are which. 5) As a writer, you are given the outcome of the case, so you do not need to evaluate the close calls and make a decision with which you can sleep at night (although you might feel like you are doing so while reviewing the evidence, the actual weight of responsibility is not something to scoff at). 6) As a writer, you do not put your name on the decision. The ALJ does. The ALJ puts his or her name on many decisions, which means that if you have pride in your work, you can always deliver a good draft, but as an ALJ, you can only release a quality decision if you are provided with at least a basic quality draft. If not, you must sign off on minimally sufficient decisions in order to accomplish the objective (which is not numbers, per se, but helping people get their decisions, whether favorable or not, as quickly as possible within minimal quality constraints). 7) As a writer, you can look at the evidence and say that there is nothing to establish the RFC and the ALJ just made it up. As the ALJ, you must make up the RFC because that is your job. Not all ALJs are good at developing an RFC based on evidence without express functional limitations, but it is an integral part of the adjudication. Most of these things are "understandable," because, as you can see, I just identified them. But to truly understand the ALJ job before doing the ALJ job is like trying to understand being a bird and what it feels like to fly under your own power. I hope this is of assistance to your understanding. Thanks for your excitement and please continue to participate in the board. EXCELLENT post. Yep, I totally agree. I was an AA, SAA, then ALJ and this is exactly how I see it too. And let me say that you have to be VERY organized and get to the bottom line very quickly as an ALJ with no dilly dally. If you get behind, you are sunk. There is no end to the hearings and you have to keep up with post hearing cases, remands, taking on cases from other ALJs who have emergency situations, editing drafts, and more. If you cannot multitask in a variety of different computer programs and keep on pace, this is NOT the job for you. People are counting on you to make a legally sufficient decision as quickly as possible because there are hundreds of thousands more right behind them.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Feb 4, 2016 20:15:14 GMT -5
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It is once again a shame that Tiger Law imploded before he could give a stentorian response here, so I will try to do him justice in factual, but not presentation style, terms. Your use of quotation marks around plenty and clueless and your subsequent confidence that you would be an excellent ALJ cause my legal mind to be suspicious that we are being trolled here. Please don't take that as an insult. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. But since I do not have a medical mind, I cannot help but think that you are fitting into a stereotype of decision writers in such a perfect way as to be almost uncanny. 1) As a decision writer, you have specific things to do in order to be considered to have done your job correctly. Your work is assigned at a rate that you can accomplish, with time off resulting in no significant piling up of work. If you are given an unwritable case, you can return it or get clarification. In many cases, you do not even have to deal with the issues on a case because they are dealt with before it gets to you. 2) An ALJ has more control over his or her own work process, but less predictability as to the quality of support work he or she receives. Some files might be worked up very poorly. Some decision drafts may be so bad they cause tears. The ALJ (except in the NHC) does not have direct control over any of this and must work through an often hostile management to obtain any systemic corrections. 3) As a decision writer, you have few appointments and lots of time flexibility. As an ALJ, hearings are scheduled months in advance and you must remain organized through all of those hearings to get them completed on time. 4) As a writer, you look at a case, read through it, and write the draft (usually) without having to stop, prepare 14 other cases for the week, then hold 15 hearings, and then write decisions on those cases, trying to remember which facts are which. 5) As a writer, you are given the outcome of the case, so you do not need to evaluate the close calls and make a decision with which you can sleep at night (although you might feel like you are doing so while reviewing the evidence, the actual weight of responsibility is not something to scoff at). 6) As a writer, you do not put your name on the decision. The ALJ does. The ALJ puts his or her name on many decisions, which means that if you have pride in your work, you can always deliver a good draft, but as an ALJ, you can only release a quality decision if you are provided with at least a basic quality draft. If not, you must sign off on minimally sufficient decisions in order to accomplish the objective (which is not numbers, per se, but helping people get their decisions, whether favorable or not, as quickly as possible within minimal quality constraints). 7) As a writer, you can look at the evidence and say that there is nothing to establish the RFC and the ALJ just made it up. As the ALJ, you must make up the RFC because that is your job. Not all ALJs are good at developing an RFC based on evidence without express functional limitations, but it is an integral part of the adjudication. Most of these things are "understandable," because, as you can see, I just identified them. But to truly understand the ALJ job before doing the ALJ job is like trying to understand being a bird and what it feels like to fly under your own power. I hope this is of assistance to your understanding. Thanks for your excitement and please continue to participate in the board. EXCELLENT post. Yep, I totally agree. I was an AA, SAA, then ALJ and this is exactly how I see it too. And let me say that you have to be VERY organized and get to the bottom line very quickly as an ALJ with no dilly dally. If you get behind, you are sunk. There is no end to the hearings and you have to keep up with post hearing cases, remands, taking on cases from other ALJs who have emergency situations, editing drafts, and more. If you cannot multitask in a variety of different computer programs and keep on pace, this is NOT the job for you. PeopleĀ are counting on you to make a legally sufficient decision as quickly as possible because there are hundreds of thousands more right behind them. ALJs fire for effect.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 4, 2016 21:13:31 GMT -5
I would enjoy hearing from an ALJ that was a DW first as well. Would be interesting to hear the differences in training. I would also like to hear about the "plenty" that DW are "clueless" about. Obviously if I am clueless about it, I don't know that I am clueless about it, so I can't really argue that point, but some examples would be nice.
I've gotten a lot of confidence from being a DW that I could be an excellent ALJ. There are a wide range of competencies in the ALJs that I have been asked to write for. Most of the ALJs do an amazing job of weighing evidence and assigning credibility and figuring out the best "guess' at what to do. But I have seem quite a few ALJs that seem to do this...
1) Read through a steps in a hearing sheet, inserting claimant's name in the blanks. 2) propose a range of hypos based on the claimant's impairments. 3) pick the hypo that matches the VE opinion that matches whether you feel like paying the case or not. 4) give the DW a 5-steps checklist and some hand written notes to go write an opinion (that won't get remanded by the AC) that justifies whether the ALJ wanted to pay or not.
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It is once again a shame that Tiger Law imploded before he could give a stentorian response here, so I will try to do him justice in factual, but not presentation style, terms. Your use of quotation marks around plenty and clueless and your subsequent confidence that you would be an excellent ALJ cause my legal mind to be suspicious that we are being trolled here. Please don't take that as an insult. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. But since I do not have a medical mind, I cannot help but think that you are fitting into a stereotype of decision writers in such a perfect way as to be almost uncanny. 1) As a decision writer, you have specific things to do in order to be considered to have done your job correctly. Your work is assigned at a rate that you can accomplish, with time off resulting in no significant piling up of work. If you are given an unwritable case, you can return it or get clarification. In many cases, you do not even have to deal with the issues on a case because they are dealt with before it gets to you. 2) An ALJ has more control over his or her own work process, but less predictability as to the quality of support work he or she receives. Some files might be worked up very poorly. Some decision drafts may be so bad they cause tears. The ALJ (except in the NHC) does not have direct control over any of this and must work through an often hostile management to obtain any systemic corrections. 3) As a decision writer, you have few appointments and lots of time flexibility. As an ALJ, hearings are scheduled months in advance and you must remain organized through all of those hearings to get them completed on time. 4) As a writer, you look at a case, read through it, and write the draft (usually) without having to stop, prepare 14 other cases for the week, then hold 15 hearings, and then write decisions on those cases, trying to remember which facts are which. 5) As a writer, you are given the outcome of the case, so you do not need to evaluate the close calls and make a decision with which you can sleep at night (although you might feel like you are doing so while reviewing the evidence, the actual weight of responsibility is not something to scoff at). 6) As a writer, you do not put your name on the decision. The ALJ does. The ALJ puts his or her name on many decisions, which means that if you have pride in your work, you can always deliver a good draft, but as an ALJ, you can only release a quality decision if you are provided with at least a basic quality draft. If not, you must sign off on minimally sufficient decisions in order to accomplish the objective (which is not numbers, per se, but helping people get their decisions, whether favorable or not, as quickly as possible within minimal quality constraints). 7) As a writer, you can look at the evidence and say that there is nothing to establish the RFC and the ALJ just made it up. As the ALJ, you must make up the RFC because that is your job. Not all ALJs are good at developing an RFC based on evidence without express functional limitations, but it is an integral part of the adjudication. Most of these things are "understandable," because, as you can see, I just identified them. But to truly understand the ALJ job before doing the ALJ job is like trying to understand being a bird and what it feels like to fly under your own power. I hope this is of assistance to your understanding. Thanks for your excitement and please continue to participate in the board.
I second this. It is easy to think you can do better than most ALJs when you are a writer. But even reviewing cases for OTRs as a SAA, you quickly realize that you do not have the relative luxury of time that you do when writing. As a SAA I review cases for OTRs in a very different way than I do when I am just writing the case.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 4, 2016 21:14:48 GMT -5
1) Read through a steps in a hearing sheet, inserting claimant's name in the blanks. 2) propose a range of hypos based on the claimant's impairments. 3) pick the hypo that matches the VE opinion that matches whether you feel like paying the case or not. 4) give the DW a 5-steps checklist and some hand written notes to go write an opinion (that won't get remanded by the AC) that justifies whether the ALJ wanted to pay or not.
Oh I wish that was the worst of it. No kidding. A range of hypos? oh that would be nice. I actually have no problem with ALJs who do it this way.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 4, 2016 21:28:35 GMT -5
Again, there are a lot of threads touching on this, although they mostly did not start out as such threads. It may be that you need to read several more threads to realize that some of your questions have recently been hashed and rehashed. I am very new to the board, and will try to lurk more. There are so many pages of threads, I don't see a manageable way to go back, and "catch-up" on what's been discussed. Has anyone ever considered breaking the "General" board into sub topics?
I hope you see that I was observing the behavior of the few lesser-competent ALJs I have written for. As I state, most of the ALJs are excellent and are doing an impressive job.
Your observations about the pressures an ALJ works under are apt. I think they also argue why AA/DW agency-only experience isn't as useful as a litigation practice background. I spent ten years in private practice trying deportation hearings, criminal defense jury trials (without co-counsel) and handling a range of cases that caused feelings and emotions similar to the emotional pressure it sounds like an ALJ is capable of experiencing. I have had the sleepless nights before an opening argument, after a hearing, second guessing every decision I have made as someone's life is about to change forever. I am not saying it the same experience being the advocate verses being the decision -maker, I am just saying it could be possible to have some idea what it's like.
Hopefully, it does not seems like people (i.e. me) are piling on. Honestly, if you've been a PD/DA or just had to live the hustle of a litigators life (and particularly if you were a sole practitioner or partner in a small firm), I think most agree that the ALJ job is still far less demanding, both time-wise and emotionally (assuming being a litigator did not leave you a hardened cynical shell of your former self).
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Feb 5, 2016 1:16:28 GMT -5
My observation is that the ALJs have an easier schedule and less pressure than I had as a litigator. I was in big law. While there were more of us to share the fun, the hours were brutal and the work environment not pleasant. My firm had "nap rooms" so that we did not have to go home to sleep. I am unaware of ODAR hearing offices equipped with that amenity.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Feb 5, 2016 6:54:38 GMT -5
My observation is that the ALJs have an easier schedule and less pressure than I had as a litigator. I was in big law. While there were more of us to share the fun, the hours were brutal and the work environment not pleasant. My firm had "nap rooms" so that we did not have to go home to sleep. I am unaware of ODAR hearing offices equipped with that amenity. I don't think comparing any government position to the absurdity of Big Law is fair. Nor is the compensation comparable either (as even ALJ salaries at the high end are below many Big Law mid-level associate salaries). However, particularly for those who do the job right and care about the quality of decisions and product and are prepared for hearings, it is not an easy job. While an ALJ can mostly thumb their nose as agency pressures, an ALJ that cares about their job and what they do knows that the claimants have been waiting years for ANY decision, good or bad, and works very hard to get them one and to make his or her own decision well-reasoned and defensible. It is a high volume, considerable pressure position, even if that pressure is mostly from the internal desire to do the job right. There are many ALJs that work on their weekend regularly, and telework changes will allow them to do that from home in the future. Further, even with credit hours, there are many ALJs that regularly donate time to the government because they have maxed out their credit hour bank long ago. It's not Big Law insanity, but it's not an easy job either.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 5, 2016 9:57:11 GMT -5
At the risk of incurring whatever blowback brought down my friend, colleague and United States Administrative Law Judge Tiger Law, I will offer my personal view.
There is absolutely no comparison between my time crunch, stress levels or pressures between my time in mass tort/class action work or my time running my own small firm. Getting out of the insane hours where Saturday is just another workday and so is Sunday if something big is happening Monday, where it was eat what you kill, where I was equally responsible for my work and everyone else in my litigation team or office has been amazing.
Now, the alj gig is certainly more hectic than my time as a AA and SAA. In those jobs, jobs you really have one task, if you take advantage of the generous federal leave your work doesn't pile up and if you decide to work a Saturday you get paid overtime. None of that applies to ALJ.
ALJs do have to schedule their leave months in advance. While they can earn credit hours, and often have to just to keep up, many see those hours expire because they can't take off to use them. Prop master's excellent post on the pressures of the position versus the AA gig is dead on.
But...if you schedule your vacation 3 months out you can fully expect to take it without need of your laptop, cell or twice daily check in calls to the office like in private practice. If an emergency arises or you are sick on a hearing day, I've yet to see that when the other judges in the office can't or won't cover for you. And you will definitely be called on to return that favor. If there is no way to get your hearings covered, postpone them. Its sucks, the agency doesn't like it, and you shouldn't either. Setting aside the incurred cost of the unused VE and reporter, most of the claimants have been waiting for their turn in front of you for close to two years. To tell them they have to wait another 3 to 6 months (because you are scheduled that far out) is truly tragic. But it does happen, rarely. The one time it did for me, I felt horrible and added a make up hearing day in the same month. Made that week extra hellish for me, but I felt it was necessary.
I take my vacations. I leave for work about the same time my kids leave for school. I get home not long after the wife. I keep my credit hours at the limit by working the occasional Sunday morn when it's quiet. I use them before I lose them. When a kid is sick, if it's a hearing day the wife takes off, a non hearing day I do. If I take an extended time off, I get back to a nasty "why haven't these cases moved?" Email or a "you didn't dispose of enough this month" note. I try hard to get ahead so that doesn't happen, but if it does, I just delete the email and bust are to get caught up. Probably means working another Sunday but after a trip I probably need to replenish my credit hours anyway.
The added salary and varied workday of an alj definitely makes having to be significantly more structured in my time than as an AA worth it. And, it is a damn sight better than private practice.
|
|