|
Post by Loopstok on Feb 10, 2015 11:00:15 GMT -5
Funky's statement on the previous page, should be printed, laminated, and sent to every decision writer as a constant reminder of what's expected of them.
When I was a rep, I used to have a fun and easy time getting Appeals Council remands even on fairly weak cases, because the decision-writer interpreting the ALJ's instructions would usually miss something enormous. My favorite types of remands to ask for, were when writers neglected to include any credibility analysis... or when they limited their credibility analysis to "the claimant said they could only sit 20 minutes at a time, but the CE said 3 years ago that they had a negative straight leg raise and did not need a cane to ambulate"... or when a severe impairment was not incorporated into the RFC, or when the "paragraph B" criteria didn't match the RFC... or when an RFC checklist filled out by a PA or nurse practitioner was flatly rejected "because it is not from an acceptable medical source", with no further analysis.
Of course, as a rep, I wasn't privy to ALJ instructions, so I was never sure if it was the ALJ who had missed something important, or the writer who wasn't giving the decision draft the time, care, and attention that it needed. Also the bulk of my rep years were pre-FIT template; I like to think the FIT template has eliminated a lot of the types of mistakes I was getting remands on a decade ago.
As an ODAR senior attorney/writer now, I sometimes take a "jazz" interpretation to ALJ instructions that I receive, working around mis-matches between the list of severe impairments and the RFC, or going in a different direction when the ALJ gives "little weight" to a CE whose medical source statement is a word-for-word copy of the ALJ's RFC finding. But, as Funky points out, the ALJ's RFC trumps everything, and often the instruction "mis-steps" are a case of simple oversight or typographical errors on the ALJ's part, rather than incompetence. I like to think I have a very good working relationship with the ALJs I write for. As a writer, I get to spend more time with the file than an ALJ does (8 hours compared to 2.5), so the burden should be more on me and my fellow the writers to ensure draft quality & legal sufficiency.
Of course the next problem I have to set for myself, now that I'm no longer a rep, and now that my writer days are limited to a term of six weeks, is... how much detail do I put in my instructions as an ALJ? How much time will I have between hearings to get legally sufficient instructions out? How much of my insights into the case will I have forgotten by the time I get to instructions, if I have to write them 6 hours or 3 days after the hearing? How many mistakes or errors (mine, or the writer's) will I have time to spot and correct when editing decision drafts? I don't imagine this will be an easy task by any means.
Bottom line, I realize that my writers are going to be a huge foundation of my job performance going forward, and I hope to have an excellent and productive working relationship with them. As an ALJ I quite literally will not be able to do it all myself ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 14:04:47 GMT -5
I agree with the Funky.
In my prior life I did everything from 0 to completion; in writing briefs, etc. In this life I was quite pleased to learn that I was not responsible, nor going, to write decisions, but simply instructions. That was (is) a total bonus.
Thus, after I have deboned (proper syntax is to "bone" but I digress) my latest chicken: here is the process I found works best for me. I use my HLDS decision to quickly (i.e, usually in a matter of minutes) issue a FIT template instruction. many times can do so between hearings. Cut and pasting from the HLDS to the FIT is fast and easy and for any necessary detail I simply refer the writer to the HLDS on file. Done.
As per Funky my RFC is right there, just as presented at the hearing as is the VE testimony and the Opinion weights.
Invariably I have found that the writers I have are issuing my decisions faster than average in a style and format that I like and with little to no editing from themselves or myself. As I received decisions from new writers, I send them an email, copied to their super's, telling them good job, here is what changes I made, etc. As time progresses, those emails are basically simple "good job" emails as editing is unnecessary.
Thus, I must profess confusion as to the emails from the top examining an undeclared war that is occurring somewhere out there between ALJ and writers. I must be out of the loop on that war.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 10, 2015 17:00:12 GMT -5
How much time will I have between hearings to get legally sufficient instructions out? How much of my insights into the case will I have forgotten by the time I get to instructions, if I have to write them 6 hours or 3 days after the hearing? How many mistakes or errors (mine, or the writer's) will I have time to spot and correct when editing decision drafts? I don't imagine this will be an easy task by any means. From the beginning get in the habit of writing your instructions during the hearing and immediately after. Don't leave the hearing room until your instructions for that day of hearings have all been completed. This is probably the most important thing you can do for yourself as a judge. When you are just starting out, schedule sufficient time between hearings to get this done. As you gain experience, you will become more proficient and efficient in the job and this time can be cut way down. Pixie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 17:26:34 GMT -5
You will set your hearing times/breaks etc. You will determine how long it takes you to conduct a hearing. You will set and determine how/when you will pre-review cases, write instructions, etc.
Everyone is different. I try to stay at least 3-4 weeks ahead in my HLDS pre-reviews. I try to keep file reviews?HLDS completion down to less than 2 hrs each, preferably less than 1 hr. At the hearing I type my notes in the HLDS that is 95% pre-completed by time of hearing. The remaining 5% is claimant testimony. Assuming the case is not sent to wait for additional evidence (sigh.....an abomination upon us all) then post hearing I literally take a few minutes to complete and submit instructions. Keep your ALPO and EDIT to a minimum if not zero.
And if you get behind, don't worry. Every ALJ's input/output is always being monitored by authorities and you will receive "the email" from those authorities warning you to get your act in gear if you get behind.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Feb 11, 2015 7:40:48 GMT -5
Well, it seems that there are different approaches, but I need some time to consider matters before I make a decision. The pay/don't pay light doesn't all of a sudden turn on as soon as the claimant has had his/her last sentence. I usually go back through the record with the claimant's testimony before me and deliberate (which is officially a thing judges do) the merits of the their contentions. Then, when I am finished with that, I will start instructions and will spell out my rationale and I will sprinkle the instructions with citations from the record as well as some informal thoughts on the matters deserving particular attention. I imagine this must be more time consuming for me than it is for others. Maybe it's just BIF on my part.
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Feb 11, 2015 7:50:39 GMT -5
There is a spectrum on how long it takes to make a decision. Needing sometime after the hearing to reflect and deliberate is perfectly fine. However, do make a decision as quickly as you can, as dragging things out too long does not help anyone. The population we serve are some of the most vulnerable in our society, and yes or no, they deserve an answer so they can move on with their lives. If you're constantly taking more than 30 days to decide cases after the record is complete, some reflections might be in order.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 8:32:32 GMT -5
If you're constantly taking more than 30 days to decide cases after the record is complete, some reflections might be in order. Agree, each to their own methods. Pre-preparation of the case long before hearing to me is the paramount duty. And then again I know of ALJ's who take a complete opposite angle; they literally walk in blind to hearings to get the claimant testimony first and then compare same to the record post hearing and issue decision therafter. The key is: whatever road you take, make a decision. Waiting for decisions to be made appears to the the number one complaint by both claimants and the US SSA. Of course there is the United States Supreme Court way of decisionmaking specifically in regard to the use of oral hearings: " I don't see the need for all those questions. I think justices, 99 percent of the time, have their minds made up when they go to the bench." - Justice Clarence Thomas, 2002, Rombeck. Or notably one statement I find more than appropriate to some of the cases I have seen presented: " My job is to write opinions. I decide cases and write opinions. It is not to respond to idiocy and critics who make statements that are unfounded." -Justice Clarence Thomas I do not always agree with Justice Thomas but when I do he cracks me up.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 11, 2015 9:47:57 GMT -5
The best way to give yourself time in between hearings is to do the majority of the heavy lifting yourself. By that I mean you should do most of the questioning yourself. If you are familiar with the case, you should know what questions you need answered to make your decision, while also knowing which questions need to be asked just to cover all the bases. If you have done a thorough job, the good reps will only have a few questions of their own, the lazy reps will be happy to let you do the work for them, and that only leaves a few clueless ones to ask the list of questions that NOSSCR told them to ask. While the rep is questioning the claimant I will take the time to go back through the file to cross check some of the answers the claimant gave me during my own questioning. I keep an ear of the rep at the same time just in case there is a question or answer that opens a new angle on the claim. I don't do this out of disrespect for the rep. Its more a matter of having the opportunity to ask the claimant follow up questions while I've got them at the hearing. Never forget that the hearing is your only significant opportunity to clear up your questions from the claimant firsthand.
And Justice Thomas would be much funnier if he was presiding over Traffic Court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 9:59:42 GMT -5
By far the largest waste of time for me in every case is very simple. Sitting/standing/pacing, staring and waiting for that #$@@! blue line to complete going across my screen as the file is OCR'd from tif to editable format. I would easily estimate in total about 1 hour+ per day is spent in such useless activity. Multiply that by the number of case files and ALJ's across the country and you can see the impact.
Whoever was the "genius" at SSA about 10+ years ago who chose tif as the preferred SSA file format rather than the universally accepted pdf ought to be confined to a room to do nothing but convert all SSA files from tif to pdf.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Feb 11, 2015 11:00:22 GMT -5
Thank you to everyone who has commented on this thread. I think there were some eyebrows raised early in the thread and concerns about dirty linen, but this ALJ wannabe has been fascinated. Sitting ALJs, both "seasoned" and newbie, have given invaluable advice on the process of actually rendering a decision. I have been soaking up the information like a sponge, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So thank you for sharing your processes with us.
|
|
|
Post by Loopstok on Feb 11, 2015 11:15:38 GMT -5
Thank you to everyone who has commented on this thread. I think there were some eyebrows raised early in the thread and concerns about dirty linen, but this ALJ wannabe has been fascinated. Sitting ALJs, both "seasoned" and newbie, have given invaluable advice on the process of actually rendering a decision. I have been soaking up the information like a sponge, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So thank you for sharing your processes with us. Absolutely agreed. There's been a lot of terrific advice given in this thread by some very dedicated civil servants. I can't promise that I'll be able to assimilate every single bit of advice from everyone here, when I eventually settle on my ultimate decision-making style... but you have all shed invaluable light on the path that lies waiting before me. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 11, 2015 13:25:12 GMT -5
As Papa Judge noted, often the attorneys will ask for additional time to submit more evidence. The case will then have to be sent to "Post," short for post hearing development. Evidence may or may not be submitted. It may be a month or two before it comes back to the judge for a decision.
Hard to remember the case after that much time, and it takes additional time for the judge to go into the record, review her notes and try to remember what had transpired.
Most of the time if a case goes to post, it is because it is going to be unfavorable unless additional favorable evidence comes in. So, the simplest thing to do is to write out the instructions as if it is an unfavorable, with a note that if records from Dr. Blank come in supportive of the complaints, then this can be favorable. That way the judge doesn't have to go back into the record and take time to familiarize herself with the file again--huge time suck. The instructions will lay it out. If evidence does comes in that is supportive of disability, it is a simple matter to write favorable instructions.
Be efficient, be productive and be successful. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 11, 2015 14:12:32 GMT -5
As Papa Judge noted, often the attorneys will ask for additional time to submit more evidence. The case will then have to be sent to "Post," short for post hearing development. Evidence may or may not be submitted. It may be a month or two before it comes back to the judge for a decision. Hard to remember the case after that much time, and it takes additional time for the judge to go into the record, review her notes and try to remember what had transpired. Most of the time if a case goes to post, it is because it is going to be unfavorable unless additional favorable evidence comes in. So, the simplest thing to do is to write out the instructions as if it is an unfavorable, with a note that if records from Dr. Blank come in supportive of the complaints, then this can be favorable. That way the judge doesn't have to go back into the record and take time to familiarize herself with the file again--huge time suck. The instructions will lay it out. If evidence does comes in that is supportive of disability, it is a simple matter to write favorable instructions. Be efficient, be productive and be successful. Pixie. This is great advice from Pixie. Doing your ALPO is about as much fun as putting away all of the Christmas decorations in late January. On the other hand, finding a case in ALPO with instructions already written is like putting away all the Christmas decorations in late January and finding a $50 gift card under the tree that you somehow missed on Christmas day!
|
|