|
Post by hilltopper on Feb 15, 2015 9:10:35 GMT -5
For those of you who will attend ALJ training in FC, you will be introduced to eBB - the Electronic Bench Book. As you come on board, you will hear conflicting information from ALJ's and Writers who hate eBB because “eBB generates too much information, and slows the writer down." They are used to the FIT and FIT enhanced Microsoft Word Template-based approach to creating their instructions and writing decisions.
The problem is that such template-based approaches are necessarily dependent on the continued viability of the program version upon which the template is based. Unfortunately, Microsoft has a business model that makes all of its software dated in 3-4 years. They want you to buy the next generation. And, they always generate a "drop dead date" beyond which a program, program version, or operating system will not be supported by them any longer.
Those FIT templates everyone is in love with -- have an “expiration date” that only lasts while the current compatible versions of Word are supported by Microsoft. And if you are totally dependent on one program, when it becomes obsolete, your work flow stops.
Management has created an integrated system for ODAR – eBB – that is not dependent on any Microsoft program to continue to be useful. Management has made it clear that eBB is where we are headed. As a new ALJ, management wants you to learn and use it for your decision process. And from what I have seen, you can become pretty efficient using eBB in short order. The sooner you understand, accept and embrace that fact, the easier your life will be in the long run.
I say all of this because I’ve heard that some new ALJs have received advice from non-ALJ staff members to the effect that they really don’t need to become eBB experts when they get to FC because eBB is not used in their office. And, I’ve heard that some of the eBB mentors don't know much about eBB because nobody in their office uses it.
If you are going to an office that says they are not using eBB, here is my advice:
Drink the kool-aid. Ignore the Flat Earth Society naysayers. The earth is round. You’ll learn your job quickly. eBB will help you. And when management flips the “off” switch on FIT, or Microsoft quits supporting compatible versions of Word, you won’t have to panic.
ht
|
|
|
Post by jonsprag1 on Feb 15, 2015 9:20:02 GMT -5
Sounds like good advice
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 15, 2015 10:10:02 GMT -5
I 110% agree. If you are comfortable with computers, you'll be able to become quite proficient with it prior to FC training. I'm not sure the summer class had one, but we have eBB mentors that have introduced us to the software. Big help.
There are aspects of it that I find to be inconvenient, but overall, it's a great way to take notes. I'll have to wait and see if I like using it in a hearing, but it's very helpful with file review. It's supposed to be getting much faster this summer, too. Its current lag time is one of those inconvenient factors.
|
|
|
Post by uclabruin on Feb 15, 2015 12:34:52 GMT -5
ODAR writers like the FiT template because it requires that the ALJ provide the writer with essentially all the necessary information to draft the opinion (e.g. AOD, severe impairments, RFC, approval of attorney's fees, CDR, etc.). The FIT instructions to the writer, from my perspective, saves writers time in figuring out the necessary info required to draft the favorable, unfavorable, later onset, etc., decisions without having to guess, dig into often voluminous files, or seek clarification or more info from the ALJ.
Writers are pressed for time to draft decisions (i.e. legally sufficient decisions) and if the ALJ can help that process by giving writers most of the required information to draft the decision, then the legally sufficient decision can be drafted in a timely manner. This benefits the writer's and the ALJ's productivity numbers, and helps ODAR issue decisions efficiently in order to tackle its enormous backlog. And it goes without saying that the wait for claimants' is shortened, and in this regard the public benefits.
The FIT template is an improvement from the past when ALJs had their individualized writing instructions and the writer had to adjust to the ALJ's varying instructions to figure out what to include in the draft decision. There are still some ALJs that do not use the FIT template outline and writers are often left to "think" for the ALJ in order to address the issues in the sequential step decision (in some cases the ALJs do not even provide info on what the severe impairments are & the writer must take time to "figure it out" so that the severe impairments support the RFC). This obviously slows down the drafting of the decision.
If the eBB instructions help ALJs provide writers with all the necessary info to draft the decision, this is a good thing. But the eBB decisional instructions are often 10+ pages!, unlike the FIT decisional template which is invariably just over 1 page (rarely more than 2 pages). If eBB is the future, writers need more training in its use. Training on eBB for writers thus far has been very limited & ineffective, and in many cases nonexistent. Furthermore, in some ODARs the ALJs use individualized instructions, FIT template instructions, & eBB instructions, with eBB the least used. I imagine the reason for this is that the ALJ can decide for herself/himself which format they want to use. So in most cases the writer has to know how to use all formats to draft the decision.
If eBB is the future, then writers and ALJs need more training and encouragement to use that approach. If writers & ALJs get the appropriate training, then we can better streamline the decisional draft process. There was somewhat of a rollout for eBB well over a year ago, yet it is rarely used by the ALJs, and when "most" writers see an eBB decisional instruction, it is still difficult to decipher & grasp the instructions, unlike FIT instructions. Maybe Video On Demand (VOD) training should be mandatory and done more often to familiarize writers/ALJs in eBB.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 15, 2015 13:21:49 GMT -5
Paragraphs are a reader's best friend. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by uclabruin on Feb 15, 2015 13:54:54 GMT -5
You are so right Pixie, thanks for the tip! Post has been changed to paragraphs format.
EDIT NOTE BY PIXIE: Excellent! Now I can read it! Thank you. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Feb 15, 2015 15:43:08 GMT -5
I have a lot more stuff to worry about than worrying that Microsoft will stop selling Word to Social Security and our systems will self destruct. If you like eBB, more power to you. I will continue to use a method that works for me.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Feb 15, 2015 18:00:19 GMT -5
As a writer, I have several concerns about EBB.
One is the lack of training. I don't need training to read a form, but I would like to know more about how it is being used before it lands in my lap. It is my understanding that SCTs are inputting stuff into the form to bring it to the ALJ's attention (not necessarily a bad thing) and the form appears to include ALJ notes prior to the hearing. Sometimes there seem to be contradictions in what the ALJ wants in the decision and this may be why - some of the stuff that is written down is a preliminary impression rather than a final conclusion, but it's not deleted and we can't tell what, if any, weight to give it. It's not that there's "too much" - it's that it's hard to tell what the ALJ wants us to rely on and incorporate when it's all said and done.
The other thing that new judges who have never used the FIT may not realize is that the old FIT instructions followed the format of the FIT template that we are still required to generate. We did not have to go searching through 10 pages ( and a lot of illegible cut and paste) to find the information we need to input just to generate the document - I'm sure this will come faster as we get more used to the format. I have taken to printing out the instructions and highlighting what I need to have to generate the document. This seems like a step backwards to me, but whatever works. It will also be remedied eventually when the decisional template is generated from the eBB itself. In the meantime, it's not a question of which is better. The problem is that the are not synchronized.
With apologies to the new judges who are struggling to get it all together, the eBB form does not easily show if something is left out. Under the old FIT instructions, it was a lot more obvious if a crucial element was missing.
I am simply posting from one writer's perspective as to why there is not a lot of enthusiasm for eBB - it's not just that we are resistant to change.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Feb 15, 2015 18:28:25 GMT -5
I agree with Mamaru's concerns. The instructions I give to writers have been sanitized, not to say bowdlerized. My file notes are extensive and, if they were all dumped into the instructions, would create substantial confusion as to what I find most probative. So I have to refine my notes and lose the dross in order for the writer to grasp what I really want in the decision. I have heard many complaints from writers regarding their ability to timely sort the wheat from the chaff in eBB.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Feb 15, 2015 23:35:05 GMT -5
When I started this thread, I knew there would be push back.
I’ve been a litigator for 25 years. Early on, I learned that it didn’t matter if I wrote my examination questions down on a yellow legal pad, typed them into a word processing program, or used a litigation prep system. The key was my understanding the facts, the law and the applicable elements of proof necessary to win my case.
FIT Templates and eBB are simply tools. Tools to help ALJ’s organize their thoughts for creating instructions on how the case is decided. Regardless of the tool used, the instructions will only be as good as the information provided by the judge. With eBB, the form is there. What eBB can’t do is write the actual instructions.
I like eBB because it helps me organize my thoughts and cover all the information needed for the writer. But again, it is only as good as the instructions and the explanations I provide. And, it has helped me come up to speed fairly quickly for a NODAR. For me, it helps me analyze the evidence looking for inconsistencies and confirmations. And, although you won’t be told to do this in training, I go ahead and complete as much of the Sequential 1 and the Decision Outcome as possible in eBB, before the hearing, including making an initial determination based on the medical and vocational evidence in the file.
All of the instructions needed for a writer to create a decision are in the Hearing Level Decisional summary created by eBB. The way it is set up, the first 3-4 pages contain all of the main instructions, and the final 10+ pages contain the notes the judge puts in when reviewing the medical records and creating the hypothetical RFC’s. So, my advice to the writers, read the first few pages, ignore the rest if you want to.
Tools are nothing more than that … tools. Management wants us to use eBB because if used properly, it is a good tool. It’s efficient and it works. With great respect and deference to all who protest, FIT is fine. But eBB helps me through the entire analysis process and provides me with a tool for noting my impressions about the file - before the hearing.
Hence my advice to other newbies like me, if you come from outside ODAR - time to put away that old yellow legal pad. Accept eBB. Embrace it. It works.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Feb 16, 2015 2:29:51 GMT -5
Hilltopper, I agree with your point about it helping the judge organize. I'm sure it's a useful tool to prepare for and conduct the hearing.
It also has the potential for generating good instructions. I write for judges who use a legal pad, a self-generated form, the FIT, and eBB. I think I speak for most writers when I say that it's the content of the instructions, not the format, that is important. Using eBB does not automatically generate clear and complete instructions.
Of course we writers understand that there are supposed to be two parts. I did not need a training class to figure that out. It's pretty obvious. However, the eBB instructions I see routinely cross reference, which isn't entirely bad if the instructions are specific, and include directions to the writer in back pages. I agree that I should be able to ignore those pages, but if they include information the judge has directed me to include or instructions that I ignore, I risk getting the case sent back to me for a rewrite and a black mark in my column for not following the judge's directions.
As you say, eBB is a tool. I am not against eBB. Like any tool, it needs to be used properly to be effective. I think it has the potential to generate excellent instructions. It is not being consistently used in the way designed.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Feb 16, 2015 7:56:32 GMT -5
When I started this thread, I knew there would be push back. I’ve been a litigator for 25 years. Early on, I learned that it didn’t matter if I wrote my examination questions down on a yellow legal pad, typed them into a word processing program, or used a litigation prep system. The key was my understanding the facts, the law and the applicable elements of proof necessary to win my case. FIT Templates and eBB are simply tools. Tools to help ALJ’s organize their thoughts for creating instructions on how the case is decided. Regardless of the tool used, the instructions will only be as good as the information provided by the judge. With eBB, the form is there. What eBB can’t do is write the actual instructions. I like eBB because it helps me organize my thoughts and cover all the information needed for the writer. But again, it is only as good as the instructions and the explanations I provide. And, it has helped me come up to speed fairly quickly for a NODAR. For me, it helps me analyze the evidence looking for inconsistencies and confirmations. And, although you won’t be told to do this in training, I go ahead and complete as much of the Sequential 1 and the Decision Outcome as possible in eBB, before the hearing, including making an initial determination based on the medical and vocational evidence in the file. All of the instructions needed for a writer to create a decision are in the Hearing Level Decisional summary created by eBB. The way it is set up, the first 3-4 pages contain all of the main instructions, and the final 10+ pages contain the notes the judge puts in when reviewing the medical records and creating the hypothetical RFC’s. So, my advice to the writers, read the first few pages, ignore the rest if you want to. Tools are nothing more than that … tools. Management wants us to use eBB because if used properly, it is a good tool. It’s efficient and it works. With great respect and deference to all who protest, FIT is fine. But eBB helps me through the entire analysis process and provides me with a tool for noting my impressions about the file - before the hearing. Hence my advice to other newbies like me, if you come from outside ODAR - time to put away that old yellow legal pad. Accept eBB. Embrace it. It works. HT I am surprised as a previous litigator you said what you stated above. A case is not completed until submitted. Would you want the judge or jury to make an initial determination before you were done presenting your case? Even if you are only making an "initial determination" that decision will slant any further decision by you. While the medical evidence and SSA forms are very important to understanding a case, the testimony iof the claimant is crucial. Now, we do know some claimants will outright lie or "fudge" testimony, but others will fill in a lot of missing pieces to the story. What you are doing right now, if I am to read your statement above literally, is reading a book and skipping every second or third page. While you get the gist of the story, you are missing some important details which could change your outlook completely. Now, a lot of people make a prejudgment on a litany of things in life before hearing all the facts, but how many are actually able to set aside that pre-determination if the facts change? I am sure you meant to say you just became very familiar with the written evidence in the case, but do not make any real determination until the testimony of the claimant or the last piece of medical is submitted. Otherwise, remind me to never bring in a claimant in front of you, as I have met many of those types of ALJs in the past and any claimant testimony is a waste of time. Hence, the AC or federal court becomes the claimant's and my best friend frequently making those ALJs wrong in their "initial determinations". Not that I am afraid of or have a problem beating the pre-determination ALJs, but the time and effort it takes, makes it much tougher to keep a social security law practice going.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Feb 16, 2015 9:03:08 GMT -5
When I started this thread, I knew there would be push back. HT I am surprised as a previous litigator you said what you stated above. A case is not completed until submitted. Would you want the judge or jury to make an initial determination before you were done presenting your case? Even if you are only making an "initial determination" that decision will slant any further decision by you. While the medical evidence and SSA forms are very important to understanding a case, the testimony iof the claimant is crucial. Now, we do know some claimants will outright lie or "fudge" testimony, but others will fill in a lot of missing pieces to the story. What you are doing right now, if I am to read your statement above literally, is reading a book and skipping every second or third page. While you get the gist of the story, you are missing some important details which could change your outlook completely. Now, a lot of people make a prejudgment on a litany of things in life before hearing all the facts, but how many are actually able to set aside that pre-determination if the facts change? I am sure you meant to say you just became very familiar with the written evidence in the case, but do not make any real determination until the testimony of the claimant or the last piece of medical is submitted. Otherwise, remind me to never bring in a claimant in front of you, as I have met many of those types of ALJs in the past and any claimant testimony is a waste of time. Hence, the AC or federal court becomes the claimant's and my best friend frequently making those ALJs wrong in their "initial determinations". Not that I am afraid of or have a problem beating the pre-determination ALJs, but the time and effort it takes, makes it much tougher to keep a social security law practice going. MPD, I don't make a final decision until after the hearing .... unless the review of the file leads me to believe that the claimant actually already meets a listing - and in that case I go into the hearing asking specific questions related to the Listing. I go into all my hearings with an initial impression of the case and look for the claimant's testimony to persuade me otherwise. I suspect all judges do that - if they are honest enough to admit it. The difference, is, I go ahead and click the box. ... But I do not generate a decision. eBB helps me organize my thoughts and focus on the key issues. I don't look at that checked box again until after the hearing and after I have reviewed my notes of the testimony, and have reviewed the evidence to document my decision. I then make my final decision and look to see if it lines up with my initial impression of the case. I think you'd be surprised how often my mind is changed. There are times when I've paid even though I don't like the claimant and have assigned only marginal credibility to their testimony; or I've not paid even though I have great empathy for the claimant and know they need the money. I am constrained by the Law and the Regulations. My personal approach, right or wrong, is that I have been hired to make a decision. I try to do a thorough job reviewing the evidence before the hearing. I gain an initial impression of the case. I listen to the claimant's testimony. I make a final determination. eBB helps me stay focused on the issues and gets me prepared for the hearing. After the fact, it helps me document that decision. The main thrust of this thread is that eBB is actually a pretty effective tool for helping new ALJ's review the file, consider the evidence and the issues, and make a decision. Others will disagree, and that's okay. Craftsman, Husky and Kobalt all make 1/2" socket sets. Each works fine. If the garage I'm working at provides me with Kobalt tools, I'll use them even though I might prefer Craftsman. In this case, I actually like the tool I've been provided and told to use. ht
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Feb 16, 2015 10:33:49 GMT -5
I use the Enhanced FIT templates. I like them. I also write excellent, comprehensive instructions, that include specific exhibit and page to diagnoses, opinions, useful quotes. I will likely continue to use Enhanced FIT. Should that software in time cease to be supported, I may use my own template or EBB. I may handwrite my instructions. I may just go fishing.
I never really did like Kool-Aid.
Everybody should use whatever works best for them. Best, Hamster
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 11:22:05 GMT -5
ODAR writers like the FiT template because it requires that the ALJ provide the writer with essentially all the necessary information to draft the opinion (e.g. AOD, severe impairments, RFC, approval of attorney's fees, CDR, etc.). The FIT instructions to the writer, from my perspective, saves writers time in figuring out the necessary info required to draft the favorable, unfavorable, later onset, etc., decisions without having to guess, dig into often voluminous files, or seek clarification or more info from the ALJ. Uclabruin:
You apparently have never seen a HLDS from eBB, I will be happy to send you 40 or 50 of my recent ones to prove a point.
Just like Fit templates, the first 2 pages of eBB instructions have the decisional outcome, sequential 1 and/or 2, AOD, severe impairments, listings, RFC, approval of attorney's fees, CDR, and everything else that is vital to the basics of every opinion. All in the SAME first two or three pages.
I'm a NODAR and I have recently taught myself Fit enhance instructions/ and decisions templates. The Fit instructions are nothing more than a glorified word document with none of the many features of eBB. eBB was designed for pre-hearing/hearing/post-hearing and Hearing Level Decision Summary for both writers and ALJs and it's a lot easier to use than Fit and easier to change mid stream in any area.
If Fit is what makes you happy, go for it, but HT is correct, eBB is the future, writers and old Judges, get over it and learn it...
or heck, go back to the good old days of sticky notes that shows =pay and =no pay.
IMHO, tiger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 11:46:36 GMT -5
From my perspective, it's really not about drinking the Kool-Aid, it's more about doing the job with the tools that the Agency wants you to use to ensure uniformity in the legal process.
I'm an Article I Judge, not Article III, my sworn duty in the executive branch is to follow the laws, rules, CFRs and etc... to decide my cases.
The problem with using "whatever that works for them" is that there is no detailed, coherent paper trail to verify whether that the ALJ followed the laws, rules, CFRs and etc...to decide the case.
Having said all of that, I don't care one way or another how any ALJ does her/his job, it's her/his job to do for a lifetime anyway they please, but eBB is a good system.
IMHO, tiger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 11:47:59 GMT -5
I find this topic quite fascinating. My observations: 1. There is no "if" EBB is the future of claims decisions. That is a certainty. The authorities at SSA have repeatedly announced same, implemented same and geared all in that direction. EBB and it's progeny is the future. 2. There is no "if" FIT templates are to be discontinued in future claims decisions. That is a certainty. The authorities at SSA have repeatedly impled same and begun dismantling of same as soon will MS Word.
An ALJ can either move forward with EBB or stay with an ever diminishing and rapidly obsolete technology. The choice will be given a grand...shrug of the shoulders. It is much the same as computers vs. paperpads. There are ALJ's who continue to handwrite instructions on paperpads. There are a rapidly increasing majority of ALJ's who use computers for same. The claimant who receives the final decision cannot tell which method was used. Thus the end justifies the means.
Does this mean that the current paper v. electronic, FIT v EBB contest will continue for inifinity and beyond?
No. IMHO, and to be blunt the non-electronic and the FIT users (including attorney advisors, writers, etc) will all eventually become obsolete in toto and disappear. May not be in 1 year, maybe not even in 10 years, but it will happen, that was written on the wall long ago. Thus there are many ALJs who will continue to use paper/FIT etc and continue to put out good decisions in a timely manner. For thoese ALJs current employed and perhaps those newbies who do not plan to stay longer than 10 years, this will be the way it is until they leave or otherwise retire. Again...a shrug of the shoulders as long as decisions are put out during your finite period of future employment.
But, again IMHO, if you are a current ALJ or a newbie and you plan to stay on longer than 10 years, then your best option would be to learn the new tech (EBB is extremely simple, can be learned in less than 1 day, if not in 1/2 a day) and adopt and adapt to the new tech and the newer tech that will subsequently replace even EBB. Too fight against future change that is all but written is not quite sensical, much much easier to learn and move forward.
(E.G. in my case for example, I use EBB 100% of the time. I do find typing in QWERTY slow, however as it is based on an intentional technical slowdown (to prevent typewriter keys from jamming)dating from the 1800's. There is a much better method called DVORACK. You can change your computer keyboard to type in DVORACK through control panel preferences. More than 70% of words can be typed by simple, slight movement of 8 fingers placed in line, and even just one handed if necessary (DVORACK was developed during WWII for fast correspondence and one handed situations). Speeds up to 212 WPM are recorded. There are online DVORACK free training course, very simple to learn.You do NOT look at the keyboard and it is much much faster than QWERTY. Just one more example and choice, one can stay with QWERTY typing or learn a newer faster more efficient system. Your final output of which choice you made will not be noticeable to the end user.)
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Feb 16, 2015 11:57:25 GMT -5
One reason I do not think that the FIT templates are going anywhere soon is that they are part of the Document Generation System (DGS). The DGS includes many pre and post-hearing notices, expert witness interrogatories, correspondence such as proffer notices, etc. It also includes the templates that the decision writers use. Not that ODAR could not replace this system with something else, I just don't think that it will happen any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 16, 2015 11:59:13 GMT -5
papajudge, fantastic post.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 16, 2015 12:09:14 GMT -5
One reason I do not think that the FIT templates are going anywhere soon is that they are part of the Document Generation System (DGS). The DGS includes many pre and post-hearing notices, expert witness interrogatories, correspondence such as proffer notices, etc. It also includes the templates that the decision writers use. Not that ODAR could not replace this system with something else, I just don't think that it will happen any time soon. You are likely correct, and to those that prefer other methods, I'm all for doing things in the manner that works best for you. But to HT's original point, if you are a newbie, you may want to take the time to learn eBB now while you are given intensive training on it and having your hearing load slowly increased. It's probably better to master it now than while you're trying to hold 50+ hearings a month.
|
|