Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 12:10:18 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. I think you unintentionally verified the demise of FIT. FIT is not going anywhere soon, or ever, as it is instead simply going to be left to slowly die and silently on it own accord. Yes it is part of DGS, another obsolete technoclogy that will also be left to die. Why do I say this? Look at the FIT and DGS. They have not changed or been upgraded in years. Try to implement/install/design a new DGS or FIT (I did) and you will run into a solid brick wall;there will be no changes to FIT or DGS, no new FITs no new DGS's. ODAR will not ever replace FIT or DGS. There is no need to bother to do so. FIT and DGS are already dying, just leave them be, and eventually they will with little to no cost involved. Happens all the time in the tech world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 12:22:39 GMT -5
When I started this thread, I knew there would be push back. I’ve been a litigator for 25 years. 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. MPG, I don't know what area of law you are practicing in at this time, but in the Criminal Defense world, the jury DOES decides at some point shortly after opening arguments their opinions about the case. It's a proven fact and all great Defense Attorneys know that if they have any chance to win acquittal or not guilty, it's in the opening statement followed up my the evidence that supports the Defense's theory of the case and cross examination of the state's witnesses that support your theory of the case.
If you or your client is hoping that the jury is waiting for all the evidence to come in before deciding your client's guilt or innocence, your client is screwed already and has been ever since he hired a fool/idiot for a criminal defense attorney.
As far as Title II or XVI, I was under the impression that in order to find somebody disabled there must be medical evidence in the F section to support the favorable decision. Heck, now that I know that all that I have to do is wait for the claimant to testify that they are disabled (or not disabled), I will quit doing my pre-hearing eBB workup and just wait for that testimony.
Thanks MPG, I can now sit back and relax for the next 14 years knowing that the claimants will always provide that crucial testimony to grant or deny benefits. Or maybe, just maybe, I will do what HT does and review the medical proof in DETAIL and make a preliminary decision about the case since I most likely have 2 CEs, x-rays, CT scans and most if not all of the medical proof already in the file.
tiger
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Feb 16, 2015 14:59:36 GMT -5
Like HT and PJ, I use eBB. I am the only one in my office to do so. I have not heard any negative feedback from the writers about it - yet. As a former writer, I don't think that any formal training is needed. Everything needed to write a decision is there in the first 3 to 4 pages. If it's not there, it probably would not be in the intructions regardless of the format. Most ALJ's particularly those trying something new like eBB are open to questions about instructions if clarification is needed. I personally think eBB is just okay. Kind of clunky and very slow. Also, as a writer, i liked to see the Judge's theory of the case and, the obvious spot for that, up front, has a tight character restriction. But I do think it's the future for better or worse. So, as HT advised, as a new ALJ why not use it now during the learning curve and not have to start a new system from scratch when FIT is finally sunsetted. Given the resources devoted to eBB by ODAR, the writing is on the wall for FIT.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Feb 16, 2015 18:46:27 GMT -5
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 Thanks for clarifying HT, I appreciate it. I did not mean to hijack your thread. Thanks for the eBB tip HT.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Feb 16, 2015 19:00:29 GMT -5
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. MPG, I don't know what area of law you are practicing in at this time, but in the Criminal Defense world, the jury DOES decides at some point shortly after opening arguments their opinions about the case. It's a proven fact and all great Defense Attorneys know that if they have any chance to win acquittal or not guilty, it's in the opening statement followed up my the evidence that supports the Defense's theory of the case and cross examination of the state's witnesses that support your theory of the case.
If you or your client is hoping that the jury is waiting for all the evidence to come in before deciding your client's guilt or innocence, your client is screwed already and has been ever since he hired a fool/idiot for a criminal defense attorney.
As far as Title II or XVI, I was under the impression that in order to find somebody disabled there must be medical evidence in the F section to support the favorable decision. Heck, now that I know that all that I have to do is wait for the claimant to testify that they are disabled (or not disabled), I will quit doing my pre-hearing eBB workup and just wait for that testimony.
Thanks MPG, I can now sit back and relax for the next 14 years knowing that the claimants will always provide that crucial testimony to grant or deny benefits. Or maybe, just maybe, I will do what HT does and review the medical proof in DETAIL and make a preliminary decision about the case since I most likely have 2 CEs, x-rays, CT scans and most if not all of the medical proof already in the file.
tiger
Well no use taking testimony at your hearings Tiger as that evidently is a waste of time for you. Just make decisions solely on the written evidence available at the time of your review of the file. I never said disregard the medical evidence in the file as you suggest in your reply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 19:49:21 GMT -5
I took an oath to follow the law and unless I missed something at ALJ training or my reading of the CFR, I must have medical records to find somebody disabled...period and after reviewing the entire file prior to the hearing, yes I can make a pre-hearing analysis of FAV/UNFAV. Testimony can help in close cases to push it over the "paying" edge, but generally it simply reinforces the actual medical proof that we must rely on prior to awarding lifetime benefits. I recently asked a rep to cite to the section of the CFR that allows the Court to find a severe MDI without any medical records/evidence, just solely based on the claimant's testimony. He didn't have a cite to the Code, do you?
Comparing disability hearings to other areas of the law is a false analogy, my job as an ALJ is to review all of the evidence before the trial and then listen to the claimant's testimony, but we have already saw all of the evidence or 90%, unlike criminal or civil trials. IMHO
Tiger
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Feb 16, 2015 22:40:49 GMT -5
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. I think papajudge's point is well taken here. The Agency has invested too much money into eBB already and there is no turning back. The program has improved tremendously since its roll-out several years ago and there will be on-going improvements base on user inputs. For newbie ALJs starting now, just embrace eBB and provide the feedback to improve its functions. It is likely to be with us for a long time to come, so learning it right up front is probably the best way to approach it as a new judge. Good luck and enjoy the training.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 9:19:29 GMT -5
Looks like the new Judges got a snow day on the first day of class, enjoy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 13:14:27 GMT -5
US Congressman calls feds "wimps" for declaring snow day in DC today...current temp in DC: 29 degrees, visibility 10 miles, sunshine with 0% chance of precipitation.
Feds are Wimps says US Congressman
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Feb 17, 2015 13:26:24 GMT -5
I'd say he's right. Ooh, there's snow; we can't work.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Feb 17, 2015 13:46:59 GMT -5
As a federal employee in DC, I'll own it: I'm a wimp!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 14:34:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Feb 17, 2015 14:37:26 GMT -5
If I'd had that option, I would have taken it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 14:43:05 GMT -5
8 Congressperson made the trip; all from the NE and Minnesota. Brrrrr! I get that. Except one. Cong. Eshoo from ...California. Say what?
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Feb 17, 2015 14:51:47 GMT -5
Well, you know, they have a different variety of palm trees in Cuba from what they have in California... yeah, that's it.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 17, 2015 15:03:32 GMT -5
Maybe he likes cigars and wants to bring back a half dozen Cubans, like Kramer on Seinfeld.
|
|
|
Post by agilitymom on Feb 18, 2015 6:59:59 GMT -5
I too use eBB and find it incredibly helpful, just as tiger and HT explains. Were the writers freaked at first....yes. But I've worked with them and they actually kind of like it now. They needed to know where to look in the instructions for what they needed...and where they could go to get more info if necessary. eBB does have some drawbacks (I hear that a lot of them are being worked on). For example, why on earth is the HLDS in the form that it is...it could so easily be a convertable PDF...but that goes back to hanging on to...and working with DGS. Sometimes, you do have to find work arounds. I find that "sticky notes" on my HLDS will often save time when I've done something....questionable (because we're not allowed to use the word stupid in my house). The program is fairly intitutive (which is good because didn't get a whole lot of mentoring there). I find that unless something earth shaking happens at the hearing, I can usually get my instructions out before I leave for the day. Yes, the instructions are more detailed than FIT. Yes, I sometimes get caught up and spend maybe a little too much time reviewing and making notes on the evidence. It's a learning process. You do have to find what works for you. I use the opening script from eBB but still use a word document script for the hearings (kind of like a security blanket until I feel "safe" with just the opening). I don't use the function by funciton hypo maker in eBB...I use narrative. I do that because I don't want to trip all over myself in the hearings trying to make the hypo sound like ... I don't know.... language? I do believe that I will get to the point (fairly soon) that I won't need that crutch and will start using the function by function (and yes...even though I do narrative right now, they are still function by function...just written in a way I can read them) tool. So go in with an open mind. It might not be as bad as you think.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Feb 18, 2015 8:15:17 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't think writers are resistant to instructions that are complete and restricted to the first part of the form. I think it's an erroneous assumption that this form is being uniformly used as intended.
I find it difficult when there is a lot of cross referencing to the note section. (Thus, the copying and the highlighting.) For example, the medical opinions may be listed in the notes, inviting a blank space or "see opinions" in the instructions. We are supposed to get direction (not work backwards according to Judge Bice) as to what weight they are to be given.
Also, some ALJ's are putting instructions into the notes, sometimes including copious amounts of auto text with instructions to insert it into the decision - in theory we should be able to ignore the notes (or consult them for clarification as when they were a separate doc) and focus on the first few pages of the HLDS, but if we fail to follow instructions, no matter where they are, it's on us.
Kudos to those of you who are on board and using eBB correctly. There may be writers who object to the form used correctly simply because it is new and unfamiliar. If so that's unfortunate. But please understand that the writers' resistance may be based on negative experiences with HLDS instructions which are a mess.
I have seen HDLS instructions that were completed as intended exactly twice (once from a first certer who, like several of the posters, "gets it" and once from an ALJ who took the leap from a happy face to HLDS). That's a pretty low percentage. That is why I am an advocate for in office training so that everyone is on the same page. It's not because I am too dense to figure out the form or because I don't want to change. Probably less than half of the judges I write for use the FIT so I am pretty good at handling different formats and uniformity only makes my job easier. From what I understand, eBB is a great tool that will improve our product, but the transition has not been graceful.
Writing off our concerns as nothing more than resistance to a new format is not going to solve the problem.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 18, 2015 9:14:03 GMT -5
I remember the first time I saw the eBB HLDS as a writer. It was a total mess that needed an index page to help me find if the judge even found the claimant had a severe impairment. After every writer in the office complained, and most judges, it was uniformly abandoned in my old office. As a result of that experience, I went to judgey daycare with a bias against eBB. Once there, with the great training they provide by members of the cadre, I slowly came around.
For one, it is vastly improved over the product I first saw a couple years ago. The team working on it are smart, hands on and responsive to suggestions and complaints. The instrux it generates now do have the actual instrux in the first couple of pages instead of buried throughout the document. It is faster. It's easier to maneuver in. And it is getting better with each new release. Pretty amazing considering multibillion dollar for profit companies have after market problems all the time that require similar fixes and this is a government program. By comparison to past government computer programs, at this point anytime I press "create HLDS" my computer should burst into flames and start cursing. We are way ahead of that.
Can it get better? Of course and it is. Do they need to do more training for the veteran judges and writers? Absolutely. Just a quick eBB fact from fiction VOD would be good. There are so many wrong ideas about it that need to be dispelled. Many such have been expressed in this thread. For instance, there is only one way that an HLDS fails to include each finding that is necessary to write an opinion. The program will not let you create the HLDS without answering every single question that is necessary from step one to step five. If you fail to answer one...it gives you a nice red letter buttchewing to go back and do it. If you, as the judge, overide that, and thus don't answer it? That's on the judge not on eBB.
Second...it's merely a tool. You can use as much of it or as little of it as you want as a judge. I use the prehearing file review portions because I find it very easy to do my notes, identify opinions that need to be addressed and mark specific questions raised by the evidence for the hearing. I don't use the hearing notes section at all. I don't like typing away while the claimant is speaking. I take notes on a notepad. I do use the HLDS instructions because it does make me answer every question and as a new judge I like that. But to each his/her own.
The info in eBB on each claimant is rarely enterd by your clerk, it's promulgated by CPMS and such. And it comes with some great built in tools. Like an age calculator that tells you the claimant's age at multiple important dates at a glance. A BMI calculator. And many more.
Finally...it doesnt matter if you like it or not. Judges can use it or not. Writers, as usual, will be the ones that are forced into a change. And the flip will be from complaining about those judges that use eBB to those that don't. There is an ongoing project to build the eBB writers program. It even has a cool James Bond villain sounding code name that I can't remember at present. When it is complete, it will wholesale replace FIT and the FIT templates. Instructions written in eBB will automatically promulgate into the new "templates" for the writer. The writer won't have to build the template at all. The judges instrux will create the template in eBB (or so I have been told). This change is on the near horizon. When it hits, those judges not using eBB will force the writers to come up with a workaround to do the eBB "template" without any of the eBB input from the judge. They won't force judges to change....but those that don't at least use eBB for their instructions will be putting more work on the writers. But, then again, that's not unusual at all for this agency, right?
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 18, 2015 10:06:42 GMT -5
The kitties and I don't like it... eBB that is.. As far as FIT going away... I do believe that 5 years or so ago we certified that we were 100% electronic, yes?? Strange the number of paper files that have creeped back into the system, no matter what Microsoft said or did. Those dinasaurs we be will not be driven from FIT within the next 10 years. My writers like my instructions. My remand agreement rate is over 90%. We do not like eBB I say. Further eBB does not cover all types of cases, or so I have been told. One Mentor worked hard on us, but she finally gave up and she also gave up on eBB. It ain't there yet folks.. Wait until you see the finished version, the one that hands you your decision, that will then take you 2 hours to fix.. I must go, litter boxes need cleaning.
|
|