Do current-day ALJs with a 45% plus grant rate get "trouble"

[Deleted]

I'm going to write a brutally honest post here as a practicing attorney who has not yet applied for an ALJ position. Since I started practicing in 2001, the grant rate has gone down and is at its lowest since rates have been recorded. I used to practice in front of 50% plus grant rate judges. Rarely, did a judge grant in the 20-35% range.
Obviously, times have changed. But the claimants have not changed, nor the merits of the cases. (This point will be argued, no doubt, with references to the economy, or baby boomers, etc.) Still, the clients I represent now are the same as I represented 14 years ago, in my way of thinking. Same impairments, same sad stories. Some full of BS. Many sincere. 
Consequently, I have seen some really harsh decisions in recent years and these denials clog the federal court dockets. Present day Social Security attorneys go into a case with a 4-5 year timeline in mind. They hope for a windfall at the Federal Court level, anticipating the likelihood of an ALJ denial even if the case is relatively strong, with treating source support.
Here's my question: if an ALJ has a 45% plus grant rate these days, or say, a 55% plus grant rate, he or she is considered relatively "liberal" (i.e. above the nationwide average); so for those who do grant at that rate or above, do they get flack from the higher ups? What about the 60% grant rate judges? Please, don't tow the line and give me a politically correct (i.e. "career correct") response by simply saying what I anticipate: if the ALJ's decision is well-written and supported with the weight of the evidence, it will simply pass review and that ALJ will be able to have independent decision-making status with no negative feedback from the agency at large. Given the current trends of denial, I feel that there is some major pressure on the ALJs to deny, and if they don't, well- they will not enjoy their jobs on a daily basis. 
I say all of this because I don't want to apply for a job and battle a system that is forcing me to deny when I feel the claimant is truly disabled. I would be far from liberal, but by today's standards, it seems that what was once excessively conservative is the norm. Suffice it to say, I see the fall-out in the lives of my claimants who have been denied and live in abject poverty. 
Needless to say, I am feeling very discouraged tonight. 

[bettrlatethannevr]

There seem to be - again, for reasons that can be argued - significant differences among hearing offices throughout the country concerning grant rates. My grant rate is around 54% which is essentially where my hearing office usually is at, and I can say at least for myself that I have never been pressured or influenced in any way to deny, or pay, a case. If there is any message management is trying to communicate, at least in my corner of the ODAR universe, it's all about moving cases, not how we're deciding them.

[southerner]

As someone who has been with the agency for decades, from Atty to Sr Atty to ALJ, I can safely say the agency has not pushed for specific decision one way or the other. The agency simply wants decisions, regardless whether deny, PF or full grant.

That being said, ALJ's come from different legal practice backgrounds and will decide cases differently one from the other in a manner akin to judges that were PI or insurance defense, or prosecution or criminal defense, in practice. There is no formula for which facts in cases can be inputted with the same result each time. There will always be variation.

[JudgeRatty]

You also have to consider factors such as the economy which results in more unfavorable decisions because people apply out of desperation to get some form of income when they cannot find work. Hence recent years of more unfavorable cases. I have seen a direct correlation to this.

There are way too many factors to conclude that this down turn in percentages has anything to do with the ALJs making "more" unfavorable decisions in general without considering other causes. Plus the agency is pushing more "quality" which may now skew what we once produced. How that is skewed I don't know. More training and better quality as opposed to pushing more quantity out the door will likely rest in a difference as well. Making generalizations like what you are suggesting is not considering all of the competing factors. Statistics can lie. You have to look into everything and not make assumptions.

At no time in the 8 years I have been at ODAR has there ever been any influence as to the type of decision to be made. Period.

[JudgeRatty]

And with all of this said I am not sure your question is even appropriate for this board. This board is for ALJ hiring and not to question the decisions of current ALJs by a current rep who has admitted no direct current interest in the application process. Forgive me for being so direct.

[hamster]

"If the ALJ's decision is well-written and supported with the weight of the evidence, it will simply pass review and that ALJ will be able to have independent decision-making status with no negative feedback from the agency at large."

I am no apologist for the Agency--recently, in fact, I wrote, inter alia, twice to the Chief Judge, then to the Acting Commissioner, and finally to my Congressional delegation and to others in Congress, about a completely incompetent ALJ. In my view, nobody in SSA is acting in a timely, meaningful way to protect the claimants and the taxpayers from this ALJ--and that must change. So, to a degree, I hope that establishes my bona fides. (If not, that's OK.) In any event, you said it accurately; albeit skeptically, in your initial post, so I was able to quote you verbatim.

There is no pressure to pay, or not to pay. There is only pressure to decide. Recently, I saw an Appeals Council brief submitted by an attorney protesting one of my decisions--a later onset. The attorney called me an "outlier." I guess I am, because my pay rate is significantly below the national average. But nobody's ever pressured me to pay more. Similarly, I've known judges who are far more likely to pay than I am, and nobody pressures them, either. Frankly, if one pays or denies 95% of the cases, that would likely raise a "red flag." But I firmly believe, "red flag" or not, that if the decision (as you wrote) "is well-written and supported with the weight of the evidence," you won't be overturned or pressured.

SSA ALJs truly enjoy "qualified decisional independence." That's SSA-speak for: As long as you follow the law (and are courteous and professional), you can do what you want.

That's my view, anyway. Best, Hamster

Edit: Trying to correct the italicization and a few other things, but can't....

[gary]

Feb 27, 2015 21:10:21 GMT -5 JudgeRatty said:

And with all of this said I am not sure your question is even appropriate for this board. This board is for ALJ hiring and not to question the decisions of current ALJs by a current rep who has admitted no direct current interest in the application process. Forgive me for being so direct.

I am in no position to add anything on the merits of this discussion being a NODAR. However, those in a position to know all appear to be saying ODAR does not press them to deny cases.

I do agree with Sratty that this subject Is outside the usual subject matter of this Board, and that such an attack on the integrity of sitting ALJs (even one that does not name names) is a very serious matter that should not be taken up here.

I am not so troubled as Sratty that someone who has no current interest in the ALJ hiring process is participating in this Board's discussions, since I know from my own experience that this Board is a splendid place to learn from insiders about the job and from participants about the hiring process.

[ALJD]

This is a somewhat off topic post.

At this point, I think this issue has been adequately addressed.

Thread locked.