|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 18, 2015 17:43:20 GMT -5
This response is adorable, but it is not accurate. However, please keep your innocence as long as possible! Mine lasted several years. LOL! Hey, anytime I can get a comment with adjectives such as "adorable" and "innocence" directed at me or anything I say... I will take it! But I will say, the intel referenced was directly from our very own Chief ALJ Bice and Judge Allen. Last time I checked, they qualify as "in charge" and in the know. But hey, what do I know. LOL!
Ok, time for movie and an adult beverage. Hey funkyodar Pass me one of those beers, even the Keystone! The Billy Beer comment made me crack up. Yes, I remember those.
You misunderstood my skepticism. I agree they are fully and completely in charge (arguably, only to the extent that the law and CBAs allow it). I also agree they are (or could be) fully in the know about the hiring process and goals. To get to your conclusion (that the information provided was accurate), however, your original provenance statement had to include both the written premise (they are in charge) and an unwritten, assumed premise about which we do not have sufficient information to judge the true/false nature. That premise is: Management finds it in the best interests of the agency and the execution of their professional duties to disclose information about this topic only if that information is accurate and complete. While in this case, I happen to assume with you that this unwritten premise is 'true' (in logical terms), I caution your use (or anyone's use) of a similar "management said X, so X is accurate" logical argument structure without consideration of the unwritten/unspoken added premise needed to get to the stated conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 18, 2015 18:14:20 GMT -5
LOL! Hey, anytime I can get a comment with adjectives such as "adorable" and "innocence" directed at me or anything I say... I will take it! But I will say, the intel referenced was directly from our very own Chief ALJ Bice and Judge Allen. Last time I checked, they qualify as "in charge" and in the know. But hey, what do I know. LOL!
Ok, time for movie and an adult beverage. Hey funkyodar Pass me one of those beers, even the Keystone! The Billy Beer comment made me crack up. Yes, I remember those.
You misunderstood my skepticism. I agree they are fully and completely in charge (arguably, only to the extent that the law and CBAs allow it). I also agree they are (or could be) fully in the know about the hiring process and goals. To get to your conclusion (that the information provided was accurate), however, your original provenance statement had to include both the written premise (they are in charge) and an unwritten, assumed premise about which we do not have sufficient information to judge the true/false nature. That premise is: Management finds it in the best interests of the agency and the execution of their professional duties to disclose information about this topic only if that information is accurate and complete. While in this case, I happen to assume with you that this unwritten premise is 'true' (in logical terms), I caution your use (or anyone's use) of a similar "management said X, so X is accurate" logical argument structure without consideration of the unwritten/unspoken added premise needed to get to the stated conclusion. Beer please. LOL! Well, I have always been of a mind that management does what it does to further the mission statement and get the job done. I am on their side because frankly, I have never met anyone who was in the hot seat because they were just minding their own business and doing their job the way they were suppose to do. I have never been one to be on the bad side of management, so maybe my opinion is a bit skewed in this regard.
Now, I understand that there are ALWAYS exceptions, but I think they all mean well. 99% (ok, maybe 97%) of the folks employed at SSA are awesome and do want to do the right thing. So yes, I drink the Kool-Aid and I like it. And you may say, just wait... wait till this or that... wait a few years, blah blah. But I have always been this way (Pollyannaish) and I am not going to change. I am always a half full kind-a-gal, always optimistic, and I always do my job the best way I can. So when the comments start to run into the negative, that's when I smile and say "that's nice." So I understand your pessimism/ skepticism (sort of), and your comments that my thoughts are "adorable" are well received. It's all good. End of the day, it is all about how we serve the public despite all the details that may be overwhelming at times.
I have never had a job that was perfect, but this job is pretty damn close. It beats living in a tent and working at McDonald's. (yes, true story). All I can say is if you find yourself getting frustrated with something, do your part to control what you can control... and do what you can to improve those things you can improve. Things can always improve and if you have ideas that could make our jobs better, help change things! Don't waste your talent by letting your ideas stay in your head (or just on this board). Share them with those who are "in charge." I bet you would be surprised to know that they actually do care.
Ok soap box over. Time to watch Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and to answer the ultimate question....
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 18, 2015 18:33:11 GMT -5
I need a beer, too.
What I have found is that there is often slippage between the planning and the implementation. So what is presented as gospel often has a different tune by the time it gets on the chord chart. And this isn't due to an initial intent to mislead, but rather changes in plans, often caused by external factors, such as Congress. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by lawbird on Aug 18, 2015 18:34:06 GMT -5
JudgeRatty I am extremely impressed by your judicial temperament.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Aug 18, 2015 18:36:35 GMT -5
JudgeRatty I am extremely impressed by your judicial temperament. You should see her drinking tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 18, 2015 18:37:30 GMT -5
JudgeRatty I am extremely impressed by your judicial temperament. You should see her drinking tolerance. I hear she's sober as a judge.
|
|
|
Post by Gram Pop on Aug 18, 2015 19:45:04 GMT -5
You should see her drinking tolerance. I hear she's sober as a judge. And adorable, too.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 18, 2015 20:49:45 GMT -5
I hear she's sober as a judge. And adorable, too. LOL! Ok that made me snort laugh.
|
|
|
Post by cheesy on Aug 19, 2015 1:08:29 GMT -5
I need a beer, too. What I have found is that there is often slippage between the planning and the implementation. So what is presented as gospel often has a different tune by the time it gets on the chord chart. And this isn't due to an initial intent to mislead, but rather changes in plans, often caused by external factors, such as Congress. Pix. Congress: Not on the same sheet of music since 1775.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 19, 2015 7:09:56 GMT -5
I need a beer, too. What I have found is that there is often slippage between the planning and the implementation. So what is presented as gospel often has a different tune by the time it gets on the chord chart. And this isn't due to an initial intent to mislead, but rather changes in plans, often caused by external factors, such as Congress. Pix. Well said Pixie, the best laid plans often go awry. While there may be an actual intent to follow a specific plan and implementation, sometimes things change beyond your control as you stated due to outside external factors. Hence, don't believe everything that is said by someone no matter how genuine he/she is in expressing that thought. Just saying!
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 19, 2015 11:16:46 GMT -5
I agree with lawbird. And I would like to point out that i was not being (or not intending to be, anyway) sarcastic or offensive with the word, "adorable;" innocence (as I sincerely saw it reflected) causes me to think of that word. I have the privilege/burden to have spent time in management and the Kool-Aid brand drink mix is best imbibed (yes, I got tripped up by drunk/drank/drinked/dranken) without watching the podwer being ground.
But in response to Moopigsdad, here's some language I think is appropriate that comes from a decision draft:
The evaluation of the credibility of a claimant’s allegations is not an evaluation of the motivation for the allegations. The evaluation concerns the ultimate ability of the decision-maker to rely on the allegations as fully accurate depictions of the claimant’s impairment-related symptoms and limitations of functioning. It does not matter if inaccuracies are voluntarily or involuntarily provided. It only matters that information from a particular source must be viewed as a less reliable indicator of the actual limitations present.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 19, 2015 12:49:50 GMT -5
I agree with lawbird. And I would like to point out that i was not being (or not intending to be, anyway) sarcastic or offensive with the word, "adorable;" innocence (as I sincerely saw it reflected) causes me to think of that word. I have the privilege/burden to have spent time in management and the Kool-Aid brand drink mix is best imbibed (yes, I got tripped up by drunk/drank/drinked/dranken) without watching the podwer being ground. But in response to Moopigsdad, here's some language I think is appropriate that comes from a decision draft: The evaluation of the credibility of a claimant’s allegations is not an evaluation of the motivation for the allegations. The evaluation concerns the ultimate ability of the decision-maker to rely on the allegations as fully accurate depictions of the claimant’s impairment-related symptoms and limitations of functioning. It does not matter if inaccuracies are voluntarily or involuntarily provided. It only matters that information from a particular source must be viewed as a less reliable indicator of the actual limitations present. Prop my long time friend, I had to chuckle throughout the whole reading of the decision draft you quoted from. It is without a doubt the most interesting statement relating to credibility of a claimant and his/her sources that I have ever read in thirty years of practice of Social Security Law. Now, I am not agreeing with it, but I find it very well stated.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 19, 2015 12:59:25 GMT -5
The evaluation of the credibility of a claimant’s allegations is not an evaluation of the motivation for the allegations. The evaluation concerns the ultimate ability of the decision-maker to rely on the allegations as fully accurate depictions of the claimant’s impairment-related symptoms and limitations of functioning. It does not matter if inaccuracies are voluntarily or involuntarily provided. It only matters that information from a particular source must be viewed as a less reliable indicator of the actual limitations present. That's lawyer speak for : "I'm not saying you are a liar, but you seem to say a lot of stuff that isn't true."
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 19, 2015 13:19:50 GMT -5
Haha. I use it or variations of it in 2 situations. Most often, I use the first 2 sentences (with some surrounding stuff acknowledging aspects of credibility that are favorable to the claimant despite the overall finding of not fully credible) when the claiamnt is honest, but confused and uneducated, and simply gets wrong what he or she was told, such as "I had a stroke," when the hospital records say "told the patient she definitely did not have a stroke." With the last two sentences, it is for personality disordered claimant's who are gigantic liars or exaggerators, but who may not have full control of it, in which case, it's a mental health symptom. This would be followed by an explanation of whether the RFC includes the need to pathologically lie at work (it never does) or why not.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 19, 2015 13:55:21 GMT -5
By the way, whenever I draft language like this, it comes from training materials, generally that I can cite to ALJs or management if needed. I neither present this as a general legal definition of "credibility" nor endorse its general use by any other DWs on the board. However, I am comfortable saying that it reflects "the gist" of general agency policy regarding credibility. I have similar language I use when trying to actually get a claimant to understand why they are losing in terms of concepts like failure to estbalish a medically determinable impairment - trying to explain that the ALJ is not saying they are not sick, only that they need to have certain evidence, etc. By the way my friend, I would venture to guess over 90% of the claimants would have no idea as to what you said or were saying in those statements. Remember, while you may have to use legal jargon for possible appeal purposes, your language shouldn't be such jargon that it's essence reeks of legalese without plain meaning, especially to the unrepresented claimant. ***EDIT*** In the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals any ALJ who would write such a statement would likely be blistered in an appeal by the good Judge Posner.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 19, 2015 14:13:22 GMT -5
As we used to say in English comedy circles, "it's a fair cop." I noticed in my previous time representing claimant's that at least 5% of them don't know what "Fully Favorable" means in terms of the outcome of their cases, so there are diminishing returns in trying to satisfy both the governmental plain language mandate and the legal sufficiency requirements; but your point is well taken.
|
|
|
Post by willsdad on Aug 19, 2015 14:56:07 GMT -5
"It's a fair cop." I remember that line spoken by the "witch" in "Monty Python's The Holy Grail." I hate to admit it, but I didn't know what that expression meant until now, and it makes the whole vignette even funnier! The learning provided by Board members astounds!
|
|
|
Post by lawdog77 on Aug 19, 2015 14:56:56 GMT -5
This process reminds me of a Jimmy Buffett song: "If the Phone Doesn't Ring It's Me."
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 19, 2015 16:30:02 GMT -5
You misunderstood my skepticism. I agree they are fully and completely in charge (arguably, only to the extent that the law and CBAs allow it). I also agree they are (or could be) fully in the know about the hiring process and goals. To get to your conclusion (that the information provided was accurate), however, your original provenance statement had to include both the written premise (they are in charge) and an unwritten, assumed premise about which we do not have sufficient information to judge the true/false nature. That premise is: Management finds it in the best interests of the agency and the execution of their professional duties to disclose information about this topic only if that information is accurate and complete. While in this case, I happen to assume with you that this unwritten premise is 'true' (in logical terms), I caution your use (or anyone's use) of a similar "management said X, so X is accurate" logical argument structure without consideration of the unwritten/unspoken added premise needed to get to the stated conclusion. Beer please. LOL! Well, I have always been of a mind that management does what it does to further the mission statement and get the job done. I am on their side because frankly, I have never met anyone who was in the hot seat because they were just minding their own business and doing their job the way they were suppose to do. I have never been one to be on the bad side of management, so maybe my opinion is a bit skewed in this regard.
Now, I understand that there are ALWAYS exceptions, but I think they all mean well. 99% (ok, maybe 97%) of the folks employed at SSA are awesome and do want to do the right thing. So yes, I drink the Kool-Aid and I like it. And you may say, just wait... wait till this or that... wait a few years, blah blah. But I have always been this way (Pollyannaish) and I am not going to change. I am always a half full kind-a-gal, always optimistic, and I always do my job the best way I can. So when the comments start to run into the negative, that's when I smile and say "that's nice." So I understand your pessimism/ skepticism (sort of), and your comments that my thoughts are "adorable" are well received. It's all good. End of the day, it is all about how we serve the public despite all the details that may be overwhelming at times.
I have never had a job that was perfect, but this job is pretty damn close. It beats living in a tent and working at McDonald's. (yes, true story). All I can say is if you find yourself getting frustrated with something, do your part to control what you can control... and do what you can to improve those things you can improve. Things can always improve and if you have ideas that could make our jobs better, help change things! Don't waste your talent by letting your ideas stay in your head (or just on this board). Share them with those who are "in charge." I bet you would be surprised to know that they actually do care.
Ok soap box over. Time to watch Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and to answer the ultimate question.... I'm not sure I agree with everything stated, but I understand it. The point I would make is that IMHO, its not a job, its an Office. Like it or not you are affecting people's lives to the point of no return. It (again I'm being a lecturer and I hate that) is impearative that you understand that because if you slug your significant other or get picked up for a DUI, you better batten down the hatches. You have a Big Corral (few are bigger) but it is a corral. But as an Office, you (IMHO) have a duty to defend it. That is why the Union and FALJC are important. Because Management has a tendency to see ALJs as problem employees (the problem few define the majority) and not as whom they are--Office holders with a stellar track record. If they infringe on the ALJ Office, I'm going to object.
|
|
|
Post by judgedreamer on Aug 20, 2015 9:42:52 GMT -5
Why not hire everyone on the register, all are qualified. All will be needed.....get them on board now, put them in one of their GAL's, some offices may be a little heavy on Judge's but with transfers going like crazy right now, there is room for all. Plus claimants are waiting 12-15 months for a hearing with an ALJ, a few extra judges across the board may help reduce the lag time! Come on ODAR, bring us on!!!
|
|