Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 17:44:55 GMT -5
If eBB is properly used, it can salvage bad decision writing. But, good decision writing can also salvage bad judging. Both of those statements are already true about my own decisions, and I haven't even signed off on 100 cases total yet. The AALJ complaints in that letter don't correlate 100% to my own reality as a writer-turned-judge, that's for sure. I agree wholeheartedly with the EBB statement. I am a 100% EBB user. From my travel docket earlier this month, I have just received decisions from NCAC's involving different writers. Interestingly, for that docket, apparently for the entire day one day the audio was not working properly and the audio transcripts are not intelligible.
Nonetheless I received fully formed intelligent decisions. Each one carried a note from the writer explaining that the audio was not available. However they then noted that they were easily able to put the decision together with out any problem using my HLDS from EBB. They all got the RFC correct, word for word. There were no edits necessary except perhaps a typo (e.g. him for her) Claimant and VE hearing testimony all in there as well as taken from the HLDS.
Now this may be solely due to my use of EBB/HLDS, but may also be due to the fact that for every decision I receive from a "new" writer around the country, I make a point to email them and thank them for their decision. I then either (or both) point out to them exactly what I liked in their writing and/or what language I preferred for them to use. I then give them that language. Notably I copy that email to the writers' managerial levels. So far 100% of the time the writers (and the managers as well) have responded with much gratitude unanimously saying thanks for the input, the preferred language, etc, because in the normal course of events they get absolute silence back from ALJs around the country and have no idea of how their decisions are being received, edited, etc. However for those writers I contact, their decisions now are sent to me are in the style and format I like and using the language I prefer.
Thus I have found that yes, editing a badly written decision takes time. But then again I only do that once. Thereafter, the writer knows better than to do that again.
My personal opinion is that if an ALJ receives a badly written decision once from a writer......shame on the writer. If the ALJ then receives another badly written decision from the same exact writer..... shame on the ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Aug 28, 2015 7:09:01 GMT -5
Papa, I am very sorry to have to disagree, but I am unable to go along with your concluding statement. I've been a writer and a judge in several offices, and it has been my experience that there is a certain percentage of writers who are incorrigible. It does not matter what kind of correction or training they receive, it simply is not in them to produce a good decision. The percentage will vary from office to office.
When I compliment the good writers on the drafts I receive, management complains about how long it took the writers to get the drafts done. They can give all the lip service they want to "quality" in their broadcasts, but, in the final analysis, they only care about the number of widgets the factory produced this month.
I feel very bad for the good writers. They are under constant pressure from management - nearly all of it related to the speed at which they are writing, so I go out of my way to give glowing reviews of their work, copying their supervisors. Still, they have to worry about their jobs and telework and possible promotions, so they can only invest so much in producing a good decision.
The crappy drafts I receive are only partially the fault of the bad writers. The greater share of discredit goes to the person/s who decided that these individuals should have been placed in positions for which they were manifestly unfit.
If an ALJ continues to receive badly written decisions from the same writer/s . . . shame on management.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 28, 2015 9:03:42 GMT -5
Papa, I am very sorry to have to disagree, but I am unable to go along with your concluding statement. I've been a writer and a judge in several offices, and it has been my experience that there is a certain percentage of writers who are incorrigible. It does not matter what kind of correction or training they receive, it simply is not in them to produce a good decision. The percentage will vary from office to office. When I compliment the good writers on the drafts I receive, management complains about how long it took the writers to get the drafts done. They can give all the lip service they want to "quality" in their broadcasts, but, in the final analysis, they only care about the number of widgets the factory produced this month. I feel very bad for the good writers. They are under constant pressure from management - nearly all of it related to the speed at which they are writing, so I go out of my way to give glowing reviews of their work, copying their supervisors. Still, they have to worry about their jobs and telework and possible promotions, so they can only invest so much in producing a good decision. The crappy drafts I receive are only partially the fault of the bad writers. The greater share of discredit goes to the person/s who decided that these individuals should have been placed in positions for which they were manifestly unfit. If an ALJ continues to receive badly written decisions from the same writer/s . . . shame on management. I wholly endorse this post. Unless you have a new writer, you've basically got what you've got in terms of quality. That's not to say writers can't get better over time and improve their analysis to a certain extent, but basic English and analytical skills can't be taught with email feedback. Somewhat related to this, I want to add that I've had a handful of decisions written at the national writing center. I was very nervous about their quality after seeing posts on this board, but I have yet to see a decision from the NWC that wasn't well written or legally sufficient. I have been very pleased so far.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 28, 2015 9:05:09 GMT -5
I agree with hope entirely. Even as to the NCAC comment. In particular, I have had nothing but excellent drafts come back from Baltimore. I have no doubt there are some bad eggs in the mix there, but I have yet to see them.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Aug 28, 2015 9:20:20 GMT -5
I concur with Funky's and Hope's observations. I was prepared to be disappointed, but instead have been very pleasantly surprised by the drafts I've received from Baltimore. CALJ Bice explained recently at training the amount of work they put into that writing center to get quality products; if the same could be done nation-wide, I'd have little cause for complaint.
|
|
|
Post by odarSAA on Aug 28, 2015 14:43:00 GMT -5
The problems are caused by those at the top who run SSA and ODAR and all levels of management - Not the AALJ or other employee unions. The organizational and managerial structure of the Agency is inefficient, outdated, reinforces the sweatshop numbers mentality, and lends itself to a great deal of cronyism. Drastic changes are needed, and I view the tone of the AALJ letter, as well as the unions overall stance and presentation, as a breath of much needed fresh air and a firm step in the right direction. All offices are, indeed, different; however, those I have worked in over the years are consistent with the sweatshop, obsessive numbers environment described by the AALJ, and all have exhibited problems created by poor management through the entire chain of command, and cronyism. Wow. I must work for a different agency. And me, as well. but, I have been with OHA/ODAR for only two decades, hired right out of school. I am not looking forward to my third decade if the rose is going to lose its bloom.
|
|
|
Post by masondixon on Aug 29, 2015 9:31:44 GMT -5
I have very much enjoyed this thread. As a long-time SSA employee and ALJ I can relate closely to both viewpoints. I have witnessed gross mismanagement at the local, regional and national levels of OHA/ODAR; and I mean ridiculous, egregious, and simply unbelievable incidents or patterns of official misconduct warranting termination. However, more often than not agency management turns a blind eye because the offender is a golden child or numbers are being satisfied. I have seen a foaming at the mouth, rabid dog union running around in circles chasing its own tail until exhaustion. I have even seen the AALJ file an ill conceived federal civil suit seeking to block OPM from hiring ALJs under a modified process that it believed horrific simply because it he process improved SSA attorneys' chances of getting hired. The problem I see repeated over and over again is how extreme and polar opposites the views held are by agency management and union leadership. 99% of us are stuck in the middle just trying to get through a particular day, week, or month. I will say this. The biggest long term threat to ODAR is the current executive leadership obsession with the national "hiring model." The loss of support staff in hearing offices and the preoccupation with housing virtual staff in large city warehouse operations is a very bad idea. It is inconsistent with long term quality improvements in decision making and an efficient procedural due process procedure at the hearing level. It should never be more than a small scale regional or national stop gap approach to managing workloads. ALJs could easily become irrelevant under this model, and an eager Baltimore crowd would be free to DDSize the hearing process as a supposedly cheaper and more "efficient" alternative. You think I am paranoid. Imagine a pure telephonic hearing process dominated by a "Listing" like approach to RFC formulation and vocational analysis. It is a scary prospect for me to consider.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Aug 29, 2015 10:43:17 GMT -5
I concur with Funky's and Hope's observations. I was prepared to be disappointed, but instead have been very pleasantly surprised by the drafts I've received from Baltimore. CALJ Bice explained recently at training the amount of work they put into that writing center to get quality products; if the same could be done nation-wide, I'd have little cause for complaint. Yesterday, I received a decision draft back from Baltimore. I had found Mild mental limitations and limited the claimant to a full range of unskilled light work. The writer took it upon himself to change my finding of Mild limitations to Moderate limitations in Concentration, Persistence and Pace. However, since my hypothetical was based on Mild limitations, this change would have resulted in an automatic remand. I had to change it back myself. I don't know if it is a training issue but writers should be told that it is not their job to change the findings of the Judge. I think you meant to say, don't change findings that would result in a remand. If I wrote verbatim whatever is listed on instructions without question, I'd get a remand a week
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Aug 29, 2015 16:04:14 GMT -5
If a writer makes non-severe impairments severe, and the hypothetical doesn't not reflect them as severe impairments, the A/C will automatically remand the case. It is not the job of the writer to change the findings of the judge. I didn't think that this was a controversial concept. No offense, but you are wrong. How does the AC know what impairments you are finding severe in your instructions vs. what is in the decision? Are you saying what impairments you are finding severe on the record? If so, please stop! What about impairments that are not mentioned at all in the instructions, but are clearly mdi and severe? While your statement is true for mental impairments and arguably impairments wildly inconsistent with the RFC (such as a respiratory impairment that justifies limitation in environment when such is not in the RFC), most of the time adding arthritis to ls did (for example) will not require s change in RFC, which is usually (hopefully) based on the same tx notes and exam findings anyway. As to the complaint about changing milds to moderate on cpp, you are awate that all milds in the b criteria is not consistent with a finding of a severe mental impairment right? Maybe the case you reference is more nuanced, but most writers will change this to a mod in such a case, or alternatively, take out the limitation to unskilled work if they think you intended the mental to be nonsevere. This is the writer covering your back, ie doing his/her job. While it would be nice to be able to discuss such issues with the alj every time they arise, time constraints/production requirements simply do not allow it. Also don't worry about the AC, worry about USDC. You'll live longer. Personally I'll take happy face/frowny face over micromanaged instructions. Sometimes this is better than the explanations, which can be cringe inducing. Really all one should need is the RFC, and one can figure out the severed from there.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Aug 29, 2015 16:13:31 GMT -5
Editing decisions written by someone else is hard work. I wrote decisions for ALJs for 4 years and I know in my head what I want my decisions to look like -- in terms of legal rationale, summary of the medical evidence, how long to discuss which medical opinions. But, what comes back to me from my own pool of writers, often has only a tenuous relationship to what I put in my instructions. The writers (theoretically) listen to the hearing (or read the very cursory notes written down by the so-called "verbatim hearing reporter"), and also read the medical evidence. They may disagree with I disagreeessments, and change or leave out my suggested language. They sometimes do this without telling me in advance. I once tried to put in "hedge" language on an FF decision that I wasn't crazy about paying, but was paying because the VE said "no jobs" to my hypo. The writer rewrote all my hedge language, to make it seem like I was giving the claimant an award for being the most disabled person ever. I changed it back. It is faster for me to write my own FF decision (45 mins) than it is to write instructions and then edit someone else's FF draft. When I was still on only 4 hearings a day, I would write my own FFs from time to time. After I switch from typing to Dragon Speak, I expect I'll get even faster and will still be able to write 1-2 FFs of my own per month... which is a very small drop in the 500-dispos-a-year bucket. However, the reality is, there's just no time to write *every* decision. The writers are a necessary and vital part of the system. They get more time allotted per file than we do, and there are more of them than there are of us (ALJs). Some writers are clearly future ALJs; some writers are clearly future early-out retirees. You will, as an ALJ, have to make bargains with yourself about what decisions you are going to sign your name to. You will, as a matter of time and prioritization, have to sign off on some decisions that contain confusing and inaccurate medical evidence summaries, or nasty/snippy/uninformed credibility analyses. At other times, the writers do such good stuff that I immediately send letters to their group supervisors praising their work product (and I mean it, too). I do "pre-write" language in my instructions; I try to give the writer 5-6 paragraphs of things that I (as a former writer), feel NEED to be in the decision to make it legally sufficient. I figure, if "my" text makes it in, the draft can survive less-than-ideal language written by someone else. And, other times, my instructions have completely fouled something up (clicking on the wrong grid rule, or the wrong "paragraph B" criteria for mental limitations that clash with my RFC assessment), and the writers have saved me. Or they found vital stuff in the medical evidence that I totally missed. This is drifting off topic from the AALJ letter to the DC. If eBB is properly used, it can salvage bad decision writing. But, good decision writing can also salvage bad judging. Both of those statements are already true about my own decisions, and I haven't even signed off on 100 cases total yet. The AALJ complaints in that letter don't correlate 100% to my own reality as a writer-turned-judge, that's for sure. This is a great point that if you want certain language in your decision you should have it in your instructions. Going from writer to a judge can be a curse in that you'll want all your decisions to look the way you wrote them, and that just not going to happen. I also wonder about the utility of having the decision reflect your logic/ train of thought exactly because ultimately what does it matter? either there is substantial evidence supporting your decision or there is not. In a perfect world sure, but in ODARworld it's probably just expecting too much
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Aug 29, 2015 16:22:21 GMT -5
Yesterday, I received a decision draft back from Baltimore. I had found Mild mental limitations and limited the claimant to a full range of unskilled light work. The writer took it upon himself to change my finding of Mild limitations to Moderate limitations in Concentration, Persistence and Pace. However, since my hypothetical was based on Mild limitations, this change would have resulted in an automatic remand. I had to change it back myself. I don't know if it is a training issue but writers should be told that it is not their job to change the findings of the Judge. I think you meant to say, don't change findings that would result in a remand. If I wrote verbatim whatever is listed on instructions without question, I'd get a remand a week AMEN!
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Aug 29, 2015 18:12:03 GMT -5
I too have had good luck with Baltimore decisions. However, it takes a long time because they are reviewed multiple times by more experienced writers. I doubt this will last but hopefully the time and effort will payoff. I, personally, could care less if a DW changes the impairments if it does not affect the RFC and I have standard language to that effect in my instructions. As a former writer, I feel that I can tell a lazy decision from a bad one. Frequently, but not always, the latter are caused by my instructions. Recently, I received a bad one from our Regional Writing Unit. (Yes my instructions were lacking but even accounting for this it was a terribly written decision) It made me realize that because it takes so long to fix a bad decision, one bad one can really color your view of the writer or even the unit if you don't know the writer. I think that Baltimore may have been on the receiving end of this type of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Loopstok on Aug 29, 2015 18:19:12 GMT -5
This is a great point that if you want certain language in your decision you should have it in your instructions. Going from writer to a judge can be a curse in that you'll want all your decisions to look the way you wrote them, and that just not going to happen. I also wonder about the utility of having the decision reflect your logic/ train of thought exactly because ultimately what does it matter? either there is substantial evidence supporting your decision or there is not. In a perfect world sure, but in ODARworld it's probably just expecting too much Well, I like to have my logic/train of thought reflected, because I want the claimant (and lawyer, if any) to understand why I decided the way that I did. Maybe this is too idealistic of me. But I have bitter memories of having been a rep and reading endless decisions (this was pre-FIT, pre-OQR, pre-decision writer quality and accountability initiatives) that denied the claimant for spurious and illogical reasons that had nothing to do with either the contents of the medical records, or with what transpired at the hearing. For example, I still believe that, if the claimant's collecting unemployment benefits (in order to avoid starvation) wasn't discussed during the hearing, it shouldn't be discussed in the decision, either. If the claimant explains to me during the hearing that they have no medical insurance and can't see a doctor, the writer shouldn't spend 3 paragraphs in the decision on character-assassination for failing to comply with medical care. Again, my wish for a decision that reflects my personal reasons for granting or denying the case, may be completely impractical and unreasonable. But I'm gonna aim for that goal until the day that I burn out. I'm writing for the claimant and the claimant's rep first... I'm writing for OQR and the Appeals Council and my HOCALJ and the decision-writer's group supervisor, second. [1] [1] of course, if I'm writing a case that happens to fall under the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal's purview, then I am writing for Judge Posner first, the claimant second, and everybody else third.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 29, 2015 18:23:30 GMT -5
If a writer makes non-severe impairments severe, and the hypothetical doesn't not reflect them as severe impairments, the A/C will automatically remand the case. It is not the job of the writer to change the findings of the judge. I didn't think that this was a controversial concept. Sometimes, writers just make mistakes. Either way, this is why cases are put into EDIT and you have a chance to review the draft before putting it into SIGN. Good thing you are an astute ALJ and caught it.
I am not saying that things like this don't happen (writers changing facts that will alter the RFC) but I would not jump to the conclusion it was on purpose. Writers ARE taught to do what you have in your instructions, but they are also taught that this is a team approach and if they see something that can save a draft from a remand, that they can "suggest" changes... hence the term attorney "advisor." And yes, I know some are non-attorneys, but skill levels vary in every position description just like in any job on the planet. I guess my point here is that mistakes do happen, and that is why we have multiple layers to try and catch things.... jumping to the conclusion that it was purposeful isn't necessarily the case. After all, if a case comes back on remand, it is a ding on the writer too--so there is a vested interest in getting it right.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Aug 29, 2015 20:51:30 GMT -5
This is a great point that if you want certain language in your decision you should have it in your instructions. Going from writer to a judge can be a curse in that you'll want all your decisions to look the way you wrote them, and that just not going to happen. I also wonder about the utility of having the decision reflect your logic/ train of thought exactly because ultimately what does it matter? either there is substantial evidence supporting your decision or there is not. In a perfect world sure, but in ODARworld it's probably just expecting too much Well, I like to have my logic/train of thought reflected, because I want the claimant (and lawyer, if any) to understand why I decided the way that I did. Maybe this is too idealistic of me. But I have bitter memories of having been a rep and reading endless decisions (this was pre-FIT, pre-OQR, pre-decision writer quality and accountability initiatives) that denied the claimant for spurious and illogical reasons that had nothing to do with either the contents of the medical records, or with what transpired at the hearing. For example, I still believe that, if the claimant's collecting unemployment benefits (in order to avoid starvation) wasn't discussed during the hearing, it shouldn't be discussed in the decision, either. If the claimant explains to me during the hearing that they have no medical insurance and can't see a doctor, the writer shouldn't spend 3 paragraphs in the decision on character-assassination for failing to comply with medical care. Again, my wish for a decision that reflects my personal reasons for granting or denying the case, may be completely impractical and unreasonable. But I'm gonna aim for that goal until the day that I burn out. I'm writing for the claimant and the claimant's rep first... I'm writing for OQR and the Appeals Council and my HOCALJ and the decision-writer's group supervisor, second. [1] [1] of course, if I'm writing a case that happens to fall under the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal's purview, then I am writing for Judge Posner first, the claimant second, and everybody else third. Well I can certainly appreciate wanting your rationale explained and admire your commitment to that end, though I remain skeptical of the practicality. I too was a claimants rep before coming inside & the biggest (well only) insight I gained was that decisions do not necessarily reflect what the judge was thinking, but more likely reflect the disposition of the writer and whatever autotexts they have on hand. To me, the disconnect between writers and judges, and the "steno pool" model of decision writing (vs a traditional "law clerk" model where judges work with a couple writers exclusively) is the biggest obstacle to putting out quality decisions at a reasonable clip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 7:32:19 GMT -5
"My personal opinion is that if an ALJ receives a badly written decision once from a writer......shame on the writer. If the ALJ then receives another badly written decision from the same exact writer..... shame on the ALJ."
My point here being that if you as an ALJ, on your decisions with your signature, do not speak up to correct poor writing, then I do not blame the writer. The writer can read your instructions but she cannot read your mind nor can she interpret your silence.
I too have had good to very very good writing results locally and from across the country. I have yet to find an incorrigible writer who is going to write the horrid decision regardless of training/instruction. I have had one (1) writer that sent me a decision that was not satisfactory at all. I took it upon myself via one email to inform the writer and his management here are the errors, here are the corrections, and here is what I prefer in future decisions as to canned language, formatting etc. I received with the hour an apology from both management and the writer and by the next morning a completely revised decision that required absolutely no edits. That writer has since continued with excellent decisions.
Others may disagree, but I personally have little sympathy for ALJs who bemoan horrific writing but in turn admit to never bothering to express their thoughts to that writer and management and to work out solutions. We are all in the same boat going the same direction. I am always looking for ways to decrease my workload. If I see another person in the boat not paddling properly, rather than silently cussing them out from afar and causing myself to do twice the paddling work as result, I am going to tell her how to correctly paddle so I have a lot less paddling to do myself.
|
|
|
Post by lonestar on Aug 31, 2015 8:58:31 GMT -5
Thanks papajudge! As a writer, I appreciate your willingness to dispense constructive criticism. I've worked in different offices, and we always tell judges that without feedback we won't know how or where to improve. It's not fun to confront someone when his or her work is subpar; however, bemoaning it without making an effort to help the writer improve is bad for the judge, bad for the writer, and bad for the office.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 9:57:36 GMT -5
Just now sent a language template I like to use at Step 4 to a NCAC writer.
His immediate email response, matches yours: e.g. Thank you Judge for the template, will put to good use. it is extremely helpful when Judges let us know what they prefer...
Took all of 1 minute to "train" this writer in what I like.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Aug 31, 2015 13:05:25 GMT -5
It never ceases to amaze me how people who have been doing this job for weeks or months can lecture and condescend to others who have done it for years or decades. If you have not come across writers who are utterly beyond correction, you have been doing this job for an extremely brief time and/or have been spectacularly lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 31, 2015 13:35:06 GMT -5
Ah good you guys have gone from attacking the Union and Management to attacking each other. I'm going to get some popcorn.
|
|