|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 1, 2015 18:16:54 GMT -5
Then it varies by office. I've never been in an office that precludes ALJs from holding hearings in OCEP days, and I'm in my third. We don't have to go to staff meetings, and I am genuinely curious how many offices actually have monthly ALJ meetings. And what's with the 600 number? Just because the goal is 500-700 doesn't mean anyone has to pump out more than 500. Nobody has to do 600 per year, and 500 got you a pat on the back. Going over 500 in a hypo is simply trying to reach a desired result by decreasing the average time per file. And in the mishmash of vague extra time kills (4 quarterly fire drills at 15-20 minutes per drill... really? ) are the built in time savers, like short FREV hearings with amended onset dates, no shows, OTRs, withdrawn requests for hearings, untimely requests for hearings, etc. There are plenty of opportunities to make up lost time and ease the burden of hitting 500 in the job. That said, it is much easier to do in some offices than others simply because of file size, quality of representation, level of care available to the indigent, etc., but the 2.5 hours per file number is a highly manufactured and exaggerated figure thrown around by the AALJ. Even if you assume an ALJ needs 10 weeks of non-work per year (2 weeks fed holidays, 5 weeks annual leave for a 15+ fed employee, a week for CLE/AALJ conference, and two weeks of misc leave like sick leave, inclement weather, etc.), you're at ~3.4 hours per file to hit 500. And that number doesn't include any of the made up time I discussed above that probably happens on a quarter to a third of all cases. Without trying to rebut your personal observations in any way, but purely from a logical standpoint, I need to point out that you can't offset an amount of non-work time with work time in which easy work is done. The easy cases are already included in whatever average is eventually derived from work hours consideration. You could only "save" hours on a case if there was some kind of minimum number of hours every case was deemed to take prior to applying an averaging factor. I'm not sure I'm clear, but basically, you can't make up time doing work quickly when doing that work quickly is already part of the average time per case you are trying to achieve. Also, I picked 600 because 500-700 is the stated goal. Check out your colorful "on pace" graphic in How MI Doing? There's a helpful "how to get to 700" line, to prepare for the planned increases. Again, there's no need to go over 500 when figuring out the goal. I am aware there is a ceiling. I'm also perfectly aware that doing the bare minimum of 500 is 100% sufficient and worthy of great praise. I agree with you on the average. I guess my point should be that average time to handle a file is a pretty worthless stat. Saying you have 3.4 hours to review a file, hold a hearing, write instructions, and edit/sign a decision isn't entirely accurate because there is a significant number of cases where you're not doing all of those actions. On the cases where you actually do all of those things, you actually have more than 3.4 hours per file.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 1, 2015 18:55:22 GMT -5
Prop, you need to sharpen your pencil. First off, we work 7 1/2 hours a day. Therefore we work 1950 hours a year. Those of us that have been around have 208 hours of leave a year. I lost 8 days last year by overbooking my docket to get numbers. We have 80 hours of Federal Holidays. We have 40 hours of AALJ Training/Conference. We have 40 hours of training at Falls Church some/most years. We have 20 hours of ALJ meetings in the office. We also have 32 hours of VOD days when we are not allowed to hear cases. If we are trying to do 600 cases a year, we have 2.55 hours each from go to gone... That doesn't include the biannual fire/active shooter/in place shelter training or the unknown hours waiting for the computer to come up or be fixed.. But I digress. I had not heard this before. Just trying to confirm that ALJs work 37.5 hour per week (i.e., 7.5 hours per day with 30 min lunch) rather than traditional fed employee schedule of 40 hours a week.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Sept 1, 2015 18:58:42 GMT -5
i think it's the 30 minutes of breaks per day(if taken) that knock real time down to 37.5 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 1, 2015 22:03:54 GMT -5
Without trying to rebut your personal observations in any way, but purely from a logical standpoint, I need to point out that you can't offset an amount of non-work time with work time in which easy work is done. The easy cases are already included in whatever average is eventually derived from work hours consideration. You could only "save" hours on a case if there was some kind of minimum number of hours every case was deemed to take prior to applying an averaging factor. I'm not sure I'm clear, but basically, you can't make up time doing work quickly when doing that work quickly is already part of the average time per case you are trying to achieve. Also, I picked 600 because 500-700 is the stated goal. Check out your colorful "on pace" graphic in How MI Doing? There's a helpful "how to get to 700" line, to prepare for the planned increases. Again, there's no need to go over 500 when figuring out the goal. I am aware there is a ceiling. I'm also perfectly aware that doing the bare minimum of 500 is 100% sufficient and worthy of great praise. I agree with you on the average. I guess my point should be that average time to handle a file is a pretty worthless stat. Saying you have 3.4 hours to review a file, hold a hearing, write instructions, and edit/sign a decision isn't entirely accurate because there is a significant number of cases where you're not doing all of those actions. On the cases where you actually do all of those things, you actually have more than 3.4 hours per file. We need to talk about your flair.
|
|
|
Post by thankful1 on Sept 1, 2015 22:18:51 GMT -5
As a noob, I am COMPLETELY stressing about "the Number." I legitimately can't see how it can be done without some level of compromise. Maybe it will become clearer as I gain experience--I sure as hell hope it does because i'm pretty uncomfortable right now--but some of these records are mammoth, and i'm not as good a skimmer as some people are. god knows I skim what I can, but it seems like much of the record requires more digestion, and reflection than we have time to give it. I don't yet know what the percentage of dismissals is, so obviously the more you have of those, the more time you have on the other cases, and I get that not all cases are huge (though I hear in some offices, they are) The path to the Number is just not clear to me as of yet. The "good" news though, per the recent affirmance of an ALJ dismissal is that you can apparently suck at your job for a dozen years before you'll get the boot. I'm pretty sure I can, and will, do better than 10 dispositions a month.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Sept 1, 2015 22:41:16 GMT -5
Don't forget that if you don't schedule 50 hearings a month you will not be able to do flexiplace shortly. The non-hearings on OCEP days was in a directive sent from CALJ Bice and as everything else about ODAR is ignored if it might slow down the numbers by many offices, but not all.
Oh, about the ALJ that got terminated, that is just the beginning, now that they know they can do it and how to do it, they will do it..
|
|
|
Post by christina on Sept 2, 2015 5:12:31 GMT -5
thankful, i know of some ALJ's who work extra to make sure they stay ahead of their cases. and they still take leave too, i am happy to report. but they'll work credit on weekends and some of those hours have gone over the credit limit(and thus they lose that time to take off down the road).
just keep plugging at this point.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Sept 2, 2015 6:45:32 GMT -5
As a noob, I am COMPLETELY stressing about "the Number." I legitimately can't see how it can be done without some level of compromise. Maybe it will become clearer as I gain experience--I sure as hell hope it does because i'm pretty uncomfortable right now--but some of these records are mammoth, and i'm not as good a skimmer as some people are. god knows I skim what I can, but it seems like much of the record requires more digestion, and reflection than we have time to give it. I don't yet know what the percentage of dismissals is, so obviously the more you have of those, the more time you have on the other cases, and I get that not all cases are huge (though I hear in some offices, they are) The path to the Number is just not clear to me as of yet. The "good" news though, per the recent affirmance of an ALJ dismissal is that you can apparently suck at your job for a dozen years before you'll get the boot. I'm pretty sure I can, and will, do better than 10 dispositions a month. You are right to be at least somewhat stressed about the number. That being said, most ALJs who don't make the number are not fired - otherwise they would have to hire at least 600 new judges per year for that alone. When I went to new judge training, I was told that I had to be more familiar with the file than anyone else in the room. I'm still operating under that rule; I don't know if I always succeed. It is scary because, back when they tested these things, I was the fastest reader in my school, yet it takes every waking workday minute for me to meet that obligation and to hold full and fair hearings and issue good instructions. More of my time is taken up with editing than anything else. That means I work "credit hours" pretty much every day and donate most of my weekends to SSA. I lose leave every year; I actually end up just giving it away to people who are sick. I will make the quota this year, as I have previously, but not by much. On the other hand, I have known judges who do nothing but skim the file a few minutes before hearing. Afterwards they issue some smiley-face instructions and pay most all their cases. They never seem to be here on the weekends and they are out the door not a minute after the shift is up. They generally make the goal and then some. Historically, management has had very little problem with this type of ALJ. If you do this job correctly, 500 is a tough goal. It's doable if you have good staff and good writers. If you don't have that, you could possibly still make goal ethically, but I suspect you would have to donate a lot of your personal time to the cause. I have chosen this path. I will stay on it until I am burned out and turn into the other type of judge - - or until others (esp. mgmt.) do their jobs. I don't mind working hard when everyone else does the same, but I confess to an occasional feeling of resentment when I see others taking the easy road. Having worked in various regions in various ODARs, the quality of personnel in the office makes a tremendous difference with respect to your ability to perform the ALJ job and with respect to your view of government work generally. I wish you the best!
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Sept 2, 2015 8:29:15 GMT -5
Again, there's no need to go over 500 when figuring out the goal. I am aware there is a ceiling. I'm also perfectly aware that doing the bare minimum of 500 is 100% sufficient and worthy of great praise. I agree with you on the average. I guess my point should be that average time to handle a file is a pretty worthless stat. Saying you have 3.4 hours to review a file, hold a hearing, write instructions, and edit/sign a decision isn't entirely accurate because there is a significant number of cases where you're not doing all of those actions. On the cases where you actually do all of those things, you actually have more than 3.4 hours per file. We need to talk about your flair. I love a great movie reference.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 2, 2015 9:20:00 GMT -5
We need to talk about your flair. I love a great movie reference. It popped into my head when I read Hope's post as the most appropriate thing to say.
|
|
|
Post by ibnlurkin on Sept 2, 2015 9:48:20 GMT -5
As a noob, I am COMPLETELY stressing about "the Number." I legitimately can't see how it can be done without some level of compromise. Maybe it will become clearer as I gain experience--I sure as hell hope it does because i'm pretty uncomfortable right now--but some of these records are mammoth, and i'm not as good a skimmer as some people are. god knows I skim what I can, but it seems like much of the record requires more digestion, and reflection than we have time to give it. I don't yet know what the percentage of dismissals is, so obviously the more you have of those, the more time you have on the other cases, and I get that not all cases are huge (though I hear in some offices, they are) The path to the Number is just not clear to me as of yet. The "good" news though, per the recent affirmance of an ALJ dismissal is that you can apparently suck at your job for a dozen years before you'll get the boot. I'm pretty sure I can, and will, do better than 10 dispositions a month. You are right to be at least somewhat stressed about the number. That being said, most ALJs who don't make the number are not fired - otherwise they would have to hire at least 600 new judges per year for that alone. When I went to new judge training, I was told that I had to be more familiar with the file than anyone else in the room. I'm still operating under that rule; I don't know if I always succeed. It is scary because, back when they tested these things, I was the fastest reader in my school, yet it takes every waking workday minute for me to meet that obligation and to hold full and fair hearings and issue good instructions. More of my time is taken up with editing than anything else. That means I work "credit hours" pretty much every day and donate most of my weekends to SSA. I lose leave every year; I actually end up just giving it away to people who are sick. I will make the quota this year, as I have previously, but not by much. On the other hand, I have known judges who do nothing but skim the file a few minutes before hearing. Afterwards they issue some smiley-face instructions and pay most all their cases. They never seem to be here on the weekends and they are out the door not a minute after the shift is up. They generally make the goal and then some. Historically, management has had very little problem with this type of ALJ. If you do this job correctly, 500 is a tough goal. It's doable if you have good staff and good writers. If you don't have that, you could possibly still make goal ethically, but I suspect you would have to donate a lot of your personal time to the cause. I have chosen this path. I will stay on it until I am burned out and turn into the other type of judge - - or until others (esp. mgmt.) do their jobs. I don't mind working hard when everyone else does the same, but I confess to an occasional feeling of resentment when I see others taking the easy road. Having worked in various regions in various ODARs, the quality of personnel in the office makes a tremendous difference with respect to your ability to perform the ALJ job and with respect to your view of government work generally. I wish you the best!I'm
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Sept 2, 2015 9:48:34 GMT -5
... When I went to new judge training, I was told that I had to be more familiar with the file than anyone else in the room. I'm still operating under that rule; I don't know if I always succeed. It is scary because, back when they tested these things, I was the fastest reader in my school, yet it takes every waking workday minute for me to meet that obligation and to hold full and fair hearings and issue good instructions. ... Wow, that is a tall order. As a former representative, I always assumed I was supposed to know the file way better than the ALJ in case there were questions. I only knew of one ALJ who knew the file backwards and forwards, and he took up to 2 years to issue his decisions, so that was of little practical benefit to the claimants. I know that one area with which I disagree with ALJ union leadership (if I understand it correctly, which, not being in it, is quite possible) is the applicability of pattern recognition. Every claimant is a unique snowflake, but they all melt at or about 32.01 degrees (at sea level, etc.). Given that 1) exertional RFC findings are almost never phrased in terms other than the definitions of sedentary, light, medium, or no exertional limitations; 2) almost no medical findings DICTATE a level of limitation (maybe paralysis, improperly healed fractures, or the like - but not an amount of central canal stenosis or cartilege degeneration); 3) the hearing testimony will be different from all of the earlier reports of the claimant's functioning due (at least) to time passage, nervousness, foibles of human memory, and waxing/waning symptoms; and 4) the representative should point out something unusual; it seems appropriate to me that an ALJ can and must make certain "assumptions," which if not rebutted by the claimant/representative at the hearing or in writing and not corrected or examined by the writer or other staff person during workup and writing, can justify a certain conclusion. There is a learning curve, and not all ALJs are smart enough or confident enough (or properly oriented in the brain, perhaps) to do it. At this point, I can identify a construction worker or taxi driver from an earnings record. I can predict the results of x-rays based on the doctor's physical examination, and I can predict alleged medication side effects based on the way the claimant describes his hor her diagnoses. Not at ALL to 100% certainty of course, and as a writer, i always chceck the record completely - that's my job. But an ALJ has to make some leaps of logic when he or she becomes comfortable with doing so. I recently wrote a case in which a claimant had seemingly no reason for continually falling down. Moreover, she fell down, but went to the ER three days later, despite a bleeding (or at least allegedly bleeding in retrospect) head wound. She denied the involvement of alcohol, but it was obviously alcohol. Later records clarified that she alleged, in retrospect, drinking heavily every day during this period. The fact that the doctor wrote "denied involvement of alcohol" meant that the doctor suspected it in the first place - else why ask it? I also suspected it, and that, as an ALJ, would be enough to warrant investigation at the hearing, had not later evidence confirmed it. My point is, the system is designed to have parts skipped. In fact, they desperately want ALJs to skip steps, just not in a way that can be observed and not via overt instructions. The Appeals Council and theoretically representatives of the claimants are supposed to be the safety net to allow ALJs to feel they made a "good enough" decision and move on. As always, I am not an ALJ and could be completely wrong. I am a keen observer of human nature and I see into your soul, though, so, you know, I'm pretty confident, but not necessarily credible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 10:33:29 GMT -5
lonelywriter: Just one year as an ALJ, but I agree with you 100% about the chances of being fired as an ALJ for work performance. I don't know about whom bartbley is talking about being terminated (bart PM me details please), but as I entered this process, I did a great deal of research on the job (as I was giving up a better paying solo practice and I liked my current income), the protections provided by the APA and what type of misconduct earned you a trip to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Every time that I mention the fact that ALJs are appointed for life, one person or another will go on and on about how my job is "not an Art. III position" (thanks, Legal Eagle Einstein, I thought I was confirmed by the Senate and just forgot that important trip to DC for the confirmation hearing) or there could be a RIF----1,000,000 PLUS cases pending and there is a possibility of a reduction in force for the very Judges that decide the back log (go sell CRAZY somewhere else)! Here's what it takes to get fired after a trip to the MSPB for serious misconduct, not work performance; pick up prostitutes, (get caught at it by law enforcement), beat your wife/girlfriend and lie about it, download tons of porn on your work computer and blame your wife, (lie about it), don't show up for work for countless days and claim an ADA accomadation that was never approved by anyone officially, use your offical position (title or letterhead) to fight personal battles and lie about it, collect two paychecks from two federal agencies and lie to yourself about it (i.e., a JAG officer that thought it was legal to do both jobs and collect both paychecks), poor work performance and lie about it while insulting the HOCALJ (insubordination) and that's what I can remember from reading the VERY FEW ALJs that have ever been brought before the MSPB. If you are "Forest Gump" stupid or arrogant enough to do any of the above, then you don't have a job for life. If you follow your training, handle your caseload (500 or above), treat eveyone with respect and conduct yourself professionally and properly both on and off the bench, then you have an "Art. I" job that you can die doing at your desk if you would like to go out with your boots on "so to speak" (I did't say "for life" or "Art. III", so save your responses)! If you crunch the numbers over the years of ODAR ALJ life, you have a better chance of winning the LOTTO than getting fired as an ALJ if you adhere to the previous paragraph. Just my humble opinion and I am not seeking a response, just my two cents. "kittylaw"
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Sept 2, 2015 11:17:38 GMT -5
I have been following the writer, vs. ALJ argument here with a bit of nostalgia. As a former writer I completely sympathize with the lack of instructions. When I was writing I considered myself lucky to get an RFC and severe impairments to work off of. There was many a day when I felt like walking into an ALJ's office and shouting, " HELP ME, HELP YOU!". And seriously, you should be able to provide citation to the opinions you wish to credit and discredit, as well as some citation to the objective findings that you are using to support your decision. It will help you get a better product and save the writer time by allowing them to focus on what's important rather than doing a independent record review to (hopefully) find all relevant findings and opinions and dispose of them correctly. It not just courteous, it is more efficient for everyone, including the ALJ.
On the other hand my first job out of law school, I went to work at a firm where the owner/attorney liked to throw files for cases I had never seen before on my desk before I got to the office with a note simply stating "file appearance/complaint" and then leave for the weekend. These always showed up on the day the Statute was to run, and led to a mad dash to prepare a complaint for a case I had never seen, for a client I had never met by 4:00 p.m. and I did not have the benefit of FIT and only a few pieces of canned language to handle universal procedural matters. I had to put my name and bar number on these and not just worry about completing the product but filing on time so I didn't leave myself (and my oh so grateful boss :/) open to malpractice. When I went to ODAR I thought I had found a professional oasis. It's good to remember that law is a pretty brutal profession and protections and work environment ODAR attorneys have would boggle the minds of an attorney in private practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 12:27:26 GMT -5
saao, great post! I wish the writers would give me the feedback that you did in the first paragraph and I ask for feedback in my instructions in EVERY eBB instructions and always end with thanking the writers in advance for their hard work on the draft.
I have gotten a lot of positive feedback and emails thanking me for my fast response to their emails. Apparently some ALJs don't respond very fast. If I see it is a writer, I open it immediately as I figure that they are in the middle of writing one of my decisions and need clarification on my instructions which is wasting their time. I have and always will have the writers' back as they have the harder job in the legal sense. My job is to prepare for the hearing and make a decision. I can do both with ease after 35 years of military and solo practice, some decisions are harder than others, but I follow the CFR and let the medical records dictate the decision. IMHO tiger
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Sept 2, 2015 12:33:34 GMT -5
Some ALJs don't do email, Tiger. Reality check.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Sept 2, 2015 12:46:19 GMT -5
Some ALJs don't do email, Tiger. Reality check. Then they need to retire. Do they collect their paycheck via Direct Deposit? That's required, and so should using email systems. Seriously. Retire now. There are plenty of eligible candidates who use email regularly, can sit in a broom closet, hold a hearing in a makeshift hearing room, and do pretty much anything you ask us to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 12:53:01 GMT -5
Agree 100% Tiger, I also do feedback to local writers (I also walk the hall of writers periodically just to sit down and chat to see if everything is good) and especially for those I have never worked with (long distance NCAC) I always give them email feedback.
Mutual communication; basic Business Management 101.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Sept 2, 2015 13:46:16 GMT -5
Some ALJs don't do email, Tiger. Reality check. Then they need to retire. Do they collect their paycheck via Direct Deposit? That's required, and so should using email systems. Seriously. Retire now. There are plenty of eligible candidates who use email regularly, can sit in a broom closet, hold a hearing in a makeshift hearing room, and do pretty much anything you ask us to do. I did not say he doesn't use the computer. He reviews all of his electronic files. He just doesn't do email.
I just made the point because some of the new judges seem to think that it is easy for writers to communicate with ALJ's and that's not always the case.
I take it individually and love to work with judges who will quickly respond to an email. I even have a few of their cell phone numbers so we can talk when working different hours. The more we work together, the better the result. It's in our mutual best interest to facilitate that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 14:15:49 GMT -5
Some ALJs don't do email, Tiger. Reality check. I wished that was a joke, but sadly it is not! 2015, over 20 years since windows and email, ALJs with a law degree and they can't figure out or wish to use computers to make the job easier (I'm not talking about anybody on this board obviously)! But, that was the saddest thing I learned about others after coming on board. E-mail is the quickest way (other than IM) to get feedback while working and I have had several writers IM and wished more would, I always follow up with an email so I have a record, but mamaru is correct, whatever it takes to make everybody's job easier and keep the dockets moving. IMHO tiger
|
|