|
Post by ba on Feb 18, 2016 5:06:18 GMT -5
I think the Administrative Procedure Act is broad enough to allow that which the agency seeks to accomplish. Section 556 speaks to who may preside at the hearings. Plus the agency has the removal section to bolster its position. § 556. Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, to hearings required by section 553 or 554 of this title to be conducted in accordance with this section.
(b) There shall preside at the taking of evidence -
(1) the agency;
(2) one or more members of the body which comprises the agency; or
(3) one or more administrative law judges appointed under section 3105 of this title. I don't think this is the basis of the argument Pix. The agency is the Commissioner and the one or more is the head of a multi headed agency, such as the SEC, FCC, etc. I think the agency's position would be that Congress hasn't required on the record hearings, making the APA's requirements applicable.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 18, 2016 11:36:05 GMT -5
This whole thing is really starting to get me nervous. Used to be that the AC remands were irritating for being nitpicky (harmless error), flavor of the month (This month we are looking to see if the ALJs addressed obesity as a severe impairment even in cases where only mental is alleged!), or outright incompetence (Facts? Law? What are those?). My office is currently seeing a disturbing number of cases where the AC appears to be supplanting the ALJ's reasoning with their own, or giving little or no weight to an ALJ's finding of credible claimant testimony. If the claimants need a professional medical opinion spelling out every single one of their alleged limitations, we may as well have an ME at every hearing along with the VE.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Feb 18, 2016 12:47:50 GMT -5
Valkyrie's post just give me more hope that the AAJ's will be given the AC remands for rehearing with the claimants and the representatives. If they had to hold some hearings, I think they would have a new appreciation for what the ALJ in the field faces. Let them formulate the RFC, make credibility assessments, weigh opinion evidence and try to develop a case. Let them deal with the rep who drops new evidence into the file the day prior to the hearing or the ME who finds everyone "equals" a listing. Or even the problems trying to schedule hearings with experts.
They are not going to be any better at this than the ALJ is but they will understand the difficulties of the job. Let them deal with the remand when their decisions are reversed/vacated with some of the instructions we get now. I wonder how long it will take for them to recognize that SSR 85-15 says unskilled work involves working primarily with things and not people. So if the RFC did not contain social limitations but the PRT has moderate limitations in social, is it really a reversible error if the VE identified only unskilled jobs? This is particularly irksome when on remand, a different VE is given the additional social limitations and names the same jobs.
Their sitting in review of ALJ decisions reminds me of a situation that happened in the state appeals court for my area several years ago. A person was elected to the Court of Appeals who had very little trial court experience and no criminal experience. Needless to say, that new judge's ability to adjudicate at the appellate level was suspect and it was particularly obvious on issues involving objections to the admissibility of evidence. The solution? He was sent to a district court for a period of time to conduct civil and criminal proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 18, 2016 13:04:39 GMT -5
Valkyrie's post just give me more hope that the AAJ's will be given the AC remands for rehearing with the claimants and the representatives. If they had to hold some hearings, I think they would have a new appreciation for what the ALJ in the field faces. Let them formulate the RFC, make credibility assessments, weigh opinion evidence and try to develop a case. Let them deal with the rep who drops new evidence into the file the day prior to the hearing or the ME who finds everyone "equals" a listing. Or even the problems trying to schedule hearings with experts. They are not going to be any better at this than the ALJ is but they will understand the difficulties of the job. Let them deal with the remand when their decisions are reversed/vacated with some of the instructions we get now. I wonder how long it will take for them to recognize that SSR 85-15 says unskilled work involves working primarily with things and not people. So if the RFC did not contain social limitations but the PRT has moderate limitations in social, is it really a reversible error if the VE identified only unskilled jobs? This is particularly irksome when on remand, a different VE is given the additional social limitations and names the same jobs. Their sitting in review of ALJ decisions reminds me of a situation that happened in the state appeals court for my area several years ago. A person was elected to the Court of Appeals who had very little trial court experience and no criminal experience. Needless to say, that new judge's ability to adjudicate at the appellate level was suspect and it was particularly obvious on issues involving objections to the admissibility of evidence. The solution? He was sent to a district court for a period of time to conduct civil and criminal proceedings. The AAJs will only have to deal with credibility, development issues, and suspect experts and consultants as much as they want to, or as much as the District Courts want them to. Don't forget, the ALJ job can be ridiculously easy if you don't do it the right way...
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Feb 18, 2016 15:33:12 GMT -5
Valkyrie's post just give me more hope that the AAJ's will be given the AC remands for rehearing with the claimants and the representatives. If they had to hold some hearings, I think they would have a new appreciation for what the ALJ in the field faces. Let them formulate the RFC, make credibility assessments, weigh opinion evidence and try to develop a case. Let them deal with the rep who drops new evidence into the file the day prior to the hearing or the ME who finds everyone "equals" a listing. Or even the problems trying to schedule hearings with experts. They are not going to be any better at this than the ALJ is but they will understand the difficulties of the job. Let them deal with the remand when their decisions are reversed/vacated with some of the instructions we get now. I wonder how long it will take for them to recognize that SSR 85-15 says unskilled work involves working primarily with things and not people. So if the RFC did not contain social limitations but the PRT has moderate limitations in social, is it really a reversible error if the VE identified only unskilled jobs? This is particularly irksome when on remand, a different VE is given the additional social limitations and names the same jobs. Their sitting in review of ALJ decisions reminds me of a situation that happened in the state appeals court for my area several years ago. A person was elected to the Court of Appeals who had very little trial court experience and no criminal experience. Needless to say, that new judge's ability to adjudicate at the appellate level was suspect and it was particularly obvious on issues involving objections to the admissibility of evidence. The solution? He was sent to a district court for a period of time to conduct civil and criminal proceedings. SSR 85-15 doesn't say anything about being able to tolerate supervision, so I don't think that will stop getting remanded.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 18, 2016 16:35:28 GMT -5
Valkyrie's post just give me more hope that the AAJ's will be given the AC remands for rehearing with the claimants and the representatives. If they had to hold some hearings, I think they would have a new appreciation for what the ALJ in the field faces. Let them formulate the RFC, make credibility assessments, weigh opinion evidence and try to develop a case. Let them deal with the rep who drops new evidence into the file the day prior to the hearing or the ME who finds everyone "equals" a listing. Or even the problems trying to schedule hearings with experts. They are not going to be any better at this than the ALJ is but they will understand the difficulties of the job. Let them deal with the remand when their decisions are reversed/vacated with some of the instructions we get now. I wonder how long it will take for them to recognize that SSR 85-15 says unskilled work involves working primarily with things and not people. So if the RFC did not contain social limitations but the PRT has moderate limitations in social, is it really a reversible error if the VE identified only unskilled jobs? This is particularly irksome when on remand, a different VE is given the additional social limitations and names the same jobs. Their sitting in review of ALJ decisions reminds me of a situation that happened in the state appeals court for my area several years ago. A person was elected to the Court of Appeals who had very little trial court experience and no criminal experience. Needless to say, that new judge's ability to adjudicate at the appellate level was suspect and it was particularly obvious on issues involving objections to the admissibility of evidence. The solution? He was sent to a district court for a period of time to conduct civil and criminal proceedings. SSR 85-15 doesn't say anything about being able to tolerate supervision, so I don't think that will stop getting remanded. SSR 85-15: "The basic mental demands of competitive, remunerative, unskilled work include the abilities (on a sustained basis) to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; to respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations; and to deal with changes in a routine work setting. A substantial loss of ability to meet any of these basic work-related activities would severely limit the potential occupational base. ... Where there is no exertional impairment, unskilled jobs at all levels of exertion constitute the potential occupational base for persons who can meet the mental demands of unskilled work. These jobs ordinarily involve dealing primarily with objects, rather than with data or people, and they generally provide substantial vocational opportunity for person with solely mental impairments who retain the capacity to meet the intellectual and emotional demands of such jobs on a sustained basis." Assuming tolerating supervision equates to responding appropriately to it, I am not sure you are thinking of the correct Ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 18, 2016 16:38:35 GMT -5
Despite what I wrote above, the fact is that the AC requires virtually any limitation in mental functioning to stem from a "severe" mental impairment, which means fitting the severity into the B criteria can be frustrating when, in fact, there are no severe limitations and the non-severe mental limitations supported by the evidence do not affect basic work-related activities as set forth in several rulings (see also SSR 96-9p). As noted, a limitation to unskilled work does not necessarily signal problems with basic, mental, work-related functioning. Yet this is a lost understanding at the AC. And most places.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Feb 18, 2016 17:11:46 GMT -5
SSR 85-15 doesn't say anything about being able to tolerate supervision, so I don't think that will stop getting remanded. SSR 85-15: "The basic mental demands of competitive, remunerative, unskilled work include the abilities (on a sustained basis) to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; to respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations; and to deal with changes in a routine work setting. A substantial loss of ability to meet any of these basic work-related activities would severely limit the potential occupational base. ... Where there is no exertional impairment, unskilled jobs at all levels of exertion constitute the potential occupational base for persons who can meet the mental demands of unskilled work. These jobs ordinarily involve dealing primarily with objects, rather than with data or people, and they generally provide substantial vocational opportunity for person with solely mental impairments who retain the capacity to meet the intellectual and emotional demands of such jobs on a sustained basis." Assuming tolerating supervision equates to responding appropriately to it, I am not sure you are thinking of the correct Ruling. I am thinking of SSR 85-15. Nothing in what you quoted above states that a finding of unskilled work in the RFC, which is already not policy compliant, must mean that a claimant can necessarily perform the full range of work at a given exertional level. Finding that the claimant can perform at most unskilled work with a 'B' criterion finding suggesting social limitations with no corresponding limitation in the RFC doesn't seem consistent.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 18, 2016 18:51:58 GMT -5
Valkyrie's post just give me more hope that the AAJ's will be given the AC remands for rehearing with the claimants and the representatives. If they had to hold some hearings, I think they would have a new appreciation for what the ALJ in the field faces. Let them formulate the RFC, make credibility assessments, weigh opinion evidence and try to develop a case. Let them deal with the rep who drops new evidence into the file the day prior to the hearing or the ME who finds everyone "equals" a listing. Or even the problems trying to schedule hearings with experts. They are not going to be any better at this than the ALJ is but they will understand the difficulties of the job. Let them deal with the remand when their decisions are reversed/vacated with some of the instructions we get now. I wonder how long it will take for them to recognize that SSR 85-15 says unskilled work involves working primarily with things and not people. So if the RFC did not contain social limitations but the PRT has moderate limitations in social, is it really a reversible error if the VE identified only unskilled jobs? This is particularly irksome when on remand, a different VE is given the additional social limitations and names the same jobs. Their sitting in review of ALJ decisions reminds me of a situation that happened in the state appeals court for my area several years ago. A person was elected to the Court of Appeals who had very little trial court experience and no criminal experience. Needless to say, that new judge's ability to adjudicate at the appellate level was suspect and it was particularly obvious on issues involving objections to the admissibility of evidence. The solution? He was sent to a district court for a period of time to conduct civil and criminal proceedings. The AAJs will only have to deal with credibility, development issues, and suspect experts and consultants as much as they want to, or as much as the District Courts want them to. Don't forget, the ALJ job can be ridiculously easy if you don't do it the right way... Exactly, they won't have a new appreciation, they will be emboldened. I mean these guys just review decisions all day everyday; holding a hearing will be a breath of fresh air. And as subsequent comments have pointed out, if you have moderate in social functioning in the B criteria you damn well better have a corresponding limitation in the RFC. Doesn't matter if the same jobs are returned. It will come back every time. Easy solution? If there aren't social limits in the RFC, make the b criteria finding mild. if I were your writer I would do this without asking
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 18, 2016 18:59:00 GMT -5
Here's what worries me: suppose an appeal of an AAJ decision goes up the ladder, and the circuit court upholds the challenge of a non-APA judge holding SSA hearings. The nut will be cracked. This is exactly the problem. Once the Agency establishes an exception to ALJ hiring and ALJ hearings, they damn well will use it. It's not that any of the current ALJ's will lose their job. It's just that the agency will more than gladly avoid hiring real ALJ's, avoid OPM entanglement, and enjoy full managerial oversight to the individuals that end up serving in the role of ALJ. This is the Trojan horse recreating the role of hearing examiner..... I sure hope the AALJ has some money left over after their previous frivolous and expensive law suit. This is the battle that needs to be fought. Exactly right. As someone who wants to be an ALJ, I am actually more concerned about this than most current ALJs. This is excellently calculated on ssa's part - take the worst cases from ALJs and give them to AAJs, because they know rank and file ALJs would be happy not to hear remands and overpayments. And this is the battle the Union should fight. I think NOSSCR/ claimants bar would be on the unions side. They want hearings by independent judges, however much they dislike the results at times
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 19, 2016 0:26:16 GMT -5
The AAJs will only have to deal with credibility, development issues, and suspect experts and consultants as much as they want to, or as much as the District Courts want them to. Don't forget, the ALJ job can be ridiculously easy if you don't do it the right way... Exactly, they won't have a new appreciation, they will be emboldened. I mean these guys just review decisions all day everyday; holding a hearing will be a breath of fresh air. And as subsequent comments have pointed out, if you have moderate in social functioning in the B criteria you damn well better have a corresponding limitation in the RFC. Doesn't matter if the same jobs are returned. It will come back every time. Easy solution? If there aren't social limits in the RFC, make the b criteria finding mild. if I were your writer I would do this without asking. _____________________
I have been preaching for years that the B criteria must correspond to the RFC. Is it finally being understood by the outsiders? Automatic remand if it isn't consistent. And thank you for making the B criteria mild if there aren't any social (or other mental) limitations in the RFC. Otherwise it is an automatic remand. A lot of potential pitfalls here for the uninformed. A good writer is a judge's best friend. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 19, 2016 14:18:10 GMT -5
SSR 85-15: "The basic mental demands of competitive, remunerative, unskilled work include the abilities (on a sustained basis) to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; to respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations; and to deal with changes in a routine work setting. A substantial loss of ability to meet any of these basic work-related activities would severely limit the potential occupational base. ... Where there is no exertional impairment, unskilled jobs at all levels of exertion constitute the potential occupational base for persons who can meet the mental demands of unskilled work. These jobs ordinarily involve dealing primarily with objects, rather than with data or people, and they generally provide substantial vocational opportunity for person with solely mental impairments who retain the capacity to meet the intellectual and emotional demands of such jobs on a sustained basis." Assuming tolerating supervision equates to responding appropriately to it, I am not sure you are thinking of the correct Ruling. I am thinking of SSR 85-15. Nothing in what you quoted above states that a finding of unskilled work in the RFC, which is already not policy compliant, must mean that a claimant can necessarily perform the full range of work at a given exertional level. Finding that the claimant can perform at most unskilled work with a 'B' criterion finding suggesting social limitations with no corresponding limitation in the RFC doesn't seem consistent. Ah, I understand now. I agree with you. I missed some of the context of your reply, I think.
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Feb 19, 2016 22:07:49 GMT -5
I am thinking of SSR 85-15. Nothing in what you quoted above states that a finding of unskilled work in the RFC, which is already not policy compliant, must mean that a claimant can necessarily perform the full range of work at a given exertional level. Finding that the claimant can perform at most unskilled work with a 'B' criterion finding suggesting social limitations with no corresponding limitation in the RFC doesn't seem consistent. Ah, I understand now. I agree with you. I missed some of the context of your reply, I think. I know of one judge that always limits claimants to unskilled work and doesn't get remands for that reason alone. I saw a remand for another judge that found errors for "unskilled" work because it is a vocational skill level and not a vocational/functional limitation (something to that effect with moderate b criteria finding). The judge mentioned to me that if AC find one primary reason they will throw in a few more reasons. I can understand why a judge would routinely have an rfc with unskilled work without any mental limitations. (If they can do unskilled work without mental limitations than they could do higher skilled work based on prw skill level). When I was writing if I was able, I would explain that the "limitation" (actually I would use "restriction") of unskilled work was based on either education, prw, non-severe mental impairments, fatigue, headaches, or side effects to medications if there were no severe mental impairments/limitations. I usually could find evidence in record for one of those reasons.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Feb 19, 2016 23:37:27 GMT -5
The issue that started this subthread was decisions that include a restriction to unskilled work in the RFC using SSR 85-15's "primarily things, not people" to account for moderate findings in say, social functioning and CPP. That would be the error of no specific social limitations despite a moderate or higher finding.
I don't think anyone has a big issue with the RFC being more "generous" than the B criteria.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 20, 2016 0:42:13 GMT -5
Ah, I understand now. I agree with you. I missed some of the context of your reply, I think. I know of one judge that always limits claimants to unskilled work and doesn't get remands for that reason alone. I saw a remand for another judge that found errors for "unskilled" work because it is a vocational skill level and not a vocational/functional limitation (something to that effect with moderate b criteria finding). The judge mentioned to me that if AC find one primary reason they will throw in a few more reasons. I can understand why a judge would routinely have an rfc with unskilled work without any mental limitations. (If they can do unskilled work without mental limitations than they could do higher skilled work based on prw skill level). When I was writing if I was able, I would explain that the "limitation" (actually I would use "restriction") of unskilled work was based on either education, prw, non-severe mental impairments, fatigue, headaches, or side effects to medications if there were no severe mental impairments/limitations. I usually could find evidence in record for one of those reasons. The first bolded section makes sense to me, and I think is policy as well as the law in at least some circuits. The second bolded part makes no sense to me. Are you saying that this judge just throws in "limited to unskilled work in the RFC" but would still find people able to do their PRW, even if that work was semi-skilled or skilled? Because that seems like a surefire remand to me. But I think I am not getting what you are saying.
In my view or understanding, being able to do unskilled work is the presumptive baseline in the absence of PRW imparting greater skills. That said, I know a judge who also likes to put unskilled in every RFC, but will also find someone capable of semi-skilled work. Not finding any skills that are transferable mind you, or even that the person has semi-skilled work history. Just this statement that they are capable of semi-skilled work. I cannot justify it, I suppose he thinks he is making some statement about the claimant's perceived intelligence. Lots of remands for this guy. Really, ideally, no mention of skill levels should be in the RFC. Skills are only relevant in the GRIDs because of the person's PRW, which, to my mind at least is wholly separate from what their limitations are mentally or physically.
In re: the italicized paragraph, I have used similar approach. Some judges don't like it. Not sure why, other than they think any limitations that reflect on mental abilities must stem from a severe mental impairment, despite Rulings to the contrary. I look at the list of opioids many of these claimants are on, and yeah, I'm pretty sure they are not going to be doing work of much complexity, never mind their headaches, work experience or pain.
If you really want to kick the hive over, try explaining to some that just because an impairment is not severe does not mean limitations stemming from that impairment should not be considered in the RFC. It's right there in 96-8p. If you have one severe impairment, then you might as well have all severe impairments, unless some are true NMDIs. Making other impairments non-severe leads some people to believe you can disregard all evidence of that impairment. In reality you should be addressing the impact, however minor of even non-severe impairments in the RFC. So why waste the time of writing about them at step 2 anyway? Just a lot of busy work for no reason that invites remands when the AC disagrees that an impairment is non-severe. That's my practical perspective anyway.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 20, 2016 0:45:20 GMT -5
The issue that started this subthread was decisions that include a restriction to unskilled work in the RFC using SSR 85-15's "primarily things, not people" to account for moderate findings in say, social functioning and CPP. That would be the error of no specific social limitations despite a moderate or higher finding. I don't think anyone has a big issue with the RFC being more "generous" than the B criteria.
I wouldn't think so either, but somewhere, at some point, an AC analyst is 1 case short of his quota, and it's the last Friday of the month. Suddenly this an egregious affront to justice that must be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Feb 20, 2016 1:13:52 GMT -5
I know of one judge that always limits claimants to unskilled work and doesn't get remands for that reason alone. I saw a remand for another judge that found errors for "unskilled" work because it is a vocational skill level and not a vocational/functional limitation (something to that effect with moderate b criteria finding). The judge mentioned to me that if AC find one primary reason they will throw in a few more reasons. I can understand why a judge would routinely have an rfc with unskilled work without any mental limitations. (If they can do unskilled work without mental limitations than they could do higher skilled work based on prw skill level). When I was writing if I was able, I would explain that the "limitation" (actually I would use "restriction") of unskilled work was based on either education, prw, non-severe mental impairments, fatigue, headaches, or side effects to medications if there were no severe mental impairments/limitations. I usually could find evidence in record for one of those reasons. The first bolded section makes sense to me, and I think is policy as well as the law in at least some circuits. The second bolded part makes no sense to me. Are you saying that this judge just throws in "limited to unskilled work in the RFC" but would still find people able to do their PRW, even if that work was semi-skilled or skilled? Because that seems like a surefire remand to me. But I think I am not getting what you are saying.
In my view or understanding, being able to do unskilled work is the presumptive baseline in the absence of PRW imparting greater skills. That said, I know a judge who also likes to put unskilled in every RFC, but will also find someone capable of semi-skilled work. Not finding any skills that are transferable mind you, or even that the person has semi-skilled work history. Just this statement that they are capable of semi-skilled work. I cannot justify it, I suppose he thinks he is making some statement about the claimant's perceived intelligence. Lots of remands for this guy. Really, ideally, no mention of skill levels should be in the RFC. Skills are only relevant in the GRIDs because of the person's PRW, which, to my mind at least is wholly separate from what their limitations are mentally or physically.
In re: the italicized paragraph, I have used similar approach. Some judges don't like it. Not sure why, other than they think any limitations that reflect on mental abilities must stem from a severe mental impairment, despite Rulings to the contrary. I look at the list of opioids many of these claimants are on, and yeah, I'm pretty sure they are not going to be doing work of much complexity, never mind their headaches, work experience or pain.
If you really want to kick the hive over, try explaining to some that just because an impairment is not severe does not mean limitations stemming from that impairment should not be considered in the RFC. It's right there in 96-8p. If you have one severe impairment, then you might as well have all severe impairments, unless some are true NMDIs. Making other impairments non-severe leads some people to believe you can disregard all evidence of that impairment. In reality you should be addressing the impact, however minor of even non-severe impairments in the RFC. So why waste the time of writing about them at step 2 anyway? Just a lot of busy work for no reason that invites remands when the AC disagrees that an impairment is non-severe. That's my practical perspective anyway.
Sorry for confusion, ths judge won't find the claimant can return to past relevant work. In theory, there will be other jobs at step 5 at prw skill level in addition to those at the unskilled level. I agree it shouldn't be in the rfc, but when I started moderate cpp or adls were often given the limitation of unskilled work so I learned to deal with it and explain it. Also, when I first started someone explained to me there is a difference between a limitation (activities one can't do) and restriction (activities one should be precluded from doing). This is why I used "restriction" if it really isn't a limitation. (example that aways comes to mind is narcotic medication and driving as requirement of the job. That is a restriction not limitation). I agree that if mdi impairments and claimant alleges limitations from them, you might as well just make them severe. I have tried to explain to SAA why judges will find severe impairments although evidence probably supports that all impairments are nmdi. IMHO, those SAA aren't qualified to be judges until they understand why judges will do that. The judge I learned the most from was able to take claimant's alleged limitations mixed with limitations actually supported by the record and craft an rfc still supporting the appropriate decision. Work of art to be able to do it during the hearing, easy to draft, and upheld on appeal.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Feb 20, 2016 11:25:32 GMT -5
I feel like we are digressing, but as far as I can tell, there is no legal difference between limitations and restrictions, as long as they are properly listed as part of the RFC. If I am writing long form I also sometimes use precluded. The point is they can't do it as part of competitive employment.
|
|
|
Post by masondixon on Feb 21, 2016 14:08:07 GMT -5
APA mandated due process applies in SSA disability cases to the system under which aggrieved individual claimants can seek redress for the denial of certain benefit entitlement rights. More often than not, non-disability appeals involve the loss of a property or entitlement right previously bestowed on an individual. Moreover, the vast majority of such individuals appear unrepresented due to the usual absence of potential past due benefits being available for a representative. Now SSA wants to turn over this original appeals process to less protected AALJs (AJ like decision makers). An article III judge somewhere is going to see the possible harm to due process for such folks real fast, especially when the agency already protests many favorable ALJ OP waiver and other non-disability decisions with the AC. SSA is playing with real combustible fire with this issue and risks a political firestorm from both sides of the political aisle. Limiting due process rights of unrepresented folks is about the only thing both political parties can now agree upon. Think about it. SSA wants to eliminate a face to face hearing for folks getting benefits taken away and substitute a decision of a less protected AJ located in Washington DC. I have worked with just about every kind of non-disability appeal over the years. Trust me when I say the agency doesn't know what it is doing in 85% of such cases at the initial and reconsideration determinations, especially in SSI case issues. Their grand experiment will be enjoined in some USDC following a class action filing because the perception will be that vulnerable citizens are being railroaded by an agency hell bent on reducing due process rights of the aggrieved. Even if the reality is different, the perception will rule the day.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 21, 2016 16:20:16 GMT -5
I think any new activity that keeps the AC busy is great! quote] Lol. I Just saw this ☺
|
|