|
Post by bartleby on Feb 11, 2016 8:59:06 GMT -5
Soldack notes, "I would wager if you polled claimants, they would prefer a six month answer over a 26 month answer even given the alleged mythical risk to their due process." I find no cases that are ready for a hearing within 6 months of their filing. I guess those that are ready are the ones that get paid at the initial/recon levels. Each case has a life of it's own and it seems like a lot of people file as soon as they consider it and as most conditions are progressive by the time we see them, maybe 2 years down the road, they are disabled. I find that on most of my cases I will get an amended onset date from the claimant. This is due to the medical evidence in the file, not arbitrary whim. I think that if most cases were heard within 6 months, they would be denied. One of the requirements is that an impairment must last or be expected to last for 1 year or expected to be fatal. A lot of problems improve within a year, some progress. I don't think the claimant's would appreciate it if we heard their cases within 6 months. JMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2016 9:00:44 GMT -5
My bad, I was thinking in terms of 6 months from appealing the State DDS denial. Hiring ALJs doesn't affect the speed at which the States operate.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 11, 2016 9:26:42 GMT -5
sodalk noted above: Defending the current system and glacial rate of ALJ hires is tantamount to defending the horrendous two to three years injured Americans have to wait to get the protections we have decided they deserve. THAT, I do not get.
Soldack, just to let you know i realized that was an underlying concern of yours all along. Due process itself is at some level lost due the wait alone. don't think you said that exactly but that is how i took your comments. and you've been thinking out loud on how to improve some practical weaknesses in the system, the long wait being the most glaring weakness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2016 9:31:19 GMT -5
sodalk noted above: Defending the current system and glacial rate of ALJ hires is tantamount to defending the horrendous two to three years injured Americans have to wait to get the protections we have decided they deserve. THAT, I do not get. Soldack, just to let you know i realized that was an underlying concern of yours all along. Due process itself is at some level lost due the wait alone. don't think you said that exactly but that is how i took your comments. and you've been thinking out loud on how to improve some practical weaknesses in the system, the long wait being the most glaring weakness. Thanks Christina, you said it better than I did, but that is definitely the whole point of my suggestion - get rid of this backlog!
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 11, 2016 11:46:07 GMT -5
About 1/4, 25% of cases that are scheduled for hearing are dismissed. This means that a hearing slot was lost and money was wasted preparing for that hearing and hiring VE's and occasional ME's. Think about that. That is a quarter of the back log will never appear for a hearing. Is this due to frivolous filings? People returning to work? People dying? (I think not because the substitute party is sure they will get the back benefits). Some of it are the cessations that are still in pay status. They have no intention of ever showing up as long as they still receive continuation of benefits. If there was a way to manage this situation, it would do a lot to decrease the backlog.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 11, 2016 12:41:16 GMT -5
About 1/4, 25% of cases that are scheduled for hearing are dismissed. This means that a hearing slot was lost and money was wasted preparing for that hearing and hiring VE's and occasional ME's. Think about that. That is a quarter of the back log will never appear for a hearing. Is this due to frivolous filings? People returning to work? People dying? (I think not because the substitute party is sure they will get the back benefits). Some of it are the cessations that are still in pay status. They have no intention of ever showing up as long as they still receive continuation of benefits. If there was a way to manage this situation, it would do a lot to decrease the backlog. Bartleby, i've had thoughts in a similar vein, namely the folks that have no plan or desire to show up. Also those that would fall under weak claims(but do plan to show up). And by this i mean, there are some that have very little going on medically. i wish there was a way the weaker claims could be captured statistically and put into a separate processing claim from the run of the mill claims and strong claims. i can't see it happening due to due process, "perceived" injustice, and who would make those initial judgment calls as to which claims were weak? there could be some injustice there. At any rate, under my imaginary system, our efforts would be to move the more meritorious claims as quickly as we could and eventually get to the "weaker" claims. I get frustrated when i see people with good or at least reasonable claims get tied up(and they end up homeless, depleted savings, and all sorts of other financial hardships) because there are very weak claims bogging down the system. i don't think percentage wise too many claims fall under this weak status but even if is 10 to 15 percent, or even 5 percent of our cases, nationwide, that is still thousands of cases slowing down the system.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Feb 11, 2016 12:50:44 GMT -5
Bartleby, in ODAR offices that use pre-hearing conferences they can be quite effective for the situation you describe. The claimant is given notice of the PHC, an attorney advisor conducts it (either via phone or in person), advises the claimant of their right to rep, gathers updated medical information on the claimant, etc, which prepares the record for the actual hearing. If the claimant does not show up for the PHC, the Judge is now on 'notice' the claimant may not appear at the hearing. Even if they appear at the hearing, it turns into a PHC for the claimant. Thus, saving the ALJ from having to prepare for a hearing that will not be a full hearing. If they claimant fails to show for both the PHC and the hearing without good cause, it can then become a dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 11, 2016 12:56:59 GMT -5
Bartleby, in ODAR offices that use pre-hearing conferences they can be quite effective for the situation you describe. The claimant is given notice of the PHC, an attorney advisor conducts it (either via phone or in person), advises the claimant of their right to rep, gathers updated medical information on the claimant, etc, which prepares the record for the actual hearing. If the claimant does not show up for the PHC, the Judge is now on 'notice' the claimant may not appear at the hearing. Even if they appear at the hearing, it turns into a PHC for the claimant. Thus, saving the ALJ from having to prepare for a hearing that will not be a full hearing. If they claimant fails to show for both the PHC and the hearing without good cause, it can then become a dismissal. That is excellent. so we as in the hearing office, can start crossing all the t's needed to eventually dismiss the case for those who don't show up to the PHC. have the PHC been helpful across the board? i imagine it gives the local ODAR a headstart on collecting updated records as well.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 11, 2016 12:56:57 GMT -5
About 1/4, 25% of cases that are scheduled for hearing are dismissed. This means that a hearing slot was lost and money was wasted preparing for that hearing and hiring VE's and occasional ME's. Think about that. That is a quarter of the back log will never appear for a hearing. Is this due to frivolous filings? People returning to work? People dying? (I think not because the substitute party is sure they will get the back benefits). Some of it are the cessations that are still in pay status. They have no intention of ever showing up as long as they still receive continuation of benefits. If there was a way to manage this situation, it would do a lot to decrease the backlog. Bartleby, i've had thoughts in a similar vein, namely the folks that have no plan or desire to show up. Also those that would fall under weak claims(but do plan to show up). And by this i mean, there are some that have very little going on medically. i wish there was a way the weaker claims could be captured statistically and put into a separate processing claim from the run of the mill claims and strong claims. i can't see it happening due to due process, "perceived" injustice, and who would make those initial judgment calls as to which claims were weak? there could be some injustice there. At any rate, under my imaginary system, our efforts would be to move the more meritorious claims as quickly as we could and eventually get to the "weaker" claims. I get frustrated when i see people with good or at least reasonable claims get tied up(and they end up homeless, depleted savings, and all sorts of other financial hardships) because there are very weak claims bogging down the system. i don't think percentage wise too many claims fall under this weak status but even if is 10 to 15 percent, or even 5 percent of our cases, nationwide, that is still thousands of cases slowing down the system. maybe have SAAs screen these cases (likely no-shows and/or those who appear to be doing sga) and have mandatory phcs where the claim is dismissed if they don't show up for the phc? Could possibly weed out the no-shows earlier in the process. A sort of de facto dismissal/denial otr.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 11, 2016 12:58:15 GMT -5
Yes and due process is maintained! Better than my pipe dream!
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Feb 11, 2016 12:58:35 GMT -5
I forgot to mention, PHC's are only used for claimants who do not have a representative, so it won't completely solve the "no show" puzzle, but it might bring it below the 25% of all cases threshold discussed by Bartleby
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Feb 11, 2016 13:01:55 GMT -5
Monty, not showing up for a PHC conducted by an attorney does not seem to equal "due process", so I would think their cases could not be dismissed that quickly. Regardless, even if they do not show for a full hearing, they still can be given the opportunity to "show cause" before the case can be dismissed. These are ill people, who may be in the emergency room at the time of the hearing, despite their best intentions to appear at the hearing.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 11, 2016 13:17:14 GMT -5
At any rate, under my imaginary system, our efforts would be to move the more meritorious claims as quickly as we could and eventually get to the "weaker" claims. I get frustrated when i see people with good or at least reasonable claims get tied up(and they end up homeless, depleted savings, and all sorts of other financial hardships) because there are very weak claims bogging down the system. i don't think percentage wise too many claims fall under this weak status but even if is 10 to 15 percent, or even 5 percent of our cases, nationwide, that is still thousands of cases slowing down the system. This is what we used to do with SAA adjudication. Worked well. Someone really needs to look at bringing it back on a much larger scale than is currently occurring.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 11, 2016 13:22:44 GMT -5
This is what we used to do with SAA adjudication. Worked well. Someone really needs to look at bringing it back on a much larger scale than is currently occurring. oh. i know.... :/ SAA's actually did the flip of what i mentioned in that we(I am a SAA) screened cases that appeared to be strongest to see if we could resolve those cases without a hearing. i found SAA program very beneficial and am saddened by the changes. Not only on a selfish level as i liked doing that but even more so for claimants who could benefit from having their case screened earlier in the process and now they have a long wait for a hearing. i know it still exists on a much smaller level but from what i understand, only a few of the cases looked at currently turn into on the records.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 11, 2016 15:01:48 GMT -5
In order to offer "world class service", I routinely hold a rocket docket each month. 12 to 15 unrepped claimants are scheduled to come in. When they come in, staff reviews their record with them and has them signs 827's. The SCT will bring them into the hearing room, I will introduce myself and then look at their record quickly, noting allegations and their MER. If I think it is necessary, I will order a mental and/or medical CE. The SCT will order any outstanding meds and after their CE's, if they need any, we schedule their hearing. I dismiss the no shows, but they can always appeal if they have good cause. I think it is a win-win situation. The claimants feel comfortable coming back to the hearing because they have already met me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2016 15:10:26 GMT -5
In order to offer "world class service", I routinely hold a rocket docket each month. 12 to 15 unrepped claimants are scheduled to come in. When they come in, staff reviews their record with them and has them signs 827's. The SCT will bring them into the hearing room, I will introduce myself and then look at their record quickly, noting allegations and their MER. If I think it is necessary, I will order a mental and/or medical CE. The SCT will order any outstanding meds and after their CE's, if they need any, we schedule their hearing. I dismiss the no shows, but they can always appeal if they have good cause. I think it is a win-win situation. The claimants feel comfortable coming back to the hearing because they have already met me. Genius. Why isn't this SOP everywhere?
(I especially appreciate the CE part. )
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 11, 2016 16:44:19 GMT -5
In order to offer "world class service", I routinely hold a rocket docket each month. 12 to 15 unrepped claimants are scheduled to come in. When they come in, staff reviews their record with them and has them signs 827's. The SCT will bring them into the hearing room, I will introduce myself and then look at their record quickly, noting allegations and their MER. If I think it is necessary, I will order a mental and/or medical CE. The SCT will order any outstanding meds and after their CE's, if they need any, we schedule their hearing. I dismiss the no shows, but they can always appeal if they have good cause. I think it is a win-win situation. The claimants feel comfortable coming back to the hearing because they have already met me. Genius. Why isn't this SOP everywhere?
(I especially appreciate the CE part. )
The main reason ALJs in my area stopped doing it is that management decreed that a high continuance rate is a bad thing. Thus, ALJs who had multiple settings of hearings for the same claimant (even if they were rocket dockets) got 'counseling' to stop continuing the hearings. Because the reports that identify 'bad guys' are entirely numerical, not relative to overall ALJ-controlled APT or something, focusing on an easily manipulated number meant simply not scheduling the cases early for potentially earlier dismissals and better-prepared evidence at the FIFO hearing time. Instead, those claimants wait and get essentially the same treatment, but taking up an hour (or 45 minutes) each, instead of 15 in 2 hours. It's the same way that focusing on the scheduled/held ratio and the number of hearings per month led to many fewer OTR decisions, because why cancel a hearing to get the case out a week faster and without the need for experts if you are going to get chided for failing to have enough hearings that month, and you can keep an easy one on your schedule.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 11, 2016 17:32:21 GMT -5
Genius. Why isn't this SOP everywhere?
(I especially appreciate the CE part. )
The main reason ALJs in my area stopped doing it is that management decreed that a high continuance rate is a bad thing. Thus, ALJs who had multiple settings of hearings for the same claimant (even if they were rocket dockets) got 'counseling' to stop continuing the hearings. Because the reports that identify 'bad guys' are entirely numerical, not relative to overall ALJ-controlled APT or something, focusing on an easily manipulated number meant simply not scheduling the cases early for potentially earlier dismissals and better-prepared evidence at the FIFO hearing time. Instead, those claimants wait and get essentially the same treatment, but taking up an hour (or 45 minutes) each, instead of 15 in 2 hours. It's the same way that focusing on the scheduled/held ratio and the number of hearings per month led to many fewer OTR decisions, because why cancel a hearing to get the case out a week faster and without the need for experts if you are going to get chided for failing to have enough hearings that month, and you can keep an easy one on your schedule. that kind of stuff drives me crazy :/ To me, two of our most important stats are how fast we move case and how many dispositions we get out the door. Although the other stats may have some merit, if they get in the way of the 2 above stats, they are not helping the process. If a person needs a continuance, so be it. The processing time stat will help reign in multiple continuances. and why drag the claimant to a hearing if they don't need to be there? im behind the judges on this and get why they do above. This is more general griping at Central for allowing the trees to get in the way of the forest.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 11, 2016 18:29:35 GMT -5
Monty, not showing up for a PHC conducted by an attorney does not seem to equal "due process", so I would think their cases could not be dismissed that quickly. Regardless, even if they do not show for a full hearing, they still can be given the opportunity to "show cause" before the case can be dismissed. These are ill people, who may be in the emergency room at the time of the hearing, despite their best intentions to appear at the hearing. Yeah I understand that. This would concern the least ill, or at least those with evidence of illness. But yes problematic. How about screening for sga, run a phc to check out what earnings are about then rocket docket all the ones that look like closed periods or sga denial. Essentially doing a issue based rocket docket instead of unrepped based rocket docket? At least get the cops and step 1s out of line so those who are not back to work don't have to wait as long. I've run some phcs for unrepped c's in the past as you described up thread. Arguably this at least did not extend things post hearing as we could get updated med info and not hold the record open. Still a lot of no shows though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 9:59:08 GMT -5
Monty, not showing up for a PHC conducted by an attorney does not seem to equal "due process", so I would think their cases could not be dismissed that quickly. Regardless, even if they do not show for a full hearing, they still can be given the opportunity to "show cause" before the case can be dismissed. These are ill people, who may be in the emergency room at the time of the hearing, despite their best intentions to appear at the hearing. Yeah I understand that. This would concern the least ill, or at least those with evidence of illness. But yes problematic. How about screening for sga, run a phc to check out what earnings are about then rocket docket all the ones that look like closed periods or sga denial. Essentially doing a issue based rocket docket instead of unrepped based rocket docket? At least get the cops and step 1s out of line so those who are not back to work don't have to wait as long. I've run some phcs for unrepped c's in the past as you described up thread. Arguably this at least did not extend things post hearing as we could get updated med info and not hold the record open. Still a lot of no shows though. I am in favor of all rocket docket ideas. However, in my (limited) experienced is it faster to adjudicate a closed period? It's not faster to write a closed period case. You still need all the evidence of disability for the closed period. If anything it takes more time to write to explain the ending of disability. Not having the ALJ perspective, is deciding a closed period case easier and faster? What makes a closed period case suitable for rocket docket? I agree with the other examples.
|
|