|
Post by montyburns on Feb 18, 2016 10:31:24 GMT -5
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. I was thinking requested closed periods. Maybe not as easy to write as a sga denial, but at least you are getting them out the hearing line and into the back end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 10:55:20 GMT -5
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. I was thinking requested closed periods. Maybe not as easy to write as a sga denial, but at least you are getting them out the hearing line and into the back end. This may be another example where working at an NCAC has hindered my knowledge base. I start work at a hearing office next week, so maybe soon I will understand this better when I get to see how cases are handled pre-hearing. NCAC writers only see the cases after the hearing so we see closed periods as just another type of unfavorable/favorable to write...
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 18, 2016 10:57:25 GMT -5
I was thinking requested closed periods. Maybe not as easy to write as a sga denial, but at least you are getting them out the hearing line and into the back end. This may be another example where working at an NCAC has hindered my knowledge base. I start work at a hearing office next week, so maybe soon I will understand this better when I get to see how cases are handled pre-hearing. NCAC writers only see the cases after the hearing so we see closed periods as just another type of unfavorable/favorable to write... In my office, requested closed period and OTR requests are given to an SAA for screening.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 18, 2016 11:18:11 GMT -5
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. Re closed period, as noted above, a requested closed period can move pretty smoothly so long as there some evidence to support the time after disability ended. Soldack, i would think a closed period for a judge would be harder and more time consuming than an UF. if that helps
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Feb 18, 2016 11:29:42 GMT -5
From a practitioner perspective: I have had closed periods awarded where we all agreed to revisit the issue on a future date anywhere from 1 to 3 years out. Granted, those type of agreements were few and very far between.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 18, 2016 11:36:20 GMT -5
yeah, the agreed ones can be pretty straightforward, however, practice tip for future ALJ's, please get at least some evidence that the claimant is in fact better for a requested closed period. i feel great and can lift a pickup now testimony works or even i can stand and walk all day whereas i could only walk for about 1 hour max while i was disabled and recovering from back surgery.
thank you..... very helpful on my end to get the above info
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 18, 2016 12:03:02 GMT -5
yeah, the agreed ones can be pretty straightforward, however, practice tip for future ALJ's, please get at least some evidence that the claimant is in fact better for a requested closed period. i feel great and can lift a pickup now testimony works or even i can stand and walk all day whereas i could only walk for about 1 hour max while i was disabled and recovering from back surgery. thank you..... very helpful on my end to get the above info THIS, yes. SGA only triggers twp and does not negate the need for medical improvement. Often there is little in the record that clearly shows improvement
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 18, 2016 12:37:13 GMT -5
From a practitioner perspective: I have had closed periods awarded where we all agreed to revisit the issue on a future date anywhere from 1 to 3 years out. Granted, those type of agreements were few and very far between. This confuses me, are you saying the judge did a ff with a 2-3 year CD-R? Sorry my phone does not understand ODAR speak
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 18, 2016 12:50:20 GMT -5
From a practitioner perspective: I have had closed periods awarded where we all agreed to revisit the issue on a future date anywhere from 1 to 3 years out. Granted, those type of agreements were few and very far between. This confuses me, are you saying the judge did a ff with a 2-3 year CD-R? Sorry my phone does not understand ODAR speak i assume that is what he meant. Ready-now has handled SSA cases. he just uses more normal terms than we have learned over the years! Some of more favorite internal stuff is that a reversal is good(if you are the claimant anyway), it does not mean you send the case back to someone else, the end of the month rarely is in fact the end of the month, and our year ends Sept 30th. Not to mention aged is not based on day you are looking at something, but rather day case will be as of September 30th, even though you are looking at case in January, so it's real date is 9 months earlier. not even sure anyone will follow me on that one, i understand concept but can't even reduce it to writing properly. Aaagh.... and then add all our acronyms to the mix!!!
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 18, 2016 13:01:22 GMT -5
Propmaster, you noted, "The main reason ALJs in my area stopped doing it is that management decreed that a high continuance rate is a bad thing." So if you don't hold a rocket docket and get it developed before the hearing, it goes into POST and gets developed and then you may have to offer a "supplemental hearing". One way or the other the record time is lengthened. I hate POST and hate looking at a case 2 weeks to 3 months after the hearing. I guess it's my old age, but I forget what the heck we were doing. Anyhow, you need to take control of your docket and schedule your rocket docket and do it right. Most of you may not know or remember that this system was set up with the idea that we would be assigned every case in ARPR to preview and order development prior to releasing for scheduling. The regulations say that an ALJ must release the case to Scheduling before it can be scheduled. We are giving away all control on these cases. They are not properly developed and the Agency doesn't care as long as they are moved.. Full and Fair hearings aren't being rendered. Let's not forget what our true purpose is. It isn't to "MOVE" cases. It is to make sure the public is protected from the agency that they have a claim against. How did we ever end up in this mess??
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Feb 18, 2016 14:20:21 GMT -5
This confuses me, are you saying the judge did a ff with a 2-3 year CD-R? Sorry my phone does not understand ODAR speak i assume that is what he meant. Ready-now has handled SSA cases. he just uses more normal terms than we have learned over the years! Some of more favorite internal stuff is that a reversal is good(if you are the claimant anyway), it does not mean you send the case back to someone else, the end of the month rarely is in fact the end of the month, and our year ends Sept 30th. Not to mention aged is not based on day you are looking at something, but rather day case will be as of September 30th, even though you are looking at case in January, so it's real date is 9 months earlier. not even sure anyone will follow me on that one, i understand concept but can't even reduce it to writing properly. Aaagh.... and then add all our acronyms to the mix!!! something akin to this Monty. Actually, I think my statement is quite clear.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 18, 2016 14:21:06 GMT -5
Propmaster, you noted, "The main reason ALJs in my area stopped doing it is that management decreed that a high continuance rate is a bad thing." So if you don't hold a rocket docket and get it developed before the hearing, it goes into POST and gets developed and then you may have to offer a "supplemental hearing". One way or the other the record time is lengthened. I hate POST and hate looking at a case 2 weeks to 3 months after the hearing. I guess it's my old age, but I forget what the heck we were doing. Anyhow, you need to take control of your docket and schedule your rocket docket and do it right. Most of you may not know or remember that this system was set up with the idea that we would be assigned every case in ARPR to preview and order development prior to releasing for scheduling. The regulations say that an ALJ must release the case to Scheduling before it can be scheduled. We are giving away all control on these cases. They are not properly developed and the Agency doesn't care as long as they are moved.. Full and Fair hearings aren't being rendered. Let's not forget what our true purpose is. It isn't to "MOVE" cases. It is to make sure the public is protected from the agency that they have a claim against. How did we ever end up in this mess?? 100% agree. Such changes in procedure entirely based on measurement metrics looking good are rarely actually efficient. As you say, the ALJ is/was supposed to decide the case is "ready to hear" and move it to RTS. otherwise, presumably, it should be moved to PRE with development instructions. The management has used the "time in status" of ARPR cases to justify consistent admonition (or at least "bothering") of the ALJs such that they find it easier to avoid the ARPR step through a 'standing order' or other mechanism (including failing to be aware it exists).
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 18, 2016 14:23:42 GMT -5
i assume that is what he meant. Ready-now has handled SSA cases. he just uses more normal terms than we have learned over the years! Some of more favorite internal stuff is that a reversal is good(if you are the claimant anyway), it does not mean you send the case back to someone else, the end of the month rarely is in fact the end of the month, and our year ends Sept 30th. Not to mention aged is not based on day you are looking at something, but rather day case will be as of September 30th, even though you are looking at case in January, so it's real date is 9 months earlier. not even sure anyone will follow me on that one, i understand concept but can't even reduce it to writing properly. Aaagh.... and then add all our acronyms to the mix!!! something akin to this Monty. Actually, I think my statement is quite clear. I made the same assumption as the others. If you did not mean a fully favorable decision with an early review provision, did you mean a personal agreement with the ALJ to consider a motion to reopen and revise a closed period decision based on the claimant's ability to sustain the return to work that triggered the requested closed period?
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 18, 2016 15:37:02 GMT -5
something akin to this Monty. Actually, I think my statement is quite clear. I made the same assumption as the others. If you did not mean a fully favorable decision with an early review provision, did you mean a personal agreement with the ALJ to consider a motion to reopen and revise a closed period decision based on the claimant's ability to sustain the return to work that triggered the requested closed period? Or maybe a ff with a cessation date in the future? Like after 9 months twp expires? Both of these situations seem unlikely. Yeah not clear to us insiders. If your guy is getting benefits for the month after the hearing, we consider that a ff not a closed period
|
|