Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 11:47:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Oct 26, 2017 21:21:02 GMT -5
From what I have been learning and have observed this week - the answer is no. What the Agency needs are more judges and support staff to give each claimant the process they are due. AI simply cannot substitute for a Judge. People are not numbers, metrics, analytics, nor widgets - and they certainly are not chickens. |
|
|
|
Post by coffeeman on Oct 27, 2017 9:07:43 GMT -5
I'm sorry rp, I cannot do that.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Oct 27, 2017 9:53:30 GMT -5
BS. The bank's lawyers will continue to bill as if they did the work themselves, and hit the links and/or the bar earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by nothingtoseehere on Oct 27, 2017 9:56:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Oct 27, 2017 10:32:50 GMT -5
I'm sorry rp, I cannot do that. Open the pod bay doors, Hal! |
|
|
|
Post by desert2beach on Oct 27, 2017 14:23:21 GMT -5
I'm going to vote "yes", but for slightly different reasons. I'm currently litigating a case where my opponent is one their third opportunity to file pre-hearing exhibits. Each time they've done so, it has been hundreds of pages of largely irrelevant matter. However, I have to go through each page to ensure there isn't a nugget in there I might miss. If I had AI to winnow down documents to only those that were most relevant, it would make my job quicker and easier.
By extension, if an ALJ had AI to reduce 500 pages of medical records down to 50, arguably they could complete cases more quickly. In theory at least ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lola on Oct 27, 2017 14:39:38 GMT -5
I am an outsider so I wonder if the SSA software allows the following searches or reports:
1) to identify duplicate pages in a record and cross reference them in the record
2) for better search capability in medical records to pull out certain data elements, for example platelet counts, and view all results by date in a grid
3) to identify each occasion when a specific body part or diagnosis is mentioned in the record and create a report
|
|
|
|
Post by nothingtoseehere on Oct 27, 2017 15:03:02 GMT -5
I am a huge proponent of technology. However, even if we were able to demonstrate the efficacy of a state of the art AI system to somehow review and distill complex medical records, I would think it unlikely that 1) a governmental acquisition process would be able to acquire, implement, and maintain such a system, and 2) that, if implemented, it would sufficiently guarantee the right to due process. The 99% accuracy of a computerized luggage system, as Dvorak notes, is nothing to laud if it results in 3 people losing their luggage on a typical flight.
Regardless, the optics of what will be viewed as ATM justice, of a sort, will be horrible for whichever court or administrative venue decides to first go down this road.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Oct 28, 2017 10:26:23 GMT -5
I am an outsider so I wonder if the SSA software allows the following searches or reports: 1) to identify duplicate pages in a record and cross reference them in the record 2) for better search capability in medical records to pull out certain data elements, for example platelet counts, and view all results by date in a grid 3) to identify each occasion when a specific body part or diagnosis is mentioned in the record and create a report In answer to the first, no. But, rumor has it they are working on this. Marking duplicates, (if there is time for the significantly overworked staff) is still done by humans at this time. In answer to the second and third, sort of. However, to search all documents in a file for a word or number takes a significant amount of time, so it is best to have something else to work on while waiting for the (mostly accurate) results. Forget this if there are any handwritten notes, it won't work at all. Creating a report is still done by humans. |
|
|
|
Post by shoocat on Oct 28, 2017 13:40:43 GMT -5
I am an outsider so I wonder if the SSA software allows the following searches or reports: 1) to identify duplicate pages in a record and cross reference them in the record 2) for better search capability in medical records to pull out certain data elements, for example platelet counts, and view all results by date in a grid 3) to identify each occasion when a specific body part or diagnosis is mentioned in the record and create a report In answer to the first, no. But, rumor has it they are working on this. Marking duplicates, (if there is time for the significantly overworked staff) is still done by humans at this time. In answer to the second and third, sort of. However, to search all documents in a file for a word or number takes a significant amount of time, so it is best to have something else to work on while waiting for the (mostly accurate) results. Forget this if there are any handwritten notes, it won't work at all. Creating a report is still done by humans. If you can get the OCR and search function to actually work. |
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on Oct 28, 2017 21:12:24 GMT -5
“Artificial Intelligence”. That is an oxymoron, a joke is it not?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenretrievermom on Oct 29, 2017 21:04:07 GMT -5
Also, not to be Captain Obvious, but if we're actually talking about needing nth-generation supercomputers to help 1500+ judges handle cases at an acceptable pace, the better answer is probably to recognize that SSDI is too easy to receive and tighten eligibility by statute. I'm pretty sure that is how Congress would perceive the problem. The 2017 House budget that just passed talks about SSDI needing some reforms and cost-savings, although not in too much detail. Not sure that's so obvious, Captain. Too Easy to apply for? Perhaps. Too Easy to receive??? Upon what facts do you base your assertion? If anyone on this board seeks to be an ALJ, or worse yet, is an ALJ, because of an agenda to keep "unworthy" applicants from receiving SSDI or SSI benefits, I'm worried about due process. Politics do not belong on the bench, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Oct 29, 2017 23:37:55 GMT -5
Also, not to be Captain Obvious, but if we're actually talking about needing nth-generation supercomputers to help 1500+ judges handle cases at an acceptable pace, the better answer is probably to recognize that SSDI is too easy to receive and tighten eligibility by statute. I'm pretty sure that is how Congress would perceive the problem. The 2017 House budget that just passed talks about SSDI needing some reforms and cost-savings, although not in too much detail. Not sure that's so obvious, Captain. Too Easy to apply for? Perhaps. Too Easy to receive??? Upon what facts do you base your assertion? If anyone on this board seeks to be an ALJ, or worse yet, is an ALJ, because of an agenda to keep "unworthy" applicants from receiving SSDI or SSI benefits, I'm worried about due process. Politics do not belong on the bench, IMHO. I disagree, this isn't about politics, it's about the Grid Rules. They need some serious updating. They shouldn't even begin to come into play until 55, and the max age group should be moved up to 65. Oh yeah, and relying on the DOT when it is woefully outdated is also an anathema to the proper decision-making process in disability hearings. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Oct 30, 2017 18:06:35 GMT -5
If you've ever worked on a document review project, you'll have a feel for how accurate AI is(n't) in evaluating documents. Docs are selected as possibly responsive, by AI, and then reviewed by attorneys to determine whether they are responsive, privileged, and so on. I can't give any hard statistics, but I've had batches of documents, usually around 500, and found none in the entire batch that were at all responsive to the discovery request. After the initial review, they'll usually go through a second review, and through quality control. On top of that, the trial attorneys have clawback provision in the discovery responses, allowing them to recover any documents that were improperly turned over in violation of attorney-client privilege, for example.
AI can help search for, and highlight, keywords in typed text. It's clueless when it comes to handwriting and image-like documents. We're a long way from having AI replace humans in determining disabilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Oct 30, 2017 20:19:59 GMT -5
Not sure that's so obvious, Captain. Too Easy to apply for? Perhaps. Too Easy to receive??? Upon what facts do you base your assertion? If anyone on this board seeks to be an ALJ, or worse yet, is an ALJ, because of an agenda to keep "unworthy" applicants from receiving SSDI or SSI benefits, I'm worried about due process. Politics do not belong on the bench, IMHO. It is possible (in fact, it is normal) to have opinions about what the law should be and still be able to dispense justice according to the law as it exists. Anyone who can't keep those two things separate has no business being a judge, whether an ALJ or a supreme court justice. Notwithstanding your response, there has been a lot of discussion on here about eligibility criteria vis-a-vis the backlog, and I think the consensus is that even if only .01% of applicants were paid, there would be a negligible reduction of applications. The truth is the majority of these folks at least perceive themselves as having no other option, or at least no reason not to try to apply. OTOH, if there were a limitation on number of applications or a filing fee, that would reduce the number of applications. So yeah, it’s not “obvious” at all. Indeed even more stringent criteria would not necessarily reduce the amount of analysis needed to determine the outcome of a claim. In fact if it were so easy to get, DDS wouldn’t deny so many claims, thus reducing the need for ALJ hearings. I think it’s worrying that you assume as a given that disability is so obviously easy to get that everyone recognizes it. If you are under 50, disability is very hard to get (IMO). Instead of throwing stuff like that out there, if you have specific policy proposal, propose it. Don’t just insinuate that disability is “easy to get” as if everyone agrees with you. I am curious if you have any actual experience with disability law, or if you are just carrying popular biases about disability with you into the field of law you wish to practice. In a related vein I am bothered by sea laws comment that relying on the DOT is anathema to “proper” decision making . I hear you, the DOT is woefully outdated, but the regs mandate reliance on it. The regs and statute tell you what your job is. Therefore “proper” decision mandates reliance on the DOT to some extent. Note that depending on your interpretation of how the DOT is outdated could lead to more or less pay cases. How about follow the law and leave the agendas at home please. Leave the policy to the “smart” folks in DC. And before some busybody beats me to it, this board is not intended for such discussions, blah, blah, blah. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Oct 30, 2017 22:02:59 GMT -5
Notwithstanding your response, there has been a lot of discussion on here about eligibility criteria vis-a-vis the backlog, and I think the consensus is that even if only .01% of applicants were paid, there would be a negligible reduction of applications. The truth is the majority of these folks at least perceive themselves as having no other option, or at least no reason not to try to apply. OTOH, if there were a limitation on number of applications or a filing fee, that would reduce the number of applications. So yeah, it’s not “obvious” at all. Indeed even more stringent criteria would not necessarily reduce the amount of analysis needed to determine the outcome of a claim. In fact if it were so easy to get, DDS wouldn’t deny so many claims, thus reducing the need for ALJ hearings. I think it’s worrying that you assume as a given that disability is so obviously easy to get that everyone recognizes it. If you are under 50, disability is very hard to get (IMO). Instead of throwing stuff like that out there, if you have specific policy proposal, propose it. Don’t just insinuate that disability is “easy to get” as if everyone agrees with you. I am curious if you have any actual experience with disability law, or if you are just carrying popular biases about disability with you into the field of law you wish to practice. In a related vein I am bothered by sea laws comment that relying on the DOT is anathema to “proper” decision making . I hear you, the DOT is woefully outdated, but the regs mandate reliance on it. The regs and statute tell you what your job is. Therefore “proper” decision mandates reliance on the DOT to some extent. Note that depending on your interpretation of how the DOT is outdated could lead to more or less pay cases. How about follow the law and leave the agendas at home please. Leave the policy to the “smart” folks in DC. And before some busybody beats me to it, this board is not intended for such discussions, blah, blah, blah. The reason for the backlog isn't the number of applications, it's the detailed hoops an ALJ has to jump through to write an affirmable denial. If the standards were tightened, denials would take proportionately less work to be affirmable. How do you figure that? As long as claimants can appeal you need to do a lot of writing to justify a decision (writing which ALJs do not for themselves and therefore wouldn’t impact their time in processing cases). Unless you are proposing something rather draconian and superficial, like no brunettes get paid, then yeah that would reduce the processing time, though claimants would still be entitled to a hearing to prove they have dyed their hair, so even then, not really. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 30, 2017 22:41:01 GMT -5
The reason for the backlog isn't the number of applications, it's the detailed hoops an ALJ has to jump through to write an affirmable denial. If the standards were tightened, denials would take proportionately less work to be affirmable. How do you figure that? As long as claimants can appeal you need to do a lot of writing to justify a decision (writing which ALJs do not for themselves and therefore wouldn’t impact their time in processing cases). Unless you are proposing something rather draconian and superficial, like no brunettes get paid, then yeah that would reduce the processing time, though claimants would still be entitled to a hearing to prove they have dyed their hair, so even then, not really. Of course it would affect their processing time. Many offices are months behind in getting the unfavorable decisions written. That directly affects the judge's processing time as well as the office's processing time. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Oct 30, 2017 22:57:32 GMT -5
How do you figure that? As long as claimants can appeal you need to do a lot of writing to justify a decision (writing which ALJs do not for themselves and therefore wouldn’t impact their time in processing cases). Unless you are proposing something rather draconian and superficial, like no brunettes get paid, then yeah that would reduce the processing time, though claimants would still be entitled to a hearing to prove they have dyed their hair, so even then, not really. Of course it would affect their processing time. Many offices are months behind in getting the unfavorable decisions written. That directly affects the judge's processing time as well as the office's processing time. Pixie Well it would not impact the number of dispos an ALJ does. That would be a better way to put it. Are you hearing less cases because of the writing backlog Pixie? I didn’t think so. We all know that the opposite of what if1 says is true- it takes far less time to pay a case than deny it. Hence the “paying down the backlog” trope. I would be interested in how much less time you think you can put into a case than the 2-3 hours judges do now (including hearing time). No matter what the criteria, you still have to read those records. That takes time. If you are looking at reducing the time a judge looks at the case (or “hoops” the judge must jump though - an interesting statement given that SSDI is probably the easiest area of law to practice) as opposed to reducing the number of applications coming in (or god forbid, increasing staff), you are barking up the wrong tree in re: reducing the backlog. ETA: blaming the backlog of people waiting for hearing on writers is sort of beyond disingenuous since people having decisions written have necessarily already had hearings and ergo one has literally nothing to do with the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 31, 2017 5:23:17 GMT -5
Of course it would affect their processing time. Many offices are months behind in getting the unfavorable decisions written. That directly affects the judge's processing time as well as the office's processing time. Pixie . That would be a better way to put it. Are you hearing less cases because of the writing backlog Pixie? I didn’t think so. We all know that the opposite of what if1 says is true- it takes far less time to pay a case than deny it. Hence the “paying down the backlog” trope. I would be interested in how much less time you think you can put into a case than the 2-3 hours judges do now (including hearing time). No matter what the criteria, you still have to read those records. That takes time. If you are looking at reducing the time a judge looks at the case (or “hoops” the judge must jump though - an interesting statement given that SSDI is probably the easiest area of law to practice) as opposed to reducing the number of applications coming in (or god forbid, increasing staff), you are barking up the wrong tree in re: reducing the backlog. ETA: blaming the backlog of people waiting for hearing on writers is sort of beyond disingenuous since people having decisions written have necessarily already had hearings and ergo one has literally nothing to do with the other. Huh? My point was about processing time, not the number of dispositions. As to your second point, I wasn't aware the writers were being blamed for the backlog of claimants awaiting hearings? That is a non sequitur. Pixie |
|
