|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Sept 29, 2018 22:11:51 GMT -5
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it: Thank you to the OHO writers. I know you're getting the pressure ramped up, but I appreciate all of the efforts of the writers.
I mean, after all it wasn't all that long ago I was a writer myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by plinytheelder on Sept 29, 2018 23:21:08 GMT -5
And the NCAC writers?
|
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Sept 29, 2018 23:35:47 GMT -5
They are part of OHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by pseudonymous on Sept 30, 2018 7:16:58 GMT -5
I was asked. If so, I said I’ve never done the work, but I’d try. “Due process” is not just a nice-sounding term; it is a constitutional requirement for deciding government benefits, and the purpose of ALJs.
|
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Sept 30, 2018 9:43:59 GMT -5
I didn't schedule 50 every month. I didn't sign everything in EDIT - because often I don't have sufficient time to make the product signable. I have a healthy number of ALPOs. And I made the 500 quota.
You can make the quota without being a perfect judge. It may not be easy. You may be in here working every weekend and working late every night of the week. But it can be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Sept 30, 2018 10:33:24 GMT -5
I didn't schedule 50 every month. I didn't sign everything in EDIT - because often I don't have sufficient time to make the product signable. I have a healthy number of ALPOs. And I made the 500 quota. You can make the quota without being a perfect judge. It may not be easy. You may be in here working every weekend and working late every night of the week. But it can be done. OTOH, my employer pays me for 40 hours a week. I can work credit hours, and book some comp time. I donate a few hours to my employer every year. However, I have a life. I am not interested in working every weekend. I am not interested in working nights. And, my employer has never—not once—explained why 500-700 is a reasonable mandate, and will remain a reasonable mandate. No thanks. Respectfully, Hamster |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Sept 30, 2018 14:45:38 GMT -5
OTOH, my employer pays me for 40 hours a week. I can work credit hours, and book some comp time. I donate a few hours to my employer every year.
However, I have a life. I am not interested in working every weekend. I am not interested in working nights. And, my employer has never—not once—explained why 500-700 is a reasonable mandate, and will remain a reasonable mandate.
No thanks.
I have no argument with your approach to the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by pseudonymous on Sept 30, 2018 19:52:58 GMT -5
OTOH, my employer pays me for 40 hours a week. I can work credit hours, and book some comp time. I donate a few hours to my employer every year.
However, I have a life. I am not interested in working every weekend. I am not interested in working nights. ...
Right. I reject any implication that the “proper employee” works weekends, forfeits time, and saves up his vacation time (and perhaps eventually cashes it out). It’s a free country, but I personally always find it sad when people retire with tons of vacation time saved up. Perhaps it’s having a parent die in his late 50s that makes me aware that time is precious and not fungible. My dedication is to my family, and the days with them right now won’t be available/reproducible 10 years from now. I work my 40 hrs., diligently and competently, and I stop. |
|
|
|
Post by plinytheelder on Sept 30, 2018 20:04:02 GMT -5
I left federal employment with neither vacation time nor regrets.
|
|
|
|
Post by catspaw on Sept 30, 2018 20:08:34 GMT -5
Hi ya’all! This is about the people we serve. Those who come before us multiple times a week. I am moving on now to another agency, but I issued well, well over 500 decisions. This is never about us. I have the most respect for you all, but please strive to give them as many decisions as you can as fast as you can. I had to remake myself at least four times - NO KIDDING - to make sure my process would meet the requirements of * the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Oct 1, 2018 7:37:49 GMT -5
So what are the best numbers as to how many made 500?
I wasn't right on 500, so my numbers are estimates - but checking How MI Doing and asking a couple of colleagues, I'm estimating a judge who hit 500 on the number would be around 720 out of 1633. That translates to 44% meeting the goal/target/whatever.
Further estimating that 150 ALJs are either new hires or retired during the year, that brings the total ALJs down to 1583, and the percentage that met up to 49%.
Anything glaringly wrong with my math? Anyone got better numbers?
|
|
|
|
Post by fletch512 on Oct 5, 2018 10:59:13 GMT -5
Further estimating that 150 ALJs are either new hires or retired during the year, that brings the total ALJs down to 1583, and the percentage that met up to 49%. Anything glaringly wrong with my math? Anyone got better numbers? That looks about right to me based on my ranking in HowMI Doing on 10/1. We can't know for sure until 1) someone comes forward who hit exactly 500 dispositions and checked HowMI on 10/1; 2) someone does the count when the data is released to the SSA ALJ disposition website; 3) the numbers are released to the union some odd months from now. The agency for some reason doesn't make these sort of stats readily accessible. My take on the 500 disposition goal is that it is arbitrary and unfair. I have been told by senior staff as well as read in depositions that the goal was basically created by dividing the desired agency-wide disposition and budgetary target by the then-available ALJs. The goal penalizes ALJs who work in urban areas with greater access to healthcare, in progressive states that expanded the ACA and generally provide greater services to the indigent, in areas with a high DAA/drug/opioid abuse issues, and in cities with a large homeless population. These factors lead to a larger (and sometimes more complex due to DAA/homelessness issues) case file that needs to be reviewed prior to hearing. Other factors that vary office-to-office and affect productivity are the quality of representation, the percentage of unrepresented claimants, and the staffing levels and management priorities in the office. I've worked in several offices in different regions, and based on my experience, the ease of hitting 500 dispositions per year varies substantially. Claimants' access to services and the corresponding size of the medical file is a large factor. In one office there was a large percentage of unrepresented claimants that would fail to appear at hearings, leading to dismissals. In another office a high-volume firm would represent pretty much everyone that walked in the door, but not provide medical records in a timely manner. So, easy dismissals were traded for supplemental hearings. In an area with high DAA issues, a 3000 page F section might mean a disabled individual needed greater services, or it could indicate drug-seeking behavior resulting in multiple ER visits in search of opioids. While one can argue specifics, the agency did some due diligence in analyzing the time it takes writers to draft opinions (DWPI has a host of factors), or how long it takes an SCT to workup a case file (they shadowed employees around the country). Yet when it comes to having an honest understanding of how long it takes an ALJ to perform all the tasks assigned to the judge, the agency is content to be willfully ignorant. With all the resources and statistics OHO has at its disposal, there can be only one reason for this outcome: the agency heads know that it takes way more time for most ALJs to perform their duties than there are hours in a workday. Essentially, the agency seems content in asking ALJs to cut corners rather than providing a nuanced approach or tackling systemic issues such as poor or unethical representation. |
|
|
|
Post by shoocat on Oct 9, 2018 16:49:00 GMT -5
I cannot speak for all ALJs, but if I was so rushed I did not include a note of whether it was UF, FF, etc., or whether it was a Step 4 or 5, or any other of the issues above, I would anticipate receiving an email to that effect, so I could fix it. As a former AA, I would have sent a (very nice, professional) email to that effect to the judge and would have moved to the next case in my queue, (because I would have asked for more cases before I got to just one left in my queue). Lost time? 5 minutes to write the email. As a former GS, I mediated issues between writers and ALJs, to address patterns in such areas. Happened once? ok, bad day (whether it was bad instructions or bad writing). Repeatedly? that was an issue that adversely impacted the entire office, and management needed to address. Yes, it's a team effort and it is one in which we all bear some of the responsibility. I welcome emails from writers when my instructions don't provide the needed information or are confusing.I will never get upset if I receive such an email. |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Oct 9, 2018 17:11:29 GMT -5
I cannot speak for all ALJs, but if I was so rushed I did not include a note of whether it was UF, FF, etc., or whether it was a Step 4 or 5, or any other of the issues above, I would anticipate receiving an email to that effect, so I could fix it. As a former AA, I would have sent a (very nice, professional) email to that effect to the judge and would have moved to the next case in my queue, (because I would have asked for more cases before I got to just one left in my queue). Lost time? 5 minutes to write the email. As a former GS, I mediated issues between writers and ALJs, to address patterns in such areas. Happened once? ok, bad day (whether it was bad instructions or bad writing). Repeatedly? that was an issue that adversely impacted the entire office, and management needed to address. Yes, it's a team effort and it is one in which we all bear some of the responsibility. I welcome emails from writers when my instructions don't provide the needed information or are confusing.I will never get upset if I receive such an email. Exactly! Those questions can save everyone involved hours of time. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 9, 2018 18:02:32 GMT -5
So what are the best numbers as to how many made 500? I wasn't right on 500, so my numbers are estimates - but checking How MI Doing and asking a couple of colleagues, I'm estimating a judge who hit 500 on the number would be around 720 out of 1633. That translates to 44% meeting the goal/target/whatever. Further estimating that 150 ALJs are either new hires or retired during the year, that brings the total ALJs down to 1583, and the percentage that met up to 49%. Anything glaringly wrong with my math? Anyone got better numbers? As per an email received today, 74% of Region 5 ALJs issued 500 or more decisions. Based on the language of the email (which subsequently states 80% would have made it with UNWR) it appears that they are saying that the 74% includes only those who actually signed 500 decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Oct 10, 2018 10:19:38 GMT -5
I was told by a regional chief judge that the unofficial non-quota quota was 450. His exact language was that he would "defend 450." Thsigs may have changed since, but I doubt that there are any real repercussions if you do 450. It has been four or five years but one of the deputy commissioners at the time told a small group quizzing him after a meeting that no had been in any real trouble over productivity who hit at least 240. I answered I could do 500. It is harder now than it was a decade ago. -Thanks to the ACA you encounter far fewer claimants with no medical records. Used to not be unusual to have a claimant whose only medical evidence was a physical CE and psych CE. It was even more common to see a person with those two things and three or fewer ER visits. -If you take a year of exactly 52 weeks you in theory have 2080 hours minus 80 hours of holidays for 2000 hours to work. You could take another 104 hours of annual leave for 1936 hours. I hoarded my leave and I'm now use or lose with 160 hours, leaving me with 1,840 hours to work and soon I'll be at 208 hours of annual leave meaning 1,792 hours to work. Getting 500 as an ALJ with less than three years of service who takes half their leave means a decision every 3.9 hours, an ALJ with 15+ years who is in use or lose and only uses what leave they earn in the year has to make a decision every 3.6 hours. Over the course of 15 years you lose 18 minutes per decision. -Staffing is lower. It takes longer to send a request for medical records and it takes longer to get it in the file. There is less time devoted to identifying duplicate records. I've had more issues with scheduling. -Off-site writing. The quality has improved significantly but it is harder to communicate electronically with someone you don't know and who doesn't know you. It slows things down and increases the risk of error. It means having to do more detailed instructions so add more time doing instructions. I have no desire to ever have anyone write decision based on a scrawled note that says "deny" or "pay" and I can get the listing numbers for the most common impairments off the top of my head but I'm invariably looking up the less common ones to give to the writers. I'm looking up Grid rule numbers to get the system to take my instructions. - The more efficient instruction system. One tab I use in every case in the electronic instruction system was IMPROVED by merging it with another tab so I have to make two clicks instead of one. Boo hoo poor ALJ has to click his mouse twice instead of once. It isn't a huge deal except it reflects the problem. ALJs are spending more time doing dinky stuff. It's not a huge time suck but it adds up. In the past two years I've received way too many emails asking where my instructions are. Well in some cases they are there but the change over in electronic instruction systems has led to them being in an unexpected place and invariably I had a note in CPMS telling where to find something and no one had looked at the remark. In other cases, someone hit the wrong tab and a file that was supposed to have gone to ALPO went to a writer. There are no instructions because I've not made a decision yet. The agency has tried to solve the backlog by hiring more ALJs and giving them fewer resources. Hire more attorneys and have them brief the cases and I can cut my note taking time and hear more cases. Give it back to the attorney who briefed it to give them a crack at writing with some familiarity with the case and notes already taken on key evidence. Do that and you can often get a head start on ordering new records as well. |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Oct 10, 2018 11:11:43 GMT -5
Agree with Arkstfan's comments. And I'll add, once again, that quality of staff matters greatly. If you have good writers and case pullers and managers, you can get 500. If you don't, the goal is much tougher. Office staff quality varies considerably.
|
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Oct 10, 2018 14:09:32 GMT -5
Agree with Arkstfan's comments. And I'll add, once again, that quality of staff matters greatly. If you have good writers and case pullers and managers, you can get 500. If you don't, the goal is much tougher. Office staff quality varies considerably. I'm lucky I've been in two good offices but it is disheartening to hear people in other offices talk about not being able to hold hearings because the office can't get enough cases prepared. |
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Oct 10, 2018 20:15:58 GMT -5
My loved ones will.
Marry in haste, repent at leisure.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Oct 10, 2018 21:45:59 GMT -5
Never Again: Thanks for your service!
Aim High!
Hamster (USAF, Ret.)
|
|
