|
Post by Topperlaw on Oct 31, 2021 7:17:42 GMT -5
I'm not grasping how anyone could still be Hearing full caseloads unless there are TONS of judges only Hearing 3-4 cases a week. I've SCHEDULED 11 Hearings every week for the past year but since April 2021 I've averaged about 7 Hearings per month. All of November, December, January, and February, I have 6 Hearings per week. BUT I have 53 cases in PRE Right now that are no-show dismissals where we're not going to reschedule those cases until we go back to in-person. I'm wondering if some judges still have full caseloads at least in part because they keep recycling no-shows.
In looking at the Caseload Analysis Report on CPS MI (Upper left corner of CPMS is the hyperlink), we have a grand total of 350,000 total cases pending nationwide and thousands of those are either 1) claimants who refuse a telephone/video Hearing or 2) unrepped no-show cases sitting in PRE waiting to return to in-person so we can schedule one last Hearing where they'll be a no-show for the zillionth time and we can finally dismiss them.
If you look at September's available ALJs (October isn't available yet) we likely have about 1175 available ALJs. That means there are only 297 cases pending per judge nationwide. There simply are not enough cases. Let's say every judge nationwide did 10 cases a week 47 weeks of the year with 5 weeks vacation. That'd be 470 cases per judge *1175 for a grand total of 552,000 Dispositions.
Let that sink in for a second. Just having judges avg. 10 cases a week we have the CAPACITY to do 552,000 Dispositions for the year (600,000 cases if our ALJs avg. the 500+ dispos they averaged in fiscal year 2018 and 2019 before the pandemic). BUT we only have 350,000 total cases pending nationwide. AND we still only had 36,000 Receipts for October even though it was a 5-week month. So receipts aren't picking up quite yet either.
Once we return to in-person, they can probably schedule us full caseloads nationwide for a month or two to clear out all of the cases that can't be cleared out any other way but in person. BUT once that happens, unless we either have a MASSIVE set of retirements or spike in receipts, things aren't changing any time soon.
There won't be a need to hire ANY new ALJs until our yearly capacity is outpaced by Receipts.
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Oct 31, 2021 7:27:08 GMT -5
Sorry I love the statistics end of things a bit too much but just a little more math. Let's say that over the next year we have an average of 1100 available ALJs nationwide and we do finally go back to in-person and we wipe out all of the in-person cases that can't be dismissed currently. Let's say that by the end of the fiscal year we have only 300,000 pending (which is probably about what we SHOULD have pending right now if we were just allowed to dismiss the no-shows). It's going to take a huge influx of new cases just to get receipts above total ALJ capacity. My guess is that until our total available ALJs drop below 1000 AND our pending caseload reaches 500,000, we won't need new judges.
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 31, 2021 7:58:20 GMT -5
I'm not grasping how anyone could still be Hearing full caseloads unless there are TONS of judges only Hearing 3-4 cases a week. I've SCHEDULED 11 Hearings every week for the past year but since April 2021 I've averaged about 7 Hearings per month. I have to assume that last word is a mistake? I could nitpik your math a bit- scheduling 10 a week will NOT lead to 10 dispos a week, and in some offices it will be significantly lower. Also, do remands count as receipts? If not, that's a bump that could be fairly sizable. But I'd agree with your main point- it sure seems unlikely there would be hiring any time soon as it does appear we have excess capacity. Now, if I was in charge I'd still want to hire at least a small class annually. You don't want to end up vulnerable to a surge of retirements at some point, but that is exactly how the agency is setting itself up right now, with a significant percentage of the current ALJs all hired within a 3 year period and then no one hired for years afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Oct 31, 2021 9:40:38 GMT -5
My office has been sending no-shows to PRE status for a significant amount of time, and those do not get recycled. (those still need pre-hearing prep until they don't show)
While you may have a different experience, @topperlaw, that doesn't change the fact that other judges have full dockets and have for the entire time of COVID.
If you look at the stats, one judge closed over 600 cases last fiscal year. So, I imagine that judge might have scheduled quite a few hearings. Although few closed over 500, others were very close to that number despite the lack of DISMs and no-shows that did not result in a closed case.
Numbers are interesting to play with, but that doesn't change any of the above information.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 31, 2021 10:02:54 GMT -5
I'm not grasping how anyone could still be Hearing full caseloads unless there are TONS of judges only Hearing 3-4 cases a week. I've SCHEDULED 11 Hearings every week for the past year but since April 2021 I've averaged about 7 Hearings per month. All of November, December, January, and February, I have 6 Hearings per week. I have scheduled AND held 14 hearings a week straight since May and before that it was probably between 10-14. Every ALJ in the office I am assigned to is holding full dockets. It’s just true. And we are not recycling no-shows.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 31, 2021 10:20:24 GMT -5
Maybe I'm naïve, but I used to do 50 (and lately CSU only schedules 40 in our office) because claimants need hearings, not because some judges do 25 and some do 70. I don't care what anyone else is doing. Trying to stay in my own lane. I care that some claimants are waiting longer than necessary for their hearings because management is not using the excess capacity that currently exists. What is the justification for some ALJ’s holding 25 hearings a month while we have claimants waiting?
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Oct 31, 2021 10:44:15 GMT -5
They need to shift a ton of cases to our office for six months. Its just not fair to you guys.
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Oct 31, 2021 10:46:34 GMT -5
I'm not grasping how anyone could still be Hearing full caseloads unless there are TONS of judges only Hearing 3-4 cases a week. I've SCHEDULED 11 Hearings every week for the past year but since April 2021 I've averaged about 7 Hearings per month. I have to assume that last word is a mistake? I could nitpik your math a bit- scheduling 10 a week will NOT lead to 10 dispos a week, and in some offices it will be significantly lower. Also, do remands count as receipts? If not, that's a bump that could be fairly sizable. But I'd agree with your main point- it sure seems unlikely there would be hiring any time soon as it does appear we have excess capacity. Now, if I was in charge I'd still want to hire at least a small class annually. You don't want to end up vulnerable to a surge of retirements at some point, but that is exactly how the agency is setting itself up right now, with a significant percentage of the current ALJs all hired within a 3 year period and then no one hired for years afterwards. Oops my bad...per week.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 31, 2021 11:31:53 GMT -5
I care that some claimants are waiting longer than necessary for their hearings because management is not using the excess capacity that currently exists. What is the justification for some ALJ’s holding 25 hearings a month while we have claimants waiting? It appears OCALJ does not have inter-regional hearing workload assistance similar to the one they use for decision writing. Intra-regional case transfers could accomplish much, at least in my region but I expect elsewhere as well. I have insight into workloads in five or six offices in my region and I know the massive disparity.
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit Bat Reindeer on Oct 31, 2021 13:01:05 GMT -5
Another perspective here, I've had lots of cases from other regions and we're about to get another batch from within the region.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 31, 2021 13:51:17 GMT -5
Another perspective here, I've had lots of cases from other regions and we're about to get another batch from within the region. Good to hear. How many hearings scheduled are you averaging per month?
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 31, 2021 15:00:09 GMT -5
Maybe I'm naïve, but I used to do 50 (and lately CSU only schedules 40 in our office) because claimants need hearings, not because some judges do 25 and some do 70. I don't care what anyone else is doing. Trying to stay in my own lane. I care that some claimants are waiting longer than necessary for their hearings because management is not using the excess capacity that currently exists. What is the justification for some ALJ’s holding 25 hearings a month while we have claimants waiting? Besides the impact on claimants- if no ALJ is forfeiting any time, then it really doesn't matter how much everyone else is doing. But, if you are working more than 8 hours a day, on weekends, and/or forfeiting annual time at the end of the year, I think it is perfectly legitimate to care that others are only being required to do half the work.
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Oct 31, 2021 21:20:12 GMT -5
I care that some claimants are waiting longer than necessary for their hearings because management is not using the excess capacity that currently exists. What is the justification for some ALJ’s holding 25 hearings a month while we have claimants waiting? Besides the impact on claimants- if no ALJ is forfeiting any time, then it really doesn't matter how much everyone else is doing. But, if you are working more than 8 hours a day, on weekends, and/or forfeiting annual time at the end of the year, I think it is perfectly legitimate to care that others are only being required to do half the work. Good point!
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 31, 2021 21:47:08 GMT -5
Another perspective here, I've had lots of cases from other regions and we're about to get another batch from within the region. We used to get cases from other offices within and outside the region. Those wells have gone dry since those offices no longer have interest in sending cases out. My dockets have been mixed. Full through May, throttled June through September, and back to 100% through January 2022. Trippy seeing hearing requests from June 2021 on my docket this upcoming week.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 31, 2021 22:19:54 GMT -5
Another perspective here, I've had lots of cases from other regions and we're about to get another batch from within the region. We used to get cases from other offices within and outside the region. Those wells have gone dry since those offices no longer have interest in sending cases out. My dockets have been mixed. Full through May, throttled June through September, and back to 100% through January 2022. Trippy seeing hearing requests from June 2021 on my docket this upcoming week. Anyone hoping to see significant hiring anytime soon needs to rethink their perspective. That’s why ALJs were included in the early outs for the first time in many many years.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 31, 2021 23:39:12 GMT -5
My office ships cases all over the country. What is aggravating about that is that our office gets all those remands back instead of them staying with the folks in the BFE hearing office.
My understanding is that the CSUs for our entire region are scheduling only 40 hearings per ALJ a month since September.
Since the Field Offices shut down receipts have been down almost 30%. Those folks didn't all decide they weren't disabled. They just don't have the ability to complete the paperwork without assistance. When the Field Offices reopen we will see a surge 6 months later. I fear that surge will be huge and it will be unyielding for several years.
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Nov 1, 2021 8:48:53 GMT -5
My office ships cases all over the country. What is aggravating about that is that our office gets all those remands back instead of them staying with the folks in the BFE hearing office. My understanding is that the CSUs for our entire region are scheduling only 40 hearings per ALJ a month since SSeptember. Since the Field Offices shut down receipts have been down almost 30%. Those folks didn't all decide they weren't disabled. They just don't have the ability to complete the paperwork without assistance. When the Field Offices reopen we will see a surge 6 months later. I fear that surge will be huge and it will be unyielding for several years. It is extremely hard to get applications done right now. Everything is by telephone. "Sorry, there are no appointments available. You need to call every day and see if someone cancelled." This process is a mess
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit Bat Reindeer on Nov 1, 2021 9:18:39 GMT -5
Another perspective here, I've had lots of cases from other regions and we're about to get another batch from within the region. Good to hear. How many hearings scheduled are you averaging per month? We were still doing 45-50 while other office were apparently going down to like 15-20 hearings per month. We finally slowed down a bit in the last few months, probably averaging around 35. We've been told to expect that to go back up to around 45 in February-March, but like I said, we're getting cases transferred in.
|
|
|
Post by rov on Nov 2, 2021 14:19:34 GMT -5
If not enough Judges take the Early Retirement offer and our receipts don't increase, any thoughts on whether there will be a RIF?
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 2, 2021 15:11:14 GMT -5
If not enough Judges take the Early Retirement offer and our receipts don't increase, any thoughts on whether there will be a RIF? I don't imagine any chance of a RIF between now and at least the next Presidential election. Not just because of the politics. There is just so much uncertainty now in trying to anticipate how many ALJs will be needed as the pandemic recedes, I can't see TPTB doing anything that drastic.
|
|