|
|
Post by superdude on Jan 31, 2022 8:56:00 GMT -5
Has anyone gotten clarification from The Powers That Be as to whether QR dismissal reviews are mandates or suggestions?
Is there any written guidance on this matter in Hallex or email or elsewhere?
Is there a difference in ALJ responsibility to correct "Group 2" errors vs "Group 1" errors?
I get the sense that failure to follow (or agree with) their picayune input is a trap.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jan 31, 2022 11:29:32 GMT -5
Has anyone gotten clarification from The Powers That Be as to whether QR dismissal reviews are mandates or suggestions? Is there any written guidance on this matter in Hallex or email or elsewhere? Is there a difference in ALJ responsibility to correct "Group 2" errors vs "Group 1" errors? I get the sense that failure to follow (or agree with) their picayune input is a trap. I can’t believe I can’t remember this off the top of my head, but I think G1 errors must be fixed while G2 errors are recommendations. It’s that or vice versa. Surely a writer or QR person on here knows |
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on Jan 31, 2022 12:03:32 GMT -5
The source of the dismissal “policy” is a memo from the Chief Judge which is inconsistent with the governing regulations and not supported by SSR, HALLEX or anything else. Quality review employees are not judges or individuals otherwise authorized by statute to decide cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jan 31, 2022 14:10:25 GMT -5
Has anyone gotten clarification from The Powers That Be as to whether QR dismissal reviews are mandates or suggestions? You should ask your HOCALJ about this. Under current OCALJ policy, HOCALJ is the first line reviewer for all ALJ abandonment/untimely DISMs before it goes to Regional QR for further review. So you'll probably get more accurate info if you ask the local authority directly. |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jan 31, 2022 15:17:57 GMT -5
I stopped doing untimely dismissals 18 months ago. QR would come back with ridiculous nit picking reasons. HOCALJ would ask to address and get this, then it would have to go back to QR for approval. Now everyone has good cause. And the no shows i no longer ask NTSC go out. I cannot dismiss these. They keep getting rescheduled because they are aged. Even when no contact has been made with claimant and the Hearing notice keeps getting sent out to the same address where previous notices were returned from.
This is what they want, i go with the flow now
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Jan 31, 2022 16:09:04 GMT -5
That has been my process, as well.
P.S. I forgot. I do send out the NTSC with no expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 31, 2022 17:13:30 GMT -5
I stopped doing untimely dismissals 18 months ago. QR would come back with ridiculous nit picking reasons. HOCALJ would ask to address and get this, then it would have to go back to QR for approval. Now everyone has good cause. And the no shows i no longer ask NTSC go out. I cannot dismiss these. They keep getting rescheduled because they are aged. Even when no contact has been made with claimant and the Hearing notice keeps getting sent out to the same address where previous notices were returned from. This is what they want, i go with the flow now If these cases are being rescheduled, someone isn’t following the policy that’s been in place for nearly a year |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jan 31, 2022 19:34:36 GMT -5
I stopped doing untimely dismissals 18 months ago. QR would come back with ridiculous nit picking reasons. HOCALJ would ask to address and get this, then it would have to go back to QR for approval. Now everyone has good cause. And the no shows i no longer ask NTSC go out. I cannot dismiss these. They keep getting rescheduled because they are aged. Even when no contact has been made with claimant and the Hearing notice keeps getting sent out to the same address where previous notices were returned from. This is what they want, i go with the flow now If these cases are being rescheduled, someone isn’t following the policy that’s been in place for nearly a year These policies are only used when they want an ALJ to comply with them. I have one case, a CDR where the claimant said on the record, i want an in person hearing. The claimant has been scheduled four times. They never agree to phone hearing, the hearing notice just gets sent out. The claimant does not pick up for Pre hearing conference. They do not pick up on day of hearing. Twice they have returned the hearing acknowledgment saying they have other appointments. There must be some metric with regard to scheduling aged cases. This particular case has been a waste of time and resources and i will bet it will be rescheduled again. |
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 2, 2022 22:41:11 GMT -5
Like said before, someone in your office is not following the policy in place for about a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 3, 2022 0:13:04 GMT -5
If these cases are being rescheduled, someone isn’t following the policy that’s been in place for nearly a year These policies are only used when they want an ALJ to comply with them. I have one case, a CDR where the claimant said on the record, i want an in person hearing. The claimant has been scheduled four times. They never agree to phone hearing, the hearing notice just gets sent out. The claimant does not pick up for Pre hearing conference. They do not pick up on day of hearing. Twice they have returned the hearing acknowledgment saying they have other appointments. There must be some metric with regard to scheduling aged cases. This particular case has been a waste of time and resources and i will bet it will be rescheduled again. I'm with Sea this is an office problem not an agency problem. I mean If I were you I would just go with the flow too but this is almost certainly a problem with how your office is coding the cases. Now they may have a reason for that but it's against policy. I am dismissing very few cases right and only when there is a clear statement of withdrawal. I honestly, do not understand folks that get in a twist over not dismissing cases. First, your judicial authority to decide cases comes from the delegation of authority from the Commissioner. If they want to allow people to delay things during a world wide pandemic either deliberately or negligently then that is their call. No one is getting denied due process by the decision to not dismiss cases. As the good Dr. Sydney Freeman once said "Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice: Pull down your pants and slide on the ice." |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Feb 3, 2022 18:51:41 GMT -5
I stopped doing untimely dismissals 18 months ago. QR would come back with ridiculous nit picking reasons. HOCALJ would ask to address and get this, then it would have to go back to QR for approval. Now everyone has good cause. And the no shows i no longer ask NTSC go out. I cannot dismiss these. They keep getting rescheduled because they are aged. Even when no contact has been made with claimant and the Hearing notice keeps getting sent out to the same address where previous notices were returned from. This is what they want, i go with the flow now Me too, it’s not worth the trouble. No matter how meritorious the dismissal is, QA will find some pretext to keep it from going out. If the ALJ insists, they get a nasty email from the HOCALJ at the behest of TPTB. Personally, I think the whole dismissal hysteria is political and probably comes from the White House. It violates our judicial independence and is not “legal” as it’s ad hoc rule making from OCALJ. However, it’s not a hill with dying over. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 3, 2022 20:36:34 GMT -5
I stopped doing untimely dismissals 18 months ago. QR would come back with ridiculous nit picking reasons. HOCALJ would ask to address and get this, then it would have to go back to QR for approval. Now everyone has good cause. And the no shows i no longer ask NTSC go out. I cannot dismiss these. They keep getting rescheduled because they are aged. Even when no contact has been made with claimant and the Hearing notice keeps getting sent out to the same address where previous notices were returned from. This is what they want, i go with the flow now Me too, it’s not worth the trouble. No matter how meritorious the dismissal is, QA will find some pretext to keep it from going out. If the ALJ insists, they get a nasty email from the HOCALJ at the behest of TPTB. Personally, I think the whole dismissal hysteria is political and probably comes from the White House. It violates our judicial independence and is not “legal” as it’s ad hoc rule making from OCALJ. However, it’s not a hill with dying over. I'd love to think that President Biden lies awake nights worrying about which cases I dismiss. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 3, 2022 20:36:59 GMT -5
Me too, it’s not worth the trouble. No matter how meritorious the dismissal is, QA will find some pretext to keep it from going out. If the ALJ insists, they get a nasty email from the HOCALJ at the behest of TPTB. Personally, I think the whole dismissal hysteria is political and probably comes from the White House. It violates our judicial independence and is not “legal” as it’s ad hoc rule making from OCALJ. However, it’s not a hill with dying over. I'd love to think that President Biden lies awake nights worrying about which cases I dismiss. On second thought, I'd rather he did something else. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 3, 2022 20:55:59 GMT -5
I stopped doing untimely dismissals 18 months ago. QR would come back with ridiculous nit picking reasons. HOCALJ would ask to address and get this, then it would have to go back to QR for approval. Now everyone has good cause. And the no shows i no longer ask NTSC go out. I cannot dismiss these. They keep getting rescheduled because they are aged. Even when no contact has been made with claimant and the Hearing notice keeps getting sent out to the same address where previous notices were returned from. This is what they want, i go with the flow now Me too, it’s not worth the trouble. No matter how meritorious the dismissal is, QA will find some pretext to keep it from going out. If the ALJ insists, they get a nasty email from the HOCALJ at the behest of TPTB. Personally, I think the whole dismissal hysteria is political and probably comes from the White House. It violates our judicial independence and is not “legal” as it’s ad hoc rule making from OCALJ. However, it’s not a hill with dying over. Which one the last administration that began the policy or the current one? You got one thing right there is some kind of dismissal hysteria. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Feb 3, 2022 21:30:26 GMT -5
When I say White House, I don’t mean POTUS himself. I’m referring to the POTUS advisors that want to reach underserved communities, awaken us to our implicit biases, and avoid bad press about disability claimants getting their cases dismissed during a pandemic, all of which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. My problem with the dismissal oversight is that it invades our province as judges.
|
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on Feb 3, 2022 22:01:59 GMT -5
Exactly. The Commissioner enacts regulations everyone needs to follow, and s/he can regulate pretty much anything if politically viable through the rulemaking requirements. I don't get to ignore the agency regulations, and neither does OCALJ or anyone else get to send a memo telling me to. Or ignore the grid rules. Or whatever he decides he wants me to disregard that day
|
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Feb 4, 2022 22:04:12 GMT -5
I stopped doing untimely dismissals 18 months ago. QR would come back with ridiculous nit picking reasons. HOCALJ would ask to address and get this, then it would have to go back to QR for approval. Now everyone has good cause. And the no shows i no longer ask NTSC go out. I cannot dismiss these. They keep getting rescheduled because they are aged. Even when no contact has been made with claimant and the Hearing notice keeps getting sent out to the same address where previous notices were returned from. This is what they want, i go with the flow now Me too, it’s not worth the trouble. No matter how meritorious the dismissal is, QA will find some pretext to keep it from going out. If the ALJ insists, they get a nasty email from the HOCALJ at the behest of TPTB. Personally, I think the whole dismissal hysteria is political and probably comes from the White House. It violates our judicial independence and is not “legal” as it’s ad hoc rule making from OCALJ. However, it’s not a hill with dying over. Historically, even if the claimant's claim was procedurally dismissed, they could save it by turning around and filing a new claim. Specifically, ODAR would allow the earlier procedurally dismissed claim to be processed as an adjunct to the newer claim. Is not that still policy and practice? |
|
