describe job duties and details of daily life as SSA ALJ?

[garlow]

Hi, for those of us looking to decide whether to continue to pursue this dream/goal, which sometimes seems an uphill battle... can anyone provide some clarity (or point me to a thread if one exists), discussing in detail the overall role and job duties of an OHO SSA ALJ?  I did some searching but didn't find anything directly on point, just some threads that incidentally discussed those things, (as far as why you want to be one, how rewarding, etc.).  Or if there are any good resources such as a website describing that, please point me to it.

thanks, some specific questions I had:

1 what does a typical week look like and what tasks are done and how much time on each? Which tasks are time flexible and which need to be done asap?
2 what are the full range of tasks ALJs need to do? other then schedule hearings, review records, examine/question wits and claimants, and revise/draft decisions, is that about the long and short of it? how are those accomplished? is it all phone hearings and then reading drafts on computer and drafting your own decisions?
3 what main types of cases do they rule on most, and what is the procedural posture of those cases? Do they handle the initial hearing/applicaton for disability or is it ever in an appellate or review stage posture?
4 In that vein, how does the life cycle of a case before an ALJ typically begin and end? I.e., does it go something like this? application for benefits, hearing request, hearing, ruling, appeal (not handled by that ALJ), or whatever? are ALJs the first layer of review for people seeking ssa benefits? or do the applicants get an initial ruling by a hearing officer or something like that who makes an initial call? 
5 Is every application for ssa benefits handled by an ALJ or only if contested or denied, or how does that work?
6 any other random insights into what life as an ALJ is like?
7 what is most rewarding about the job--and your top 4 pros and cons of it?

Thanks

[pumpkin]

There are a lot of questions packed into your post!

Let me start by saying your answers to some of those questions will vary depending on the ALJ - the length of time spent on any one facet of the job varies from person to person. Individual ALJs, even in the same hearing office, develop their own manner of approach to hearing prep, conduct of the hearing itself, degree of detail in the decision writing instructions, level of scrutiny of draft decisions, etc.

Within general categories, there are even greater variables which would make it impossible to answer with any degree of confidence. For example, if you were to ask 100 ALJs how long it takes them to edit an unfavorable decision, 95 of them would say, “it depends.”

It takes longer to edit a Step 5 unfavorable decision (can perform other jobs in the national economy) than a Step 1 decision (no 12 month period where the claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity). A Step 4 decision (claimant can perform their past relevant work) requires careful analysis to verify that that work was done recently, at SGA levels, and long enough to have learned the job. A Step 2 unfavorable decision can be difficult in its own way in that you better be darn sure there is not a single severe medically determinable impairment buried somewhere in those medical records.

The quality of the decision draft is a huge variable that significantly impacts the time it takes an ALJ to edit and sign the decision. I would say most ALJs experience two types of sighs when they see who moved the case into EDIT.

First, there is the sigh of relief when you see the decision was drafted by the ace decision writer in the office, who will have not only drafted a beautiful policy compliant and legally sufficient decision, which flows logically and makes sense to the reader, but will also have discussed any conflicts between the testimony of the vocational expert and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles / Selected Characteristics of Occupations.

At the other end of the spectrum is the second kind of sigh - borne of frustration when you know the decision will either take you significant time to edit or will need to be returned to the decision writer for correction. A decision drafted by Melissa might take me five minutes to review and sign, while a decision drafted by Melinda will take me an hour just to identify and highlight the problems and draft an email explaining why it must go back for for revision. There is a continuum of decision drafting quality in every hearing office, with the remaining writers falling somewhere between Melinda and Melissa. Most offices also have a Melanie who will use the same canned language she’s been using for the last 15 years, facts of the case, medical evidence, and changes in policy be damned. Melanie’s decision drafts will still remark on the claimant’s credibility, refer to episodes of decompensation in the B criteria, and afford great weight to the opinions of the claimant’s treating providers.

So, this is a really long answer to just one subpart of one part of one of your questions. The short answer might be, “it depends.” One size does not fit all. You just have to find your own path and a method that works best for you. Still a pretty great gig, all in all.

[johnthornton]

"are ALJs the first layer of review for people seeking ssa benefits?"

No. They are the last layer of review where an adjudicator gets to see the claimant. All reviews before and after are based on medical and other records.

[christina]

No to all phone hearings. ALJs have two types of in office hearings, namely traditional in person and a VTC hearing. Post Covid, ALJs also do phone and online video hearings, the latter of which can be done from the ALJs home.

[arkstfan]

Mar 30, 2023 21:59:39 GMT -5 garlow said:

1 what does a typical week look like and what tasks are done and how much time on each? Which tasks are time flexible and which need to be done asap?
2 what are the full range of tasks ALJs need to do? other then schedule hearings, review records, examine/question wits and claimants, and revise/draft decisions, is that about the long and short of it? how are those accomplished? is it all phone hearings and then reading drafts on computer and drafting your own decisions?
3 what main types of cases do they rule on most, and what is the procedural posture of those cases? Do they handle the initial hearing/applicaton for disability or is it ever in an appellate or review stage posture?
4 In that vein, how does the life cycle of a case before an ALJ typically begin and end? I.e., does it go something like this? application for benefits, hearing request, hearing, ruling, appeal (not handled by that ALJ), or whatever? are ALJs the first layer of review for people seeking ssa benefits? or do the applicants get an initial ruling by a hearing officer or something like that who makes an initial call? 
5 Is every application for ssa benefits handled by an ALJ or only if contested or denied, or how does that work?
6 any other random insights into what life as an ALJ is like?
7 what is most rewarding about the job--and your top 4 pros and cons of it?

Thanks

1. Typical week varies by judge. Some do a week of review, note taking, editing, signing, etc., followed by a week of hearings. Others do day of review, day of hearings, alternating days. I'm an alternating weeks person and typically try to set aside a few spots of two weeks outside of hearings as scheduling mandates suggestions allow. That way I've got some leeway for vacation time and if nothing pans out, can semi-get ahead.
2. Hard to really lay it all out, but a file gets assigned to you. Depending on your practices, you might review it before it is scheduled, I believe more typically, files are reviewed one week to maybe as much as 7 weeks ahead of hearing. I typically review three weeks before the hearing but try to get ahead enough to look five weeks ahead. Because I try to work ahead, it means closer to hearing I come back through to see new records that have been submitted. Process is review and take notes (which may repeat a few times). Occasionally review leads to requesting updated medical records. Have a hearing. More notes from that and instructions to the writer. Decision is drafted. Review and edit that. Edit may be a few minor items, sometimes a missed typo, odd punctuation, strange word choice or it could be throw your hands up. Write an explanation of why the decision stinks more than you can edit in a reasonable amount of time. Sign decision.
3. Applications are reviewed by a state agency that is funded by the Federal government, called Disability Determination Services. They will order records, look it over, make a decision and nearly a third of the time award benefits. Get a result you don't like, they will look at it again and update it again. About 10% of cases going to this point will be awarded benefits. Don't like the result, comes to the ALJ's and the file gets worked up and set for a hearing. It is an inquisitorial rather than adversarial proceeding. ALJ has an obligation to insure the record is developed. So the ALJ in an unrepresented case or poorly represented case is charged with representing the interests of both the government and the claimant while also being trier of fact and law. In a normal case with a competent representative you won't have to do case development unless you find there needs to be a consultative examination.
4. Within the agency and agency-funded process, it is generally a four bites at the apple system. Initial review by DDS, reconsideration by DDS, ALJ hearing, review by the Appeals Counsel. Occasionally DDS will do an informal hearing with an examiner, I've only seen it for continuing disability review, but never looked at the regs or policy to see if it is actually limited that way. Outside of that occasional exception, the administrative hearing is the only time the claimant gets to speak to the person making the decision on their application. It's the only time they can elaborate on what their past work was, why they quit or scaled back their work activity, explain what their normal day is like, how they cope, etc.
5. Answered above.
6. To be good at the job you need these attributes. This isn't the OPM or agency interpretation but based on my experience writing for several ALJs and my real world dozen plus years doing the job. You have to be able to consume a lot of written information quickly, fortunately hand written notes are becoming rare, you need to be good at "spot the differences" because often files turn on small details. CRITICAL. You must have genuine curiosity about the people before you, but restraint to stay on topic. During the review and hearing you will often learn "the dirt" of a person's life. Empathy is a good trait in measured quantity. Lack it and you will be prone to simply adopt a checklist or template mindset. I understand you have no arms or legs but there is a need for doorstops. Too much empathy and/or sympathy and you are handing out benefits to people who should not qualify. As a cancer survivor who was unable to work more than a few hours a week for nearly five months, I understand the physical hell of someone going through treatment and being unable to work for 9 months and having more limits on their ability to work after that period than they had before cancer. Feeling bad for them and awarding benefits when they had the capacity work in an appropriate occupation after 10 months and therefore fail the disabled for at least a year test is not doing your job,
7. I worked as a decision writer for two years. I explain the difference between DW and ALJ as DW is 8 hours a day on a hamster wheel. ALJ is 4 hours on a hamster wheel and 4 hours riding a stationary bike with a screen creating the impression you are riding on a mountain or in the desert. It's a frustrating job, you get some reps who treat you like a hated opposing counsel, you encounter sweet, good people who are in an awful position and need help but for one reason or another you must turn them away and you will encounter people who raise your hackles and you will dislike them but the regulations say they are owed money. As my old HOCALJ always said "Judge the impairment not the claimant." It is life changing work. I've seen files where an ALJ rejected a claim and they went off worked for a few years or a decade, that's a great outcome. People on the verge of losing it all get what they are entitled to and with back benefits may be able to stay afloat. They won't thrive off what they get and damn anyone who thinks those awarded benefits have a lush life. You meet interesting people. You learn about the work that people are doing in factories, oil fields, shops, etc.

[garlow]

awesome, thanks for all the thoughtful responses

[Pixie]

Paragraphs are a reader's best friend. Pixie

[greendog]

I can’t answer this as a fed alj, but I suggest short sentences and paragraphs and use as much common language as you can.

[Pixie]

Welcome back Greendog. Pixie

[luckylady2]

arkstfan did a pretty comprehensive job.  I'd add a couple more things:

In addition to being able to look for small but important details, it is also CRITICAL that you be able to make a decision and rather quickly.

It is also CRITICAL that you are able to listen well to other people.

It is also, to me, CRITICAL, that you own that you are a human being and make mistakes, so are flexible enough to consider and maybe change with changing evidence, a writer's alternative view, or the information you receive at the hearing. I have apologized to claimants that returned on appeal when, with more evidence and another read, it's clear - even to me - that I didn't get it right the first time.

[jagvet]

Apr 10, 2023 16:05:02 GMT -5 luckylady2 said:

arkstfan did a pretty comprehensive job.  I'd add a couple more things:

In addition to being able to look for small but important details, it is also CRITICAL that you be able to make a decision and rather quickly.

It is also CRITICAL that you are able to listen well to other people.

It is also, to me, CRITICAL, that you own that you are a human being and make mistakes, so are flexible enough to consider and maybe change with changing evidence, a writer's alternative view, or the information you receive at the hearing. I have apologized to claimants that returned on appeal when, with more evidence and another read, it's clear - even to me - that I didn't get it right the first time.

luckylady2 offers valuable insight.  Here are some elaborations:

Listen to writers' comments and complaints about your instructions.  Sometimes they are wrong, but many times the criticism is valid.  Don't let your ego make you support your position if you are wrong (yes, it happens).

Don't get mad at the AC.  Yes.  It is usually and palpably wrong.  Remands on ALJ didn't adequately evaluate opinion of non-medical friend of claimant or give more than 15 reasons why a doctor wasn't credible.  ALJ failed to consider evidence sent in by rep 2 days after 5-day post-dated determination. Just suck it up and hear the case again, but keep an open mind.  Sometimes a stupid remand makes you realize that there is some other real reason to pay the claim.  

Be polite to the rep who won the remand.  He's just doing his job.  It's not that he hates you.  (He may hate you, but that's another problem).


Don't worry about claimants lying to you.  Don't take it personally.  It's likely they lied to the rep and anyone else who would listen (although one claimant testified he had combat-related PTSD, but his VA file showed he never got beyond basic training when he hurt himself--that annoyed me).

[nylawyer]

Apr 11, 2023 12:12:42 GMT -5 jagvet said:

Apr 10, 2023 16:05:02 GMT -5 luckylady2 said:

arkstfan did a pretty comprehensive job.  I'd add a couple more things:

In addition to being able to look for small but important details, it is also CRITICAL that you be able to make a decision and rather quickly.

It is also CRITICAL that you are able to listen well to other people.

It is also, to me, CRITICAL, that you own that you are a human being and make mistakes, so are flexible enough to consider and maybe change with changing evidence, a writer's alternative view, or the information you receive at the hearing. I have apologized to claimants that returned on appeal when, with more evidence and another read, it's clear - even to me - that I didn't get it right the first time.

luckylady2 offers valuable insight.  Here are some elaborations:

Don't worry about claimants lying to you.  Don't take it personally.  It's likely they lied to the rep and anyone else who would listen (although one claimant testified he had combat-related PTSD, but his VA file showed he never got beyond basic training when he hurt himself--that annoyed me).

I recall a certain claimant in Fort Wayne Indiana who falsely alleged having suffered PTSD after working as a rescue worker at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and had the misfortune of being in front of the one ALJ in the office who (1) formerly worked in NYC law enforcement; (2) was about a mile away on 9/11 and spent a while thinking his wife and child had been killed; and (3) had family members in NYFD, including some whose funerals he had attended after 9/11.

Yeah. Annoyed. That's the word.

[Pixie]

Apr 13, 2023 17:09:23 GMT -5 nylawyer said:

Apr 11, 2023 12:12:42 GMT -5 jagvet said:

luckylady2 offers valuable insight.  Here are some elaborations:

Don't worry about claimants lying to you.  Don't take it personally.  It's likely they lied to the rep and anyone else who would listen (although one claimant testified he had combat-related PTSD, but his VA file showed he never got beyond basic training when he hurt himself--that annoyed me).

I recall a certain claimant in Fort Wayne Indiana who falsely alleged having suffered PTSD after working as a rescue worker at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and had the misfortune of being in front of the one ALJ in the office who (1) formerly worked in NYC law enforcement; (2) was about a mile away on 9/11 and spent a while thinking his wife and child had been killed; and (3) had family members in NYFD, including some whose funerals he had attended after 9/11.

Yeah. Annoyed. That's the word.

And I know who that ALJ was. Annoyed? A vast understatement. Pixie

[nylawyer]

Apr 13, 2023 17:26:35 GMT -5 Pixie said:

Apr 13, 2023 17:09:23 GMT -5 nylawyer said:

I recall a certain claimant in Fort Wayne Indiana who falsely alleged having suffered PTSD after working as a rescue worker at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and had the misfortune of being in front of the one ALJ in the office who (1) formerly worked in NYC law enforcement; (2) was about a mile away on 9/11 and spent a while thinking his wife and child had been killed; and (3) had family members in NYFD, including some whose funerals he had attended after 9/11.

Yeah. Annoyed. That's the word.

And I know who that ALJ was. Annoyed? A vast understatement. Pixie

Perturbed. Miffed. Off put. Irked.

[arkstfan]

Apr 13, 2023 17:09:23 GMT -5 nylawyer said:

Apr 11, 2023 12:12:42 GMT -5 jagvet said:

luckylady2 offers valuable insight.  Here are some elaborations:

Don't worry about claimants lying to you.  Don't take it personally.  It's likely they lied to the rep and anyone else who would listen (although one claimant testified he had combat-related PTSD, but his VA file showed he never got beyond basic training when he hurt himself--that annoyed me).

I recall a certain claimant in Fort Wayne Indiana who falsely alleged having suffered PTSD after working as a rescue worker at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and had the misfortune of being in front of the one ALJ in the office who (1) formerly worked in NYC law enforcement; (2) was about a mile away on 9/11 and spent a while thinking his wife and child had been killed; and (3) had family members in NYFD, including some whose funerals he had attended after 9/11.

Yeah. Annoyed. That's the word.

Had a claimant allege PTSD from Hurricane Katrina. He spun a great tale of the horror but couldn’t explain why his medical records included treatment at a jail nearly 300 miles north of New Orleans the days before and after Katrina.

Not same scale but it was a quick lesson for a new ALJ.

[hopefalj]

It looks like we’re going to keep the new normal for holding hearings. If this is implemented, it’s going to make workload balancing much easier across offices. It’ll be interesting to see how we handle failures to appear for audio/video hearings in the future.

Phone and Video Hearings Not Going Away

[bourbonmanhattan]

Go away Muggle.

[FrogEsq]

May 20, 2023 18:32:16 GMT -5 bourbonmanhattan said:

Go away Muggle.

Be wary. Muggles abound. Muggles also abide. (The Dude)

[bourbonmanhattan]

May 20, 2023 21:20:48 GMT -5 FrogEsq said:

May 20, 2023 18:32:16 GMT -5 bourbonmanhattan said:

Go away Muggle.

Be wary. Muggles abound. Muggles also abide. (The Dude)

Mehhh