|
Post by lawmaker on Oct 7, 2009 20:33:02 GMT -5
I heard Beyonce is a butt-kisser ITYM Sir Mix a Lot
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 8, 2009 7:08:00 GMT -5
I love this site. We go from "lawyers as victims" to X-files conspiracies, to Hip Hop drama, in one thread.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Oct 8, 2009 7:37:19 GMT -5
If you are a Vet, the more cities you select, the more opportunities you give SSA to bury you by the three strike rule.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 8, 2009 13:08:59 GMT -5
Truth is, choose 1 city or 100, if they want you they will find a way to pick you regardless of your score or geographic limitations, and if they don't want you, they will find a way to avoid your selection regardless of your score, number of available locations, or vet preferences. The question is, did they do it lawfully? In some cases yes, in others, perhaps not. Hence the litgation that follows. Now that was a perfectly rationale statement that I can agree with. Lets try and look at things from a more individual basis.
|
|
|
Post by traceb on Oct 8, 2009 14:40:17 GMT -5
This is something that I simply do not understand. Perhaps because I am not an insider. If SSA is such a horiffic place to be, why all the fuss. If SSA offered a position and you accepted, would you still be so critical?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 8, 2009 15:57:58 GMT -5
This is something that I simply do not understand. Perhaps because I am not an insider. If SSA is such a horiffic place to be, why all the fuss. If SSA offered a position and you accepted, would you still be so critical? Don't forget that we are at the mercy of congressional budgetting, sometimes rapidly changing management at the local, regional, or national level. Sometimes things can be really good, and some times they can get rough, but federal service is an endurance race, so its usually worth it to hang in for the long haul. Some of the insiders on the board may not like their current management at a particual level, and it comes out in their posts, whereas others may be happy, or just ambivalent.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 8, 2009 20:19:52 GMT -5
Truth is, choose 1 city or 100, if they want you they will find a way to pick you regardless of your score or geographic limitations, and if they don't want you, they will find a way to avoid your selection regardless of your score, number of available locations, or vet preferences. The question is, did they do it lawfully? In some cases yes, in others, perhaps not. Hence the litgation that follows. Now that was a perfectly rationale statement that I can agree with. Lets try and look at things from a more individual basis. This, of course, frames the central issue. Thank you val for your honesty and BTW, CONGRATULATIONS! The "individual basis" is that there is a whole boatload of folks with higher scores than you that are not ALJs. Was it legal? Some yes, some no. Was it moral/ethical? Heck no. I don't have to answer the question posed as to why I would be "with" the same Agency that so blithley three strikes its way to reach the folks they want, leaving in its wake those deserving higher scorers. Neither does pf. But its an issue that won't go away.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 9, 2009 18:19:05 GMT -5
Thanks pf.
Trading in the stars is rather liberating.
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Oct 9, 2009 18:49:21 GMT -5
This is something that I simply do not understand. Perhaps because I am not an insider. If SSA is such a horiffic place to be, why all the fuss. If SSA offered a position and you accepted, would you still be so critical? I'll assume this is somewhat directed toward me. Its actually very simple. If you want to be an ALJ, you HAVE TO work at SSA, at least for a year or two. SSA is the gateway to the ALJ judiciary. Virtually 95%++ of all sitting ALJs at all federal agencies began their career as an ALJ with SSA. The majority of existing positions as ALJs with other federal agencies are posted only for sitting ALJs, rather than a selection off the OPM register. So, when SSA shuts its door to an applicant, no matter how supremely qualified, it is VERY LIKELY that person will NEVER become an ALJ. That's why the stakes are so high with SSA. If every other agency hired off the certificate, what SSA is doing would still be wrong, but there might not be the same vehement reaction you see here. There virtually is no other choice in becoming an ALJ than being selected by SSA off the OPM register. By our best count, only a handful of people were selected off the OPM register for an ALJ slot with agencies other than SSA. I know of about 5 total, including myself. There might be one or two more, but not much more than that. Compare that to the hundreds selected by SSA over the same period. It is not as though any of us woke up one day and said "Gee, if I can do disability hearings I will fulfill a lifelong goal." We decided we wanted to be judges, and our most likely avenue was through SSA. We were qualified by OPM, received our scores and waited. The rest is, as they say, history. So the answer for me is Yes, I would have gladly accepted a position with SSA had one been offered to me. It was not, and I was extremely fortunate to find a position with another agency. Hundreds of my colleagues here have not been so lucky. I find that tragic, and I think we should find out why. PF Fascinating. I have read scores of posts (From you and your your kindred) castigating SSA for avoiding vets and merit precepts (aka high scorers). I have read vituperative and highly emotional posts telling me that there is some sort of litigation in the wings challenging SSA. Yet, this post vividly - if believed to be true - describes a collection of agencies who avoid both the vet preference and high scorers by picking off whoever they deem appropriate out of the SSA currently employed list. Where is your litigation challenging this patent end run around the intent of the regs (or that which you keep positing is the intent) behind hiring from the register. You have repeatedly assaulted us with claims that SSA has no right to demand that their hires have some sort of specific expertise other than what OPM has tested for. I don't believe that SSA selects in this way. YMMV. However, agencies who aren't willing to hire EXCEPT from sitting ALJ lists have forced upon you a defacto specific expertise that no other agency has asked for. The OPM score, PLUS experience as a sitting ALJ. Where is your litigation challenging this end run around the regulations Finally, the agencies that have deigned it unacceptable to hire except through internally announced vacancies, rather than taking from the register, have avoided one more thing: they have made an end run around the budgetary costs of paying for the certification of candidates that OPM would otherwise assess them and the cost of interviewing, doing reference checks and other workload implication associated with a hire. Again, where is your litigation to challenge these other agencies opting out of the OPM register? I bet there is none. Just complaints that SSA is heinous. There are no complaints about the rest of the potential employers who ducked their heads out of your line of fire by creating mutliply complex end runs around both the register and the vet pref. They can pick ANYONE they want from those working anywhere in the system, with nary a qualifying factor other than hiring a currently employed favorite son. Perhaps I will be more amenable to claims of bias by SSA when you target these other agencies Please show me a docket number with a complaint that targets these other agencies for their behavior TYVM
|
|
|
Post by traceb on Oct 9, 2009 20:46:23 GMT -5
I'm not an insider and they put me on. Am I part of some conspiracy? Am I just a dreg who shouldn't be here? What I get from these posts is that I was offered a position not because of merit but because of . . . . what? Since I'm not an insider, what?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 10, 2009 9:53:04 GMT -5
I'll assume this is somewhat directed toward me. Its actually very simple. If you want to be an ALJ, you HAVE TO work at SSA, at least for a year or two. SSA is the gateway to the ALJ judiciary. Virtually 95%++ of all sitting ALJs at all federal agencies began their career as an ALJ with SSA. The majority of existing positions as ALJs with other federal agencies are posted only for sitting ALJs, rather than a selection off the OPM register. So, when SSA shuts its door to an applicant, no matter how supremely qualified, it is VERY LIKELY that person will NEVER become an ALJ. That's why the stakes are so high with SSA. If every other agency hired off the certificate, what SSA is doing would still be wrong, but there might not be the same vehement reaction you see here. There virtually is no other choice in becoming an ALJ than being selected by SSA off the OPM register. By our best count, only a handful of people were selected off the OPM register for an ALJ slot with agencies other than SSA. I know of about 5 total, including myself. There might be one or two more, but not much more than that. Compare that to the hundreds selected by SSA over the same period. It is not as though any of us woke up one day and said "Gee, if I can do disability hearings I will fulfill a lifelong goal." We decided we wanted to be judges, and our most likely avenue was through SSA. We were qualified by OPM, received our scores and waited. The rest is, as they say, history. So the answer for me is Yes, I would have gladly accepted a position with SSA had one been offered to me. It was not, and I was extremely fortunate to find a position with another agency. Hundreds of my colleagues here have not been so lucky. I find that tragic, and I think we should find out why. PF Fascinating. I have read scores of posts (From you and your your kindred) castigating SSA for avoiding vets and merit precepts (aka high scorers). I have read vituperative and highly emotional posts telling me that there is some sort of litigation in the wings challenging SSA. Yet, this post vividly - if believed to be true - describes a collection of agencies who avoid both the vet preference and high scorers by picking off whoever they deem appropriate out of the SSA currently employed list. Where is your litigation challenging this patent end run around the intent of the regs (or that which you keep positing is the intent) behind hiring from the register. You have repeatedly assaulted us with claims that SSA has no right to demand that their hires have some sort of specific expertise other than what OPM has tested for. I don't believe that SSA selects in this way. YMMV. However, agencies who aren't willing to hire EXCEPT from sitting ALJ lists have forced upon you a defacto specific expertise that no other agency has asked for. The OPM score, PLUS experience as a sitting ALJ. Where is your litigation challenging this end run around the regulations Finally, the agencies that have deigned it unacceptable to hire except through internally announced vacancies, rather than taking from the register, have avoided one more thing: they have made an end run around the budgetary costs of paying for the certification of candidates that OPM would otherwise assess them and the cost of interviewing, doing reference checks and other workload implication associated with a hire. Again, where is your litigation to challenge these other agencies opting out of the OPM register? I bet there is none. Just complaints that SSA is heinous. There are no complaints about the rest of the potential employers who ducked their heads out of your line of fire by creating mutliply complex end runs around both the register and the vet pref. They can pick ANYONE they want from those working anywhere in the system, with nary a qualifying factor other than hiring a currently employed favorite son. Perhaps I will be more amenable to claims of bias by SSA when you target these other agencies Please show me a docket number with a complaint that targets these other agencies for their behavior TYVM The agencies that hire from the ranks of sitting ALJs do so openly and transparently through USAJobs. This condition precedent is a qualification on USAJobs. May they have a favorite son or daughter? Of course and I would add almost all surely do as they only have one slot to fill. SSA of course is a different (in so many ways) agency and in the recent case of setting up National Hearing Centers hired alot of sitting ALJs from different agencies who wanted to live in Baltimore or Albuquerque. Your other point is a valid one, but it cannot be answered in the absence of some folks violating an Agency Order and/or procedural rule regarding confidential litigation. It can be argued that if you had say a score of 79 and were three striked in two different certs you might feel a bit differently than you do now. Maybe not, though, hard to say. The main point of pf's post is not addressed though. SSA is the portal by which 95% of ALJs get to be ALJs. That they systematically exclude high or even middlin' scorers to reach folks they want produces alot of pain and suffering. Now, it could be argued that the folks that they do get to reach are eternally grateful for getting picked up and that they somehow "offset" the grief they induce in others. Only God gets to answer questions like that. SSA considered me roadkill and yet I got to be picked up anyway by someone who faithfully adhered to the CFR. I can tell you what you know anyway, that this is a very exclusive club and it looks and feels alot different looking out than in. And I might add that I am in VERY good company in being SSA roadkill, very good indeed. traceb's point is also well taken. Yes, SSA does hire outsiders with no "juice". If you were hired traceb, congratulations! I'm not suggesting that you or val or anyone that was hired should somehow feel diminished, far from it. I raise my glass to you all! My only point is that my heart and prayers go out to the very deserving folks that were by-passed. Keep your chins high and your powder dry!
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Oct 10, 2009 11:14:33 GMT -5
Fascinating. I have read scores of posts (From you and your your kindred) castigating SSA for avoiding vets and merit precepts (aka high scorers). I have read vituperative and highly emotional posts telling me that there is some sort of litigation in the wings challenging SSA. Yet, this post vividly - if believed to be true - describes a collection of agencies who avoid both the vet preference and high scorers by picking off whoever they deem appropriate out of the SSA currently employed list. Where is your litigation challenging this patent end run around the intent of the regs (or that which you keep positing is the intent) behind hiring from the register. You have repeatedly assaulted us with claims that SSA has no right to demand that their hires have some sort of specific expertise other than what OPM has tested for. I don't believe that SSA selects in this way. YMMV. However, agencies who aren't willing to hire EXCEPT from sitting ALJ lists have forced upon you a defacto specific expertise that no other agency has asked for. The OPM score, PLUS experience as a sitting ALJ. Where is your litigation challenging this end run around the regulations Finally, the agencies that have deigned it unacceptable to hire except through internally announced vacancies, rather than taking from the register, have avoided one more thing: they have made an end run around the budgetary costs of paying for the certification of candidates that OPM would otherwise assess them and the cost of interviewing, doing reference checks and other workload implication associated with a hire. Again, where is your litigation to challenge these other agencies opting out of the OPM register? I bet there is none. Just complaints that SSA is heinous. There are no complaints about the rest of the potential employers who ducked their heads out of your line of fire by creating mutliply complex end runs around both the register and the vet pref. They can pick ANYONE they want from those working anywhere in the system, with nary a qualifying factor other than hiring a currently employed favorite son. Perhaps I will be more amenable to claims of bias by SSA when you target these other agencies Please show me a docket number with a complaint that targets these other agencies for their behavior TYVM The agencies that hire from the ranks of sitting ALJs do so openly and transparently through USAJobs. This condition precedent is a qualification on USAJobs. May they have a favorite son or daughter? Of course and I would add almost all surely do as they only have one slot to fill. SSA of course is a different (in so many ways) agency and in the recent case of setting up National Hearing Centers hired alot of sitting ALJs from different agencies who wanted to live in Baltimore or Albuquerque. Your other point is a valid one, but it cannot be answered in the absence of some folks violating an Agency Order and/or procedural rule regarding confidential litigation. It can be argued that if you had say a score of 79 and were three striked in two different certs you might feel a bit differently than you do now. Maybe not, though, hard to say. The main point of pf's post is not addressed though. SSA is the portal by which 95% of ALJs get to be ALJs. That they systematically exclude high or even middlin' scorers to reach folks they want produces alot of pain and suffering. Now, it could be argued that the folks that they do get to reach are eternally grateful for getting picked up and that they somehow "offset" the grief they induce in others. Only God gets to answer questions like that. SSA considered me roadkill and yet I got to be picked up anyway by someone who faithfully adhered to the CFR. I can tell you what you know anyway, that this is a very exclusive club and it looks and feels alot different looking out than in. And I might add that I am in VERY good company in being SSA roadkill, very good indeed. traceb's point is also well taken. Yes, SSA does hire outsiders with no "juice". If you were hired traceb, congratulations! I'm not suggesting that you or val or anyone that was hired should somehow feel diminished, far from it. I raise my glass to you all! My only point is that my heart and prayers go out to the very deserving folks that were by-passed. Keep your chins high and your powder dry! Looks like proboards timed out and I have to rewrite this post. I think we need to go into a little bit of history to understand this issue. During the era of the Azdell and other class actions, there was a stay that prevented all agencies from hiring from the register or acquiring a cert. That was a very long period of time. During that time, there was no other way for the agencies to hire except to raid each others aljs. Today, where there is a large register with many qualified individuals on it, there is NO reason why an agency should have to advertise in USAjobs. If they do not ask for a certificate but go about hiring in USAjobs, then they are committing an end run around the certification process, the merit selection system and the reason why veterans preference exists. I concede there are certain types of ALJ jobs that SHOULD be listed on USAjobs at this point, eg, management, supervisory, executive. The OPM ALJ process is not meant to identify managers, supervisors or executives. The NHC example is a bit of a straw man. Unless my time line is confused, the first NHC hires were made during a time when there was no register. Right about the time OPM had opened the 2007 register. Irrespective, weren't those advertised as supervisory judges rather than line judges? [Whether or not they are supervisory ALJs is currently under litigation in any event]. As far as how I would feel if I was passed by more than one time if I had a high score. I can empathize, but I still feel that the arguments being made aren't entirely logical. It leaves me wondering why the same high scorers didn't get hired by other agencies. I do note that you and PF state that you did. However, since you are the only two admitting to same, I can only remark that there don't seem to be as many high scorers who got passed over by SSA alone as alleged. [There were a number of high scorers who got hired before SSA even requested their cert so I would exclude those]. Two seems like an outlier rather than a conspiracy. Like Traceb, I believe many of these posts are coming across with a view that SSA is somehow a lesser job and therefore the opponent to trounce. I furthere get the feeling that these same posters feel the other agencies [who avoid the cert process by using USAjobs] are somehow more elite and one wouldn't litigate against them, because some day one wants to work for them. IE they wouldn't have the nerve. For that reason, I don't believe there is any litigation against anyone but SSA = but you are welcome to give me information to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Oct 10, 2009 11:45:39 GMT -5
Lawmaker, The smaller agencies (such as Medicare) use USAJOBs to announce transfer opportunities for sitting ALJs from other agencies. However, they still have to use the OPM process if they want to hire from the registry. I know the USPS hired one off the registry within the last year or so, and Medicare also hired a few (although I have no idea what does a USPS ALJ do... anyone here know?). My understanding is that the smaller agencies generally prefer transfers as opposed to new hires off the registry, since transferring ALJs are more of a known quantity so the agencies have more freedom of choice and ability to avoid known dead weights. I personally know of a few horror stories where a small agency hired a high scorer off the registry only to find that the person is retired on the job, high score not withstanding. Anyway, hope this helps a little.
|
|
|
Post by masondixon on Oct 10, 2009 12:04:02 GMT -5
If it's okay for other agencies to use SSA as a weigh station to hire the ALJs they want with subject matter expertise why is it taboo for SSA to want to hire ALJs that know something about social security law? Labor has long tried to hire its own labor lawyers as ALJs, usually after a brief stop over of a year or two at SSA hearing disability cases. They have avoided the OPM register to try and ensure they get who they want. However, PF and many others here castigate SSA for trying to hire who they want. I smell a double standard.I don't think for one second that SSA isn't trying to hire some insiders when they can. However, what is so wrong with that when SSA is the one stuck with poor hiring choices. I have been around long enough to see several of them over the years. It seems to me that SSA should have the OPM ALJ selection process better designed to accommodate its specific needs, especially if they represent over 90% of the federal ALJ universe. If the current process has been tweaked to give SSA a leg up in meeting its ALJ hiring needs I don't think the American public is losing a lot of sleep. I say good luck with your non-selection suits, you will need it.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 10, 2009 16:14:23 GMT -5
No one is even suggesting that SSA Judges are inferior. My gosh, almost all of the ALJ Corps were SSA Judges initially.
And masondixon's point has been well debated. As pf has said, SSA disability law is not rocket science and anyone on the Register with a reasonably high score can master it. As to whether or not you will be a higher producer faster is much more dependent on your character and work ethic than knowing the finer points regarding SSDI disability.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Oct 10, 2009 16:50:47 GMT -5
I assume when you refer to "no one" you mean that nobody participating in the discussion on this board has suggested that "SSA Judges are inferior." I do not know if even that is true, but certainly the belief that SSA ALJs are second-rate has actually been extremely widespread, in particular among ALJs in other agencies, as shown in the historic animosity between FALJIC and AALJ.
The remark about "character" could also be interpreted in various ways. Being a high producer is not necessarily a sign of good character. If you are unable to make a lot of compromises and cut a lot of corners, chances are you are not going to be a high producer. Some of the hardest working ALJs I know are not high producers, and some of the laziest are very high producers.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 10, 2009 22:16:33 GMT -5
I assume when you refer to "no one" you mean that nobody participating in the discussion on this board has suggested that "SSA Judges are inferior." I do not know if even that is true, but certainly the belief that SSA ALJs are second-rate has actually been extremely widespread, in particular among ALJs in other agencies, as shown in the historic animosity between FALJIC and AALJ. The remark about "character" could also be interpreted in various ways. Being a high producer is not necessarily a sign of good character. If you are unable to make a lot of compromises and cut a lot of corners, chances are you are not going to be a high producer. Some of the hardest working ALJs I know are not high producers, and some of the laziest are very high producers. And how close are exceptions to the Rule?
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Oct 11, 2009 22:13:54 GMT -5
No one is even suggesting that SSA Judges are inferior. My gosh, almost all of the ALJ Corps were SSA Judges initially. And masondixon's point has been well debated. As pf has said, SSA disability law is not rocket science and anyone on the Register with a reasonably high score can master it. As to whether or not you will be a higher producer faster is much more dependent on your character and work ethic than knowing the finer points regarding SSDI disability. Your post highlights a common misunderstanding by outsiders looking at ODAR whose main concern is passing through on their way to do "real" hearings elsewhere or simply getting the robe that they think they deserve at this stage in their legal career. The giant hurdle is not the law since any competent attorney can learn the basics in a reasonable amount of time and rely on Senior Attorneys and some strategic research as they grow to mastery of the "finer points" which are required to consistently make appropriate decisions. It is the medical evidence that produces the steepest part of the learning curve for an ALJ at ODAR and it takes years to get a good grasp of it assuming that one has the aptitude, drive and underlying basic skills required to ever accomplish that task. Most attorneys don't have scientific majors or minors and that is a fact. Hence most attorneys on the OPM register lack any scientific knowledge beyond a basic college course or two. Some of them lack the ability to understand scientific evidence at a level that will ever allow them to do hearing prep and case analysis properly on disability cases. Most attorneys on the register have not spent years boning up on the interplay of multiple medical conditions both physical and mental and their affect on a person's ability to function. Toss in the dual analysis required for cases where substance abuse is material to the finding of disability and the absence of understanding on "the finer points" becomes very clear. Ask any Senior Attorney who has cursed in their office while trying to make something legally sufficient out of a botched substance abuse analysis with incorrect instructions and inadequate findings from an ALJ who is relying on something other than genuine competency to dispose of a case. Someone with no background in medical cases can learn these things over many years while relying heavily on medical experts testifying at their hearings, but it is still a steep learning curve for a new ALJ who also has no knowledge of SSA law/policies/business practices. It takes someone with no prior medical knowledge longer to properly prep for each hearing as they try to cram on the law, symptoms, courses of treatment, medical abbreviations, agency procedures, working in a "paperless environment" . . . Good character and a strong work ethic cannot substitute for years of hard work to gain specialized knowledge. There is a very good reason that one cannot become a nurse, MD or DO after going to a couple of courses and reading a couple of books. If an ALJ can't read (including numerous abbreviations and symbols in treatment notes and lab reports) and understand the medical records needed to prove disability and they don't know the "finer points" of the law that should be applied to those facts in order to make an appropriate decision, then what the heck is the point in having them preside over a hearing? Why not let a monkey flip a coin to decide favorable or unfavorable? It is only many 1000s in taxpayer dollars going into a claimant's pocket over the years based on the best guess of someone who is not competent. Let's not forget the likelihood that many people who are disabled will be denied medical care and financial support by someone who thinks that character is more important than competency in the very things that a "fair hearing" requires at ODAR. I've seen some unsavory claimant's on every docket, but it is competency in the law and the medical that allows me to make a good decision based on the evidence rather than my gut which might be screaming "unsavory, drug abusing, gangbanging, murdering, felon." Many times the drug abuse is not material to the finding of disability and neither is the clearly exaggerated testimony and unsavory lifestyle, but absent a very good understanding of the medical conditions and the law just what will get an ALJ to find in favor of such a person? Part of the changes in the way that ODAR selected their ALJs off the new register was fueled by the experience of having hired many ALJs in the past who thought that their litigation background and years of experience in another area of law meant that they could make decisions using their best guess. Many of them either could not or would not bother to learn about medical conditions and SSA law. Ridiculous numbers of remands don't bother these types since ODAR is seen as a "retirement" job or a mere stepping stone to other agencies by them. We have the misfortune to have some of these ALJs still drawing a 6 figure salary to basically flip a coin. These folks make it harder on the rest of us as attorneys come before us expecting to dump a couple of hundred pages of records on us the day of the hearing, make a half-hearted presentation and then get a fully favorable decision based on their winning smile. Other ALJs continue to use a medical expert on every case for many years (at a ridiculously wasteful cost to the taxpayers). They can then abdicate their responsibility for reading the records, analyzing the evidence and researching the law to the ME and a writer. I suppose that leaves plenty of time for golf and dreaming about when they can leave for another agency.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Oct 12, 2009 8:12:50 GMT -5
Nonamouse: You make many interesting and debatable points. I think I understand and sympathize with your concerns, but I also believe that a lot of what you say ultimately goes to how badly, indeed hopelessly, f***d up the whole SSA disability process is. I would suggest that in fact no attorney or ALJ in ODAR is all that well qualified to read medical records . Regarding your point about wasting taxpayer's money on MEs, for many reasons I have given up using MEs in almost all cases, but also think if we were really serious about understanding medical records, we should be using a lot more MEs [and if SSA were serious about the process, they would raise the fees they pay MEs and recruit a lot more of them]; we should probably in many cases be holding hearings lasting several hours with testimony from several MEs and careful discussion of precisely what the records show and don't show, what are signs, what are symptoms, what does the objective evidence really show, which of the claimant's dozens of subjective complaints could really be reasonably expected to result from the medically determined impairments, etc. [instead we have the FIT boilerplate which in each and every case cheerfully concedes that the claimant's complaints could reasonably be expected to result from the medically determinable impairments]. Based on hearings like that, maybe we could actually have a reasonable basis for an RFC based on the function-by-function analysis much beloved by the Appeals Council. As it is, the determination of RFC which is at the very heart of the process is an unprincipled shot in the dark [it seems to me fascinating how SSA refuses to give any specific guidance into how to go about determining RFC].
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Oct 12, 2009 12:28:51 GMT -5
The last part of this thread illustrates that some folks belief that ALJs shouild be medical experts. The Courts have cosistently admonished ALJs not to play doctor. I will not admit X-rays MRIs, CATSCANs or any other medical imaging modalitiy. I will admit physicians opinions as to the findings of those tests and compare the basis of the opinion with other evidence in the record. An ALJ needs to know enough to know when a case meets a listing and if it appears close to request an ME for an opinion whether the evidence warrant a finding that the case meets or equals a lisrting. There are a lot of physicians who are not comfortable opining about RFC- and I reject outright any DDS opinion as to RFC by an examiner who is not an MD, DO or PHD. Most of my cases are decided by the opinion of the treating source, as long as the opinion is consistent with his treatment notes and examination findings of the claimant. If its close, we owe the claimant the opinion of an ME, not an ALJ, no matter how experienced.
|
|