|
Post by bartleby on Mar 17, 2013 13:55:56 GMT -5
I wonder if someone with a 4% denial rate finds the job easier to do than someone with a 50% denial rate? Is it easier and faster to pay cases than to deny them? On the other hand I know a Judge that can do 3,500 cases a year in 40 hours a week, but the Agency won't let him do more than 80 a month.. Does quality make a difference? If so, how do we measure quality?? All of management's measurement tools measure numerics, none measure quality. And before you mention the Appeals Council, you know they have very little to do with quality, and more along the line of mentioning obesity or ordering a CE that would have probably been ordered if the Judge had the time to look at the case more than the day before. I still find it hard to believe that quality is a concern when one is given about 2 1/2 hours to review 200-800 pages of medical evidence, hold a one hour hearing, write instructions according to Hallex, edit a 15-20 page decision, enter CPMS with various posts, and sign the case. Oh, you are also responsible for developing the case, did I mention that?? I personally am having a hard time reviewing the medical evidence of record and taking notes in 2-2 1/2 hours. I know as many people struggling with this job as I do seemingly sliding through.. JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by karaj on Mar 17, 2013 14:50:20 GMT -5
I agree that quality is only a superficial concern at ODAR - and that is what is inherently flawed about this process. In some states, claimants have access to all kinds of free medical care, and the medical files are huge. You cannot place an hourly limit on review unless you quantify the size of the file; reading all the file is part of how we ensure due process, and forcing time limits on us vioates due process, as does the 500-700 cases per year mandate. Add to that other internal factors that occur in hearing offices. I heard of one hearing office where the new judges rarely get assigned over 50 claimants, while the older senior judges get all the 50+ & 55+ claimants. So the new judges have a higher denial rate and get fewer cases out, for reasons that they have no control over. We shouldn't feel pressured to pay more cases just to get our numbers. We should make the right decision, and our Agency should support us.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 17, 2013 15:44:18 GMT -5
I echo the sentiments of of philliesfan, hamster, barkley, and others. I average 40 hours a week, never "donate" time to the Agency, am able to spend lots of time with my son and wife, have no midnight filing of briefs or putting in 60+ hours a week, as I did in my prior job, and get to make a difference in a lot of people's live, many in dire circumstances. Of course, I could find things to complain about, my new SCT isn't as efficient as my last one, why did the GS give that decision writer this difficult decision to write, emails about meeting goals, etc., but I choose not to let that bother me (plus I've got my own shortcomings as well. I love this job, it's a lifetime appointment; dont have to worry anymore about job security or drumming up business; can put in 48 hours one week and take a day off the next week; report between 6:30 and 9:30 AM; work at home if I want to; schedule my hearings however I want to, etc. I treat my coworkers, reps and claimants with respect, and generally, feel they do the same with me, and I feel I make a big difference in people's and their families lives. I also sleep good at night. :-) Oh yeah, I can speak to this. I earned alot more money than I make now as an ALJ--I had to in order to put a child through private school and college. When I was a "privateatty" I scoffed at many an ALJ, thinking of course that I could do better--but I digress... I am sorry to hear that karaj is working beyond 40 hours a week because that is not in the job description--nor expected (how could it be)? I don't work at SSA but even if I did I would not be willing to work extra hours for the simple reason that I left that all behind me--the 60 and 70 hr work weeks, the stress and the constant frustration and hassle. Every two weeks I get a deposit in my bank account and if I get sick, well I call in. No hearing starts without me and I never have homework... ;D
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Mar 17, 2013 15:52:43 GMT -5
I agree that quality is only a superficial concern at ODAR - and that is what is inherently flawed about this process. In some states, claimants have access to all kinds of free medical care, and the medical files are huge. You cannot place an hourly limit on review unless you quantify the size of the file; reading all the file is part of how we ensure due process, and forcing time limits on us vioates due process, as does the 500-700 cases per year mandate. Add to that other internal factors that occur in hearing offices. I heard of one hearing office where the new judges rarely get assigned over 50 claimants, while the older senior judges get all the 50+ & 55+ claimants. So the new judges have a higher denial rate and get fewer cases out, for reasons that they have no control over. We shouldn't feel pressured to pay more cases just to get our numbers. We should make the right decision, and our Agency should support us. there is no way the selective assignment of cases you are describing can be happening especially in the post-Huntington world
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Mar 17, 2013 15:57:34 GMT -5
I echo the sentiments of of philliesfan, hamster, barkley, and others. I average 40 hours a week, never "donate" time to the Agency, am able to spend lots of time with my son and wife, have no midnight filing of briefs or putting in 60+ hours a week, as I did in my prior job, and get to make a difference in a lot of people's live, many in dire circumstances. Of course, I could find things to complain about, my new SCT isn't as efficient as my last one, why did the GS give that decision writer this difficult decision to write, emails about meeting goals, etc., but I choose not to let that bother me (plus I've got my own shortcomings as well). I love this job, it's a lifetime appointment; dont have to worry anymore about job security or drumming up business; can put in 48 hours one week and take a day off the next week; report between 6:30 and 9:30 AM; work at home if I want to; schedule my hearings however I want to, etc. I treat my coworkers, reps and claimants with respect, and generally, feel they do the same with me, and I feel I make a big difference in people's and their families lives. I also sleep good at night. :-) I concur with what MCB, philliesfan, hamster & barkley noted already. There are ups and downs, just like any other job. But overall, it's still one of the better jobs in the public sector where you can make a difference in a lot of individuals' lives while maintaining a reasonable quality of life. I agree that quality is only a superficial concern at ODAR - and that is what is inherently flawed about this process. In some states, claimants have access to all kinds of free medical care, and the medical files are huge. You cannot place an hourly limit on review unless you quantify the size of the file; reading all the file is part of how we ensure due process, and forcing time limits on us vioates due process, as does the 500-700 cases per year mandate. Add to that other internal factors that occur in hearing offices. I heard of one hearing office where the new judges rarely get assigned over 50 claimants, while the older senior judges get all the 50+ & 55+ claimants. So the new judges have a higher denial rate and get fewer cases out, for reasons that they have no control over. We shouldn't feel pressured to pay more cases just to get our numbers. We should make the right decision, and our Agency should support us. there is no way the selective assignment of cases you are describing can be happening especially in the post-Huntington world Agreed. It sounds like an urban legend or something that happened a while back. If such cherry picking is actually happening now, I'd be quite shocked. I don't know that many ALJs these days who would take such treatment sitting down without raising a stink. Moreover, once this type of behavior by management is reported up, discipline will be imposed if it's actually true. So I'm really doubtful as to the veracity of this hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Mar 18, 2013 9:39:42 GMT -5
I was a Senior Attorney before becoming ALJ in 2008. I think it is a great job. Sometimes cases can be tedious, but every case is different as are the claimants and the evidence you have to weigh. One of the best things is the schedule. You set your hearing schedule. Some judges have hearings one week and none on alternate weeks. I do a 4/10 schedule for work and am off 1 day a week and work 10 hours days and that works for me and not so for others. I have 9-10 hearings set 6 days a month, sometimes 7 days a month, and have no problems with goal being met. Rare is it that all hearings so forward--though you still have to prep--but 1 or 2 dismissals or postponement per day is not unusual. There are credit hours to accrue or religious comp to accrue. There is a lot of flexibility to do other things as needed. I do not work more than 40 hours per week gratis and definitely not on weekends, except I may stay later if working on a case (15 or 30 minutes) but is not in excess as it turns into comp to be used later.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 18, 2013 9:42:08 GMT -5
In response to this delightfully entertaining post, let me just say what aljfaq should NOT do:
1. Please don't come into ODAR and retire on the job. Aside from the moral issues, there are some in ODAR who actually do the work, take pride in it, do it the right way without constantly whining, and feel somewhat put upon when new people come in and don't bother to learn the laws, the regulations, or the program.
2. Please don't come into ODAR and immediately begin to whine about the program like it is some huge surprise or ambush. It is entirely possible to do this job well, within 40 hours per week, and still make the assigned goals, but it is a high volume job, in a non-adversarial environment, without clearly defined legal standards, or many of the resources and staff relationships that you may be used to.
3. Don't abuse the claimants or staff, pontificate from the bench, or just pay most of your cases to get rid of them. It makes all of us look like crap.
So there's what you should NOT do. Of course, even if you don't take my advice, that's also okay. You will just join a long history of ALJ morons that set the bar so low for the rest of us that we can look like legal scholars and achieve sainthood with only a reasonable amount of effort.
P.S. Never record in print that you had to think about choosing to earn 7 times the median household income, or earn 3 times the median income and spend quality time with your kids. Your kids might read it one day!
|
|
|
Post by Taylor20 on Mar 18, 2013 10:09:50 GMT -5
P.S. Never record in print that you had to think about choosing to earn 7 times the median household income, or earn 3 times the median income and spend quality time with your kids. Your kids might read it one day! Hey, his kids might read it and wish he'd kept earning the $350k so they could have nicer stuff or go to more expensive colleges. Some kids like money as well as, or more than, parental attention. It's not a slam dunk that if he asked his kids for their input they'd say take the $150k 40-hr/week job in who-knows-where over the $350k 70-hr/week job in their current hometown.
|
|
|
Post by judgegal on Mar 18, 2013 10:17:53 GMT -5
I agree generally with other posters about the job. I think it would good for you, aljfaq, if you could get into an agency other than SSA, particularly if you could build on your pvt. prac. experience. Moreover, I don't think the ALJ job at SSA has "no stress." That may be true in a well-run hearing office, but not all of them are well-run. SSA is a ridiculously obtuse bureaurocracy that puts many obstacles in the way of performing public sevice. You may not be able to tolerate that. I don't think it's worth relocating to Podunk, taking a big cut, and being bored and frustrated.
I know of state judges who became SSA ALJs,but not vice versa. I never heard of anyone from SSA becoimng an Article 3 judge. The experience is too limited.
Look into other high level government jobs
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 18, 2013 10:55:14 GMT -5
P.S. Never record in print that you had to think about choosing to earn 7 times the median household income, or earn 3 times the median income and spend quality time with your kids. Your kids might read it one day! Hey, his kids might read it and wish he'd kept earning the $350k so they could have nicer stuff or go to more expensive colleges. Some kids like money as well as, or more than, parental attention. It's not a slam dunk that if he asked his kids for their input they'd say take the $150k 40-hr/week job in who-knows-where over the $350k 70-hr/week job in their current hometown. I think it depends on the age. I would say prior to high school the kids would definitely choose dad over cash, but once they get to high school they get a lot more selfish, much more embarassed by their parents, and given the choice of Dad and a Civic, or no Dad and a BMW, they would most likely take the latter. On the other hand, other than those situations where Dad was a drunk or abusive, how many people say, "I wish I had spent less time with my parents," in their memoirs. If your kid hits 40 and looks back at things and says, "I wish I had more cash than parenting," you may not have been a very good parent. You're definitely right on the relocation part though. That can be a deal killer for kids no matter their age.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 18, 2013 13:32:50 GMT -5
Does anyone know whether it is possible to bypass working for SSA and go straight to being an ALJ for an agency that does adversarial proceedings like the ITC, FTC, etc? What are the factors? Also, it doesn't seem like there are very many who move from biglaw to being an ALJ. So there must be a good reason for that. There are other agencies that hire from the ALJ register. They hire far fewer, usually only one at a time, and the offices are in a limited number of locations. To be hired off the register for such jobs, you need a very high score (80s and +) and the right GAL. Without those, you won't even show up on a cert. IMO, those who are drawn to biglaw and all it entails (high salary, ridiculous hours, push for partner, recruiting clients, etc., etc.,) are not drawn to public service in the first place. Once in biglaw, they often develop a lifestyle that needs that salary, even with the long hours and all the rest of it. So, you aren't going to find many going from biglaw to ALJ unless something in their individual situation makes that the best option.
|
|
|
Post by Taylor20 on Mar 18, 2013 13:33:22 GMT -5
...it doesn't seem like there are very many who move from biglaw to being an ALJ. So there must be a good reason for that. The simple answer to that conundrum lies in the title to your post.....$350k. Not many people in any profession take a 60% paycut voluntarily, particularly in this economy.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 18, 2013 14:10:22 GMT -5
Also, it doesn't seem like there are very many who move from biglaw to being an ALJ. So there must be a good reason for that. Perhaps you are the exception, but I would assume the type of person that is willing to put up with biglaw politics, billable pressures, and unreasonable partner expectations/demands for more than 7 years is the same type of person that is then willing to put up with even more politics, book of business pressures, and unreasonable client expectations/demands for the more prestigious and more lucrative partnership. I can't imagine being an 8th-year associate at any law firm of medium or greater size, especially in biglaw. I learned pretty quickly that the extra money wasn't worth the BS I was handed on a day-to-day basis, and I saw the partners' lifestyles and wanted none of it. And there's nothing wrong with people choosing that path. It just wasn't for me.
|
|
|
Post by elmerfuddgantry on Mar 18, 2013 14:25:23 GMT -5
No way can you make it to the Article III bench from an ALJ job. Stick with your $350K practice, become politically active in congressional races, contribute time and money to your preferred candidates, and make it known that you expect some quid pro quo down the road. Seek out a politically-influential partner at your firm as a mentor and make your plan known to him. If your plans are that big, keep billing 2400 (or better yet 2600), make partner, and don't get side-tracked. I watched a lawyer in my firm become an Article III judge and that's the path he followed. He underwent quite a personality change after reaching his goal.
ETA: On reflection, I forgot one thing: To create political obligations, you're going to have to become a major rainmaker for your chosen politician(s). So in addition to billing 2600 hours per year and rainmaking for your firm, you will need to influence others to contribute to your candidate(s). The more money you generate (and the more influential the politician to whom you contribute), the faster your appointment will occur.
I really think you are barking up the wrong tree with the ALJ thing. Reading between the lines, being an associate for 8 1/2 years and browsing this forum makes me wonder whether you are feeling stuck at the big firm, not seeing partnership in your future, and looking for a way to get off the merry-go-round. Nothing wrong with that. But if an Article III judgeship is what you really want, I don’t think ALJ would be a good move.
|
|
|
Post by counsel on Mar 18, 2013 17:50:47 GMT -5
Well, some of us left big law -- but much earlier and had other stops on the route to ALJ. I quickly decided I preferred public service to big law and would not change places with you. Very happy as an ALJ but agree it is not for everyone. The application process will be long and may help influence you one way or the other. Give it time.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Mar 19, 2013 8:03:50 GMT -5
8-)I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by rov on Mar 19, 2013 8:51:02 GMT -5
I have been an ALJ with SSA for 3 and a half years. I am starting to feel this job is too monotonous and not very intellectually challenging. However, I still find the job is rewarding most of the time and love the work/life balance. Is this simply a phase I am going through and do others feel the same? I would love to hear from the old timers who have been doing this for 15 years plus, for I am not sure at this point if I will last that long.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 19, 2013 10:24:23 GMT -5
There is good and bad to every job. A job is what you make of it. There are some jobs that nobody would want and there are jobs everyone wants. Most of us are in jobs that are suited for us or pay the bills. Don't go into a job thinking it will be a panacea for all your ills. If you are unhappy in your present job, you are just as likely to be unhappy in your new job, but probably for other reasons. Learn to make the best of the situation and make the job work for you, rather than have you work for the job. Learn to accentuate the positive and diminish or mask the negative aspects of your job. Like the old idiom: "A job is what you make of it."
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 19, 2013 11:39:47 GMT -5
As an "old timer", I can assure you that the position of an SSA ALJ today is very different from 25 years ago. When I was appointed, I had a team of a hearing assistant, a legal clerk, a non-attorney writer and an attorney who had authority to sign fully favorablee decisions. I acted like any trial judge (recognizing the hearing was non-adversarial) by requiring a brief and acknowlegement by the rep that ALL the evidence was in the record. I usually had the benefit of a short summary from my hearing assistant or my staff attorney as to what issue(s) were relevant (as to onset date or any other issue why the staff attorney could not pay the case. I NEVER saw a listing issue except if we needed an MEs opinion to discount the DDS opinion (often later evidence) that the case met a listing or child case which only needed 3 moderate limitations to meet a listing. If the rep wasn't prepared or tried to offer new evidence I paused the hearing untl he/she was prepared to suumarize the relevancy of the new evidence and proceed. This of cousre meant that case went to the bottom of that day's docket. It didn't take long and some atttorneys screamed but I never had a case returned on a procedural basis and after a rep sat all day with a very unhappy client (who occasionally relieved his/her representation as a result) the hearing process was professional and smooth. As a matter of interest, one of my OPM interview questions was what I would do with an unprepared rep and I answered the procedure I used above. I figured if it helpedget me hired, it would not get me fired. Years later a new RCJ announced we he had no authority to employ such measures but by then it was preety standard practice and the bar understood that if they wanted a favorable decision, that they had better be prepared. Of course the non-repped claimants were treated differenttly but we scheduled those cases as soon as they came through the door ("rocket docket") when the evidence was fresh and determined whether they wanted to proceed without a rep, needed a CE or whatever would keep the case from being resolved then and there. I loved my job but then management started screwing everything up by pooling staff resources, promoting incompetent staff to please the union, insuring everyone knew that it was ODAR, not OHA and inviting e-file machinations and interruption of what was a sane hearing process. I am on record that the degeneration from personal to management dictation as to what we could do or could not do caused me to quit. But heck, thats progress! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by metsfan on Mar 19, 2013 12:59:31 GMT -5
I could not agree more with southeastalj--with all his points. This is the most rewarding job I have ever held.
|
|