|
Post by maquereau on Apr 22, 2013 7:14:56 GMT -5
Immigration judges don't review a thousand pages of medical files before issuing a decision. Anyway, looks like there are 2 different approaches being championed here. There's the "Hey, there's a backlog, we've got to institute an assembly line production process" and there's the "Aren't we supposed to be judges and deliberate before making a decision?" model. What if 25 million people were to apply for disability next year? Would we then be expected to issue 2,500 decisions per year? After all, there's a backlog!
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 11:02:56 GMT -5
The union states that the system is in crisis, yet acknowledges that the Judges are issuing favorable decisions in cases which should not be paid, arguably enhancing the crisis. They do this because it is easier and takes less amount of pages to write. To me this smacks of fraud. The Union then blames the Agency for this bad behavior and suggests that the proper remedy is to remove the benchmark/goal system of accountability that the Agency currently utilizes. To what end? I do not know of any Judge who has been disciplined for failing to meet the benchmarks. We are told repeatedly to do our best to meet the goals, we are never disciplined for failing to do so that I am aware of and I am the LAR for a large Hearing Office. I do know of Judges who have been disciplined for failing to schedule hearings, failing to move cases within a reasonable amount of time, failing to respond to requests from region for information about cases in ALJ controlled status etc. How can you acknowledge bad behavior and then request less oversight and accountability for it? The Judge is in control of the docket and is in control of their decisional independence. However, the Agency has a right (as well as the public) to expect that the Judges will actually do their job and move cases as they were hired to do. I was specifically told when I was hire what my expectations would be. There was no question about it. I knew up front that if I took this position I would be required to work. Why is that such a difficult concept for some to understand? Both the Agency and the Public have a right to expect that the Judges will demonstrate, in some way; that they are actually earning their salary. I doubt the public will be very sympathetic to a bunch of overpaid beurocrats whining about having to do their job. Once you figure out what you are doing, there is really no reason that routine cases should take longer than the end of the hearing to issue instructions. Outside of post development of course. I routinely prepare for, hold hearings and issue instructions in 45 minutes and I can do 7 hearings a day on a 3 and 1/2 day every other week docket. That amounts to about 640 or so cases a year, without even really trying. I can pick up dockets here and there for other judges if I want and incerase my numbers even more if I choose. I could cut that down, take more time and still meet the minnimum goal of 500 cases per year. Most cases I see are 200 pages of medical evidence or less. These are routine run of the mill cases. Once you decide about 100 cases of DDD, you know exactly what to look for. Granted, remands and complex cases take longer but there are also less of them. Furthermore, most Judges do not write their own decisions. They issue a template instruction and a writer puts everything together for review and signature. Bottom line, it is not the Agency that is to blame, it is the Judge because it is ultimately his or her responsibility to each Claimant and to the public to evaulate each and every case and to move it efficiently and strive for a quality end result. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be working here. You shouldn't have taken the job in the first place and you should quit whining and do your job. Right now we have a tenuous dance with the Agency regarding production. This lawsuit, like slapping your date to the prom, has the propensity to really harsh an otherwise cool mellow. I the Union really wants t spend money litigating; take u the issue o ergonomically correct hearing room design. Do something worthwile instead o opening u all u to the blowback that i sure t follow this lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Apr 22, 2013 11:21:08 GMT -5
Most cases I see are 200 pages of medical evidence or less. These are routine run of the mill cases. Once you decide about 100 cases of DDD, you know exactly what to look for. Granted, remands and complex cases take longer but there are also less of them. Furthermore, most Judges do not write their own decisions. They issue a template instruction and a writer puts everything together for review and signature. Bottom line, it is not the Agency that is to blame, it is the Judge because it is ultimately his or her responsibility to each Claimant and to the public to evaulate each and every case and to move it efficiently and strive for a quality end result. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be working here. You shouldn't have taken the job in the first place and you should quit whining and do your job. Right now we have a tenuous dance with the Agency regarding production. This lawsuit, like slapping your date to the prom, has the propensity to really harsh an otherwise cool mellow. I the Union really wants t spend money litigating; take u the issue o ergonomically correct hearing room design. Do something worthwile instead o opening u all u to the blowback that i sure t follow this lawsuit. It must be nice having an average med record size of 200 p. In my neck of the woods 800 to 1000 p is the average, and that's not including va records cases, which we see all the time.
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 11:28:09 GMT -5
I have cases with large numbers of exhibits in them as well, however, I still review them in the same amount of time. The Union is not the ONLY protection we have against Managment either and if you believe that you are a tool. It is not us against them as the Union would have you believe. You, as the Judge, are the best protection against Management. Doing your job as you were hired to do is the best protection against management. The union, IMHO, has very little power to do much of anything and the claim that they are the only thing standing between the Judge's and Management is devisive and detrimental to the Public we are charged with serving. This lawsuit is devisive and detrimental to all the Judges, Union and Non.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 22, 2013 12:11:00 GMT -5
traceb, you say, " I do not know of any Judge who has been disciplined for failing to meet the benchmarks." And then you say, " I do know of Judges who have been disciplined for failing to schedule hearings, failing to move cases within a reasonable amount of time, failing to respond to requests from region for information about cases in ALJ controlled status etc." Do you not know that failing to move cases within a reasonable time is not meeting the benchmarks? You say, " I routinely prepare for, hold hearings and issue instructions in 45 minutes..." Most hearings take more than 45 minutes. Reviewing for a hearing means reviewing all documents in the file and preparing questions for the hearing. Further even the shortest instructions in FIT take at least 15 minutes. One must address credibility, rationale, and weight given to medical providers. You say,"Most cases I see are 200 pages of medical evidence or less. These are routine run of the mill cases." Most cases I see are 600-800 pages. You then added you can review 800-1000 pages in the same amount of time as 200 pages. Number one, you are either superhuman or ae not doing the job properly. There is no way you can review 800-1000 pages in the same amount of time as reviewing 200 pages. Number two, you say you are doing 24-28 cases every two weeks at 45 minutes each, that is about 20 hours of work, according to you, out of an 80 work period. Either you are way off or you are screwing the public out of 60 hours of pay every two weeks by your own admission. Of course there is the slightest chance that you aren't an ALj at all, isn't there??
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 12:26:07 GMT -5
Funny. If you had read I am the L.A.R. Actually, if you have to do all that to hear a case I don't think you are doing your job. And yes, I am an ALJ. #3036. I have a system. I pull up my note template, and review the case in about 15 minutes before the hearing. During the hearing I review it even more and listen to the testimony. Then, at the end of the hearing, and before I start the next one, I issue instructions and review for the next heraing. Doesn't take a superman to have a system and do the work. But; then again, I don't read every single word and chase every conceivable rabbit down every conceivable hole. It's not necessary. I also do not prepare questions for the hearing and I do not use scripts. These are easy cases, the harder ones take a little longer and may actually require post development. But I still move them through and do a good job. My hearings last about 45 minutes from start to finish, sometimes less. so; I suppose if you factor in another 15 minutes for routine cases, it's probably an hour per case. Most, not all, of the cases have 200 or less pages of medical evidence and perhaps I am being overly conservative, but the point (which you are blatently missing) is not the number of pages, it is the ability of the judge to move through the evidence efficiently. Apparently some of us can do that better than others. You can try to pin me on specific numbers but the bottom line is we were hired to do a job. Whining about amorphous numbers as an excuse for not doing your job properly is childish. I suppose if I were only hearing cases then I could be charged with bilking the Agency out of time. The rest of my time is spent with post development, edit, ARPR, To -Do Lists, re-writes, Union Issues, time keeping etc. Just like every other run of the mill ALJ out there. Finally, there has been no OUTRIGHT discipline for failing to meet goals that I am AWARE of. Discipling for failing to respond to managements request to move cases from ALJ controlled status is not a quota.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 22, 2013 13:16:38 GMT -5
Now I am even more confused, you say you review a case in 15 minutes before the hearing and then you say spend time doing ARPR? ARPR is reviewing cases.. You must not be in touch with the Union you represent because there have not only been outright discipline for failing to move cases, there have been terminations..
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 13:42:02 GMT -5
AALJ. You aren't listening or perhaps I am not being clear. So let me diagram this for you. Let's say I have a docket that begins on Tuesday morning at 8:30. I schedule each case on the hour with the last case beginning at 2:45. That is 7 per docket. I do that Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday then I have hearings on Friday from 8:30 to 11:30. I schedule my dockets every other week. Before eacj case I go to CMPS and pull the e-file up. Then, I go to word and open up my ALJ note template which I developed. Then, I use that template in DGS to create a blank form. Into that form I spend the next 10 to 15 minutes reviewing the case file, cutting and pasting and taking notes. During the hearing, I take more notes and formulate RFC's as well as evaluate the evidence and the credibility of all witness. Once I have completed my notes, I pull up the CPMS ALJ instruction form and I complete it, usually in less than 5 minutes. I then send my alj notes to the e-file along with my instructions which the writers then have access to. I do this on every case. ARPR is different, so is the to-do list etc. Reviewing a case for hearing and doing ARPR, EDIT etc are two different job tasks. I am in touch with the AALJ which I represent in my office. Tell me who has been disciplined for failing to meet the quota? Who? Who has been terminated? To my knowledge, no one. And, expecting the Judges to move their cases and being counseled for refusing to do so is not a quota! The connection is simply not there. Face it, the Union is making us all look like a bunch lazy chumps who get paid a lot of money to sit around and look for ways to do less work with less accountability. Those of us who actually work and meet the goals are now lumped together with those who do not. That; IMHO, is not fair.
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 14:06:56 GMT -5
I don't know how to lay out my position any clearer there scooter. I would propose though that if I have 20 or 30 cases, or even 1, that have been in ALPO for longer than 30 days with no review or activity from me and no apparent reason for it, then the Agency and the Public have a right to start asking me about it and I don't have the right to try and hide behind the Union to avoid responding.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 22, 2013 14:52:27 GMT -5
I don't know how to spell out my position any clearer there scooter. I would propose though, that if I have 20 or 30 cases, or even 1, that has been in ALPO for longer than 30 days with no review or activity from me and no apparent reason for it, then the Agency and the Public have a right to start asking me about it and I don't have the right to try and hide behind the Union to avoid responding. "Scooter" Pretty rude way to address a fellow ALJ, especially for a newcomer to this board.
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 14:55:51 GMT -5
Rude? Lighten up man. See the smiley face? ? Fellow ALJ? That make you special because you are an ALJ? Does that make me special? No, it doesn't. That's part of the problem. We aren't better than anyone else and we certainly aren't any better than the people we are here to serve. All you wanting to join our ranks need to understand this. Just because we are "ALJ's" doesn't really mean anything. So what? None of us are special. We are PUBLIC SERVANTS!!!!!! Remember that! This is your job. This is what you are signing up for. Don't like it, leave. I'm actually not a newcomer to this forum. Just haven't been here in a while and forgot all my logon information.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 22, 2013 15:27:13 GMT -5
Sorry, duplicate post instead of new one, don't know why. Anyhow, you must be in violation of ODAR policies. Sounds like you are doing 24 a week or about 96 a month. ODAR limitation on scheduling is 20 a week and 80 a month with a maximum of 960 a year. You are over that. Further AALJ sent out the transcript of the ALJ terminated for not moving cases earlier this year.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Apr 22, 2013 16:02:33 GMT -5
I think one is not a public servant, serving the public, unless one issues 2,500 decisions per year. Any time spent NOT deciding that 2,500th case constitutes a fraud upon the public fisc. There have been very few ALJs who have met the criteria for NOT BEING A LOAFER. All the rest are wasting time; all the rest are inefficient. Why are so many ALJs goofing off rather than issuing 2,500 decisions each year? Don't they know there is a backlog? Okay, you don't like 2500? Choose a different number for your "slacker" criterion. Any number will do.
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 16:59:48 GMT -5
Sorry, duplicate post instead of new one, don't know why. Anyhow, you must be in violation of ODAR policies. Sounds like you are doing 24 a week or about 96 a month. ODAR limitation on scheduling is 20 a week and 80 a month with a maximum of 960 a year. You are over that. Further AALJ sent out the transcript of the ALJ terminated for not moving cases earlier this year. Really? Hmmmmm. Oh well. I guess they can discipline me for doing too much. He wasnt disciplined for not moving cases. He was disciplined for ignoring inquiries.
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 17:01:54 GMT -5
Sorry, duplicate post instead of new one, don't know why. Anyhow, you must be in violation of ODAR policies. Sounds like you are doing 24 a week or about 96 a month. ODAR limitation on scheduling is 20 a week and 80 a month with a maximum of 960 a year. You are over that. Further AALJ sent out the transcript of the ALJ terminated for not moving cases earlier this year. Really? Hmmmmm. Oh well. I guess they can discipline me for doing too much. He wasnt disciplined for not moving cases. He was disciplined for ignoring inquiries. I don't do 24 a week! I do 24 every OTHER WEEK! Jeez. Now I see part of the production problem! And; it's not the number that matters, it's doing the job you were hired to do.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Apr 22, 2013 17:12:46 GMT -5
A few random musings and observations-
I am always amazed by the number of sitting ALJ's, especially those who feel their job is incredibly burdensome to perform, that have seemingly endless amounts of time to post to this board during core work hours
this lawsuit is such a non-isse amongst rank and file union members there isn't even a discussion topic about it on the union's private message board
the vast majority of ALJ's meet the agency of 500 dispositions per year without difficulty
there are undoubtedly a small number of ALJ's who are vastly underperforming and do not have the proper skill set to manage their expected workloads in this environment
there are undoubtedly a small number of management folks who overzealously hound good ALJ's for minor issues and moving cases along for the sake of moving cases along
this lawsuit will never, ever reach a judgment. The Agency and Union will enter into some form of settlement agreement because that is always what happens. The agency will blame the prior Commissioner for creating an overzealous management environment and pinky-swear that it wont happen again and the Union will claim a great victory. There will be some kind of required posting in the hearing office of these terrible transgressions. Nothing in the day to day operation of the hearing offices will actually change and we will go through this all again in 5 years...
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Apr 22, 2013 18:22:43 GMT -5
The appeal of joining the "elite" ALJ ranks is waning. Unions, name calling, complaining about "management," top salary less than what 1st year associates make, endless hours of reading thousands of pages of medical evidence . . . hard to see why so many people claim this would be a dream job . . . not to mention all the blue collar claimants who'd be appearing before you. Seriously, there isn't a shortage of folks for these jobs, for whatever godforsaken reason. It isn't for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 22, 2013 21:38:31 GMT -5
tracedb, with your attitude, if you have any integrity, you will resign your LAR position and let someone that supports the Union do it.
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 22:00:11 GMT -5
tracedb, with your attitude, if you have any integrity, you will resign your LAR position and let someone that supports the Union do it. Oh yeah? Is that what you think I should do? Why so some yes man who tows the party line without question can do it? Send them on over. What makes you think I don't support the union? Did I ever insinuate that? I don't support this union action! I think I was pretty clear on that point. I think I have integrity for standing up and saying that. I don't get anything except grief for being lar so if you have a replacement, send em over. Quite frankly I'd rather have me in my corner than some spineless talking union head who cannot formulate their own position without checking the AALJ website.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj1 on Apr 22, 2013 22:07:06 GMT -5
tracedb, I can only say wow! First, I wish the files in my officer were as small as yours. If they were, meeting the Agency's arbitrary goals would be much easier. Unfortunately, the files in my office rarely have less than 500 pages of medical records. Second, I cannot believe you are your office LAR, you seem so unfamiliar with topics of common knowledge. Third, I cannot believe that you admit that you handle your cases in the manner you state. Even with small files like your office has, it is difficult to believe that you are fully familiar with your files after such a short review. And, you don't mention if you read the other sections of the file. Also, if you are reviewing your files during the hearing, you cannot be paying much attention to what the claimants are saying. A decision based on a speedy review and shooting from the hip does not make a good public servant, good ALJ, or good lawyer -- it makes an overpaid beaurocrat.
|
|