|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 22:24:21 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. 1. The number misses the point entirely. 200 pages 800 pages etc. I was really more focused on the point than accurate numbers. The number of exhibits vary but I can tell you 800 to 1000 pages of exhibits is not the norm in the majority of them. 2. I review the entire file and all the exhibits. I pay more attention to some than others. 3. I review exhibits during the hearing, take notes, formulate and change hypos etc. plus listen to the testimony. My decisions, all 640 or so of em, are not from the hip. 4. As for my status, I think I have enough information about what is going on to handle it. But if someone else wants it, they can have it.
|
|
|
Post by E.G. Maynard on Apr 22, 2013 22:27:20 GMT -5
Let me clarify. When I say exhibits I'm referring to the "f" section. If I count exhibits in all sections then of course the total number if exhibits is higher.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj1 on Apr 22, 2013 22:52:03 GMT -5
With the size files in my office, where most cases have over 500 pages in the F section, and several cases each week have 1000 or more pages in the F section (today, I had 2 cases that each had roughly 1600 pages in their F sections), it is IMPOSSIBLE to truly read the file - such that I know the file better than anyone else in the hearing room and I know when the claimant's testimony is consistent or inconsistent with their medical and non-medical evidence of record, and do the number's the Agency would like. On average, I spend 2-3 hours reviewing each file, most hearings last 1 hour - but it's not unusual for them to last 1.5 hours, depending on who is the claimant's counsel, 20-45 minutes or so to draft instructions, and then it can be anywhere from 15 minutes to 3 hours reviewing and editing decisions. Anything less does the claimant and the public, both of whom I serve, a disservice. I work for the benefit of the claimant and the public, with the Rules of Professional Conduct always in mind, and not for the benefit of SSA's management; particularly, when SSA non-attorney management presume to tell experienced former litigators how to do their job. Now, if the files were not so large, or the federal court's were not so particular about articulating the rationales for our decisions, I could do much more.
|
|
|
Post by notyet on Apr 22, 2013 23:51:47 GMT -5
I think the poster is describing a process that the bar would describe as a total farce even though it seems that the poster sincerely believes what he/she is doing satisfies the regulations, rulings and controlling court decisons, not to mention the HALLEX, without a sweat. Really, how can someone give decision instructions with specific citations to the evidence, as HALLEX states is required, on all issues that need to be resolved in a decision, that comports to the regulations, rulings and court decisions IN 15 MINUTES. I am aghast at the admission that the poster only spends 15 minutes reviewing an average file IN 15 MINUTES. Among other things, the regulations, rulings, controlling court decisions and HALLEX require that an administrative law judge make credibility findings ABOUT EACH SYMPTOM, with appropriate citations to the evidence, about such mundae things as whether an impairment can reasonably be expected to cause an alleged symptom. I expect you are delegating your responsibility to citing to specific pieces of evidence in support of all the findings made in decisions that go out under your signature to others such as the persons drafting your decisions, which is not fair and which is not in line with what HALLEX requires.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 23, 2013 20:27:37 GMT -5
The Complaint makes a very credible case.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Apr 24, 2013 3:59:54 GMT -5
The Complaint makes a very credible case. Concur.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Apr 25, 2013 13:39:51 GMT -5
And you are right, Super. I think they have management practice sessions where they learn to say "quality is job one" with a straight face.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 25, 2013 15:42:53 GMT -5
The Complaint makes a very credible case. Is there an accessible link to read it?
|
|
|
Post by sportsfan on Apr 25, 2013 16:03:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ed on Apr 25, 2013 17:01:40 GMT -5
First , and unrelated to the topic, I am not a fan of this new board design. Maybe I was used to the old one, but this is hard for an old dog to get used to;
Second, the writer's union should join the judge's union in this lawsuit. One of our better writers, requiring very little editing, is looking at being disciplined because the production is not up to snuff, not carrying his/her load so to speak. Yet in a area where 1000 medical pages or more to review is the norm, with judges that pay fewer than they deny, he/she is held accountable to the national standard. The agency should look at more than just numbers, that myopic view will result in more and more poorly written decisions. Much like this post.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Apr 28, 2013 21:23:59 GMT -5
Sorry to say, this Board is seeming to sound a lot like the "ALJ Improvement Board" used to.
|
|
|
Post by factfinder on Apr 29, 2013 17:54:06 GMT -5
Beagle please explain what you mean so those who you feel are causing the problem will know what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 29, 2013 20:44:44 GMT -5
Beagle please explain what you mean so those who you feel are causing the problem will know what you mean. This Board was created in response to the "improvement" Board. The latter was widely seen as an under the bridge hangout for trolls--although I just saw it as alot of folks venting and sniping. Thus, this Board was born under the auspices of ALJD and Pixie. The former has had a bit of a heavy hand, but not of late, as since 2009 this place has been very tranquil. Now folks' nerves are starting to fray and inevitably that brings out a bit of "this and that". The most important and taxing portion of the application is the process itself.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 29, 2013 20:53:37 GMT -5
Which actually has very little to do with the topic of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Apr 30, 2013 10:56:31 GMT -5
If anyone has missed the opinion regarding the lawsuit of the Chairman of the House subcommittee on Social Security last week, check out Charles Hall blog. I am afraid he is not alone regarding federal employee unions although I must agree with an earlier expressed opinion the many ALJs felt a union was their only recourse for a voice at the table. I believe a mentality has developed in Congress that AALJ is no better than the Teamsters. I base this conclusion on personal discussions with three influential Senate staffers.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Apr 30, 2013 18:57:33 GMT -5
8-)Never really understood the need for federal employees unions, or for that matter, any public service unions. All were protected by civil service regulations, which guaranteed them all the rights they needed. Now they are protected from being fired along with a whole of other crap.
|
|
|
Post by hod on May 1, 2013 10:38:30 GMT -5
Well, I have to say that I used to feel the same way-but when I look at how the selection process is going with people unable to get answers to questions or to find out any information about what is going on (except to rely upon rumors and this board)-it makes me think that the union was formed to force recognition of a voice.
Prior to the formation of the union-back in the Old Days-ALJ's did pretty much what they wanted to do and no one held them to any standards. Some were very ethical and put in a full day's work, others were sometimes "hard to find" and as far as numbers were concerned it was anything from 1 on up. As far as getting fired was concerned-criminal activity was likely the only reason. ALJ did not have to sign in and were not answerable to anyone. Depending upon the particular ALJ-this could make managing an office a nightmare. I am not ALJ bashing here-just pointing out the facts.
When the rules of the game changed and the agency started making judges sign into work, learn how to use a computer, implemented HPI(hearing process improvement) ALJ's started to get concerned. The agency needed to make some changes and address some problem behaviors but things were changing very quickly and without much concern for the judges issues. Everyone but the judges had a place at the table (AFGE NTEU). The union was partially in response to the fact that the corps felt ignored and with no voice.
As with all unions-they make management's life more difficult. Management would naturally like to say that everything is for the "good of the agency" and not explain or compromise on any decision. But the "because I said so" attitude is not well received by the people in the trenches. Not everything the union does is "right" and sometimes depending upon one's perspective-it can look downright obstructive. But regardless of the perspective-the judges now have a voice at the table when changes are being made.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on May 1, 2013 11:52:02 GMT -5
hod- certainly would not challenge your post but my beef is that AALJ could have devoted their resources to force management to comply with the APA e.g. compelling the RCJs and CALJ to enforce subpoenas when that process was the only method to compel a TS to produce medical records. That is pretty fundamental but AALJ could have used its muscle, if any, to produce a procedural process that would complete the record before the hearing and some kind of relevancy prerequisite, not the FRE, but at least records related to the claimed impairments. 20 years ago, before ODAR, the Chief Judge and his representatives, i.e. ALJ Tom Capshaw, could liason with members of Congress and their staffers, to stop management excesses like gutting the Chief Judge's staff. AALJ did have a voice; it just wasn't in your face and once HPI was forced down our throats the hearing process desintigrated into the joke it is today. Just my humble opinion but there is no doubt in my mind that the due process provisions of the APA were better complied with before ODAR and OHA better served the public.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on May 1, 2013 16:27:53 GMT -5
8-)Well hod, assume from your avatar, that you are a child of management, and decade and I could go on forever about how it was in the day. You know, we all learn from history, but's that not what's it all about now. It what's happening now. Ok, one more time. When I came on board in January 1976, this was still a professional organization The CALJ and all the RCALJs were old lawyers or professionals. But management was always lurking in the background, because we were an independent agency of the SSA, then called Bureau of Hearing and Appeals (BHA). Because we were independent from SSA, SSA basically couldn't stand us because they had no direct control over us. Even back then, they were trying to exert pressure on BHA, using the old stsndby, the "backlog." We had the "unit" system, had my own unit, hearing assistant, secretary, and typist. Our biggest advance in technology back then was the "mag-card." That meant most of your boiler plate was on the mag-card, and you had to fill in the blanks dictating your rationale. I didn't have a staff attorney. If you got out 30 decisions a month, you were cooking. The unit in itself was imperfect, If one unit was turning out the cases, and another unit was not, that meant staff was wasted, but then again, we were professionals. The ALJIC (now HOCALJ) had the authority to shift staff around. All anybody cared about was getting the work out, and if all was caught up, nobody worried about time and attendance, the ALJIC looked the other way if Christmas shopping had to be done, no one looked at the clock at lunch hour, everybody knew their job and did it, and under the unit system, everybody knew if you weren't.
|
|
|
Post by hod on May 1, 2013 17:48:30 GMT -5
yes I agree with both decade and delta. As far as being an ALJ was concerned-those were much better days. The unit system was great and if you were happy with your unit people it was wonderful. If I recall (and I don't go back that far :-) - there was no backlog. And I will be the first to admit, most of the ALJ's I worked with were professional (and oh by the way more than predominately male). But as we all know there were a few....
So what happened, as far as I can tell, is that the world underwent a sea change and the possiblity of keeping track of data (T and A/ how many cases/ how many R's how many A's etc etc) all became very possible. Coupled and related to the fact that technology changed the entire "how we do business system" and the old ways no longer worked. I can tell you that when I came on board (a relative child in 1990) support staff might moan and groan about a particular ALJ being "out of pocket" or creating extra work-but no one said or did anything to the ALJ. They were teflon. And everyone who has been around for more than two decades has his or her own story about an ALJ who took advantage. However, once the "unit system" ended and support staff were part of the office group and supervised by someone other than their own ALJ- it became more and more apparent that "they", support staff were being held to a stricter standard. When I arrived as an attorney we dictated our cases and even the reversals were long winded with lots of legal citations. Our instructions were pay or don't pay. We had to do two a day, in order to be promoted to GS 12 in my office (note that not all offices had the same standard). And so the complaining and moaning got louder. ALJ's were blamed for everything from low numbers to rudeness, to interfering with processing. (and lest you think that I am a management toady-let me just assure you that I can see both sides of the issue and as far as numbers go-I generally side with the rank and file. I too think that management talks quality but really means quantity and only notices "quality problems" when certain newspapers write stories). Prior to recent events a judge writing a huge number of cases each month - even if they were all reversals- was beloved. The office made goal and that judge was easy to write for and pumped everyone's numbers up. If you were an ALJ who thoroughly reviewed each case, provided clear instructions and insisted upon a rationale-you probably were not fond of the ALJ down the hall who wrote 75 cases a month only two of which were denials. But the rest of the staff may have snickered and complained behind the back of such a judge-but no one wanted to kill the golden calf or goose or whatever.
So I go back to the fact that once the "good old days ended" and by the late 90's they were definitely going quickly, HPI only placed the nails in the coffin-the ALJ's felt as if they needed to have a voice in what was happening. They could have sat back and done nothing, but the good old days were over. There was no more unit system; people were not looking the other way when numbers were low; ALJ's were expected to do things that at one time ahd been considered "clerical"; the learning curve was tough and life became difficult. Rulings came down that said while ALJ's were independent as far as decision making was concerned but they had to be policy compliant and they had to be accountible for their behavior and time and attendance.
The ALJ's needed to be at the table making decisions and they only way they got attention was forming a union. And as someone remarked earlier, "that seems so blue collar" - well the point was that the robe was no longer considered to place one outside the rules affecting all employees. So maybe ALJ's became a little more "blue collar". They certainly organized for the same reason out ancestors did- Management was holding everyone's feet to fire and there was a feeling that it was not being done in a reasonable or fair manner.
As far as the union is concerned-I might agree that it sometimes seems to argue petty things and protect bad actors, but it got the ALJ's flexiplace (it was originally thought that we could not do without them being in the office every day)-credit hours that are actually better than some other parts of the agency have- and some other stuff that is not as noticable because not everyone knows what goes on behind the scenes. Like most things-it has good points and bad points. Obviously, I am looking to be an ALJ, so my "management" leanings are somewhat compromised by that wish. Sometimes I think it would be great to have my own clerk who could pick up my laundry and get me lunch and made sure the coffee was hot (and yes-this is what it was like in 1990 and before for some judges). But as long as everyone is treated similarly, I can deal with it. (Little by little the agency is addressing some of the "bad actors-although sometimes under duress). The job is still pretty good and most judge's are pretty safe so long as they make an effort to do the best they can in the hours provided and treat others with professionalism.
Long winded - sorry. But I do want you to know, I have a high amount of respect for the majority of ALJ's, attorneys, paralegals and support staff who show up every day and give the best they can to the public they serve.
|
|