|
Post by chinook on Jun 14, 2013 10:05:33 GMT -5
Val,
I agree with most of what you said but I think you missed one group of individuals who become SSA judges -- the litigators who view SSA as the "farm team" looking to spend some time before going to the big leagues -- an agency that actually conducts adversarial adjudication. The problem exists that there are more of those people than open positions at the other agencies.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 14, 2013 10:27:44 GMT -5
Val, I agree with most of what you said but I think you missed one group of individuals who become SSA judges -- the litigators who view SSA as the "farm team" looking to spend some time before going to the big leagues -- an agency that actually conducts adversarial adjudication. The problem exists that there are more of those people than open positions at the other agencies. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Jun 14, 2013 10:43:49 GMT -5
What I can't stand is the private sector attorneys that come in, hit the wall, and blame everyone else but themselves for their vocational error. A conscientious attorney would diligently research such a major career change rather than making a mess of things for future claimants and coworkers. I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. I only add that it is not limited to private sector attorneys - I have seen much of this among federal attorneys as well! Some apparently exist solely to make everyone else miserable!
|
|
|
Post by keepsake on Jun 14, 2013 12:35:12 GMT -5
Agree with much of what has been said here. Notably, if people think getting the ticket to be an ALJ for SSA is a long shot, that likely is an easy path compared to getting into another agency once you're an ALJ for SSA. I don't see how the numbers make sense to go into the position thinking that you'll sit there for a while until being picked up by another agency with extremely limited ALJ positions and not a lot, if any, expansion of the agency's ALJ corps. Maybe people are "insiders" from these agencies and have hope (baseless or not?) that they will return eventually, but that's a lot of possibly wishful thinking to make what might be a major career change. As for Valkyrie's question - most of the permanent federal law clerks I know (many refugees from biglaw) are very satisfied with their positions and will stay there a long time, but there could be innumerable personal reasons that might lead such folks to seek the ALJ position. I think it is difficult to paint with any kind of broad brush.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 14, 2013 12:59:34 GMT -5
I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. I only add that it is not limited to private sector attorneys - I have seen much of this among federal attorneys as well! Some apparently exist solely to make everyone else miserable! That's your government at work. When Mr. Personality Disorder says he's thinking of getting a job with another agency, as his supervisor you're going to encourage him to pursue his dreams and give him a great recommendation to boot! There have been some SSA staff attorneys that have been big busts when they hit the ALJ ranks, but as a group they are a great success, rather than the disaster that the old guard predicted.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 14, 2013 13:06:33 GMT -5
Agree with much of what has been said here. Notably, if people think getting the ticket to be an ALJ for SSA is a long shot, that likely is an easy path compared to getting into another agency once you're an ALJ for SSA. I don't see how the numbers make sense to go into the position thinking that you'll sit there for a while until being picked up by another agency with extremely limited ALJ positions and not a lot, if any, expansion of the agency's ALJ corps. Maybe people are "insiders" from these agencies and have hope (baseless or not?) that they will return eventually, but that's a lot of possibly wishful thinking to make what might be a major career change. As for Valkyrie's question - most of the permanent federal law clerks I know (many refugees from biglaw) are very satisfied with their positions and will stay there a long time, but there could be innumerable personal reasons that might lead such folks to seek the ALJ position. I think it is difficult to paint with any kind of broad brush. You are, of course, right about the federal law clerks. It’s like the claimant who alleges she can only ride in a car for 15 to 30 minutes at a time, but flew from Atlanta to LA last month. There might be a really good reason, like the death of a parent, but until you ask the question, it doesn’t add up.
|
|
|
Post by denovo on Jun 14, 2013 16:45:29 GMT -5
The JSP is very generous - I know federal court clerks, (not law clerks) with no legal trainig whatsoever who make as much as an ODAR ALJ. As far as a federal law clerk goes there are those who clerk for the actual Article III judge and those who clerk for magistrates who are appointed by the the Article III judge. Is there a difference? You bet!
There are state court clerks with just as much experience as federal law clerks and there are state law clerks with the same experience a a law clerk for a federal magistrate.
|
|
|
Post by x on Jun 14, 2013 20:26:04 GMT -5
"a very unexciting, essentially dead area of law" -- Please don't become an SSA ALJ if you see it this way. An SSA ALJ is entrusted daily with meeting people from all walks of life, hearing their deepest, darkest secrets and struggles, probing their credibility assertively but respectfully, and weighing a range of physical, mental and vocational factors in a unique fact pattern. Performing such duties, fully engaged, is sufficient challenge for any person.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj1 on Jun 14, 2013 22:23:43 GMT -5
Well said x. Valkyrie's comment illustrates why she views herself as the legal equivalent of a fast food worker. The bigger issue than litigation vs. non-litigation experience is professionalism. It should be obvious to all that the disability application process is an important, confusing, and anxiety-provoking time for all claimants. As ALJs, we hold the claimants' future and the future of their families in our hands. As x suggests, they deserve to have their cases heard by ALJs who have read their entire file, give them a full and fair opportunity to present their case, and are focused on them -- not on the clock or their disposition rate. And they certainly deserve to appear before ALJs who are interested in the job and not view it as unexciting and a dead-end job.
In addition, contrary to the view of some, litigation is the best training ground for any judge, whether at the appellate, trial or administrative level. Indeed, ALJs with substantial litigation experience are much more likely to know how to examine witnesses, control counsel, and conduct hearings in a respectful and professional manner, for the simple reason they have years of experience examining witnesses, dealing with counsel, and appearing before judges. Just as a judicial clerkship is the best way to learn how to be a lawyer, because you get to see good and bad attorneys in action, litigation is the best way to learn how to be a judge, because you get to see good and not-so-good judges in action. While trial litigation experience -- or experience arguing motions and appeals may not be necessary, it is the most helpful experience.
I have no idea how many ALJs are Agency-insiders, but 3/4 of all ALJs I know are former decision writers. Many of them are great, some not so much. A few of them are former OGC and I wonder why they are not hired more often -- they seem to have the best of both worlds, litigation experience and a thorough knowledge of the regulations and case law. In any event, it is not healthy for ODAR to have so many ALJs hired from the ranks, whether they have litigation experience or not. The biggest problem with some ODAR insiders is that they have become too comfortable with the low quality work that ODAR encourages and are quite comfortable behaving like legal Ronald McDonalds.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jun 14, 2013 22:31:25 GMT -5
True x, but it can be emotionally draining as you do become very aware of the claimants problems and it is endless. It requires compassion but at a distance. A lot of us feel like we should be able to do more or some things different, ie, award medical care only and immediately, award benefits for a year and have the claimant re-appear in front of the same Judge for re-evaluation. Send someone out to a voc rehab office. Most times it is all or nothing. Some cases are marginal. Some cases are heart-breakers, ie, the 25 year old high school football player that loved the outdoors and working on the farm that now has MS so severe he can't get off the floor if he falls, which he does with great regularityAunt and you really want to pay, but the medical documentation just isn't there and you don't know if she is completely truthful about not being able to afford medical care while smoking 2 packs a day. It's a tough gig and not for everybody. It is also one of the most rewarding jobs I have ever had. But, it is not for everyone. We do have ALJs quit during the first 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Jun 15, 2013 2:50:49 GMT -5
While technically true (although debatable given that most AAs have experience prior to their AA experience), this is an overblown complaint. What percentage of current ODAR ALJs are former insiders? 15%? Is it even that high? Seems like other agencies would be able to find plenty of qualified folks from the other 1000+ ODAR ALJs out there, and given that far less than half of all new hires are insiders, I think the potential candidate pool will remain rather deep for the other agencies. Besides, until you report that you have taken another job with another agency, we'll always know that there is at least one more well qualified former super-litigator. Anecdotally, I can tell you that I haven't had any difficulty writing legally sufficient decisions for ALJs that were formerly SAAs or AAs. Generally speaking, their decisions always make sense and are supported by the record. I have yet to see them make some of the stupid mistakes by ALJs with extensive experience in litigation, prosecution, etc., although I readily acknowledge that all ALJs will miss something or make an occasional mistake because all ALJs are human. I most emphatically concur with you. Well, most ALJs anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Jun 15, 2013 7:09:29 GMT -5
"Anecdotally, I can tell you that I haven't had any difficulty writing legally sufficient decisions for ALJs that were formerly SAAs or AAs. Generally speaking, their decisions always make sense and are supported by the record. I have yet to see them make some of the stupid mistakes by ALJs with extensive experience in litigation, prosecution, etc., although I readily acknowledge that all ALJs will miss something or make an occasional mistake because all ALJs are human."
A bit self-serving and I bet if pressed you really couldnt cough up a legit basis to support the statement. Premise is faulty from the beginning: if an ALJ has extensive litigation experience he cant make a decision that you understand or that isnt riddled with "stupid mistakes". Come on.........really.....yu want to say this
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on Jun 15, 2013 8:14:09 GMT -5
50% of ALJs selected from the current register are law clerks and attorneys in some capacity with the SSA. That is from the head of ODAR.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 15, 2013 10:48:49 GMT -5
"a very unexciting, essentially dead area of law" -- Please don't become an SSA ALJ if you see it this way. An SSA ALJ is entrusted daily with meeting people from all walks of life, hearing their deepest, darkest secrets and struggles, probing their credibility assertively but respectfully, and weighing a range of physical, mental and vocational factors in a unique fact pattern. Performing such duties, fully engaged, is sufficient challenge for any person. You did not understand my point x. What I was trying to say is that the job involves minimal legal maneuvering, therefore if thats what you are looking for, you aren't going to appropriately find it as an SSA ALJ. You analyze and develop the record. You identify the issues upon which the particular claim will turn. You ask the questions at the hearing that are likely to clarify those issues beyond what you already have in the written record, and then apply what you've learned in your VE hypotheticals. You then determine whether you need additional post-hearing evidence, or you are ready to make a decision. The key in all this is that the ultimate decision on the claim is most likely going to come down to a credibility assessment on the claimant's alleged symptoms/limitations, or weighing the professional medical opinions. Its not going to come down to you or the rep arguing some point of law or regulations. Again, from a LEGAL point of view it is a dead and very boring area of LAW. You are doing a job much more similar to a European judge than any typical American judge. Litigation experience is just not that relevant, and more frequently its a liability. We have minimal rules of evidence or procedure, so the rules for examining witnesses are about as exacting as helping a customer buy a TV at Best Buy or interviewing a potential new server at the Olive Garden. As for dealing with counsel, 99% are not going to give you any trouble, because the last thing they want to do from a business perspective is to create bad blood at a hearing office that they will be returning to frequently. For those that do cause trouble, during the hearing you have all of the advantages on your side, and in over 15 years at ODAR, I can't think of a single episode where a judge lost control of a rep. (I do know many former litigator ALJs who allowed a rep to bait them and lost control of themselves!) If you are a people person, find medical science interesting, and have a strong sense of service, it is a very enjoyable and rewarding job. If the claimant feels like they have been given a fair shake and treated with respect, and the end=result is a prompt and legally defensible decision, you have done your job. I would say that competence is more valuable than anything else in this job, and that means getting your job done promptly without having to watch the clock, identifying what's important without having to excessively develop the record in and out of the record. Like all that is important in life, it all comes down to football. If you are a quarterback that can drop back into the pocket and hit your receivers with pinpoint accuracy, you're an all pro. If it takes you 15 seconds to do it, you are just deadweight holding your team back!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 15, 2013 12:06:49 GMT -5
So val, you are suspicious of us private attorney types? Why am I not surprised? I know half a doz or so folks like me and they have all been very good ALJs. Alot more ALJs had private sector experience and then became government attorneys and made far less. Was their performance/mindset any different from little ol' me?
Generalizing like this is just that, hardly useful. Have there been folks, both with a government and private sector background, whom have become ALJs to essentially sit in the pasture? Sure. Is it because the government attorney is getting a raise or is more appreciative of the job that makes him or her better suited? Is it that the private sector attorney is simply an unknown quantity? Ah, now we're getting warm...
I know that to hire a private sector attorney as an ALJ is a far different proposition than hiring a government attorney working within a system the hiring Judge or authority knows and presumably respects--and can evaluate. They took a chance on me. It was a mathematical improbability. Am I going to work hard to prove they made the right choice? You betcha. And the same can be said for the vast majority of hired ALJs, SSA or the 28 or so other Agencies.
That, my dear val, (as you well know) is character. I totally agree with your lack of sympathy for the former private attorney who gets the job and then is totally unsatisfied. Yes, they should have done the research and been before an ALJ or 20. Odds are that ALJ was a whiner as private counsel and has always been insufferable.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jun 15, 2013 15:22:57 GMT -5
If you are a people person, find medical science interesting, and have a strong sense of service, it is a very enjoyable and rewarding job. If the claimant feels like they have been given a fair shake and treated with respect, and the end result is a prompt and legally defensible decision, you have done your job. I would say that competence is more valuable than anything else in this job, and that means getting your job done promptly without having to watch the clock, identifying what's important without having to excessively develop the record in and out of the record. Well said!
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 15, 2013 16:37:13 GMT -5
A bit self-serving and I bet if pressed you really couldnt cough up a legit basis to support the statement. Premise is faulty from the beginning: if an ALJ has extensive litigation experience he cant make a decision that you understand or that isnt riddled with "stupid mistakes". Come on.........really.....yu want to say this No, I don't want to say that, which is precisely why I didn't say that. And this is the Internet, so feel free to take my anecdotal stories with a grain of salt. However, I can certainly come up with a legit basis for my earlier statement and stand by it. Most of the ALJs do a pretty good job in coming up with a supportable decision that is grounded in the rules and regulations. 90% of the instructions I get are reasonable, supportable, and allow me to write a quality decision, and they come from judges with all types of experience. And like I said, judges will miss something on occasion because they're human. It happens, and I do the best I can to fix it or work around it. However, some judges (to clarify, that means not all, and in fact, are very few) make very stupid and/or lazy mistakes on very basic elements of the law that create absurd and unsupportable decisions. These are the horror stories that make it out to the public and help foster a lack of trust in the system. Paying claimants with no medically determinable impairments in the record or gridding them out at the full range of light when their past relevant work was sedentary. Denying claimants with medically documented end stage liver disease or that have been on dialysis for a year. The judges that have done that, in my experience, have not been former insiders. It's why I shake my head at western's notion that more litigators need to be brought in to improve the quality of the determinations and disability process. Having more experienced litigators or a career law clerks doesn't mean the ODAR ALJ pool is going to be suddenly revolutionized for the better.
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Jun 16, 2013 1:28:09 GMT -5
If you are a people person, find medical science interesting, and have a strong sense of service, it is a very enjoyable and rewarding job. If the claimant feels like they have been given a fair shake and treated with respect, and the end result is a prompt and legally defensible decision, you have done your job. I would say that competence is more valuable than anything else in this job, and that means getting your job done promptly without having to watch the clock, identifying what's important without having to excessively develop the record in and out of the record. Well said! Double ditto! I was set to quote the same language when I read it!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 16, 2013 9:38:52 GMT -5
I have worked with many SAA and AA's and while many may be able to write a defendable decision, some cannot do so consistently. Also, many lack people skills and the ability to connect to claimants one-on-one. Many don't have the demeanor to conduct ALJ hearings. Some are so use to the little world of ODAR, they forget about the real world of dealing with severely disabled claimants. A lot of them are very introverted and lack the confidence to deal with different people on a consistent basis. Many are very capable and many are not. So, insiders working at ODAR don't necessarily have any more ability to be an ALJ, than someone from outside the agency.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 16, 2013 10:35:57 GMT -5
I have worked with many SAA and AA's and while many may be able to write a defendable decision, some cannot do so consistently. Also, many lack people skills and the ability to connect to claimants one-on-one. Many don't have the demeanor to conduct ALJ hearings. Some are so use to the little world of ODAR, they forget about the real world of dealing with severely disabled claimants. A lot of them are very introverted and lack the confidence to deal with different people on a consistent basis. Many are very capable and many are not. So, insiders working at ODAR don't necessarily have any more ability to be an ALJ, than someone from outside the agency. I can't disagree with any of this.
|
|