Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 16:32:19 GMT -5
Thank you for posting. I read the statements of the ALJs who testified. I know they present one side of the story but boy were they depressing, especially the statement from Judge Thomas Snook.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 27, 2013 17:16:35 GMT -5
I think the statement by Judge Snook covered the range of issues that plague our current system, from last minute submission of evidence to staffing issues. Quite a good synopsis but will it go anywhere? I am not sure. Between the proposed overhaul and newsworthy problems with other systems (immigration & IRS), I don't think we will see anything change anytime soon with SSA.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jun 27, 2013 17:33:17 GMT -5
I have long advocated distinguishing law from policy- obviously Sklar doesn't know the difference. ALJs apply the law (SS Act and Regs), look to POMs for the Commish's interpretation of the regs, and decide the case. The AC IS THE COMMISH'S POLICY WONK- NOT the ALJ. I knows some may reasonably differ but if the Commish wants his/her policy to have the force of law there is a rule-making process to follow. One of these days someone is going to remind and I hope challenge the distinction between the constant joining the precedent of law and policy.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jun 27, 2013 18:07:48 GMT -5
8-)Decade, after browsing over the statements of the ALJs, I think it is so intertwined, there is no way to separate them. It will continue to get worse, and probably implode sometimes in the future. Nothing new, benn going on for years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 18:08:09 GMT -5
Judge Sullivan's statement was also brutal giving a blow by blow account of her time int he agency. She states she called the HOCALJ at West Virginia to introduce herself and was immediately told that he regretted her hiring to the office because she did not have agency experience and would not be able to hit the ground running and "make numbers", It was also dismaying to see her comments about mentoring of the ALJs as being non existent or the tricks being taught including processing cases that were not developed, paying cases on the record, not reading evidence, using egg timers to limit the review of the record.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 27, 2013 19:20:34 GMT -5
wow, this sounds interesting. I will have to look this over
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 19:49:33 GMT -5
wow, this sounds interesting. I will have to look this over Highly recommended Christina. Like the new hairstyle
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 27, 2013 19:56:42 GMT -5
thanks. it's my B52 look
|
|
1234
Full Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by 1234 on Jun 27, 2013 20:02:09 GMT -5
Wow. Tough reading for someone who is obsessively checking this blog to see if I am in the "cut" group or not.
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jun 27, 2013 20:18:35 GMT -5
Great news that there are eight hearing offices that are on the horizon that will maintain ODAR progress. Implementing electronic systems and increasing well-trained human resources/ALJs sounds like success - very encouraging- thanks for the info!
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 27, 2013 20:25:10 GMT -5
Here's something to remember about anyone testifying under oath during these hearings; they're doing the same thing as our claimants and experts, with their own agendas, prejudices, and desires. Sklar obviously has the advantage here, with all of the Agency's statistical resources at his fingertips, particularly the ones that support his testimony. On the other hand, Judge Sullivan's story sounds like the claimant alleging 10 out of 10 pain, and needs a walker, but without any supporting objective medical evidence of record. I suppose its possible that things went the way Judge Sullivan described, but it sure sounds like the alleged HOCALJ came straight out of AALJ central casting...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 20:35:25 GMT -5
Here's something to remember about anyone testifying under oath during these hearings; they're doing the same thing as our claimants and experts, with their own agendas, prejudices, and desires. Sklar obviously has the advantage here, with all of the Agency's statistical resources at his fingertips, particularly the ones that support his testimony. On the other hand, Judge Sullivan's story sounds like the claimant alleging 10 out of 10 pain, and needs a walker, but without any supporting objective medical evidence of record. I suppose its possible that things went the way Judge Sullivan described, but it sure sounds like the alleged HOCALJ came straight out of AALJ central casting... If you go to the last link it has a listing of exhibits that coincide with Judge Sullivan's testimony. Her resume indicates that she has bee a jurist for many years and had significant experience as did the other judges who presented or testified. She stated that she got a hard time when she went back to the west coast too. In the end she appears to parlay her credentials to leave SSA and move to DOT
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jun 27, 2013 21:56:38 GMT -5
In the end she appears to parlay her credentials to leave SSA and move to DOT Probably the best decision Sullivan made for both herself and SSA. From what I have read, she and Social Security Disability just were not a good fit. So it's good that she went to a different area of the law that's better suited for her style and temperament. Same goes with Swank, who seemed to think his first duty was to protect the Trust Fund vice fairly deciding the cases before him. While at SSA, Swank was basically the reverse of Daugherty in Huntington, WV. Where as Daugherty paid almost everyone, Swank denied almost everyone. So it's good that both of them are gone now, as they really made a mockery of the system. Lastly, if you read what Sullivan wrote and bought it hook, line, and sinker, please stop applying now, delete your forum account, and go back to life as usual. Being a SSA ALJ is a fine career only if you take the time to learn the system and appreciate its strength and weaknesses. If you walk into the job with Sullivan's attitude and style, you'll hate life and make everyone else around you miserable as well.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 27, 2013 22:18:29 GMT -5
I'm sure Judge Sullivan is doing well at DOT, since it sounds like something more in line with her experience. On the other hand, despite all of her experience as a wise and impartial jurist, she just couldn't find herself at fault in any part of her brief, yet unsuccessful tour at ODAR. IT WAS ALL THEIR FAULT! The ego factor also kicked in where she was reduced to the lowly existence of a football player because, (gulp!) people just referred to her by her last name! Bless her heart, someone called Judge Sullivan "Sullivan," as in "how many did Sullivan sign?" Then we have the arrogance. Apparently, ODAR offices don't understand "poverty cluster issues!" She started off in West By God Virginia and had the nerve to suggest that the people in her office didn't understand how poverty issues affect the program! If you ever wonder why some of the "insider" types like myself get so riled up sometimes, Sullivan's comments are very instructive. Like many of the claimants, I'm sure some of what she related had some truth to it, but...
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 27, 2013 22:20:04 GMT -5
Forget what I said and just listen to Workdrone!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 22:36:55 GMT -5
In the end she appears to parlay her credentials to leave SSA and move to DOT Probably the best decision she made for both herself and SSA. From what I have read, she and Social Security Disability just were not a good fit. So it's good that she went to a different area of the law that's better suited for her style and temperament. Same goes with Swank, who seemed to think his first duty was to protect the Trust Fund vice fairly deciding the cases before him. While at SSA, Swank was basically the reverse of Daugherty in Huntington, WV. Where as Daugherty paid almost everyone, Swank denied almost everyone. So it's good that both of them are gone now, as they really made a mockery of the system. Lastly, if you read what Sullivan wrote and bought it hook, line, and sinker, please stop applying now, delete your forum account, and go back to life as usual. Being a SSA ALJ is a fine career only if you take the time to learn the system and appreciate its strength and weaknesses. If you walk into the job with Sullivan's attitude and style, you'll hate life and make everyone else around you miserable as well. It would have added great value to have another alj like yourself present the other side of the story regarding how it is possible to achieve the productivity goals set by management and how you deal with the issues related to staff you do not super ise but need to rely upon to meet goals. The other judges that testified were long term aljs with one being the former chief trial judge in the coast guard whose position was that he was a judge in title only because he cannot sanction reps that clearly abuse the system. All we got to see was one side of the story from what you seem to infer were folks with agendas
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jun 27, 2013 23:22:42 GMT -5
The other judges that testified were long term aljs with one being the former chief trial judge in the coast guard whose position was that he was a judge in title only because he cannot sanction reps that clearly abuse the system. All we got to see was one side of the story from what you seem to infer were folks with agendas I'm not inferring. I wasn't blunt enough for you? Sullivan was not a long term SSA ALJ. She got hired in '08, barely got her training wheels off when she went into AALJ union work, and largely stopped adjudicating cases after that. Go check her stats yourself. If you want someone who's truly experienced and well-reasoned, go look up Judge (Retired) Hatfield's testimony about how to improve the system from last year or so. As for the ability to sanction reps, it's overrated. My job is to decide cases, not to get into a pissing match with the reps. When you start getting into personality contests instead of focusing on adjudication, that's when you lose focus and become inefficient. Everyone has an agenda, including the Subcommittee. After all, they are the ones who selected those specific ALJs to testify. My agenda, if there is one, is to encourage potential Sullivans not to apply for the SSA ALJ gig because it's a drag working around people like that. They have the unfortunately ability to poison the atmosphere of their offices and make it a depressing place. As my Hearing Office has an empty ALJ office right now, God forbid if someone likes her end up down my hall.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 28, 2013 4:53:46 GMT -5
I found judge Sullivan's comments interesting and although I did not read them in depth, she supported where she was coming from. Did she have detailed data? Maybe not but I thought she explained her arguments well. Candidly, I found a lot of the info on this link a good read and plan to look it over again when my brain is not fried. I previously read Judge David Hatfield's comments and found them informative. Judge Hatfield was with the agency forever, and while in it, he was committed to making good changes from within. I agree that reading his testimony would be beneficial for prospective ALJs. if someone and I may be that someone, IF I can find his testimony, could post the link to his testimony, I think that would be very helpful to all on here. My memory is he testified about 2 months ago. My impression is that Judge Hatfield spoke more freely as a retiree than he would have considered appropriate while working as an ALJ. I noticed and only skimmed what Thomas Sutton had to say. Although I for one did not find his testimony that informative, he has been a long time representative before SSA and has ample first hand knowledge from a representative perspective about SSA.
|
|
|
Post by paddlingon on Jun 28, 2013 6:38:14 GMT -5
I have long advocated distinguishing law from policy- obviously Sklar doesn't know the difference. ALJs apply the law (SS Act and Regs), look to POMs for the Commish's interpretation of the regs, and decide the case. The AC IS THE COMMISH'S POLICY WONK- NOT the ALJ. I knows some may reasonably differ but if the Commish wants his/her policy to have the force of law there is a rule-making process to follow. One of these days someone is going to remind and I hope challenge the distinction between the constant joining the precedent of law and policy. i agree with the point you're advocating. One of the most enduring errors involving executive branch agencies is the failure to recognize this difference. In hearings, it is just as often the party before the agency that doesn't realize that difference. There is no doubt whatsoever that they have the power (through promulgation of regs and carrying out of policy), but often a party seeks to have the adjudicator to play a role in policy enforcement or creation. Although administrative hearing decisions can create a body of law that interprets and fills in policy, they do not function as part of the decision-making authority about what those policies must be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 7:30:16 GMT -5
The other judges that testified were long term aljs with one being the former chief trial judge in the coast guard whose position was that he was a judge in title only because he cannot sanction reps that clearly abuse the system. All we got to see was one side of the story from what you seem to infer were folks with agendas I'm not inferring. I wasn't blunt enough for you? Sullivan was not a long term SSA ALJ. She got hired in '08, barely got her training wheels off when she went into AALJ union work, and largely stopped adjudicating cases after that. Go check her stats yourself. If you want someone who's truly experienced and well-reasoned, go look up Judge (Retired) Hatfield's testimony about how to improve the system from last year or so. As for the ability to sanction reps, it's overrated. My job is to decide cases, not to get into a pissing match with the reps. When you start getting into personality contests instead of focusing on adjudication, that's when you lose focus and become inefficient. Everyone has an agenda, including the Subcommittee. After all, they are the ones who selected those specific ALJs to testify. My agenda, if there is one, is to encourage potential Sullivans not to apply for the SSA ALJ gig because it's a drag working around people like that. They have the unfortunately ability to poison the atmosphere of their offices and make it a depressing place. As my Hearing Office has an empty ALJ office right now, God forbid if someone likes her end up down my hall. Drone, Point taken. I worked for the agency as a DW for a couple of years. All of the ALJs I worked for had been there for a while and I did not get to see how the new ALJs were initiated into the system. And they all did a decent job at working hard to make the productitivity goals. Having said that I know darn well how important productivity and making goals are to each and every ODAR office. Folks seeking to become an ALJ at SSA need to be fully aware that the job is a production based job. You are not paid to sit around contemplating legal nuances and talking to fellow ALJs on interpretation of the law. You are also not running a trial court. I get all that and if I were to make the register get a job offer and accept the job I would know that I would be expected to have minimum mentoring and start deciding cases given my past experience with the agency. But I certaintly would hope that the HOCALJ would welcome me, tell me his expectation, offer encouragement and help and not greet me by telling me how disappointed he is that I am being assigned to his/her office and then not really offer any support to help me make the goals--that is the perfect recipe for creating an ALJ like Sullivan. In other words, I hope to be given a chance to sink or swim and if I sink then you can start putting the screws to me.
|
|