|
Post by maquereau on Jun 28, 2013 7:36:35 GMT -5
Judge Sullivan's points were well taken. At bottom, her testimony boiled down to one thing; the agency cares almost exclusively about productivity numbers. I've worked in a number of different ODAR offices, and that has been the bottom line in all of them.
|
|
|
Post by factfinder on Jun 28, 2013 8:08:23 GMT -5
Workdrone-
Please do not lump Drew Swank with Daugherty from WVa. Yes, Judge Swank denied many cases others of us would probably have paid and that he arguably should have paid. But, Judge Swank also wrote many scholarly articles about problems with the SSA system (over several years) and risked considerable wrath in so doing. He definitely has a point of view, but he did care. In addition, he did not take 1000 cases (including unassigned cases) per year and pay 99% like Daugherty. Instead, he accomplished the work he was assigned and worked in really good offices with really skilled HOCALs where the operations of the offices were never questioned like they were in West Virginia. About the only real valid complaint about Judge Swank is that he did not use VE's, something almost all of us disagree with him about.
Everyone-
Someone has to be accountable and fix the system. It is important work ODAR judges do and to sit by and watch the system bankrupt itself and corrupt itself to those who live off the misery of the disabled (the large firms to represent many of the disabled in a less than satisfactory fashion) must not be allowed. Maybe Judge Sullivan did not have the best attitude, but boy that idiot HOCALJ who started her off sure poisoned the well and undoubtedly affected her attitude. (Point and I do not know - was it the HOCALJ who did not supervise Duagherty in a competent manner?) Similarly, I find it less than credible that a Judge with so little experience as a judge could become the chief ALJ, even though she may be argued to understand the system. Nor is it acceptable to blame the ALJs like Astrue did, no matter what. Even less acceptable is the perception that the Union protects who are lazy. The Union should not defend the lazy or guys like the abuser in Florida.
All of these judges had a point of view - valid to them. I would not dismiss their point of view. Instead, I would look to see how the system could have failed so badly as to foster their of point of view and sustain Daugherty and his fellow travelers in WVa - where the HOCALJ was a teacher at the new judge course in Falls Church. I think all of us know the system could function much better and Drew Swank has some ideas, if you read them, that all of us could agree with, like closing the record and amending the grid.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Jun 28, 2013 8:26:45 GMT -5
"My agenda, if there is one, is to encourage potential Sullivans not to apply for the SSA ALJ gig"
Worker
The only problem I have with your agenda (and your statement) is that people do not apply for the "SSA ALJ gig." You apply to be put on the ALJ register. I was hoping for a non-SSA offer (and fortunately got one) but would have taken an SSA position for a better chance to move. Remember SSA may be the biggest but there are other agencies, most of whom hire through SSA. Most people that want to be ALJs travel through SSA.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jun 28, 2013 8:40:21 GMT -5
I'm still saying I don't buy Sullivan's testimony. Storys that are that one-sided usuaully are nothing more than just stories. It makes me wonder if the Jocks and Popular Girls in her office were mean to her too...
Sniff, sniff, and then, when I finished my last hearing, sniff, sniff, I went to my locker, and someone put a sign on it saying, "LOW PRODOOZER LOOZER!"
|
|
|
Post by slulawkid on Jun 28, 2013 8:53:18 GMT -5
I see some danger in Hearings putting out the information like yesterday. Also read the AP article. Again and again, these article state that ALJs are approving claims denied by DDS. To me this is a subtle and dangerous statement. "If it has been denied twice why does it need a Hearing?" DDS is handling more claims faster and cheaper. Instead of creating more ALJ positions and staff, it may well do the opposite.
Remember the people making the decisons on how the claims will be processed have no idea what a claim is, what a listing is, what MER is, or can even tell the difference between SSDI and SSI. They will not apply logic, they will apply knee jerk reaction. We may well be living in interesting times.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jun 28, 2013 10:44:23 GMT -5
'The only cases I ever saw with no new evidence were non-repped claimants appearing at "rocket docket" prehearings scheduled within 30 days of the case arriving in the office. Occasionally the claimant indicated the record was complete, didn't want a rep and wanted a decision. I would then do a regular hearing. I think the DDS was right most of the time; the exceptions were usually light RFCs for 50+ folks with unskilled work histories or PRW light work.
As for the purpose of the thread, Judge Hatfield, Judge Snook and the Chicago Law review article are pretty consistent about what is busted. But, like many others, I have no confidence in SSA to adopting meaningful reform. So sad!
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Jun 28, 2013 11:53:54 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. Very interesting discussions here. I, too, found that there was a lot of food for thought in Judge Sullivan's comments. They definitely support the existence of a culture of encouraging a quota system; however, all jobs have production quotas to some degree. The question is whether quality of output suffers for the sake of numbers. She clearly thought it did in her experience. Her desire to decide cases on "complete" evaluations of the records is laudable, but her criticism of the tips for expedited review of records is a little off base. As a seasoned med mal litigator I can support many of the techniques that were criticized by her, such as the use of thumbnails as a quickie "index" to locate pages of the record that will have pivotal information. If you have reviewed hospital records you know that there is a LOT of documentation that will not be relevant to disability determination (e.g., the several-page "patient care plan" nurses are required to complete by JCAHO) that can probably be ignored. If Judge Sullivan meant to say she was reading all such documentation in every case, then I would respectfully suggest she may have been inefficiently reviewing those records. However, I surmise that she was smarter and more efficient than that. So where do you draw the line? One person's efficient review is another's superficial review. Cue Judge Snook's comments: ALJs must be accorded the rights of judges if they are expected to perform the responsibilities of judges. Continuance, sanction, examination of witnesses, etc. are the tools that allow an educated and even-tempered judge to perform his/her role appropriately. Perhaps these concepts are being discussed and taken seriously at SSA, and they are looking for a "new breed" of ALJ--hence the delay we've experienced in this new selection process?
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jun 28, 2013 12:22:26 GMT -5
The fact that most, if not all, industries and agencies use 'numbers' to track progress helps me keep some perspective; educators, social scientists, sales people, manufacturing, artists, religious organizations, entertainers, etc. There are those that must monitor 'numbers' as part of their job description- HOCALJ, principals, pastors, agents. There will always be the exception to the general rule such as mentioned ALJs and HOCALJ - those doing their job ethically - quality and quantity- do not get recognized in most Congressional hearings and meetings. Disability adjudication is another industry that has number monitors and is needed! If people were not interested in 'numbers' the rogue ALJs would still be paying over 85 percent of their cases- or vice versa- yikes! All that to say- I remind myself of this common dilemma that most people deal with this- not just ALJs, decision writers, and senior attorneys- so that i do mot get discouraged!
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jun 28, 2013 17:11:33 GMT -5
Just read Swank's impressive article - at least solution oriented- and I support more CDRs. Maybe a group of new and existing ALJs on a CDR cadre and/or equipping other SSA adjudicators with the ability to deny and approve claims (a group of SSA attorneys had this authority for a limited time - 2006-2008). A select group of new ALJs could do this proficiently - saves money!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 18:25:57 GMT -5
I read somewhere that England is conducting something called "work capability assessments" for almost all of their SSDI and SSI recipients. They are testing thousands a week and have taken many people of their disability roles.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jun 28, 2013 18:38:53 GMT -5
8-)Well, I can tell you from 30 years of experience as an ALJ with OHA as it was known up until the time I retired. Management is not going to listen to any input from the field, and as far as putting experienced ALJs on any panel such as CDRs? They don't want to have anything to do with you. They know it all, and like the government in general, they will do all the thinking for you. You just can't get by without them. Live with it.
|
|
avril503
Full Member
The Stick of Truth
Posts: 66
|
Post by avril503 on Jun 28, 2013 18:39:44 GMT -5
I have read the same or heard it on NPR. Not only England but several other countries review "SSDI" for improvement in health. It was suggested that is needed here and would save a lot of money.
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Jun 28, 2013 18:59:07 GMT -5
The thing that I find most disturbing about some of this testimony, and reported by the AP, that Judges are being pressured to pay cases to reduce the backlog. I have been in two offices as an ALJ and have never once felt pressure to pay a case just to dispose of it, either from the HOCALJ or the RCALJ, and, as far as I know none of the ALJs in those offices have been so pressured. The only pressure we get is to keep cases moving through the system. Any Judge who takes that as a sign that they should pay cases, should think twice. I resent the implication from the testimony and the law suit that I would ever pay a case just to get it closed. I consider every case on its own merits and issue what I think is the appropriate decision.
One of the old mantras that management used to say was Judges were responsible for their dockets. This was even after the loss of support staff specifically assigned to them. While that is no longer said, it is still true today. The second thing I do after I log on in the morning (the first is reading my e-mails), is check the workload listing in CPMS. This gives me an idea of what cases are in statuses that I am responsible for, and that I will try to deal with after I prepare for and hold my hearings for the day. This way I can stay on top of my workload.
I also read Judge Sullivan's testimony. One thing that seemed to be missing from it was concern for the claimant, many of whom have been waiting two years or more to get a decision on their claim since the time they originally filed their application and maybe a year since they requested a hearing. These people are entitled to as speedy a legally defensible decision as we can give them. One of the things she said she had to do to thoroughly adjudicate a case was to research the law. The regulations, rulings and law do not change much in SSA cases, so what research is she talking about? As to understanding the impairments, how many times do you have to have a claimant with a bad back and depression before you have an idea what their symptoms might be? It seems to me that as an SSA ALJ, Judge Sullivan was the proverbial square peg in a round hole and her testimony was somewhat self-serving.
Sorry to go off, but some of this testimony and other statements demeans me and all the other ALJs trying to fairly adjudicate these cases taking into consideration that we must protect both the claimant and the Trust Fund
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Jun 28, 2013 20:30:58 GMT -5
One scholarly ALJ has suggested that the only way to fix the system is for congress to sunset the current disability / SSI claims, and make everyone re-apply anew. This will never happen, because people who are getting benefit checks and their families and friends, have the right to vote, and no matter how much they complain about the status of the trust funds, they want to be re-elected.
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Jun 28, 2013 20:35:13 GMT -5
8-)Management is not going to listen to any input from the field, and as far as putting experienced ALJs on any panel such as CDRs? They don't want to have anything to do with you. They know it all, and like the government in general, they will do all the thinking for you. Amen to that, unfortunately. Bureaucratic hierarchy over reflective management (I'm sure there is a better phrase, but that's all I got right now). It is very frustrating to work under such conditions, but it is the name of the game, and one needs to recognize it or move on to other fields. As some circuit court case I once reviewed said - the largest bureaucracy in the Western Hemisphere! There is a reason the "B" word has the reputation it does.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jun 28, 2013 20:46:31 GMT -5
Nevermind
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 29, 2013 6:11:40 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts and comments by all. I agree with some and disagree with others. Needless to say, it will be hard to find a consensus that everyone can accept as solutions.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 29, 2013 8:04:51 GMT -5
The thing that I find most disturbing about some of this testimony, and reported by the AP, that Judges are being pressured to pay cases to reduce the backlog. I have been in two offices as an ALJ and have never once felt pressure to pay a case just to dispose of it, either from the HOCALJ or the RCALJ, and, as far as I know none of the ALJs in those offices have been so pressured. I AGREE! I hear this over and over on different forums and from those I do not know personally or who are outsiders. Maybe I am lucky enough to work in a great office? or maybe I am not aware of this suggestion since I am not an ALJ? --but like any office, people talk and if this had been any SORT of a hint, we would ALL know about it. With that said, once claims are decided and sent for writing, then there is a push to get them out so the claimants can get their long awaited benefits. One of the things she said she had to do to thoroughly adjudicate a case was to research the law. The regulations, rulings and law do not change much in SSA cases, so what research is she talking about? As to understanding the impairments, how many times do you have to have a claimant with a bad back and depression before you have an idea what their symptoms might be? It seems to me that as an SSA ALJ, Judge Sullivan was the proverbial square peg in a round hole and her testimony was somewhat self-serving. Again totally agree! The only areas I have had to research as a senior attorney have been the unusual very specific non-disability issues like parentage, SSI Eligibility For Cuban/Haitian Entrants, or the appealability of specific issues like misuse of funds. Otherwise, um... no research.
Sorry to go off, but some of this testimony and other statements demeans me and all the other ALJs trying to fairly adjudicate these cases Thank you philliesfan!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 29, 2013 8:11:55 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts and comments by all. I agree with some and disagree with others. Needless to say, it will be hard to find a consensus that everyone can accept as solutions. Amen moopigsdad! The views are very different from outsider to insider, but then even within each of those groups, no one can agree. The ALJ testimony is a good example. Yes, there are things that can be improved, absolutely. But when a system as large as this is trying to sort through hundreds of thousands of applicants and manage all of those cases, there will be issues. We will always have issues with some ALJs and staff, from management to the case techs. Minimizing the problems is the goal, but with any work anywhere (not just SSA), there will always be those individuals on the two ends of the bell curve--how we deal with those individuals is the key.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jun 29, 2013 9:10:14 GMT -5
I am not really sure that the comments of an ex-SSA ALJ can really be as self-serving as the comments of current SSA ALJs. After all, she does not have a current practice to defend, whereas those of us currently doing the job do have our own practices to defend. In fact, it is likely that the majority of the ALJ comments on this board ARE self-serving. We all think our own judicial practices are proper. We want others to think so also. Regarding specific testimony about the unrelenting production pressures experienced in the course of her brief SSA career, I am unwilling to call her a liar; I suppose others may feel better positioned to do so.
|
|