|
Post by lurker/dibs on Aug 7, 2013 18:04:11 GMT -5
Honestly, my primary concern is smoke breaks. If we can't leave in between testing, can we not smoke?? That really is a big deal to those who smoke....Not that I can't force myself to do without. But, I usually smoke during my lunch break, even if I spend all day in court. I will be terrible during the afternoon if I haven't had a cigarette since 7:30 that morning.
|
|
|
Post by mom, esq on Aug 7, 2013 18:58:57 GMT -5
Honestly, my primary concern is smoke breaks. If we can't leave in between testing, can we not smoke?? That really is a big deal to those who smoke....Not that I can't force myself to do without. But, I usually smoke during my lunch break, even if I spend all day in court. I will be terrible during the afternoon if I haven't had a cigarette since 7:30 that morning. My problem exactly, Lurker. Damn addiction!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 19:01:57 GMT -5
Honestly, my primary concern is smoke breaks. If we can't leave in between testing, can we not smoke?? That really is a big deal to those who smoke....Not that I can't force myself to do without. But, I usually smoke during my lunch break, even if I spend all day in court. I will be terrible during the afternoon if I haven't had a cigarette since 7:30 that morning. Bring Nicotine Gum. There are no provisions for smoke breaks. You travel in the building as a group.
|
|
|
Post by usnrcwo on Aug 7, 2013 19:08:15 GMT -5
Honestly, my primary concern is smoke breaks. If we can't leave in between testing, can we not smoke?? That really is a big deal to those who smoke....Not that I can't force myself to do without. But, I usually smoke during my lunch break, even if I spend all day in court. I will be terrible during the afternoon if I haven't had a cigarette since 7:30 that morning. Bring Nicotine Gum. There are no provisions for smoke breaks. You travel in the building as a group. Do we hold hands or do they tie us together with string?
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Aug 7, 2013 20:07:28 GMT -5
I don't know of any ALJs that smoke and I know a bunch of ALJs. No smoking inside federal buildings, no smoking outside federal buildings within a certain distance and a lot of our claimants have impairments caused by smoking. Some ALJs admonish claimants for smoking. Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Aug 7, 2013 20:39:49 GMT -5
I know several ALJs who smoke. I go all day without smoking if I am in the middle of a trial, deposition, etc. And I represent SS claimants daily. But I'm still a smoker. Not a chain smoker, but a smoker nonetheless. I've had jobs where smoking was prohibited and they never knew I was a smoker. However, the first thing I do when I go anywhere is look for the smoking section. It will def suck to not get an opportunity to smoke during test day. But I'll live. Maybe nicotine gum might be worth a try....
|
|
|
Post by minny on Aug 7, 2013 21:12:33 GMT -5
I have to say that I'm glad I laid them down several years ago. I still remember jonsing during trials and such. One less anxiety on a stress-filled day. I do feel for those of you who smoke though.
|
|
|
Post by crab on Aug 8, 2013 6:06:22 GMT -5
Good luck Buffalogal! Sorry to the smokers. Definitely not a fan of the smoke but absolutely understand that it'll be a hard day for you without the nicotine bump. I hope the gum work for yous! ps: know of many smoking judges ... they started as lawyers after all ...
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Aug 8, 2013 6:30:48 GMT -5
True that! Lawyers are known for being shady types
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 8, 2013 9:14:36 GMT -5
I have to admit that I am still a smoker too, but never smoke during the work day - too much of a pain to go outside during lunch, etc. I was fantasing that during the lunch break next week at OPM I could go have a few long drags on a cig. But here's a question I want answered please: I thought you could get up and leave Room 1350 to go to the head. Is that also a group activity? I am happy to have lunch with everybody, walk around the building with everybody, but group bathroom breaks? Really?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 8, 2013 9:32:51 GMT -5
I do understand bartleby's comment about smoking. If an ALJ has to admonish a client about smoking and the deleterious effects upon one's health, it doesn't seem to sit that well if that ALJ happens to be a smoker.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Aug 8, 2013 10:38:48 GMT -5
Well, Cocaine, meth, alcohol, and heroin are all addictions and we don't pay those.. Some Judges are hopeful that a claimant seeing someone in a robe strongly suggesting they stop before they die may think about it. Smoking is also one of the credibility issues. Claimant alleges no smoking, record shows 1-2 packs a day times 20 years.. It seems strange to give someone $250,000 to $400,000 worth of benefits for a self caused condition. We don't pay Title II benefits to people injured in commiting felonies. Some Judges still think of themselves as counselors. When you have the suicidal claimant in front of you are you going to remind them that they have things ro live for, children, wifes, etc, and that this could be the first day of the rest of their life? The Commissioner will remind those of you that are hired that you are now leaders in society and you should set examples for the claimants and your local neighbors..
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 8, 2013 10:48:36 GMT -5
I have to admit that I am still a smoker too, but never smoke during the work day - too much of a pain to go outside during lunch, etc. I was fantasing that during the lunch break next week at OPM I could go have a few long drags on a cig. But here's a question I want answered please: I thought you could get up and leave Room 1350 to go to the head. Is that also a group activity? I am happy to have lunch with everybody, walk around the building with everybody, but group bathroom breaks? Really? Last time around, bathroom breaks during the testing was not a group activity... you just got up and left. I don't recall the pointing out the restrooms to the group and giving them a "last chance" to use the facilities.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 8, 2013 10:52:22 GMT -5
I do understand bartleby's comment about smoking. If an ALJ has to admonish a client about smoking and the deleterious effects upon one's health, it doesn't seem to sit that well if that ALJ happens to be a smoker. I'm pretty sure that people who are still smoking have tried unsuccessfullly to quit. It is an addiction. I'm not sure why a judge should be scolding someone about smoking or anything else. I do not see that as part of the job. Aljhopeful2 you are trying to gain the wrong position if you feel it is not part of the job to determine if one is smoking, drinking or using non-prescribed drugs. The regulations require you to make findings about whether a claimant is following a doctor's prescribed advice about stopping smoking, drinking alcohol, using non-prescribed drugs, etc. Your job as ALJ is to let the claimant know why he/she didn't receive benefits for his/her disability claim. Were you just going to keep it a secret from the claimant as to why you denied him/her? You don't have to scold them, but you have to state your reasons for denial.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 8, 2013 11:03:13 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that people who are still smoking have tried unsuccessfullly to quit. It is an addiction. I'm not sure why a judge should be scolding someone about smoking or anything else. I do not see that as part of the job. Aljhopeful2 you are trying to gain the wrong position if you feel it is not part of the job to determine if one is smoking, drinking or using non-prescribed drugs. The regulations require you to make findings about whether a claimant is following a doctor's prescribed advice about stopping smoking, drinking alcohol, using non-prescribed drugs, etc. Your job as ALJ is to let the claimant know why he/she didn't receive benefits for his/her disability claim. Were you just going to keep it a secret from the claimant as to why you denied him/her? You don't have to scold them, but you have to state your reasons for denial. I think her point was that it's not your job to lecture a claimant on the evils of smoking, eating McDonalds thrice daily, or not taking their medications as prescribed. There's no doubt you take those factors into account when you make your determination, but there's no need to admonish a claimant for their behavior. You can certainly ask them about their behavior, how they can afford a $200 per month smoking habit when they allege they can't afford their medications, etc., but I don't see the need for a big "Smoking's bad, mmmkay?"
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Aug 8, 2013 11:12:36 GMT -5
Maybe some of us take our job too seriously and actually care about our claimants. Awarding benefits is only part of the job, suggesting that someone alter their life style to enjoy those benefits may be a discretionary part, but a lot of us do care, even if we didn't intend to in the beginning. You may even find some of us working soup kitchens on the weekends or leading Church work groups to build wheelchair ramps or go on missions to third world countries. Are you just an ATM or is there a brain and soul in that carcass?? Your choice.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 8, 2013 11:12:42 GMT -5
Aljhopeful2 you are trying to gain the wrong position if you feel it is not part of the job to determine if one is smoking, drinking or using non-prescribed drugs. The regulations require you to make findings about whether a claimant is following a doctor's prescribed advice about stopping smoking, drinking alcohol, using non-prescribed drugs, etc. Your job as ALJ is to let the claimant know why he/she didn't receive benefits for his/her disability claim. Were you just going to keep it a secret from the claimant as to why you denied him/her? You don't have to scold them, but you have to state your reasons for denial. I think her point was that it's not your job to lecture a claimant on the evils of smoking, eating McDonalds thrice daily, or not taking their medications as prescribed. There's no doubt you take those factors into account when you make your determination, but there's no need to admonish a claimant for their behavior. You can certainly ask them about their behavior, how they can afford a $200 per month smoking habit when they allege they can't afford their medications, etc., but I don't see the need for a big "Smoking's bad, mmmkay?" I have seen it said hundreds of times to my claimants from many different ALJs over the years. I didn't say it was right to do, but I have seen ALJs do it all the time. It certainly made my job easier to explain to the claimant why he or she lost his or her disability claim. I tell them upfront about how SSA and ALJs view those bad habits and how it effects their ability to acquire disability benefits. How can I make the argument with a straight face to an ALJ that a claimant's chain smoking habits don't affect their emphysema or COPD issues for which we are claiming a disability, especially when their doctors have stated it does affect them?
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Aug 8, 2013 11:21:39 GMT -5
I always give the lecture to my clients. I tell them that I'm a smoker and understand the addiction. But how can they afford to smoke and not buy their meds? Then I point out that cutting Back just a few cigs per day would allow them to buy the $4 script from Walmart. That is the situation I scold them on. If they are getting their meds and it's a back or mental impairment that smoking doesn't effect, then I don't care if they smoke. That's their choice. I really do try to understand the individual plight of all of my clients. I has one client tell me he quit crack and it was easier to quit than smoking.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 8, 2013 11:23:51 GMT -5
The thing that everyone needs to remember here is that "causation" is NOT an issue in SSA law like it is in med mal or others. Here, it is the resultant limitations imposed by the various impairments without the judgement. The two issues of (1) not following prescribed treatment and (2) drugs and/or alcohol abuse have their distinct and very exact rulings to follow on each. In the case of drugs and/or alcohol it is basically whether the individual would still be disabled absent drugs and/or alcohol. It does NOT matter whether drugs and/or alcohol "caused" their conditions (hepatitis, liver failure etc.). Following prescribed treatment can be used as a credibility factor as can illegal drug use, but this is different than "causation" and different than what needs to be done to determine the DAA issues. These intricate issues are often confused by writers and ALJs. I do not think admonishing anyone about their behavior is appropriate in any forum. It does nothing to change the individual and all it will do is make the recipient defensive....heck, look at the responses on this board! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 8, 2013 11:31:33 GMT -5
Maybe some of us take our job too seriously and actually care about our claimants. Awarding benefits is only part of the job, suggesting that someone alter their life style to enjoy those benefits may be a discretionary part, but a lot of us do care, even if we didn't intend to in the beginning. You may even find some of us working soup kitchens on the weekends or leading Church work groups to build wheelchair ramps or go on missions to third world countries. Are you just an ATM or is there a brain and soul in that carcass?? Your choice. LIKE!
|
|