|
Post by mr406bfee on Sept 19, 2013 15:38:48 GMT -5
I would like to thank all those who participate on the message board. I am an outsider with a significant Social Security practice that concentrates in Federal Court appeals. I am finished with phase 3 and I generally agree with all ther comments about the experience. I feel I have a good idea of what being an ALJ requires and it is certainly stressfull at times. I check the AALJ Union website on occasion and the September newsletter is interesting this month with a published letter of a current ALJ responding to pressure to produce. Thought it was something I could add as a newbie on the board. Good luck to everybody still in the game. www.aalj.org/system/files/documents/aalj_newsletter____september_9_20131.pdf
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 19, 2013 16:30:24 GMT -5
I would like to thank all those who participate on the message board. I am an outsider with a significant Social Security practice that concentrates in Federal Court appeals. I am finished with phase 3 and I generally agree with all ther comments about the experience. I feel I have a good idea of what being an ALJ requires and it is certainly stressfull at times. I check the AALJ Union website on occasion and the September newsletter is interesting this month with a published letter of a current ALJ responding to pressure to produce. Thought it was something I could add as a newbie on the board. Good luck to everybody still in the game. www.aalj.org/system/files/documents/aalj_newsletter____september_9_20131.pdfThank you and welcome to the Board. I look forward to more of your posts. I am an "outsider" too.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Sept 19, 2013 18:12:02 GMT -5
I would like to thank all those who participate on the message board. I am an outsider with a significant Social Security practice that concentrates in Federal Court appeals. I am finished with phase 3 and I generally agree with all ther comments about the experience. I feel I have a good idea of what being an ALJ requires and it is certainly stressfull at times. I check the AALJ Union website on occasion and the September newsletter is interesting this month with a published letter of a current ALJ responding to pressure to produce. Thought it was something I could add as a newbie on the board. Good luck to everybody still in the game. www.aalj.org/system/files/documents/aalj_newsletter____september_9_20131.pdfWelcome to Thunderdome 406. Nice opening show and tell, much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by litig8tor on Sept 19, 2013 19:01:53 GMT -5
Hi: I am a new member of this board, but have been following it for awhile. I have significant, non-SSA administrative experience, as well as 20+ years of responsible federal and bankruptcy court litigation experience. I have made it to the DC round on the current testing cycle. I completed the Phase I process without first acquainting myself with your site. I've since gotten quite an education. Here's my question: Should I somehow manage to achieve a good overall score after my DC visit next week, is there any real chance at all that, without any SSA background, I would be seriously considered for an ALJ position in Northern California?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 19, 2013 20:19:12 GMT -5
Hi: I am a new member of this board, but have been following it for awhile. I have significant, non-SSA administrative experience, as well as 20+ years of responsible federal and bankruptcy court litigation experience. I have made it to the DC round on the current testing cycle. I completed the Phase I process without first acquainting myself with your site. I've since gotten quite an education. Here's my question: Should I somehow manage to achieve a good overall score after my DC visit next week, is there any real chance at all that, without any SSA background, I would be seriously considered for an ALJ position in Northern California? It depends upon how high you score, whether you get on a cert, give great references who don't sabotage you and do well on the SSA interview. If you limited your GAL your chances are much less likely unless you score high. The greater your GAL the better your chances at a position. Good luck next week and welcome to the Board.
|
|
|
Post by mr406bfee on Sept 19, 2013 20:35:37 GMT -5
Thunderdome... Good one Funky. It does feel a bit like we are "Busted up, and everyone talking about hard rain!"
G8tor, I do not think SSA experience is necessary. I agree with moopigsdad, it is more about your score and location preferences x how the SSA interview goes plus luck and any vet preferences.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Sept 19, 2013 20:40:34 GMT -5
Hi: I am a new member of this board, but have been following it for awhile. I have significant, non-SSA administrative experience, as well as 20+ years of responsible federal and bankruptcy court litigation experience. I have made it to the DC round on the current testing cycle. I completed the Phase I process without first acquainting myself with your site. I've since gotten quite an education. Here's my question: Should I somehow manage to achieve a good overall score after my DC visit next week, is there any real chance at all that, without any SSA background, I would be seriously considered for an ALJ position in Northern California? It depends upon how high you score, whether you get on a cert, give great references who don't sabotage you and do well on the SSA interview. If you limited your GAL your chances are much less likely unless you score high. The greater your GAL the better your chances at a position. Good luck next week and welcome to the Board. Everything mpd said is dead on accurate truth. Here is some more: Your question (what's the chances of landing a alj gig in nocal) seems to imply you limited your gal to that area. I don't know any agency other than ssa with aljs stationed there. If there are such positions, you would need it to be with an agency that actually hires from the register. Then you would need to be in the very top of the scorers that have nocal in their gal. Then you would have to hope that the particular agency didn't already have some former insider they planned to hire. All this equates to slim to no chance. As for ssa, I wouldn't be concerned at all about your lack of insider status. Especially in this register that appears will be insider light compared to past lists. The bigger issue is if you limited your gal to nocal. SSA almost always fills any open positions with transfer requests from existing aljs before turning to hiring from the register. The result is the most popular offices rarely have positions to be filled by register hiring. Nocal in generaI appears very very popular. There is a good thread on popular locations and the number of people requesting transfers there. Its unscientific but a good indicator of whether any particular office will have a likely opening. If the exact city you are interested in hasn't been discussed, just ask. McB and others have graciously been providing that info to requestors. I won't say you should give up, hell people win the lottery every week. But, while none of us can count on getting a gig, someone who has limited their gal to only a very popular location has even less chance of hitting for the win.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Sept 19, 2013 22:49:36 GMT -5
I check the AALJ Union website on occasion and the September newsletter is interesting this month with a published letter of a current ALJ responding to pressure to produce. I have to say the ALJ who wrote the letter lost all credibility with me as soon as he said "The advent of electronic files has made the case review process significantly more time consuming." I have handled both electronic and paper files extensively, and it's SO much easier reviewing cases with large records on a computer than on paper. I still remember this one time that I got paper file with about 1500+ pages of records in 3 folders. The thickness of the files made it very difficult to read the exhibits and I had to break the file open to review the documents. Then put everything back together eventually. Carrying the files to the hearing room and back was a serious drag as well. Then part of the file got misplaced when a case tech took it for updating, and we had to send out multiple e-mails around the office to locate it. Finally, to add insult onto injury, after this massive paper file was appealed to the AC, it got remanded because the Hearing CD somehow got lost along the way. None of these issues would have happened if the file was electronic. There are many things that are wrong with the system, but electronic files isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 20, 2013 6:50:23 GMT -5
I check the AALJ Union website on occasion and the September newsletter is interesting this month with a published letter of a current ALJ responding to pressure to produce. I have to say the ALJ who wrote the letter lost all credibility with me as soon as he said "The advent of electronic files has made the case review process significantly more time consuming." I have handled both electronic and paper files extensively, and it's SO much easier reviewing cases with large records on a computer than on paper. I still remember this one time that I got paper file with about 1500+ pages of records in 3 folders. The thickness of the files made it very difficult to read the exhibits and I had to break the file open to review the documents. Then put everything back together eventually. Carrying the files to the hearing room and back was a serious drag as well. Then part of the file got misplaced when a case tech took it for updating, and we had to send out multiple e-mails around the office to locate it. Finally, to add insult onto injury, after this massive paper file was appealed to the AC, it got remanded because the Hearing CD somehow got lost along the way. None of these issues would have happened if the file was electronic. There are many things that are wrong with the system, but electronic files isn't one of them. Same as my thoughts orly. I thought the writer was someone who hated technology and having to use it. Some of the points made were good, but the blame of the electronic file caused me to tune out a lot of the remaining message of the writer.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Sept 20, 2013 6:54:14 GMT -5
I agree that ceteris paribus [sorry about the Latin phrase, but I do not get much of a chance to be pretentious, and I enjoy it greatly], electronic files are easier, indeed much easier, to review than paper files. However, I do not think other things are indeed equal. I think the real point being made by the ALJ [and I read the statement a while ago and did not reread before posting this] is that OHA/ODAR used to have a real process of 'pulling' paper files, during which, e.g., duplicates were eliminated and material within exhibits was put in [usually reverse chronological] order, or at least a serious and to a considerable extent successful attempt was made to do these things. Now, material just goes into the electronic file in whatever order and with whatever amount of duplication there may be, and 'pulling' basically amounts to putting an exhibit number on it; although I think that maybe the agency would claim that cases are still 'pulled' in somewhat the way they used to be [and I'm not sure that even agency management would claim this], this is absolutely not true. Many treating sources and representatives routinely submit the same material repeatedly.
Another related issue is that now that hospitals and other treating sources have computerized their records, they have become entirely indifferent to how lengthy the records become [when records were on paper, there were some costs associated with storing the paper and with generating copies of the records when necessary; now on computers it makes no difference whether the record when printed out would be, e.g., 500 or 900 pages]. Also, perhaps because of reimbursement issues, everything [and I mean everything] is documented, sometimes several times. The result of all this, I believe, is that electronic files tend to be much more voluminous than paper files used to be. The increased volume and the chaotic nature of the material contained in them is what makes them in practice harder to review than paper files used to be.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 20, 2013 8:35:45 GMT -5
I have to say the ALJ who wrote the letter lost all credibility with me as soon as he said "The advent of electronic files has made the case review process significantly more time consuming." I have handled both electronic and paper files extensively, and it's SO much easier reviewing cases with large records on a computer than on paper. I still remember this one time that I got paper file with about 1500+ pages of records in 3 folders. The thickness of the files made it very difficult to read the exhibits and I had to break the file open to review the documents. Then put everything back together eventually. Carrying the files to the hearing room and back was a serious drag as well. Then part of the file got misplaced when a case tech took it for updating, and we had to send out multiple e-mails around the office to locate it. Finally, to add insult onto injury, after this massive paper file was appealed to the AC, it got remanded because the Hearing CD somehow got lost along the way. None of these issues would have happened if the file was electronic. There are many things that are wrong with the system, but electronic files isn't one of them. Same as my thoughts orly. I thought the writer was someone who hated technology and having to use it. Some of the points made were good, but the blame of the electronic file caused me to tune out a lot of the remaining message of the writer. Definitely stay off that guy's lawn. And I agree that he makes some decent points. Writing quality would be a big concern of mine, especially after working on remanded cases.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 20, 2013 8:59:47 GMT -5
I agree that ceteris paribus [sorry about the Latin phrase, but I do not get much of a chance to be pretentious, and I enjoy it greatly], electronic files are easier, indeed much easier, to review than paper files. However, I do not think other things are indeed equal. I think the real point being made by the ALJ [and I read the statement a while ago and did not reread before posting this] is that OHA/ODAR used to have a real process of 'pulling' paper files, during which, e.g., duplicates were eliminated and material within exhibits was put in [usually reverse chronological] order, or at least a serious and to a considerable extent successful attempt was made to do these things. Now, material just goes into the electronic file in whatever order and with whatever amount of duplication there may be, and 'pulling' basically amounts to putting an exhibit number on it; although I think that maybe the agency would claim that cases are still 'pulled' in somewhat the way they used to be [and I'm not sure that even agency management would claim this], this is absolutely not true. Many treating sources and representatives routinely submit the same material repeatedly. Another related issue is that now that hospitals and other treating sources have computerized their records, they have become entirely indifferent to how lengthy the records become [when records were on paper, there were some costs associated with storing the paper and with generating copies of the records when necessary; now on computers it makes no difference whether the record when printed out would be, e.g., 500 or 900 pages]. Also, perhaps because of reimbursement issues, everything [and I mean everything] is documented, sometimes several times. The result of all this, I believe, is that electronic files tend to be much more voluminous than paper files used to be. The increased volume and the chaotic nature of the material contained in them is what makes them in practice harder to review than paper files used to be. I will say that it sounds like the "pull" could be improved greatly and the adequacy of the draft opinions is a sore spot. Others have pointed out how some writers do a poor job. I will say on the issue of electronic medical records they are invaluable. While they be more voluminous they are much better records generally. I spent a good part of my career prosecuting health care licensees before professional boards and I can tell you after reviewing thousands and thousands of records that: 1. Dr.'s handwriting is as advertised 2. photocopying, etc. degrades the readability 3. electronic records usually require that certain fields be filled in and you can get a better picture of the patient from one visit to the next.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Sept 20, 2013 13:12:59 GMT -5
As a rep, I have to say that often times I submit duplicate pages simply because the records come to me via fax and the page x of xxx is at the top. When I have omitted duplicate pages I have been accused of not submitting evidence. Therefore, I submit every single page that I receive, even if it is duplicative for fear of being accused of withholding evidence. However, when I am preparing a case for hearing, as the rep of course, I take notes of the treatment dates by source. Then it is easy to see what records are repeats of others. I do miss all of the treatment records from one source being combined. But, it is easy enough to simply click on the exhibit to review it. Back when we had paper files, I had to request to have the file available for me to review it, and if it was not being reviewed by the judge or some other employee of ODAR, I then had to make a trip or send an employee to go copy it. By me having instant electronic access, I can more easily ascertain what records are missing from the file, what dates are missing from treatment records, and I can submit them instantaneously. No way are electronic files more difficult or less efficient than paper files.
Writing quality has seemed to get worse over the years. However, as a responsible rep, I will not appeal an unfavorable decision, even if the decision is riddled with ridiculous and unsubstantiated points, if the case is an ultimate loser anyway. Why win the battle just to lose the war? But, if the case should be paid and there are obvious mistakes, I use those to my advantage.
I can see the difficulties of being a judge and dealing with issues such as inadequate attorneys and non-attorney reps, untrained writers, etc. But, in the end you have to figure out how to handle these issues. And, based on my knowledge, these should be far fewer with the technology that is available today.
|
|
|
Post by extang on Sept 21, 2013 6:13:56 GMT -5
Lurker2active: It sounds like maybe you're spending more time on a single case than the 2-3 of hours that OHA management expects is the total amount of time you will spend on a case as an ALJ [that includes reviewing the file, holding a hearing, making a decision {which, perhaps surprisingly, sometimes requires time-consuming thought}, drafting instructions, and editing a draft decision which is likely to leave quite a bit to be desired and will eventually go out over your signature].
Gaidin: Despite the computerized records, there is still plenty of bad doctor handwriting, as I'm sure you're aware, so it's not as if that problem has disappeared. Psychiatrists as a group are especially bad, and where I am at least, it's unusual for a claimant not to have a "mental impairment."
I have to admit that I thought the electronic files would be the usual disaster that one has come to expect from anything OHA management does. It turned out that they actually did a reasonably good job, although apparently it could have been better [e.g., according to an ALJ who seems to know what she's talking about, 'pdf' files would be an improvement over 'tiff' files; apparently many reps have a program that will convert tiff into pdf, but ALS do not;by the way, I don't know what any of this means].
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 21, 2013 6:26:13 GMT -5
Lurker2active: It sounds like maybe you're spending more time on a single case than the 2-3 of hours that OHA management expects is the total amount of time you will spend on a case as an ALJ [that includes reviewing the file, holding a hearing, making a decision {which, perhaps surprisingly, sometimes requires time-consuming thought}, drafting instructions, and editing a draft decision which is likely to leave quite a bit to be desired and will eventually go out over your signature]. Gaidin: Despite the computerized records, there is still plenty of bad doctor handwriting, as I'm sure you're aware, so it's not as if that problem has disappeared. Psychiatrists as a group are especially bad, and where I am at least, it's unusual for a claimant not to have a "mental impairment." I have to admit that I thought the electronic files would be the usual disaster that one has come to expect from anything OHA management does. It turned out that they actually did a reasonably good job, although apparently it could have been better [e.g., according to an ALJ who seems to know what she's talking about, 'pdf' files would be an improvement over 'tiff' files; apparently many reps have a program that will convert tiff into pdf, but ALS do not;by the way, I don't know what any of this means]. It hasn't been called OHA in years extang, but has been known as ODAR since 2005-06. I always liked the use of OHA (Office of Hearings and Appeals) better than ODAR (Office of Disability Adjudication and Review), but now we are stuck with the acronym ODAR. Lastly, I do agree that PDF files are cleaner looking than TIFF files and easier to see and read. However, I believe the cost of using and licensing the Adobe program is why TIFF is used instead of PDF.
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Sept 21, 2013 6:51:52 GMT -5
First of all, Welcome to the Board! I wish you and everyone the best of luck as you wait for your results.
I have been an SSA ALJ since January 2012, and I am--was, anyway--an "outsider." I don't believe that one's NOR score is relevant to where one is assigned. You either test, and interview, well enough to qualify--or you don't. It doesn't matter if you're an insider or outsider. What does matter is where you indicated you'd be willing to go. I listed three places, because I was unwilling to move away from my teenagers, and I eventually got picked up, although not right away.
So, if SSA wants to hire you--regardless of whether you're an innie or an outie, and a particular office where you're willing to go has a vacancy for you, then that's where you'll go. If I felt in retrospect that my GAL was inadvisably too small, then I would tell the ODAR interviewers that and send a letter to the HR folks letting them know. Some people are willing to go anywhere--I was not. Fortunately, everything worked out for me...but I didn't get that hoped-for telephone call from HR for 22 months post-job application. No vet benefits at the time either, because I was late off the dime in getting my paperwork into the VA. As I say, I was lucky, as I hope you will be. A few months before I was hired, I even got one of the "Thanks, but no thanks" emails from HR, so I thought that there was no chance at being hired. So, don't give up hope if this is the job that you really want.
One judge in my class went to the Sacramento office, so getting to Nor Cal as a newbie is certainly possible.
Finally, I am a real fan of electronic files. I never thought I would be, because I never dealt with electronic records when I was an Air Force JAG. But I've come to detest paper cases, and every judge in my office feels the same way. It still might take hours to get through a voluminous electronic file, but most you can review much faster. You can almost immediately find a particular exhibit during a hearing. When you review a page in advance of a hearing, you (with experience) can immediately tell whether that page might have something relevant on it; if not, one push of a button and you're at the next page. With a paper file, I have to flip pages with my right hand and hold the file open with my left, which is tedious and time-consuming...and particular documents are much, much harder to find during a hearing. (I go through a lot of Post-It notes.) Therefore, I cringe whenever a paper file lands on my desk. I suspect that most ALJs who are not octogenarians feel the same way.
Again, good luck to all of you. If you're rejected the first time, rebait your hook and throw it back out. Perseverance pays off.
Best, Hamster
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Sept 21, 2013 6:59:19 GMT -5
First of all, Welcome to the Board! I wish you and everyone the best of luck as you wait for your results. I have been an SSA ALJ since January 2012, and I am--was, anyway--an "outsider." I don't believe that one's NOR score is relevant to where one is assigned. You either test, and interview, well enough to qualify--or you don't. It doesn't matter if you're an insider or outsider. What does matter is where you indicated you'd be willing to go. I listed three places, because I was unwilling to move away from my teenagers, and I eventually got picked up, although not right away. So, if SSA wants to hire you--regardless of whether you're an innie or an outie, and a particular office where you're willing to go has a vacancy for you, then that's where you'll go. If I felt in retrospect that my GAL was inadvisably too small, then I would tell the ODAR interviewers that and send a letter to the HR folks letting them know. Some people are willing to go anywhere--I was not. Fortunately, everything worked out for me...but I didn't get that hoped-for telephone call from HR for 22 months post-job application. No vet benefits at the time either, because I was late off the dime in getting my paperwork into the VA. As I say, I was lucky, as I hope you will be. A few months before I was hired, I even got one of the "Thanks, but no thanks" emails from HR, so I thought that there was no chance at being hired. So, don't give up hope if this is the job that you really want. One judge in my class went to the Sacramento office, so getting to Nor Cal as a newbie is certainly possible. Finally, I am a real fan of electronic files. I never thought I would be, because I never dealt with electronic records when I was an Air Force JAG. But I've come to detest paper cases, and every judge in my office feels the same way. It still might take hours to get through a voluminous electronic file, but most you can review much faster. You can almost immediately find a particular exhibit during a hearing. When you review a page in advance of a hearing, you (with experience) can immediately tell whether that page might have something relevant on it; if not, one push of a button and you're at the next page. With a paper file, I have to flip pages with my right hand and hold the file open with my left, which is tedious and time-consuming...and particular documents are much, much harder to find during a hearing. (I go through a lot of Post-It notes.) Therefore, I cringe whenever a paper file lands on my desk. I suspect that most ALJs who are not octogenarians feel the same way. Again, good luck to all of you. If you're rejected the first time, rebait your hook and throw it back out. Perseverance pays off. Best, Hamster Next step - Assume no gov't shut down, LATE December NOR, Register pull early January... I understand the first wave will have to interview in a group of three at the GAL they "draw." (however that happens!) Then I understand the interview panel rates "not recommend, recommend or highly recommend." Something something something...Offer is made/accepted and a trip to Falls Church, Virginia is scheduled for training. Now my $ question: Any guesses assuming above and correcting for the error of my idioutsidercy/negassumptives...When a SSA paycheck might happen for first rounders? I appreciate your thoughts or "Dawg, you didn't research this thread..." Mojo to the first ten responders. AHA! Extra Mojo to you, Hamster! I think this passed in the night of cyberspace. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 21, 2013 7:14:30 GMT -5
First of all, Welcome to the Board! I wish you and everyone the best of luck as you wait for your results. I have been an SSA ALJ since January 2012, and I am--was, anyway--an "outsider." I don't believe that one's NOR score is relevant to where one is assigned. You either test, and interview, well enough to qualify--or you don't. It doesn't matter if you're an insider or outsider. What does matter is where you indicated you'd be willing to go. I listed three places, because I was unwilling to move away from my teenagers, and I eventually got picked up, although not right away. So, if SSA wants to hire you--regardless of whether you're an innie or an outie, and a particular office where you're willing to go has a vacancy for you, then that's where you'll go. If I felt in retrospect that my GAL was inadvisably too small, then I would tell the ODAR interviewers that and send a letter to the HR folks letting them know. Some people are willing to go anywhere--I was not. Fortunately, everything worked out for me...but I didn't get that hoped-for telephone call from HR for 22 months post-job application. No vet benefits at the time either, because I was late off the dime in getting my paperwork into the VA. As I say, I was lucky, as I hope you will be. A few months before I was hired, I even got one of the "Thanks, but no thanks" emails from HR, so I thought that there was no chance at being hired. So, don't give up hope if this is the job that you really want. One judge in my class went to the Sacramento office, so getting to Nor Cal as a newbie is certainly possible. Finally, I am a real fan of electronic files. I never thought I would be, because I never dealt with electronic records when I was an Air Force JAG. But I've come to detest paper cases, and every judge in my office feels the same way. It still might take hours to get through a voluminous electronic file, but most you can review much faster. You can almost immediately find a particular exhibit during a hearing. When you review a page in advance of a hearing, you (with experience) can immediately tell whether that page might have something relevant on it; if not, one push of a button and you're at the next page. With a paper file, I have to flip pages with my right hand and hold the file open with my left, which is tedious and time-consuming...and particular documents are much, much harder to find during a hearing. (I go through a lot of Post-It notes.) Therefore, I cringe whenever a paper file lands on my desk. I suspect that most ALJs who are not octogenarians feel the same way. Again, good luck to all of you. If you're rejected the first time, rebait your hook and throw it back out. Perseverance pays off. Best, Hamster Great post hamster. It is reassuring to know that we should not give up hope on our dreams, no matter what the odds.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Sept 21, 2013 7:41:35 GMT -5
Lurker2active: It sounds like maybe you're spending more time on a single case than the 2-3 of hours that OHA management expects is the total amount of time you will spend on a case as an ALJ [that includes reviewing the file, holding a hearing, making a decision {which, perhaps surprisingly, sometimes requires time-consuming thought}, drafting instructions, and editing a draft decision which is likely to leave quite a bit to be desired and will eventually go out over your signature]. Gaidin: Despite the computerized records, there is still plenty of bad doctor handwriting, as I'm sure you're aware, so it's not as if that problem has disappeared. Psychiatrists as a group are especially bad, and where I am at least, it's unusual for a claimant not to have a "mental impairment." I have to admit that I thought the electronic files would be the usual disaster that one has come to expect from anything OHA management does. It turned out that they actually did a reasonably good job, although apparently it could have been better [e.g., according to an ALJ who seems to know what she's talking about, 'pdf' files would be an improvement over 'tiff' files; apparently many reps have a program that will convert tiff into pdf, but ALS do not;by the way, I don't know what any of this means]. As an attorney I feel it necessary to know my files better than everyone else. So, once the file is put together and ready for the hearing, I probably spend between 2-4 hrs on it. Everything depends on file size. However I must say that some files I can prepare in about 30 minutes. So I think it all balances out. Once you do a bunch of these it becomes easy to identify what is important and what isn't--pages and entire exhibits. That's one reason electronic is better than paper. It's easier to skip the stuff you don't need. I handle roughly 20 social security hearings per month and they are easy enough for me to do with me getting the records, meeting with clients, and also handling the rest of my practice. I can see where I could easily handle double that number if I didn't have other areas of practice (and the clients were available). So, if I were the judge, didn't have to request my own medical records, didn't have to meet and talk to clients all the time, and the files were given to me virtually complete, I really don't think 50+ a month should be a problem. I haven't been there so I don't really know. Maybe I'm delusional. But it just seems that the tedious part of a ss case is dealing with the client for the interview, prehearing appointment, and any other time he/she decides they need to meet with you throughout the wait. I really love my clients. I really do. I just don't think they are necessary for all cases
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 21, 2013 8:23:13 GMT -5
Lurker2active: It sounds like maybe you're spending more time on a single case than the 2-3 of hours that OHA management expects is the total amount of time you will spend on a case as an ALJ [that includes reviewing the file, holding a hearing, making a decision {which, perhaps surprisingly, sometimes requires time-consuming thought}, drafting instructions, and editing a draft decision which is likely to leave quite a bit to be desired and will eventually go out over your signature]. Gaidin: Despite the computerized records, there is still plenty of bad doctor handwriting, as I'm sure you're aware, so it's not as if that problem has disappeared. Psychiatrists as a group are especially bad, and where I am at least, it's unusual for a claimant not to have a "mental impairment." I have to admit that I thought the electronic files would be the usual disaster that one has come to expect from anything OHA management does. It turned out that they actually did a reasonably good job, although apparently it could have been better [e.g., according to an ALJ who seems to know what she's talking about, 'pdf' files would be an improvement over 'tiff' files; apparently many reps have a program that will convert tiff into pdf, but ALS do not;by the way, I don't know what any of this means]. As an attorney I feel it necessary to know my files better than everyone else. So, once the file is put together and ready for the hearing, I probably spend between 2-4 hrs on it. Everything depends on file size. However I must say that some files I can prepare in about 30 minutes. So I think it all balances out. Once you do a bunch of these it becomes easy to identify what is important and what isn't--pages and entire exhibits. That's one reason electronic is better than paper. It's easier to skip the stuff you don't need. I handle roughly 20 social security hearings per month and they are easy enough for me to do with me getting the records, meeting with clients, and also handling the rest of my practice. I can see where I could easily handle double that number if I didn't have other areas of practice (and the clients were available). So, if I were the judge, didn't have to request my own medical records, didn't have to meet and talk to clients all the time, and the files were given to me virtually complete, I really don't think 50+ a month should be a problem. I haven't been there so I don't really know. Maybe I'm delusional. But it just seems that the tedious part of a ss case is dealing with the client for the interview, prehearing appointment, and any other time he/she decides they need to meet with you throughout the wait. I really love my clients. I really do. I just don't think they are necessary for all cases Lurker I assume you are spending more than 40 hours a week at your law practice, so you aren't comparing apples to apples. I know when I ran my own practice with a similar case load (I now work for state gov't) I would easily spend close to 80 hours per week. As an ALJ you should be covering the same 50+ cases a month using only 40 hours a week. It is a different animal as an ALJ than as a private attorney. Yes, you do pick up a lot of skills, but there are different things you do as an ALJ that you don't do in private practice. I speak from 29+ years of private practice as a social security practitioner. I am sure you will be able to handle it, but it won't be as easy as you think.
|
|