|
Post by privateatty on Sept 27, 2013 6:50:06 GMT -5
Maybe in these months of waiting, a little input on why y'all want the job. From drwho, 9/13/07, what I consider to be a classic post:
"It's the best job in government." That's what all of the ALJs I work with tell me. I do not work for Social Security. I work for one of the many other agencies that work with ALJs. And, I've wanted to be an ALJ since the register was closed, but I didn't have enough work experience to apply back then.
Let's look at some of the positives. 1) You are not responsible for appraising anybody; 2) you are not appraised; 3) if anybody tries to mess with one of your decisions, you can scream judicial independence; 4) you get a reasonable salary, for a reasonable amount of work (and some would say you don't even have to do a reasonable amount of work; 5) you can have as much or as little interaction with your colleagues as you find necessary; 6) you have a lot of discretion in setting up your work rules, hours, and systems; 7) your decisions are yours, within reason, etc.
Is it the perfect job? No. There is no perfect job. Is it a better job than the one I have now? For me, the answer is possibly yes. But, I wont know until and if I'm in it. I applied, like I suspect most of us did, because I'm not thrilled with what I'm doing now. If it doesn't work out, I'll look for something else (as I'm honestly doing anyway).
As for OPM, they are frustratingly annoying -- that will not change -- so accept it; and keep breathing.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 27, 2013 7:21:04 GMT -5
Maybe in these months of waiting, a little input on why y'all want the job. From drwho, 9/13/07, what I consider to be a classic post: "It's the best job in government." That's what all of the ALJs I work with tell me. I do not work for Social Security. I work for one of the many other agencies that work with ALJs. And, I've wanted to be an ALJ since the register was closed, but I didn't have enough work experience to apply back then. Let's look at some of the positives. 1) You are not responsible for appraising anybody; 2) you are not appraised; 3) if anybody tries to mess with one of your decisions, you can scream judicial independence; 4) you get a reasonable salary, for a reasonable amount of work (and some would say you don't even have to do a reasonable amount of work; 5) you can have as much or as little interaction with your colleagues as you find necessary; 6) you have a lot of discretion in setting up your work rules, hours, and systems; 7) your decisions are yours, within reason, etc. Is it the perfect job? No. There is no perfect job. Is it a better job than the one I have now? For me, the answer is possibly yes. But, I wont know until and if I'm in it. I applied, like I suspect most of us did, because I'm not thrilled with what I'm doing now. If it doesn't work out, I'll look for something else (as I'm honestly doing anyway). As for OPM, they are frustratingly annoying -- that will not change -- so accept it; and keep breathing. Thanks privateatty for sharing drwho's post. It is well reasoned and written. It speaks of the many reasons of why I am applying. I would differ the answer by adding, I have been representing clients in front of ALJs for 30 years and I have always felt I could do as good a job deciding cases as the ALJs I have been in front of in the past. Many ALJs have suggested I apply myself for the ALJ position. Lastly, it has been my dream job since the 1980's, but the time wasn't right for me to apply until this time.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Sept 27, 2013 10:19:56 GMT -5
I have to take issue with some of the comments about being an ALJ. (1) If you are an ALJ in a national hearing center, you are responsible for appraising the work of the decision writers. If you are in a field office, the comment is correct although you will communicate with workers or their supervisors if you have a problem with their work product. (2) This is correct, but there are expectations regarding how productive you will be and the timeliness of your work. See the MSBP decisions if you don't believe that. (3) Screaming about judicial independence won't prevent the AC or USDC from vacating your decision. (4) Salary is good but you will work for it. (5) No doubt about that. (6) You have some discretion but you have to work with the system in place in the office. My office does a week of hearings followed by a week in the office, and we can travel to our remote sites or do the hearings by video. Right now my office is trying to give claimants 120 days' notice of hearings. You may decide where the hearings will be if there are multiple sites and if a hearing room is available where you want to go, but you have to plan your calendar months in advance. I give my docket dates for the entire fiscal year at one time. But other offices have no travel and judges share a hearing room with each holding hearings daily for 4 hours. And when you are scheduled to hold hearings, you are expected to be there unless there are extenuating circumstances. No waking up one morning,saying you just don't feel like going in and cancelling the hearings. The show must go on. So it is not the most flexible of jobs. (7) Absolutely. Warts and all.
|
|
|
Post by gunner on Sept 27, 2013 10:52:33 GMT -5
What about helping people?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 27, 2013 11:35:57 GMT -5
As drwho noted, he does not work for SSA. So yes, there are some differences between and even within agencies (such as SSA, with regular offices and NHCs) with respect to the structure of the job.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Sept 27, 2013 11:49:15 GMT -5
While there are people who benefit from my decisions, helping people is not my job. I doubt that the claimants who are denied think I am helping them.
My job is to make a decision. In doing that job, I have obligations to both SSA and the claimants. To consider all of the written evidence of record, to listen to the testimony at hearing, to order any additional development that is necessary for me to make a decision that is legally sufficient, to determine if expert testimony is needed.
If you want to help people, be an advocate, or a counselor, or a social worker (which I was in a past life). Don't be a judge. The conflict will tear you apart. You will see desparate people and damaged people who are sincere and honest, but they are not disabled. If you are doing your job, you have to deny the claim. And you will see people who are liars, but if you are doing your job, you have to pay their claims because the objective medical evidence supports that conclusion, notwithstanding their lies.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 27, 2013 12:00:36 GMT -5
While there are people who benefit from my decisions, helping people is not my job. I doubt that the claimants who are denied think I am helping them. My job is to make a decision. In doing that job, I have obligations to both SSA and the claimants. To consider all of the written evidence of record, to listen to the testimony at hearing, to order any additional development that is necessary for me to make a decision that is legally sufficient, to determine if expert testimony is needed. If you want to help people, be an advocate, or a counselor, or a social worker (which I was in a past life). Don't be a judge. The conflict will tear you apart. You will see desparate people and damaged people who are sincere and honest, but they are not disabled. If you are doing your job, you have to deny the claim. And you will see people who are liars, but if you are doing your job, you have to pay their claims because the objective medical evidence supports that conclusion, notwithstanding their lies. Well said. As a workers' compensation judge, I could say the same thing. Sometimes, in certain situations, I feel like I am helping an applicant in some way, but that's not the goal, the goal is to conduct a fair hearing process and issue a legally and factually supportable decision that explains to the parties how the decision was reached. I see people who I believe need help,(medical and/or disability benefits) and might in fact win their cases if they had representation, but I can't "help" them. That's one of the frustrating parts. But, on balance, it is and has been a great job. I'm just looking for a new challenge and a new opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Sept 27, 2013 12:21:11 GMT -5
redryder is spot on. We are driven by the evidence. we can only develop a case so far. We can order consultative examinations (however, the CE's are only sent 20-40 pages of the medical records, so they don't have much to base their conclusion on other than examination), we can order medical experts, who sit through the hearing and have reviewed the complete medical record and then render an opinion. We can send the claimant out for a few non-invasive tests. the big problem is, is if you have a claimant with litle to no evidence due to financial reasons, there is not a whole lot you can do. we are controlled by a bunch of Statutes and regulations and advisory opinions, and District Court and Appeals Council decisions. We are non-adverserial, however, we have very little leeway to manipulate the decisions. Have to call them as you see them if supported by documentation..
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Sept 27, 2013 12:26:06 GMT -5
While there are people who benefit from my decisions, helping people is not my job. I doubt that the claimants who are denied think I am helping them. My job is to make a decision. In doing that job, I have obligations to both SSA and the claimants. To consider all of the written evidence of record, to listen to the testimony at hearing, to order any additional development that is necessary for me to make a decision that is legally sufficient, to determine if expert testimony is needed. If you want to help people, be an advocate, or a counselor, or a social worker (which I was in a past life). Don't be a judge. The conflict will tear you apart. You will see desparate people and damaged people who are sincere and honest, but they are not disabled. If you are doing your job, you have to deny the claim. And you will see people who are liars, but if you are doing your job, you have to pay their claims because the objective medical evidence supports that conclusion, notwithstanding their lies. Well said. As a workers' compensation judge, I could say the same thing. Sometimes, in certain sitiations, I feel like I am helping an applicant in some way, but that's not the goal, the goal is to conduct a fair hearing process and issue a legally and factually supportable decision that explains to the parties how the decision was reached. I see people who I believe need help,(medical and/or disability benefits) and might in fact win their cases if they had representation, but I can't "help" them. That's one of the frustrating parts. But, on balance, it is and has been a great job. I'm just looking for a new challenge and a new opportunity. As a state ALJ that's been my experience as well. Certain types of cases are really "unwinnable" without a lawyer and none of these claimants can afford to hire a private attorney, so if they get one, its usually pro bono or Legal Aid or an advocacy group. Parents representing their children, however, often are very effective because they have lived with a child with a condition like developmental disabilities and they are just as knowledgable as the people conducting the evaluations, sometimes more so.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Sept 28, 2013 8:39:32 GMT -5
For the money, for the glory and for the fun. (Mostly for the money.)
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Sept 28, 2013 13:50:53 GMT -5
As a state ALJ that's been my experience as well. Certain types of cases are really "unwinnable" without a lawyer and none of these claimants can afford to hire a private attorney, so if they get one, its usually pro bono or Legal Aid or an advocacy group. Claimants attorneys (and certified non-atty reps), in general, are paid on a contingency basis on SSA disability claims as are, at least in my state, WC lawyers, but I do see unrepresented claimants in front of me who are unaware that attorneys - except in overpayment cases or CDR case where the claimant has continued to receive benefits - will be paid only if the claimant is successful in obtaining benefits, minus the attorney's expenses. Even in case where SSA disbilities cases where there is little to no backpay available - overpayment, CDR, WC, etc. - attorneys have fee agreements and will even set up payback by installment. My old firm did this, we also took some cases pro bono and usually didn't collect expenses incurred unless we were also successful in obtaining benefits for the claimant, because otherwise, the claimant was usually so indigent that they had no way of paying us back, anyway. Now, even if an unrepped claimant decides against representation - after I describe the options available to them - I still have an obligation, heightened in fact, to fully and fairly develop the record by obtaining all oustanding medical pertinent to the case, sending him/her out for CEs, if necessary and using an ME, again, if necessary, to reach a fair decision based on all the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 29, 2013 14:33:44 GMT -5
While there are people who benefit from my decisions, helping people is not my job. I doubt that the claimants who are denied think I am helping them. My job is to make a decision. In doing that job, I have obligations to both SSA and the claimants. To consider all of the written evidence of record, to listen to the testimony at hearing, to order any additional development that is necessary for me to make a decision that is legally sufficient, to determine if expert testimony is needed. If you want to help people, be an advocate, or a counselor, or a social worker (which I was in a past life). Don't be a judge. The conflict will tear you apart. You will see desparate people and damaged people who are sincere and honest, but they are not disabled. If you are doing your job, you have to deny the claim. And you will see people who are liars, but if you are doing your job, you have to pay their claims because the objective medical evidence supports that conclusion, notwithstanding their lies. I had hoped for a response like this, redryer. Thanks. I may make the wrong decision. I may see that case again. But you know what? BFD. I learn from it (hopefully, although that is not always the case). I don't have to look in the rear view mirror or check my flanks for a Motion of some shenanigans from counsel or a client. I cannot even begin to tell you how liberating all of this is. I used to have nightmares about my cases. Now, once in a blue moon I do and I wake up smiling. In addition I: 1. Don't really care what people think of me. I go home and do whatever. 2. Do what I want to do when I want to do it. Need to go to a doctor or pick someone up at the airport? Its your calendar, not the Court's or a client's demand. 3. Get four weeks of paid vacation a year. I went thirteen years without four consecutive days off. 4. Get respect. I don't have to check my anger at the door when a boorish/bully/lawyer tries to yank my chain in a trial or deposition. I realize alot of this might apply to a GS-15/10. But I knew nothing of this before. Now, if we can only get Congress to pay us...
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 30, 2013 8:40:27 GMT -5
Privateatty, if that is the response you wished for, then why didn't you just post it to start. As someone striving to become an ALJ my reasons would be slightly different than someone who is already an ALJ. My post to your original thread stated my reasons for applying for the position. Yes, there are many perks to the position, but I am sure there are some pitfalls, too. It is an individual choice every person has to make on their own. For some it will be a cut in pay, for others a pay raise and yet for others it will allow more time to spend with family. Each person should weigh carefully the consequences of applying for and accepting a position as an ALJ. Perhaps, there are those who are doing it just because they can, however that isn't my choice. I weighed my options and made a deliberate choice to apply. It will be for the same reasons, I will accept a position, if so chosen. I didn't do it on a lark.
|
|
|
Post by gunner on Sept 30, 2013 9:32:20 GMT -5
While there are people who benefit from my decisions, helping people is not my job. I doubt that the claimants who are denied think I am helping them. My job is to make a decision. In doing that job, I have obligations to both SSA and the claimants. To consider all of the written evidence of record, to listen to the testimony at hearing, to order any additional development that is necessary for me to make a decision that is legally sufficient, to determine if expert testimony is needed. If you want to help people, be an advocate, or a counselor, or a social worker (which I was in a past life). Don't be a judge. The conflict will tear you apart. You will see desparate people and damaged people who are sincere and honest, but they are not disabled. If you are doing your job, you have to deny the claim. And you will see people who are liars, but if you are doing your job, you have to pay their claims because the objective medical evidence supports that conclusion, notwithstanding their lies. I had hoped for a response like this, redryer. Thanks. I may make the wrong decision. I may see that case again. But you know what? BFD. I learn from it (hopefully, although that is not always the case). I don't have to look in the rear view mirror or check my flanks for a Motion of some shenanigans from counsel or a client. I cannot even begin to tell you how liberating all of this is. I used to have nightmares about my cases. Now, once in a blue moon I do and I wake up smiling. In addition I: 1. Don't really care what people think of me. I go home and do whatever. 2. Do what I want to do when I want to do it. Need to go to a doctor or pick someone up at the airport? Its your calendar, not the Court's or a client's demand. 3. Get four weeks of paid vacation a year. I went thirteen years without four consecutive days off. 4. Get respect. I don't have to check my anger at the door when a boorish/bully/lawyer tries to yank my chain in a trial or deposition. I realize alot of this might apply to a GS-15/10. But I knew nothing of this before. Now, if we can only get Congress to pay us... Maybe "helping people" was the wrong question. How about public service? Otherwise every reason cited is a selfish reason. I think the job of judging is a high calling, like being an attorney except more so. It is public service. Yes, you have to make the hard calls, that's your responsibility. But you also get to help people sometimes. That's not to say that your goal is to help people, but surely it's one of the positives?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 30, 2013 13:08:08 GMT -5
I had hoped for a response like this, redryer. Thanks. I may make the wrong decision. I may see that case again. But you know what? BFD. I learn from it (hopefully, although that is not always the case). I don't have to look in the rear view mirror or check my flanks for a Motion of some shenanigans from counsel or a client. I cannot even begin to tell you how liberating all of this is. I used to have nightmares about my cases. Now, once in a blue moon I do and I wake up smiling. In addition I: 1. Don't really care what people think of me. I go home and do whatever. 2. Do what I want to do when I want to do it. Need to go to a doctor or pick someone up at the airport? Its your calendar, not the Court's or a client's demand. 3. Get four weeks of paid vacation a year. I went thirteen years without four consecutive days off. 4. Get respect. I don't have to check my anger at the door when a boorish/bully/lawyer tries to yank my chain in a trial or deposition. I realize alot of this might apply to a GS-15/10. But I knew nothing of this before. Now, if we can only get Congress to pay us... Maybe "helping people" was the wrong question. How about public service? Otherwise every reason cited is a selfish reason. I think the job of judging is a high calling, like being an attorney except more so. It is public service. Yes, you have to make the hard calls, that's your responsibility. But you also get to help people sometimes. That's not to say that your goal is to help people, but surely it's one of the positives? I think that's closer to the mark. I'm not helping individuals so much, but helping all our constituents (the hearings I do are adversarial) who find themselves in the government system I work in to get a full and fair hearing and a well reasoned decision. It's important, necessary, often challenging, and rewarding work.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 30, 2013 19:25:10 GMT -5
I had hoped for a response like this, redryer. Thanks. I may make the wrong decision. I may see that case again. But you know what? BFD. I learn from it (hopefully, although that is not always the case). I don't have to look in the rear view mirror or check my flanks for a Motion of some shenanigans from counsel or a client. I cannot even begin to tell you how liberating all of this is. I used to have nightmares about my cases. Now, once in a blue moon I do and I wake up smiling. In addition I: 1. Don't really care what people think of me. I go home and do whatever. 2. Do what I want to do when I want to do it. Need to go to a doctor or pick someone up at the airport? Its your calendar, not the Court's or a client's demand. 3. Get four weeks of paid vacation a year. I went thirteen years without four consecutive days off. 4. Get respect. I don't have to check my anger at the door when a boorish/bully/lawyer tries to yank my chain in a trial or deposition. I realize alot of this might apply to a GS-15/10. But I knew nothing of this before. Now, if we can only get Congress to pay us... Maybe "helping people" was the wrong question. How about public service? Otherwise every reason cited is a selfish reason. I think the job of judging is a high calling, like being an attorney except more so. It is public service. Yes, you have to make the hard calls, that's your responsibility. But you also get to help people sometimes. That's not to say that your goal is to help people, but surely it's one of the positives? None of the Judges I've met cite their desire to engage in public service as the reason they became Judges. But it is also true that their strong desire for professionalism and getting the work done results in an unstated devotion to public servant. So yeah, I'll confess to being pre-occupied with selfish motives--and feeling alot better about it. But it is also true that those who get hired will not only have the opportunity to "help people"--but in doing so will not take the power to do so for granted.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Sept 30, 2013 22:31:55 GMT -5
Why be an alj?
So I can be "essential".
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 1, 2013 1:32:10 GMT -5
Funky, you will always be "essential".
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 1, 2013 1:42:09 GMT -5
Wonder how many ALJs are in Santa Fe? Two from our office went.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 1, 2013 6:03:58 GMT -5
Funky, you will always be "essential". Right back at ya bart. Good luck over the next however long.
|
|