Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 21:11:41 GMT -5
Re: " if the vast majority of ALJs can make the goal of 500 to 700 dispositions a year, then any good hard working dedicated Attorney/ ALJ should be able to produce those numbers." Good work there, Tigerlaw, insulting all the ALJs who don't make the arbitrary, never explained or justified numbers that as far as I know Cristaudo simply pulled out of some bodily orifice. But hey, I've only been doing this job for almost 20 years, and you're still trying to make it on the register, so I have to defer to your undoubtedly superior expertise. Sorry there extang, I thought the key word is "if" the vast majority, but I wasn't saying anything about anyone not making the 500-700 goal, just talking in general. Everything that I have read so far on this board seems to suggest that 500 can be done, but again, I was talking in general terms about redryder and I didn't even know that he was already an ODAR ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 3, 2013 7:12:00 GMT -5
Last night at the Union meeting, this was discussed in depth. Doing 500 cases a year equates to doing a case from initial review to signing it in 2 1/2 hours. When asked if anyone thought a case could be properly done in 2 1/2 hours no one raised their hands. There will be a segment on 60 Minutes this Sunday on SSA AlJs. One of the Senators, a doctor did an extensive investigation and noted ALJs should have 8 hours to properly do a case. If those of you doing 500 cases a year thing you are really doing something, why not compare yourself to the ALJ that has done 3,500 cases a year? We are not all equal, the files are not all equal, the hearings are not all equal, etc.. Further, another investigation found 23-28 percent of the decisions they looked at as wrong. Our decisions are a farce and are laughed at by the District Court for the dumb mistakes we make. Little things like changing gender in mid-stream, big things like not considering severe impairments in the RFC. We are not demonstrating that we can do 500-700 cases a year properly. Why not??
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 3, 2013 7:48:10 GMT -5
Last night at the Union meeting, this was discussed in depth. Doing 500 cases a year equates to doing a case from initial review to signing it in 2 1/2 hours. When asked if anyone thought a case could be properly done in 2 1/2 hours no one raised their hands. There will be a segment on 60 Minutes this Sunday on SSA AlJs. One of the Senators, a doctor did an extensive investigation and noted ALJs should have 8 hours to properly do a case. If those of you doing 500 cases a year thing you are really doing something, why not compare yourself to the ALJ that has done 3,500 cases a year? We are not all equal, the files are not all equal, the hearings are not all equal, etc.. Further, another investigation found 23-28 percent of the decisions they looked at as wrong. Our decisions are a farce and are laughed at by the District Court for the dumb mistakes we make. Little things like changing gender in mid-stream, big things like not considering severe impairments in the RFC. We are not demonstrating that we can do 500-700 cases a year properly. Why not?? Thanks for the update on the Union meeting bartleby. It is always nice to know what is happening and how that could affect us (possible future ALJs). Please feel free to share any other information gathered at the event.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Oct 3, 2013 9:24:11 GMT -5
Last night at the Union meeting, this was discussed in depth. Doing 500 cases a year equates to doing a case from initial review to signing it in 2 1/2 hours. Bart, First, 2.5 hr avg is wrong. Let's say 44 work weeks (52 - holiday & leaves) a year, 7.5 hrs of work a day. It would be 44 x 5 day x 7.5 divided by 500 = 3.3 hrs a day, not 2.5. The main thing is that in a normal ALJ docket, you have a mix of dismissals, over age 50 grid cases, and tough cases. You allocate time accordingly. Some cases may take 30 mins. Others may take a whole day. If you spent 3.3 hours on every case without regard for complexity, you probably shouldn't be a judge.
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Oct 3, 2013 10:03:41 GMT -5
Last night at the Union meeting, this was discussed in depth. Doing 500 cases a year equates to doing a case from initial review to signing it in 2 1/2 hours. Bart, First, 2.5 hr avg is wrong. Let's say 44 work weeks (52 - holiday & leaves) a year, 7.5 hrs of work a day. It would be 44 x 5 day x 7.5 divided by 500 = 3.3 hrs a day, not 2.5. The main thing is that in a normal ALJ docket, you have a mix of dismissals, over age 50 grid cases, and tough cases. You allocate time accordingly. Some cases may take 30 mins. Others may take a whole day. If you spent 3.3 hours on every case without regard for complexity, you probably shouldn't be a judge. As I said before, in some offices you can do 500, in some you can't. Nobody should be making generalizations about judges who can do 500 a year. Each case is individual, each judge is individual, and each office is individual.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Oct 3, 2013 10:44:30 GMT -5
Missed evidence, and failure to develop it fully prior to the hearing is a huge side effect of how little time ALJs have to review the file. All the time, when drafting decisions, I see little nuggets that if the ALJ had more time to review the file pre-hearing, would likely have had an enormous effect of the decisional outcome. For example, buried in a 100p exhibit in the doctor's nearly illegible handwritten notes, is a statement that he filled out a Med-1 form; yet the file does not contain this evidence. Maybe the rep just forgot to submit it, but more likely the opinion was not favorable to the claimant and was intentionally withheld.
So now that the hearing has already been held, and the decision made, do I bring this to the ALJs attention so we can try to subpoena the dr's treating notes? If yes, then we have to stick it in POST. If they actually return the requested info, then we have to have a supplemental hearing. Next thing you know, this seemingly simple case has ballooned into an AGED case and you are getting hounded by management to just move it. Now, if there were more time to effectively review the file months before the hearing, this nugget could have been spotted and addressed prior to the initial hearing.
Or, as what happens most of the time, we just ignore the info, never try to clarify or obtain full treatment notes, and decide the case based upon whatever the rep has selected to submit to us.
Stuff like this happens all the time.
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Oct 3, 2013 16:01:51 GMT -5
Last night at the Union meeting, this was discussed in depth. Doing 500 cases a year equates to doing a case from initial review to signing it in 2 1/2 hours. When asked if anyone thought a case could be properly done in 2 1/2 hours no one raised their hands. There will be a segment on 60 Minutes this Sunday on SSA AlJs. One of the Senators, a doctor did an extensive investigation and noted ALJs should have 8 hours to properly do a case. If those of you doing 500 cases a year thing you are really doing something, why not compare yourself to the ALJ that has done 3,500 cases a year? We are not all equal, the files are not all equal, the hearings are not all equal, etc.. Further, another investigation found 23-28 percent of the decisions they looked at as wrong. Our decisions are a farce and are laughed at by the District Court for the dumb mistakes we make. Little things like changing gender in mid-stream, big things like not considering severe impairments in the RFC. We are not demonstrating that we can do 500-700 cases a year properly. Why not?? Thanks for the update on the Union meeting bartleby. It is always nice to know what is happening and how that could affect us (possible future ALJs). Please feel free to share any other information gathered at the event. As one of those who thinks I can do 500 a year, I was only speaking for myself, I'm not generalizing about other judges and I wasn't comparing myself to anybody else. I read on here all the time that people appreciate different perspectives. My experience, and my experience alone, has been that I do have time to properly review my files; just today I found two that need CEs because neither the claimant nor representative has submitted very much evidence and nothing with objective findings, including physical exam findings, and the DDS for some reason did not send it for a CE and had a SDM sign off on it. You are right the files are not equal, etc, that is why I don't generalize. I have no idea what a reasonable number is for every judge, for me, right now, I don't mind 500 and I do a good job and I don't appreciate your insinuation otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Oct 3, 2013 16:06:42 GMT -5
Missed evidence, and failure to develop it fully prior to the hearing is a huge side effect of how little time ALJs have to review the file. All the time, when drafting decisions, I see little nuggets that if the ALJ had more time to review the file pre-hearing, would likely have had an enormous effect of the decisional outcome. For example, buried in a 100p exhibit in the doctor's nearly illegible handwritten notes, is a statement that he filled out a Med-1 form; yet the file does not contain this evidence. Maybe the rep just forgot to submit it, but more likely the opinion was not favorable to the claimant and was intentionally withheld. So now that the hearing has already been held, and the decision made, do I bring this to the ALJs attention so we can try to subpoena the dr's treating notes? If yes, then we have to stick it in POST. If they actually return the requested info, then we have to have a supplemental hearing. Next thing you know, this seemingly simple case has ballooned into an AGED case and you are getting hounded by management to just move it. Now, if there were more time to effectively review the file months before the hearing, this nugget could have been spotted and addressed prior to the initial hearing. Or, as what happens most of the time, we just ignore the info, never try to clarify or obtain full treatment notes, and decide the case based upon whatever the rep has selected to submit to us. Stuff like this happens all the time. Perhaps the rep also missed the note about the form. Or perhaps the doctor did not send the form to the rep with the rest of the records. Or perhaps the rep has contacted the doctor about the form to see if he/she can get it. So many times reps are handling 4-5-6-7 hearings in a single day and also miss notes in records, especially those that are, as you noted as "nearly illegible", when we are trying to prepare. The particular rep you mentioned may have intentionally withheld evidence, but most do not. I have had ODAR staff call me when they find stuff like that and I am always honest and say, "I never saw that" or "I saw that but the doctors office told me they couldn't find a copy of that form in the file" or "I explained to the ALJ at the hearing that the doctor's office was going to fax me that form by the end of the day today" or whatever. If it is a loser case, with no chance of winning (or less than 30% chance of winning) I still go through the motions. I ask to speak with the judge before the hearing and let him/her know that I know I have a loser case but that I didn't want to waste any more hearing times by withdrawing and the judge then letting the claimant have additional time to find a different lawyer. I also say that I will not appeal the denial under any circumstances. And I also tell them that, although with a little more hard work and persuasion I could have convinced by client to withdraw his case, those cases help the judge not become an "outlier" with too many favorables. That last statement is always in jest, but really there is no need to withdraw a case 24-48 hours prior to a hearing. The hearing reporters get mad cause they don't get paid, the experts get mad because they prepped for no reason, etc. Sometimes during those hearings I actually ask the claimant questions that I know will help support the unfavorable decision. I think judges and reps need to work a little more closely together. Most of the time, questions are easily answered if the questions are simply asked. And perhaps some judges see these little nuggets of information and choose to ignore it, simply to justify an unfavorable or favorable decision. Just my two cents. I always ask our writers to bring any missed evidence to me; in fact our HOCALJ recently initiated a special recognition program for any writer, or other employee, who saves our hides like that. I'd rather have a correct decision than a fast one and I've never had any pushback from my HOCALJ or any member of management. And as to lurker's point, the judge in me finds it awfully tempting to assume with certain reps that there are less than honorable reasons why something wasn't turned over; but having been in that position I agree that it is, with most reps, just an honest oversight or that they don't have the record either. No need to assume the worst motive.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 3, 2013 16:07:38 GMT -5
There will be a segment on 60 Minutes this Sunday on SSA AlJs. Must-see TV. Thanks for the heads-up.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 3, 2013 16:20:45 GMT -5
Cougarfan, I am not insinuating anything. According to the AC and many others we are not doing a good job as a Corps. If you are, then congratulations, do not get your feelings hurt. If Bartleby wants to single you out, he will. Until then don't over-react to opinions based on how we as a group are doing. Perhaps more of you that are capable of doing 500 can share your techniques or short cuts or ways of doing things as Philliesfan has to assist those that are having trouble achieving that number. I do think that typing speed may have something to do with it. I know there are many other things that go into movement of cases and perhaps we can share such. We don't need to turn on each other and there is much more to this program than just numbers, in spite of what management would have you believe.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 3, 2013 16:35:16 GMT -5
There will be a segment on 60 Minutes this Sunday on SSA AlJs. Must-see TV. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm beginning to think I urinated off morley safer in a past life. Right out of law school I went to work for a mass tort/class action firm. 3 years later I was celebrating making partner when 60 minutes did an expose on class actions. Soon after there was federal class action reform. I took a buyout of my partnership and opened my own small firm doing plaintiffs tort and criminal defense. Couple of years later up shows 60 minutesin my home state with a show about juries gone wild. Major state level tort reform soon followed. Now I hide at odar and as soon as I try for alj here comes 60 minutes...
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 3, 2013 16:47:27 GMT -5
I took a buyout of my partnership and opened my own small firm doing plaintiffs tort and criminal defense. Couple of years later up shows 60 minutesin my home state with a show about juries gone wild. Major state level tort reform soon followed. Now I hide at odar and as soon as I try for alj here comes 60 minutes... Alabama?
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Oct 3, 2013 17:04:59 GMT -5
Cougarfan, I am not insinuating anything. According to the AC and many others we are not doing a good job as a Corps. If you are, then congratulations, do not get your feelings hurt. If Bartleby wants to single you out, he will. Until then don't over-react to opinions based on how we as a group are doing. Perhaps more of you that are capable of doing 500 can share your techniques or short cuts or ways of doing things as Philliesfan has to assist those that are having trouble achieving that number. I do think that typing speed may have something to do with it. I know there are many other things that go into movement of cases and perhaps we can share such. We don't need to turn on each other and there is much more to this program than just numbers, in spite of what management would have you believe. I probably did overreact, I apologize. I did not mean to turn on anybody. I took this statement too seriously perhaps: bartleby said:I doubt if anyone doing 500-700 is adequately developing the record. If you didn't mean to insinuate that those of us doing 500 dispositions aren't doing a good job then I stand corrected. I'd be happy to share how I do things; I am usually reluctant to do so, perhaps a thread dedicated to habits, etc would be a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 3, 2013 19:39:47 GMT -5
Must-see TV. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm beginning to think I urinated off morley safer in a past life. Right out of law school I went to work for a mass tort/class action firm. 3 years later I was celebrating making partner when 60 minutes did an expose on class actions. Soon after there was federal class action reform. I took a buyout of my partnership and opened my own small firm doing plaintiffs tort and criminal defense. Couple of years later up shows 60 minutesin my home state with a show about juries gone wild. Major state level tort reform soon followed. Now I hide at odar and as soon as I try for alj here comes 60 minutes... You know, I hate to tell you but when I heard stories like this (and usually '60 Minutes' was a bully) from my daughter, I'd say there's a moral to this story.
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Oct 3, 2013 19:50:13 GMT -5
Cougarfan, I am not insinuating anything. According to the AC and many others we are not doing a good job as a Corps. If you are, then congratulations, do not get your feelings hurt. If Bartleby wants to single you out, he will. Until then don't over-react to opinions based on how we as a group are doing. Perhaps more of you that are capable of doing 500 can share your techniques or short cuts or ways of doing things as Philliesfan has to assist those that are having trouble achieving that number. I do think that typing speed may have something to do with it. I know there are many other things that go into movement of cases and perhaps we can share such. We don't need to turn on each other and there is much more to this program than just numbers, in spite of what management would have you believe. Bartleby - It's nice you've gone all kumbaya and feel we don't need to turn on each other any more. I look forward to that sentiment in your future posts. Perhaps if you highlight the areas that you feel most impact your ability to review and hear cases in an expeditious manner, then the judges doing 500 cases a year will know better which techniques to share.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 3, 2013 20:16:42 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think I urinated off morley safer in a past life. Right out of law school I went to work for a mass tort/class action firm. 3 years later I was celebrating making partner when 60 minutes did an expose on class actions. Soon after there was federal class action reform. I took a buyout of my partnership and opened my own small firm doing plaintiffs tort and criminal defense. Couple of years later up shows 60 minutesin my home state with a show about juries gone wild. Major state level tort reform soon followed. Now I hide at odar and as soon as I try for alj here comes 60 minutes... You know, I hate to tell you but when I heard stories like this (and usually '60 Minutes' was a bully) from my daughter, I'd say there's a moral to this story. No doubt. at least my nemesis isn't "Dateline"
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 3, 2013 20:20:39 GMT -5
Eyre44, Thank you and I will respond to your request, but at a later date. The news I have now, I think is good. Having talked to a lot of Judges at the conference, a lot are planning on retiring shortly or within a year. I know we have discussed the buy back of sick leave for FERS retirees in January, but a lot of CSRS are planning on retiring before then. Several of these were not ones I expected to be retiring. This should make for good hiring within the next year.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 3, 2013 23:31:03 GMT -5
Eyre44, Thank you and I will respond to your request, but at a later date. The news I have now, I think is good. Having talked to a lot of Judges at the conference, a lot are planning on retiring shortly or within a year. I know we have discussed the buy back of sick leave for FERS retirees in January, but a lot of CSRS are planning on retiring before then. Several of these were not ones I expected to be retiring. This should make for good hiring within the next year. Changing of the guard.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 4, 2013 0:19:25 GMT -5
A little more Union news. The new contract will place the National Hearing Judges into the transfer list along with everyone else, no more advantage for them. Judges will be allowed to work at home 8 days a month, possibly more with management permission. This clause had some troublesome language that was confusing about recalls and eligibility to work at home. Some management may interpret it one way and others may interpret differently. Some training in the future will not be duty time anymore, it will be administrative leave. Difference? If you go to the AALJ Conference and break a leg, no workers compensation coverage. The AALJ website discussion forum is being upgraded to make it more user friendly in hopes every member will use it frequently. MCB and I will be happy to see that. There was a fairly intensive review of Agency-Union legal battles over various things since the late 70's, some regarding numerical goals-quotas and even Agency review of Judge decision for correctness (Belmon review). Historically the Union/members have prevailed consistently, but management continues to ignore history and attempts to do as management wants, ie, Quality Review, wherein, Agency attorneys will be hired to review 100 cases of each Judge for correctness. How a non-judge can review a judicial decision is problematic to say the least and verging on our judicial independence. The Union is very concerned about this. The new bias complaint reviews are also problematic as they are really like AC Appeals, one does not have to really have any grounds per se to file. The perceived demeanor of the Judge after the Rep turns in 500 pages of evidence at the hearing may be enough. Claimants receiving favorable decisions are also filing bias complaints, one being because the Judge asked if the claimant was planning on having more children and what form of birth control she was utilizing. Probably could have been worded differently, but not always an improper question. (I believe this Judge was counseled, but I may be wrong). As one can see, goals-quotas are not our only problem. The Union represents all non-management Judges and invites any that are not members and all new Judges to please join so your voice and concerns can be heard. I will review my notes later to see if I missed anything of importance. I hope I haven't totally hi-jacked this thread.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 4, 2013 1:25:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the update, Bart!
|
|