|
|
Post by maquereau on Apr 7, 2014 8:09:41 GMT -5
"That's a fair point. My guess is that one of the insiders' largest concerns is with writing quality should we be fortunate enough to join the ranks. I've written enough remands to know that it's hit or miss. Heck, some of the decisions I wrote my first year or two made me cringe when they've come back. I review every one of my remanded decisions, and there are occasions where I'll still make a mistake that causes a remand."
"Then again, sometimes all I have to work with is magic. Like when I get instructions that there are no severe physical impairments and the RFC/VE hypothetical is for light work. When a claimant has a later onset date that doesn't correspond to any significant changes to their conditions or to any changes in age. Or maybe when I get a fully favorable set of instructions and the only "impairment" in the record is chest pain on a single occasion in a 25-page record. Writers are not the only magicians on the payroll."
What can I say, Hopeful? You are just as correct as Funky. There really needs to be some kind of forum where both writer and judge are free to speak regarding the issues that prevent them from putting out a quality product. The writers don't need to be guessing at what's in the judge's mind. The judge needs to be explicit when drafting instructions. As for writers, I've spoken my mind plenty of times regarding what I feel they need to do. I'm sure they're sick of me. So I just don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Apr 7, 2014 8:14:35 GMT -5
Bartley, funny how you include "hysterical paralysis" but keep ignoring the elephant in the room, fatigue, and your statement that mental impairments do not result in exertional limitations. This thread documents it well. You misstated the Agency's policy. Additionally, "One thing I enjoy is when a rep says the claimant has a less than sedentary RFC because of severe mental impairments. I then ask them to explain and they look at me like I just handed them a radioactive snake to play with. " SSR 96-9p is their response, as well as common sense. Hopefully you'll take this into account going forward in evaluating your claimants cases. Prescient, really? I'm confusing fatigue with tiredness? 1fa·tigue noun \fə-ˈtēg\ : the state of being very tired : extreme weariness I'm shocked some characterize the symptom as rarely documented in a depression case, considering that the DSM-IV for major depressive disorder includes both sleep difficulty (insomnia) and fatigue/loss of energy as criteria. SHOCKED! Your thinking that fatigue has anything to do with tiredness is a perfect example of why people without some type of medical degree shouldn't be hired to be an alj. You're citing the colloquial definition of fatigue. Not the medical And as I said, I do believe depression can cause fatigue. It's just rarely if ever documented in the record in a manner that would support an exertional limitation |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 7, 2014 8:37:59 GMT -5
Excellent points maq. Because its almost impossible to get rid of a bad one, management works around those by overloading the excellent ones. Thus, the really good ones suffer burn out.
Were I odar dictator I'd make a few changes (to say the least.)
1. Put the hearing offices on the nhc plan. IE have 2 writers actually assigned to each judge instead of in a pool. This has the benefit of letting the judge and writers become very familiar with each other. Also, its harder to hide bad workproduct when a bad writer is 50% of a unit than when he/she is 5% of a unit.
2. have every single case, when it comes in, reviewed by a senior. Not just for otr, but also to look for deficiencies in the evidence, procedural matters, earnings issues, daa, etc. Then they put a brief in the file that can help the judge with development, review and issue identification.
3. get all the bugs out of the ebb, then mandate its use for instructions. I get some instructions hand written on a note pad, some on the old fit instrux sheet, some on the enhanced fit sheet, some on some form the judge created and some on the ebb. We need uniformity and, if done correctly, the new ebb makes the judge answer all the right questions regarding impairments, credibility, opinion weight, rfc. Hard to just skip the b criteria in a mental case when doing ebb instrux, it dings and tells you you didn't do it.
4. scrap FIT and start over. Just because a case is unfavorbale, doesn't mean the claimant wasn't credible. And that's just one example of FITs shortcomings. Writers too often end up writing to match a template than writing to match the evidence.
5. and this is a biggie, the time allotted for aljs per case needs an increase. I've read where, to reach the 500 to 700, an alj only has around 2.5 hours including the hearing, with a file. For some cases that may work, others not so much. I also know that otrs and dismissals can take less and drives down the avg, but its still low. Personally, I think an alj ought to have 2 hours for immediate prehearing review, the hearing and post hearing contemplation. I also think they ought to have a full day to review and write instrux for each day they have of hearings. Finally, they need another full day each week to do their edits, signs, interrogs etc. So, in funkys world an alj would have a day of reviews and instrux writing, followed by a day of hearings (no more than 4) followed by a day of review/instrux etc, followed by another day of 4 hearings and end their week with a day of edits, signs, bench decision drafting etc. So, that's 8 hearings a week. With otrs and dismissals that's maybe 10 dispositions a week. In an average 48 workweek month that's 480 dispos a year. That ought, in my mind, be the benchmark, not 500 to 700 (though if you cut the pre/hearing/post time to allow for 5 hearings a day, the 500 is theoretically attainable). To do my plan, they need to hire more aljs...luckily there are quite a few excellent candidates just waiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 7, 2014 8:52:17 GMT -5
Excellent points maq. Because its almost impossible to get rid of a bad one, management works around those by overloading the excellent ones. Thus, the really good ones suffer burn out. Were I odar dictator I'd make a few changes (to say the least.) 1. Put the hearing offices on the nhc plan. IE have 2 writers actually assigned to each judge instead of in a pool. This has the benefit of letting the judge and writers become very familiar with each other. Also, its harder to hide bad workproduct when a bad writer is 50% of a unit than when he/she is 5% of a unit. 2. have every single case, when it comes in, reviewed by a senior. Not just for otr, but also to look for deficiencies in the evidence, procedural matters, earnings issues, daa, etc. Then they put a brief in the file that can help the judge with development, review and issue identification. 3. get all the bugs out of the ebb, then mandate its use for instructions. I get some instructions hand written on a note pad, some on the old fit instrux sheet, some on the enhanced fit sheet, some on some form the judge created and some on the ebb. We need uniformity and, if done correctly, the new ebb makes the judge answer all the right questions regarding impairments, credibility, opinion weight, rfc. Hard to just skip the b criteria in a mental case when doing ebb instrux, it dings and tells you you didn't do it. 4. scrap FIT and start over. Just because a case is unfavorbale, doesn't mean the claimant wasn't credible. And that's just one example of FITs shortcomings. Writers too often end up writing to match a template than writing to match the evidence. 5. and this is a biggie, the time allotted for aljs per case needs an increase. I've read where, to reach the 500 to 700, an alj only has around 2.5 hours including the hearing, with a file. For some cases that may work, others not so much. I also know that otrs and dismissals can take less and drives down the avg, but its still low. Personally, I think an alj ought to have 2 hours for immediate prehearing review, the hearing and post hearing contemplation. I also think they ought to have a full day to review and write instrux for each day they have of hearings. Finally, they need another full day each week to do their edits, signs, interrogs etc. So, in funkys world an alj would have a day of reviews and instrux writing, followed by a day of hearings (no more than 4) followed by a day of review/instrux etc, followed by another day of 4 hearings and end their week with a day of edits, signs, bench decision drafting etc. So, that's 8 hearings a week. With otrs and dismissals that's maybe 10 dispositions a week. In an average 48 workweek month that's 480 dispos a year. That ought, in my mind, be the benchmark, not 500 to 700 (though if you cut the pre/hearing/post time to allow for 5 hearings a day, the 500 is theoretically attainable). To do my plan, they need to hire more aljs...luckily there are quite a few excellent candidates just waiting.Your thoughts are right on the mark brother funky, you hit that one on the head.  |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 7, 2014 9:08:13 GMT -5
3 more ideas from funk's dream world.
1. judges need both enforecable subpoena power and the ability to require a rep to submit a prehearing brief if they intend to argue for a listing or other technical issue (unsuccessful work attempt, trial work period, all nondisability issues).
2. some cases are just different. in article 3 courts, the pressure is on to rocket docket. But if a case is complex a party can request special, slower processing thru scheduling orders etc. In our case, judges are hounded anytime a case sits in any status beyond benchmark day counts. There ought to be some process where a judge can take a case to his/her hocalj and point out its gonna require unusual post work up, research, med ev requests or CE/ME evidence and, if the hocalj agrees (maybe have the rep agree too) the case can be moved to some "special processing track" that takes it outside the standard benchmarks for ALPO, POST, DWPC or EDIT.
3. finally, the AC needs to stop almost sua sponte remands anytime a judge issues a no severe or no mdi denial. Fact is, there are a lot of cases that should go that route, but judges are gunshy because it almost guarantees a remand.
All of this is, of course, JMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Apr 7, 2014 9:19:03 GMT -5
I've read where, to reach the 500 to 700, an alj only has around 2.5 hours including the hearing. Stubby pencil and Big Chief: 52 calendar weeks in a year. 5 days per week is 260 days, or 2080 hours. Back out 11 Federal holidays (88 hours), and you're already under 2000, slightly (1992). Once you're earning 8 hours of leave per pay period, that's down another 208, or 1784. Now, assuming you don't have to review VODs, have electronic issues for downtime, sick leave, military leave, etc. (credit should be a wash, you work it, you take it - should zero out at some point) - 1784/500 is slightly over 3 1/2 hours (3.568) per disposition. If you do ~ 100 dismissals per year, those should be less, but that is still only about 4 hours per substantive disposition, if you're producing at 500. For 700, it is right above 2 1/2 hours (2.549), and ~100 dismissals should get you to about 3 hours per substantive decision. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 7, 2014 9:37:05 GMT -5
I've read where, to reach the 500 to 700, an alj only has around 2.5 hours including the hearing. Stubby pencil and Big Chief: 52 calendar weeks in a year. 5 days per week is 260 days, or 2080 hours. Back out 11 Federal holidays (88 hours), and you're already under 2000, slightly (1992). Once you're earning 8 hours of leave per pay period, that's down another 208, or 1784. Now, assuming you don't have to review VODs, have electronic issues for downtime, sick leave, military leave, etc. (credit should be a wash, you work it, you take it - should zero out at some point) - 1784/500 is slightly over 3 1/2 hours (3.568) per disposition. If you do ~ 100 dismissals per year, those should be less, but that is still only about 4 hours per substantive disposition, if you're producing at 500. For 700, it is right above 2 1/2 hours (2.549), and ~100 dismissals should get you to about 3 hours per substantive decision. Your math seems solid ace. However, depending upon file size and types of medical contained therein, the ability to properly review the case pre-hearing, do the actual hearing, write proper instructions for the writers, do edits, corrections, etc and then sign off on the final product leaves not enough time to properly give the claimant his/her due in the disability process on some cases INMO. Can dispositions and decisions be done in those numbers in the time periods you list? Yes, but not on each and every case, if quality is as important as quantity. Hopefully, ALJs have much less lengthy files in their assigned caseloads to make up for the lengthy cases, which require more time INMO. |
|
|
|
Post by papresqr on Apr 7, 2014 9:47:22 GMT -5
Were I odar dictator I'd make a few changes (to say the least.) 1. Put the hearing offices on the nhc plan. IE have 2 writers actually assigned to each judge instead of in a pool. This has the benefit of letting the judge and writers become very familiar with each other. Also, its harder to hide bad workproduct when a bad writer is 50% of a unit than when he/she is 5% of a unit. In a perfect world where all ALJs were equal, that would be great. For both the ALJs and the writers. However, in the real world, just as there are differences in quality of writers, there are also significant differences in quality of ALJs and their instructions. I certainly would not like to be the writer assigned to write exclusively for some of our ALJs. And, for all I know, there may be one of our ALJs who's thanking his/her lucky stars that I'm not his/her exclusive writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 7, 2014 9:50:05 GMT -5
Were I odar dictator I'd make a few changes (to say the least.) 1. Put the hearing offices on the nhc plan. IE have 2 writers actually assigned to each judge instead of in a pool. This has the benefit of letting the judge and writers become very familiar with each other. Also, its harder to hide bad workproduct when a bad writer is 50% of a unit than when he/she is 5% of a unit. In a perfect world where all ALJs were equal, that would be great. For both the ALJs and the writers. However, in the real world, just as there are differences in quality of writers, there are also significant differences in quality of ALJs and their instructions. I certainly would not like to be the writer assigned to write exclusively for some of our ALJs. And, for all I know, there may be one of our ALJs who's thanking his/her lucky stars that I'm not his/her exclusive writer.
Excellent point pap. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 7, 2014 11:00:43 GMT -5
Funky, I have tried ebb but it slowed me down even more. I use FIT and the writers tell me they love it. I try to give them everything they need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 7, 2014 11:03:08 GMT -5
In a perfect world where all ALJs were equal, that would be great. For both the ALJs and the writers. However, in the real world, just as there are differences in quality of writers, there are also significant differences in quality of ALJs and their instructions. I certainly would not like to be the writer assigned to write exclusively for some of our ALJs. And, for all I know, there may be one of our ALJs who's thanking his/her lucky stars that I'm not his/her exclusive writer.
Excellent point pap. I almost never venture to comment in these threads because I don't have much if anything to add as an outsider. While I have never managed judges I have managed government attorneys and their paralegals. While not directly akin to this I can tell you that most often your hypothetical HOCALJ is going to pair strong writers with weak ALJs and weak writers with strong ALJs with the hope that they compensate for each others deficiencies. Otherwise you end up with super stars and weak links. While everybody loves a superstar it doesn't help much if you end up spending all your time managing two or three weak links. Especially when you realize that the weak links could be successful if they were paired with more talent. Just my half penny of insight. |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 7, 2014 11:19:16 GMT -5
Funky, I have tried ebb but it slowed me down even more. I use FIT and the writers tell me they love it. I try to give them everything they need. I've heard that complaint from a few judges in my office bart. I think its a combination of it being new and the judges needing time to get used to it and the fact that there are still many bugs. ebb isn't quite ready for primetime. one thing is its sometimes slow to pull up docs which I would presume unhelpful in a hearing. But, if they get it together and it does what they say it can do, it will be an awesome tool. |
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Apr 7, 2014 13:21:14 GMT -5
I've been using EBB for at least 9 months. I think it's great. I find myself better prepared for hearings, I get my instructions written more efficiently, and I've never had a problem pulling up a document. Just my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by extang on Apr 7, 2014 16:35:24 GMT -5
Some days ago it was posted that "Debbi's prior experience before becoming an ALJ was with OGC and not with ODAR".
I think this is incorrect.
All I know about Bice is what it says on the OCALJ web page, according to which she was a RMO [if you don't know what that is, be happy about that, you're probably a lucky person who has never worked for ODAR] for several years before becoming an ALJ, and before that she was an AA and a SA [again, if you don't know what these mean, be happy that you don't]. It also says she was in private practice.
There is nothing there to suggest she worked for OGC. In addition, she evidently had plenty of management experience at ODAR; in fact she had arguably the worst kind of management experience imaginable, i.e., at a regional office.
I admit that I may be naive in thinking that OGC has some at least some glimmer of understanding of professionalism. This perhaps unjustified belief does make me doubt that somebody could come from OGC and have the meteoric rise that J. Bice has had in ODAR management ranks.
|
|
|
|
Post by factfinder on Apr 9, 2014 14:53:41 GMT -5
Bice is a a mouthpiece for the uninformed (like herself). Her entire empahsis on numbers does nothing to save the DIB fund, the true emergency. Instead, it makes it worse. You do not have to be a genius to know the numbers she demands results in crap adjudications and too many allowances.
I wish I had something nice to say here, but I do not. Instead, all I can say is that I am glad I am not at ODAR right now working under such terminally misguided management.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Apr 9, 2014 20:54:40 GMT -5
Funk : I would be happy to be assigned to "advise" and prepare decisions for only one ALJ, a la NHC style, provided I get to pick the ALJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 9, 2014 21:14:19 GMT -5
A pay rate in the 30's is below the national average, so you may not be making the difference some people may deserve. Further, it is our job to fully develop the record prior to the hearing and our job is to offer the claimant a full and fair due process hearing, which is inconceivable if the record has not been fully developed. Perhaps if you can't do the job as required you should get out of the kitchen?? I am glad you have determined that you issue correct and quality decisions. Congratulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Apr 9, 2014 21:55:33 GMT -5
So true Northerner. Some who can't blame others-national management, regional management, local management, support staff and successful colleagues who do their jobs. A pay rate in the 30's is NOT an indication of improper decision making or not making a difference in the lives of the claimants. An unfavorable decision tells the claimant that he or she doesn't meet the requirements of our agency. This claimant must decide what next to do. Some find jobs, some may reapply, some appeal. Every decision makes a difference, but we are ALJ's not social workers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 9, 2014 21:55:43 GMT -5
I can do 50 hearings a month, anyone can. The question is are they being done properly. 90% of the Judges are not doing 50+ hearings a month. That's over 600 a year. Congress is currently concerned with Judges doing 700 a year. Obviously there is a correlation between numbers and quality, at least to some. I would think anyone that you deny may wonder how their case didn't make the national average. Sounds like you are very happy with yourself. I spend considerable time attempting to evaluate the record to lessen my chances of error in making my decisions. Perhaps I should put less into each case, but with my medical background it's not so easy to do. It's not a numbers game to our claimants, it is at least a life changing event and sometimes a matter of life and death.
|
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Apr 10, 2014 8:04:26 GMT -5
I wonder how many hours a week Northerner spends editing drafts? I've met all the quotas the agency has put in front of me, but it is a very rare week where I don't work all 7 days; if I were allowed to somehow keep all the credit hours I've earned, I would be retired.
|
|
