|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 11, 2014 18:44:11 GMT -5
Wow, this is a load of really well-articualted, thoughtful comments. I'm so proud of my thread (haha)! I like that we board members seem to generally understand the complexity of the problems and solutions. Oral argument seemed like Posner at least thought things are very simple. Ther are nuances. Here are some of my thoughts:
1) The main problem I have had (I am not an ALJ) with the concept of every ALJ doing 500 (then 5-600, then 5-700, soon 6-700, no doubt) was the fear that the agency would do what is referred to in my immediately prior parenthetical - moving the target. If it takes an average of 2.5 hours to work on and dispose of a case (just for convenience, I'll use that number), by necessity, some cases take longer. For every 15 minute "do you want to dismiss this case in which the claimant requested to withdraw her hearing request?" "Yes" case, there is a 4.75 hour extra-hard non-disability case with adverse affected parties. That's how averaging works.
If you decide the average is applicable to every instance of the measured item (time on a case, in this instance), then you encourage the average to move. So that 2 years from now, the average is 2 hours. And then a new 'leader' says, well, if the average is 2 hours, you can do all of them in 2 hours, and so on and so on. That was my initial reaction, and frankly, it has borne fruit, as the 700 sneaks into more and more conversations.
Having averages as goals REQUIRES that the goal-maker accept instances of lower and higher results averaging to the goal. In a national cadre, if the cadre achieves the goal, all members achieve the goal, and there is no more need to push. Let peer pressure cause the 'low producer' in an office to find ways to improve, not micro-management. Or not! If the other ALJs pick up the slack happily, that is how an average number is attained.
If bad actions are causing high or low numbers - that is the focus of concern, not the number. Focusing on the number instead of an identifiable error or impropriety in process is destined to fail.
2) Some ALJs are not capable of being ALJs. I worked in management for several terrible years (emphasis on the terror), and there are ALJs who CANNOT decide a case; who cannot or will not apply the BASIC definitions in the regulations; etc.
2a) Those ALJs should be self aware and get out. I know the job is good. I know people don't like to fail. I don't even expect them to do it. But ideally, I think they should. I have done something similar when I felt I was being paid beyond an organizations ability to afford my salary, and I believe a highly principled person would not take pay for work he or she cannot do.
2b) The agency is happily pushing out ALJs it does not think can do the job through a level of micromanagement that borders on insanity. When I was in management, I suggested (with no appreciable reception, as far as I know) that we send the ALJs with high remand rates to further training. As far as I can tell, ALJs hate going to training by the agency. It seemed win win to me (this was before I realized I was in "the darkness"). Instead, to accomplish this goal, the agency outright lies all the time - to ALJs, to staff, to middle management, and to administrative tribunals and courts. I just heard of an egregious example today. I don't know why, but for some reason, ODAR management prefers to spend time ignoring their actual granted powers from contracts and law in order to violate established prohibitions to try to achieve through trickery and misinformation things they could have done more reasonable through the official channels. It boggles my mind.
2bi) IMPORTANT RULE OF THUMB FOR THOSE WHO GO TO WORK AT ODAR: This is unfortunate, but it is nearly 100% true - if you receive an instruction, and it is not in writing, it is either a lie, an error (i.e. will not be able to be proven to have been a knowing lie), or something that will be later denied. Every legal, valid instruction is provided to multiple people in written form. Everything you may have to look up has some way to refer to it. "That recent time the HOCALJ called me and said I had to cancel my leave and cover so-and-so's hearings" is not a citation, and the HOCALJ WILL say that you misunderstood. NB: If you send an e-mail question and receive a telephone call response, it is EVEN WORSE. CYA! My "follow up confirmation e-mails about our recent conversation" have basically stopped my phone from ringing.
[I might post more, but this seems like enough for now. I actually hope I haven't been offensive to anyone. I reviewed what I wrote, and I am confident I endorse it in calm, reasonable terms. I do not mean to indict any person in the above, I deal primarily with abstractions of random sampling and not anyone I know about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 11, 2014 18:50:08 GMT -5
I think the whole pay rate argument in terms of fully favorable decisions being "faster" to move along is flawed. Our new guidance is that fully favorable decisions need just as much support as we put into the unfavorable decisions. In the past, this may not have been the case. But with the impending CDR workload coming to us, there is more emphasis on writing favorable decisions in the same detail as the unfavorable ones. I also do not see how a goal or quota or whatever you want to call it of 500 dispositions a year has anything to do with judicial independence. I have never heard anyone say what the outcome of any case should be, and I have never seen an email directing any such outcome. Arguing that the pressure or stress of the workload may make an ALJ make improper decisions disturbs me. Public servants have a duty to the public regardless of the "stress" of the job. If an ALJ is willing to sacrifice his/her ethical duties by "paying" more cases than he/she would have without a "quota" tells me there may be an issue with that ALJ and nothing more. I think if I get into a situation where I am not able handle the workload, it may be time to consider another career path. I would have to ask myself, if 90% of the ALJs are able to handle it, what am I doing differently? A little self reflection may be in order.  As with everything, there are always exceptions, but generally speaking aren't most of the ALJs meeting this number now? What sets apart the ones who are not? Great post. I wish the arguing ALJ in front of Posner had said "If we had to work 10 hour days, we would be able to spend more time on the decisions and they would get better," since that is the only reasonable response to having more time to work on a case if the argument is that less time makes them worse. I'm not sure why she couldn't come up with an answer, but it probably had to do with being attacked furiously with words. When the complaint was filed, I read with alarm the included affidavots of the ALJs, at least one of which I recall saying he was unable to read all the files before deicdding his cases because the pressure was so great. I saw a class action coming - I'm not sure why it didn't. It was like a gift for every claimant that had been turned down by him. And I, too, have always questioned the link between timeliness and independence. I can see that an ALJ being forced to hear and decide a case he or she believes has not been fully developed affects judicial independence, but in the many instances in which a case has no more that needs to be done to it - the evidence is in, the hearing is over, and it awaits the minimal ALJ instructions that allow it to continue in its process, I have never understood why the union gets so upset with management instructions to move oldest cases first, and in a timely manner. |
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Dec 11, 2014 19:01:43 GMT -5
For those of you who are union members, please surf your way over to the AALJ website and leave a comment for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 11, 2014 19:17:32 GMT -5
I also wonder if this case is even ripe. There seemed to be an admission during the arguments that no ALJ had been fired for not meeting a "quota" alone, and that when the quota was an issue, it was a combination of many other factors that led to the ALJ's termination. The subject matter jurisdiction argument made sense to me as well, since the MSPB would be the proper avenue if an ALJ does end up in the hot seat over these numbers. It did disturb me a bit to hear Posner and one other ask what the MSPB was and how long it had been around. LOL! Not to mention the basic understanding of the difference between a Commissioner and an ALJ. That part got an eye roll from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Dec 11, 2014 22:18:35 GMT -5
The ripeness issue gets a double like from me, as that has been gnawing on the back of my brain for months with this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by happy on Dec 12, 2014 9:31:26 GMT -5
Happy, I agree with you somewhat, but, I doubt if anyone is developing the record like it should be developed. Are you asking for any CE's prior to the hearing? Are you looking at the record far enough ahead to establish if there are possibly any more medical records out there? To do the job as requested by the reg's 2 1/2 hours is no enough... JMHO. If you look at the respective position descriptions, the Senior Case Technicians are supposed to be developing the record and making recommendations for (or even ordering) CEs at workup (or upon judge assignment, depending on the timeline). This is why the use of Standing Orders is recommended, so that most of that stuff is done before you receive the case for review. However, because training is not optimal, most ALJs don't trust SCT judgment on such matters. I do agree, though, that 2.5 hours is not realistic. You spend 45-60 minutes just on one hearing, and this presumes no need for a supplemental after a post-hearing CE. You spend about an hour reviewing for hearing in advance of the hearing and 10-15 minutes refreshing your memory before you go in. Another 15-20 minutes (optimistically) for writing instructions the old way (terse and pithy), more like 30-45 to put in the instructions everything that they are asking you to put in now (not that you see your thoughts articulated in the draft anyway). If there is post-hearing development, you can count on another 30 minutes or so to refresh your memory and review new evidence. Then, personally, I average at least 30 minutes per EDIT in all but the simplest, fully favorable cases. Nonetheless, I still make goal. It CAN be done and IS being done by most judges. Some are slightly slower, some are more efficient, and others process cases with a wink and a nod, which we know, because we often end up with their re-remands!  |
|
|
|
Post by happy on Dec 12, 2014 9:39:33 GMT -5
I have, in fact, met the quota since I've been working. However, it appears that I will no longer be able to meet it. In the past, I had a moderate (love the B Criteria terms) degree of writing and staff support. In the current office, I do not. The files are an unholy mess. The writing is, to a considerable degree, the worst I have seen in this agency - having worked in several offices. In fact, I haven't seen writing like this since grade school. You can complain all you want to management, but they do not have a magic wand that will turn bad writers into good ones. They tell you they will work with the writers, but that avails nothing. They promote clerks into "paralegals" - I guess maybe they do have magic wands - who have no idea how to write a decision. They don't have the training, nor do they have the background to perform the writing tasks they are assigned. With some of them, the issue is simply one of cognitive ability. When you are in an office where the vast majority of the writers are actually these so-called paralegals, you will begin to appreciate some of the problems associated with the imposition of a quota. . . .Yes, I am afraid I will have to fault them for not giving me the support. I further fault them for not demanding that the writers turn in work product that meets the criteria set forth in various Chief Judge memoranda with respect to writing standards. I couldn't agree more. 90% of the writing I see is atrocious! It does make it more difficult to meet goal and I actually did end up writing an unacceptable percentage of my own cases over the past two years, both favorable and unfavorable. |
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Dec 12, 2014 11:41:37 GMT -5
Okay, I'm an ODAR newbie. But I'm a veteran attorney. I've managed a decent sized practice, with lots of moving parts. And, I don't have a problem making a decision.
My issue is, I take all the time necessary to review all the medical records. I've had 20-years experience reviewing medical records in Workers Comp, Med Mal, and Personal Injury cases (not to mention my service as a judicial law clerk for a U.S. Dist. Ct. Judge). I know how to read and summarize records.
But the sheer volume of medical records, (especially given the redundancies in the office and hospital notes as a result of computer software), combined with the use of EBB to summarize what I see, has me taking about an hour to review 120 pages of meds. For a typical case of 200-250 pages, it takes a couple hours. (Heck, even an extremely small record of 25 pages takes me at least half an hour using EBB to set up a Hearing Level Decisional Summary, review the pertinent Section A,B,D, & E exhibits, quickly summarize what meds there are in Section F, create 2 or 3 hypothetical RFC's, and select the Severe/Non-Severe impairments from the drop down menus). As I said, for larger (non-VA) cases (I have had up to 1,100 pages of meds in a single non-VA case) I average an hour per 120 pages - you do the math. [And folks, I don't think an Evelyn Woods Speed Reading course will help me get much faster - because I'm not just reading ... I'm reading and making notes in EBB.]
Yet the former commissioner and Judge Posner would tell me that I should review all of that as well as conduct the hearing, make my decision/issue instructions, and then edit what the Writer sends back to me in about 2.5 hours - total.
If I didn't have to review and summarize the entire record, but had a clerk who did the initial review, made synoptic notes with references to Exhibit and page numbers, so that I could then review their synoptic notes and refer back to the original exhibits to verify as needed, ... I might be able to come close to 2.5 hours per case.
But I don't have a clerk, law clerk, or attorney assigned to me to do such initial review (unlike Judge Posner, who has at least 2 clerks who review, summarize, write drafts, and assist him in is job).
Seems to me that with an assigned law clerk (there are plenty of law school grads and paralegals looking for such jobs) who responded to me, not a Group Supervisor, who would help me review the entire record, I could be much more efficient and actually handle all the Agency wants to send my way.
I may be a newbie at ODAR, but having managed a successful private practice with a substantial administrative law practice, there are more efficient, cost effective staffing methods for handling the million case backlog.
Hopefully, I'll be around long enough to see some of those ideas tried out.
ht
|
|
|
|
Post by happy on Dec 12, 2014 12:16:57 GMT -5
The ALJs at the National Hearing Centers seem to be pretty happy with their model. I kind of wish we could reorganize the hearing offices in that fashion, but I think unions would be a problem. DWs don't want to be permanently stuck with a "bad" judge and ALJs don't want to be permanently stuck with 1 or 2 "bad" writers.
Wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Dec 12, 2014 12:25:40 GMT -5
Where are people getting the 2.5 hours per case from? Not that it's much better, but on the union forum, one ALJ estimates 3.5 hours per case, without working credit hours, utilizing all 240 hours of annual leave, taking into account federal holidays.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Dec 12, 2014 12:33:50 GMT -5
All in the math GG. The range is 500 to 700. Those that say 3.5 use the 500 number. Those that say 2.5 use the 700. Perspective is everything.
52 weeks x 40 hours is 2080
Subtract 240 leave is 1840
subtract 10 holidays (80 hours) is 1760
Divided by 500 cases, its 3.52 hours per case
Divided by 700 cases its 2.51 hours per case
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Dec 12, 2014 13:00:27 GMT -5
Maximum annual leave in a single year is 208 - 8*26=208.
240 is just the maximum carryover. While it is possible to take 240 hours in a year (theoretically, one could take 448) - that would not be the year-over-year.
While that does not even give you an extra 10th of an hour per case for 500 cases, it's still 40 hours - potentially 10 more decisions if you're close.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Dec 12, 2014 13:04:28 GMT -5
Maximum annual leave in a single year is 208 - 8*26=208. 240 is just the maximum carryover. While it is possible to take 240 hours in a year (theoretically, one could take 448) - that would not be the year-over-year. While that does not even give you an extra 10th of an hour per case for 500 cases, it's still 40 hours - potentially 10 more decisions if you're close. Don't you get a week of admin leave for CLE and/or the ALJ conferences or something like that? |
|
|
|
Post by valiant on Dec 12, 2014 13:26:50 GMT -5
Okay, I'm an ODAR newbie. But I'm a veteran attorney. I've managed a decent sized practice, with lots of moving parts. And, I don't have a problem making a decision. My issue is, I take all the time necessary to review all the medical records. I've had 20-years experience reviewing medical records in Workers Comp, Med Mal, and Personal Injury cases (not to mention my service as a judicial law clerk for a U.S. Dist. Ct. Judge). I know how to read and summarize records. But the sheer volume of medical records, (especially given the redundancies in the office and hospital notes as a result of computer software), combined with the use of EBB to summarize what I see, has me taking about an hour to review 120 pages of meds. For a typical case of 200-250 pages, it takes a couple hours. (Heck, even an extremely small record of 25 pages takes me at least half an hour using EBB to set up a Hearing Level Decisional Summary, review the pertinent Section A,B,D, & E exhibits, quickly summarize what meds there are in Section F, create 2 or 3 hypothetical RFC's, and select the Severe/Non-Severe impairments from the drop down menus). As I said, for larger (non-VA) cases (I have had up to 1,100 pages of meds in a single non-VA case) I average an hour per 120 pages - you do the math. [And folks, I don't think an Evelyn Woods Speed Reading course will help me get much faster - because I'm not just reading ... I'm reading and making notes in EBB.] Yet the former commissioner and Judge Posner would tell me that I should review all of that as well as conduct the hearing, make my decision/issue instructions, and then edit what the Writer sends back to me in about 2.5 hours - total. If I didn't have to review and summarize the entire record, but had a clerk who did the initial review, made synoptic notes with references to Exhibit and page numbers, so that I could then review their synoptic notes and refer back to the original exhibits to verify as needed, ... I might be able to come close to 2.5 hours per case. But I don't have a clerk, law clerk, or attorney assigned to me to do such initial review (unlike Judge Posner, who has at least 2 clerks who review, summarize, write drafts, and assist him in is job). Seems to me that with an assigned law clerk (there are plenty of law school grads and paralegals looking for such jobs) who responded to me, not a Group Supervisor, who would help me review the entire record, I could be much more efficient and actually handle all the Agency wants to send my way. I may be a newbie at ODAR, but having managed a successful private practice with a substantial administrative law practice, there are more efficient, cost effective staffing methods for handling the million case backlog. Hopefully, I'll be around long enough to see some of those ideas tried out. ht I have been advocating this for awhile now. Revamp the SAA program to split time between screening cases for OTRs, and doing exactly what you described: an indepth brief with citations to the record of specific items both favorable and unfavorable to the claimant's application, which should/need to be addressed at the hearing. If done correctly, it could in theory save ALJs from even needing to look at the record other than to scan new evidence submitted after this brief was formulated. As you indicated, the current model completely breaks down the bigger the case file gets. Yea, yea, I get it that in theory that 1500p case is supposed to be balance out with a couple 50p cases. But, what if you are stuck in an office that gets NOTHING but 1000p cases? I've worked in one. It sucks. If I were making the arguments, I'd emphasize it in reverse: J Posner how long do you think is a reasonable amount of time to read 1500p of medical records, take notes, conduct a focused hearing, draft instructions, and edit a decision? I'm sorry, but anyone who argues that a case of this size can be done in 2.5, 3.5, heck 8.5 hrs is just skipping/skimming the record, and not giving the claimant due process. |
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Dec 12, 2014 13:49:41 GMT -5
I'd be curious to find out how many ALJ hours gets donated to the Agency - there are those hours that judges work that aren't between 6:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. timeframe and then credit hours that don't get used, because you've exceeded the credit limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Dec 12, 2014 13:51:14 GMT -5
Okay, I'm an ODAR newbie. But I'm a veteran attorney. I've managed a decent sized practice, with lots of moving parts. And, I don't have a problem making a decision. My issue is, I take all the time necessary to review all the medical records. I've had 20-years experience reviewing medical records in Workers Comp, Med Mal, and Personal Injury cases (not to mention my service as a judicial law clerk for a U.S. Dist. Ct. Judge). I know how to read and summarize records. But the sheer volume of medical records, (especially given the redundancies in the office and hospital notes as a result of computer software), combined with the use of EBB to summarize what I see, has me taking about an hour to review 120 pages of meds. For a typical case of 200-250 pages, it takes a couple hours. (Heck, even an extremely small record of 25 pages takes me at least half an hour using EBB to set up a Hearing Level Decisional Summary, review the pertinent Section A,B,D, & E exhibits, quickly summarize what meds there are in Section F, create 2 or 3 hypothetical RFC's, and select the Severe/Non-Severe impairments from the drop down menus). As I said, for larger (non-VA) cases (I have had up to 1,100 pages of meds in a single non-VA case) I average an hour per 120 pages - you do the math. [And folks, I don't think an Evelyn Woods Speed Reading course will help me get much faster - because I'm not just reading ... I'm reading and making notes in EBB.] Yet the former commissioner and Judge Posner would tell me that I should review all of that as well as conduct the hearing, make my decision/issue instructions, and then edit what the Writer sends back to me in about 2.5 hours - total. If I didn't have to review and summarize the entire record, but had a clerk who did the initial review, made synoptic notes with references to Exhibit and page numbers, so that I could then review their synoptic notes and refer back to the original exhibits to verify as needed, ... I might be able to come close to 2.5 hours per case. But I don't have a clerk, law clerk, or attorney assigned to me to do such initial review (unlike Judge Posner, who has at least 2 clerks who review, summarize, write drafts, and assist him in is job). Seems to me that with an assigned law clerk (there are plenty of law school grads and paralegals looking for such jobs) who responded to me, not a Group Supervisor, who would help me review the entire record, I could be much more efficient and actually handle all the Agency wants to send my way. I may be a newbie at ODAR, but having managed a successful private practice with a substantial administrative law practice, there are more efficient, cost effective staffing methods for handling the million case backlog. Hopefully, I'll be around long enough to see some of those ideas tried out. ht Hilltopper, I symptathize. I have spent this entire morning reviewing and taking notes on about 600 pages of VA evidence. - CUZ NOBODY ELSE IS GONNA DO IT. Lord knows, if you don't point out every single relevant detail for the writer, the writer won't catch them, won't write about them, and you'll get a draft decision that is ready for remand. At ALJ training, I recall that I was told I have to know the file better than anyone else in the room. So I took that to heart. So, how long does it take just to "know" the file better than anyone else - not to hear it, decide it, instruct it, and edit it - just to KNOW it? I take extensive notes. Maybe a law clerk would be helpful, as would be writers who are attorneys, understand how to format arguments, and are writing at least on a high school level. I don't know the shortcuts to studying a file and taking appropriate notes - other than having someone to assist me with that function. |
|
|
|
Post by notyet on Dec 12, 2014 14:01:56 GMT -5
A little known secret. Most of the ODAR offices listed in various agency reports as being “the bottom performing offices,” in terms of productivity indexes tracked in such reports, have the distinction of being offices with the largest case files, and then some. These reports of the average size of files that are adjudicated in ODAR’s 160+ offices, which vary in extreme ways, calls into question all of the agency’s recent actions that relate to what seems to be the agency’s desire to impose quotas in a “one size fits” all approach. A review of all of the posts on this board regarding quotas/benchmarks/performance standards does not show that anyone wants to shine a bright light on the above-mentioned little known secret. The larger the case file, the more medical source opinions, etc. In light of recent announcements on this board that ALJs are told during recent training that they are supposed to the know “the file” better than anyone, attempts to impose quotas/benchmark/performance standards, etc., without taking into account things like the raw size of case files threatens, IMHO, things like quality and the ability to provide justice. That is to say that the private practice attorneys who practice in the offices described in agency reports as being “the bottom performing offices” but also the “offices with the largest case files,” on balance, whether they be attorneys right out of law school or attorneys who have spent a lifetime practicing in this arena, spend way more than the two or so hours that it has been reported that the agency expects the average ALJ to spend in this “one size fits all” environment that those at the top seem to be advancing.
How big are the ODAR case files you work? How big are the average ODAR case files in Fort Smith, as compared to Atlanta, as compared to Reno, as compared to Lexington, as compared to Los Angeles, as compared to Mount Pleasant, as compared to Tulsa, as compared to Augusta, as compared to Columbus? Should the average size of a case file adjudicated in various ODAR offices be taken into consideration when trying to compare the number of widgets an ALJ in Detroit produces each month with the number of widgets an ALJ in Sioux Falls produces each month?
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Dec 12, 2014 14:16:21 GMT -5
Yes, there is a week of admin leave for AALJ continuing Ed. You must also consider the continuing mandatory VOD's covering everything in the universe, the quarterly training that the office refuses to allow hearings on, 10 national holidays, the countless meetings, fire drills, CFC meetings/parties, ad nauseum... Any how, it ends up to 4-5 weeks of collateral BS and viola' you end up with 2 1/2 hours per case to get 500 a year. Several judges I know take work home during the week and don't get credit hours for it. Right or wrong, most people I know are trying to do the right thing regarding hearings and goals. Again, I agree with Happy, if you look at the SCT job description they are to develop cases and provide summations of the medical evidence. Good luck with that. You will be lucky if you get your case pulled properly..
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 12, 2014 15:28:10 GMT -5
Hilltopper, I symptathize. I have spent this entire morning reviewing and taking notes on about 600 pages of VA evidence. - CUZ NOBODY ELSE IS GONNA DO IT. Lord knows, if you don't point out every single relevant detail for the writer, the writer won't catch them, won't write about them, and you'll get a draft decision that is ready for remand. At ALJ training, I recall that I was told I have to know the file better than anyone else in the room. So I took that to heart. So, how long does it take just to "know" the file better than anyone else - not to hear it, decide it, instruct it, and edit it - just to KNOW it? I take extensive notes. Maybe a law clerk would be helpful, as would be writers who are attorneys, understand how to format arguments, and are writing at least on a high school level. I don't know the shortcuts to studying a file and taking appropriate notes - other than having someone to assist me with that function. This and Bartleby's post bring up another point that should be made for those not 'insiders.' The people who do training are not the people who design the training, and neither of them are the people that make the goals and expectations, and none of those are involved in the organization of the staff and duties in the office you will go to. Every class of ALJs is provided with a lot of sound-appearing, common-sense-making, optimistic training that includes many things that are one or all of: 1) Wrong 2) Actually opposite the (generally unwritten) intent of management 3) Based on incorrect assumptions about what others will have done/will be doing on a case I have rarely seen an ALJ come back to his or her official duty station with a sound understanding of the computer system by which we keep track of cases, from which he or she is supoposed to obtain his or her workload information, and through which he or she is supposed to communicate his or her wishes. I understand the official training to have relegated that to the mentor of the new ALJ, which of course assumes the mentoring ALJ is sufficiently familiair to pass that information on, and that the new ALJ takes time to learn all of that before diving into the much more 'sexy' practicalities of evidence and hearings. On the other hand, I have seen ALJs come happily to work expecting to find evidence in certain forms and labeled in certain ways that are simply not done, and will never be done consistently because there isn't enough training for the SCTs, either. I remember an SCT that went from our office for training in SCT duties and I was pleased, since this SCT was not a good 'file puller' (one who labels and arranges exhibits, etc. in a file). He happily returned to explain how they spent 90% of the training period learning about how to identify and tell ALJs about potential OTR decisions (good cases that can be decided without a hearing - "on the record"). This was no use at all to our office, since our ALJs either pre-screened their own cases or did not do OTRs (because of hearing scheduling requirements - every number push results in a number problem elsewhere). I don't have a practical solution here. Just a heads up to those who will go to training: Learn what they tell you, but understand you will also need to learn a lot on your own, and that anything they tell you "will" happen, might just be the way it is done in that single training ALJ's office, not what you will experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 17:25:00 GMT -5
Not one mention so far (unless I missed it) of the legal reps duty to go through the file with a fine tooth comb and cite exhibits and exact page numbers in a pre-hearing memorandum and submit that memo in a timely manner (i.e. before the ALJ closely reviews the file). OK, this may not be a "duty," but it certainly makes the ALJs job much easier- provided he or she trusts that attorney to not skim the record and cite only the pretty stuff. (And yes, this is especially important with respect to voluminous VA exhibits. Also, in somatoform disorder cases where the claimant visits every ER and clinic in town 24/7 and we need to cite the frequency of visitation and normal testing to show the disorder itself. It's also helpful in substance abuse cases, to note times of sobriety and symptomotology during those times- accurately pulling out each and every relapse date from treatment records often takes time). Point being, a good attorney should enter hearing with such a memo in hand. A good ALJ should read the memo when it is submitted pre-hearing. Too often, I work all afternoon on such a memo and at hearing the ALJ tells me that he or she didn't notice it or read it. That said, most ALJs do read the memos and are appreciative. Recently, one ALJ cited my Step Three argument verbatim to the testifying ME to see if the claimant met or equalled the listing. Of course, I liked that approach very much. |
|
As with everything, there are always exceptions, but generally speaking aren't most of the ALJs meeting this number now? What sets apart the ones who are not? 
