|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 14, 2008 7:05:43 GMT -5
Approve their fee agreement, then attach a protest to it. Whether or not you prevail, it has been demonstrated to have a chilling effect on dilatory tactics. As a senior attorney, I was once successful in reducing a fee from the maximum allowed ($4000 at the time) to $500. That representative has been a model citizen ever since.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 14, 2008 11:49:24 GMT -5
...However, the above-quoted comments by propmaster deserve consideration. Certainly, Social Security disability cases are not fungible; however, over time -- say a year -- Social Security ALJs, through random case assignment, do adjudicate a sufficient variety of cases so that a "fair" average processing time range legitimately can be projected. Some cases will have perhaps as few as 50 pages of evidence (rarely). Others, more typically, will have 300 to 500 pages. Still others (less often, but not rarely) will have 900 to 1300 pages. (These latter often are federal court remanded cases that have been pending review at various levels for many years.) In this context, Commissioner Astrue's suggested range of 500 to 700 case dispositions per ALJ per year is absolutely legitimate. If, after 2 years on the job -- and assuming a properly staffed office -- a "fully available" ALJ is not producing at least an average of 500 dispositions per year, then that ALJ is (1) incompetent in some critical area -- such a computer use or knowledge of the law, or (2) lazy/recalcitrant, or (3) needs to be given education on docket and case management, or computer use, or the law, or any combination of these.... I agree that each ALJ's time to dispose of a case can be averaged. I just think it is folly to think that there is a proper average that is applicable to all judges. A minimum can certainly be based, as you describe, on expertise and instruction from ODAR management. However, none of that kind of thought was present in the OIG report. Instead, they simply picked a number slightly higher than the average. My point was only that there have to be people on both sides of an average in order for it to be an average. 40-50 decisions per year is objectively (but possibly not irrebuttably) wrong for a "fully available" ALJ. Maybe (and probably) 500 is a valid number (or even 550). But NOT because that is near the average. That's a slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 14, 2008 11:51:54 GMT -5
Approve their fee agreement, then attach a protest to it. Whether or not you prevail, it has been demonstrated to have a chilling effect on dilatory tactics. As a senior attorney, I was once successful in reducing a fee from the maximum allowed ($4000 at the time) to $500. That representative has been a model citizen ever since. I'm actually surprised this is not done more. As a representative, obviously, I don't mind ALJ's reluctance to use it. But sometimes it is a better remedy than somehow punishing the claimant. And, as Morgullord pointed out, it can certainly teach a lesson. (And is almost unappealable, it seems). ---ooops. I refer above to fee petitions and appealability, but my main point is still valid. |
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 14, 2008 12:27:22 GMT -5
I admit to being more than usually motivated on that occasion. Before issuing the on-record decision, I called the rep and suggested that, since all she had done in the month she had been the representative was do a 1/2 hour initial interview of the claimant, a revised fee order paying her less was more appropriate. The rep told me I had to approve the fee agreement and there was nothing I could do about it. As it turned out, she was wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 14, 2008 15:45:02 GMT -5
I admit to being more than usually motivated on that occasion. Before issuing the on-record decision, I called the rep and suggested that, since all she had done in the month she had been the representative was do a 1/2 hour initial interview of the claimant, a revised fee order paying her less was more appropriate. The rep told me I had to approve the fee agreement and there was nothing I could do about it. As it turned out, she was wrong... I have no problem with that. When we take a client who is about to win anyway, we never take a full fee, hardly ever any fee at all. Usually the partial fees only come where the client indicates they are going to want us to review everything after they win and be available for ongoing questions about their case (like in two years, explaining the return to work provisions, etc.). I'd like to see even more of that to kind of keep the dilettantes out of the practice. |
|
|
|
Post by yogibear on Feb 14, 2008 17:20:58 GMT -5
Quote from Mr. Jones
Hi Mr. Jones, At least I didn't get a verbal smite! And I know you were playing at bit because you put a nice smiley wink face. But seriously, I'm not voting for giving away signatory authority at all, just making a bit of a point. I'm actually voting for using attorneys (all attorneys-Senior and not) to their full capacity. I also don't think you need to install the old unit system anytime soon to accomplish the same results. But it crossed my mind that allowing a senior attorney and a few other attorneys to work more closely with ALJs (kind of like the GROUP system we already have) and encouraging more direct ALJ - attorney interactions would definitely promote more responsibility for work product in quality and in quantity all around. As I said earlier, some ALJs and attorneys are just plain good at doing this within the current office structure and without stepping on management toes. I think management is happy when everyone puts out lots of cases, and if no rules are violated, there is some space for flexibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibear on Feb 14, 2008 17:34:57 GMT -5
Regarding the discussion on attorneys fees: I found that most reps/attorneys are happy to work on a case and get evidence and a quicker disposition, and sometimes they get paid a little more than the hours put in and sometimes a little less than the hours put into the case. But we've also had reps who actually delegated medical record retrieval to their clients and even put it in their fee agreement (violation of their responsibilities). We've had reps who made a practice of not moving on Sen. Atty. requests for records for OTR recommendations and said they would wait for the hearing. Well, that information was all recorded and protested either by the SA or the ALJ. I'm happy to say that the ALJs fully supported the protests and now certain reps are much better. It was really only one or two instances of repeat offenders and it didn't serve their clients well, and well...themselves to their surprise. But overall, you develop a professional respectful relationship with claimant's reps. Just lay it out on the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by extang on Feb 14, 2008 18:10:33 GMT -5
"In this context, Commissioner Astrue's suggested range of 500 to 700 case dispositions per ALJ per year is absolutely legitimate. If, after 2 years on the job -- and assuming a properly staffed office -- a "fully available" ALJ is not producing at least an average of 500 dispositions per year, then that ALJ is (1) incompetent in some critical area -- such a computer use or knowledge of the law, or (2) lazy/recalcitrant, or (3) needs to be given education on docket and case management, or computer use, or the law, or any combination of these."
Geez, who are you? Do you work for OHA? If you don't, you may want to consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about. If you do and you're not an ALJ, you should still consider that possibility. The "properly staffed office" assumption is delightful. Do you have any idea of the quality and quantity of staff we have? Do you understand that ALJs have no control over staff, no choice over who does work for them? "Absolutely legitimate", please.
|
|
|
|
Post by advancedage on Feb 14, 2008 21:13:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by extang on Feb 15, 2008 17:40:17 GMT -5
Advancedage:
Sorry to have failed to notice the open-mindedness implicit in your assertion about the "absolute legitimacy" of the numbers that Cristaudo and/or Astrue or whoever pulled out of thin air. My mistake, for which I apologize.
I guess I'm one of those "pugnacious, arrogant, and slothful" ALJs. Leaving aside possible issues of the pot calling the kettle black as far as the arrogance is concerned, I would like to make clear that I may be arrogant about many things, but not about my status as an ALJ. For years, I annoyed my wife, who I believe thought "Administrative Law Judge" sounded rather impressive, because if somebody asked me what I did for a living, I muttered something about working for SSA, hoping the inquirer would find that response so boring that he or she would switch to another topic. For a while I considered an even more vague response, like "I work for the federal government of a large imperialist country." Moreover, to me, a judge is someone who works in the judicial branch of government, so I don't think of myself and don't like people to refer to me as "judge" [this would infuriate many of my colleagues, so I tend to keep this notion to myself]. It horrifies me to be addressed as "your honor" [although I have to admit I kind of liked when a claimant from one of the former British colonies in the Caribbean kept saying something I could not understand and I finally realized that he was addressing me as "my lord."] I am invariably pleasant and courteous to claimants, who, disabled or not, are almost always in extremely difficult situations. I am even almost invariably pleasant and polite to reps, and don't, e.g., embarrass them in front of their clients, even when they deserve to be. So I would probably dispute "pugnacious." "Slothful," on the other hand, who could argue with that?
|
|
