|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on May 12, 2016 16:16:00 GMT -5
Let me say something about the "WD". I have been with the Agency for 20 years. At least 25% of the writers in every office I have been in do not know how to write a persuasive argument. It is entirely embarrassing. We Judges spend way too much of our time editing decisions. Perhaps the "WD" is very tough because anyone hired will have to spend time editing and rewriting decisions. I think you all will be amazed with the quality work you will receive from those beneath you. Further, the Agency has made it a point to promote office clerks with no training in writing to paralegals at the same pay they can hire a new attorney at. So, trust the Funk, when he implies the Agency would hire Hearing Officers in a heart beat. This Agency seems to have a bias against professional people. They prefer home grown, home spun employees. This is the largest law office in the world run by non-lawyers... Buyer Beware... Funk, I think I copyrighted the "SSA is" phrase a long time ago, but I will officially give you and all others freedom to use it, because it is the truth... Thankfully I have not gotten the impression that there is a wish to replace ALJs with Hearing Officers. Thankfully I have not seen the legislation that would require such a move introduced anywhere in Congress. The agency continues to hire more ALJs in fact. Now, I do not feel anyone is beneath me. We all row in the same direction. Row well and . . . |
|
|
|
Post by christina on May 12, 2016 16:18:28 GMT -5
So, that would indicate that the "what cities would you keep on the April 2016 cert" polls are but a low percentage of the number of people that are actually on these certs, no? there are 75 people for each city according to the hearing testimony today. i was surprised how many of those 75 got captured in our polls but bottom line, each city has 75 names. i have a bunch of cities so my name is on a number of those cities as are many others. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 12, 2016 16:19:27 GMT -5
The problem with multiple exams for different Agencies is money. IIRC, SSA pays OPM millions of dollars each year for the testing of ALJs. Why would any other Agency that is hiring 1 or 2 Judges a year want to pay for a separate exam and Register? The other Agencies aren't complaining about the Judges they get because they almost always hire SSA Judges that have prior experience with their Agency.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 12, 2016 16:22:19 GMT -5
Let me say something about the "WD". I have been with the Agency for 20 years. At least 25% of the writers in every office I have been in do not know how to write a persuasive argument. It is entirely embarrassing. We Judges spend way too much of our time editing decisions. Perhaps the "WD" is very tough because anyone hired will have to spend time editing and rewriting decisions. I think you all will be amazed with the quality work you will receive from those beneath you. Further, the Agency has made it a point to promote office clerks with no training in writing to paralegals at the same pay they can hire a new attorney at. So, trust the Funk, when he implies the Agency would hire Hearing Officers in a heart beat. This Agency seems to have a bias against professional people. They prefer home grown, home spun employees. This is the largest law office in the world run by non-lawyers... Buyer Beware... Funk, I think I copyrighted the "SSA is" phrase a long time ago, but I will officially give you and all others freedom to use it, because it is the truth... I don't disagree with your comment on writing, but I would guess most ALJs in the other agencies write their own decisions, which could explain the WD. Now the logic test doesn't make much sense for SSA ALJs since we are often required to suspend logic and reason in our decision making process. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik Breukink on May 12, 2016 16:22:42 GMT -5
I no good at numbers and such, but it seems odd that there are only 200 and somethinf unique names, but the certs went 75 deep- that would seem to indicate to me that a lot of people have wide open gals, which i would think isnt the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 12, 2016 16:27:50 GMT -5
I no good at numbers and such, but it seems odd that there are only 200 and somethinf unique names, but the certs went 75 deep- that would seem to indicate to me that a lot of people have wide open gals, which i would think isnt the case. Actually, it's more likely that all of the people currently on the Register have wider (not necessarily wide open) GALs because all of us were recently permitted to expand them - twice!! Many of us who had tiny GALs to start in March of 2013 took advantage and made ourselves more reachable by adding locations. |
|
|
|
Post by upperwolfjaw on May 12, 2016 16:28:22 GMT -5
There seems to be some question about why I reported today's testimony as being that there are 2-8 vacancies for each cert. She did not testify to an average. She described a range. Here is the quote:
"in each geographic location we have multiple vacancies, generally you know 2 or 3, and in some places we have as high as 6 7 or 8 vacancies"
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on May 12, 2016 16:28:51 GMT -5
Here is more information for you to ponder. Reliable information from management indicates that the September-October hiring class is questionable due to budgetary concerns. This generally happens, but it doesn't surprise me during an election year. This year's election is rather fascinating to watch. And then there was this:
Examining Due Process in Administrative Hearings
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management
May 12, 2016 09:00AM
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building
Agenda
This hearing will focus on the independence of federal agency judges and the due process afforded to individuals appearing before them. Recently the Social Security Administration (SSA) has proposed removing two classes of adjudicatory hearings from the purview of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) and transferring them to Administrative Appeals Judges and Attorney Examiners within SSA’s Appeals Council. This change would impact tens of thousands of cases and must be justified. In this hearing, we aim to examine the current ALJ issues at SSA and the broader issues of independence and agency control of officials who conduct administrative hearings throughout the federal government.
Witnesses
• Theresa L. Gruber
Deputy Commissioner, Disability Adjudication and Review
U.S. Social Security Administration
• Marilyn D. Zahm
Administrative Law Judge, Buffalo, New York Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
U.S. Social Security Administration
• Joseph Kennedy
Associate Director for Human Resources Solutions
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik Breukink on May 12, 2016 16:31:29 GMT -5
I no good at numbers and such, but it seems odd that there are only 200 and somethinf unique names, but the certs went 75 deep- that would seem to indicate to me that a lot of people have wide open gals, which i would think isnt the case. Actually, it's more likely that all of the people currently on the Register have wider (not necessarily wide open) GALs because all of us were recently permitted to expand them - twice!! Many of us who had tiny GALs to start in March of 2013 took advantage and made ourselves more reachable by adding locations. Good point -i actuallly narrowed mine but opened it up again the last time around. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on May 12, 2016 16:39:02 GMT -5
Remember that the March GAL expansion does not go into effect until the next NOR, so for example, I only have 4 cities on my GAL for June/July certs even though I added a whole bunch for the next round.
|
|
|
|
Post by southernfun on May 12, 2016 16:43:54 GMT -5
Here is more information for you to ponder. Reliable information from management indicates that the September-October hiring class is questionable due to budgetary concerns. This generally happens, but it doesn't surprise me during an election year. This year's election is rather fascinating to watch. And then there was this: Examining Due Process in Administrative Hearings Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management May 12, 2016 09:00AM Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building Agenda This hearing will focus on the independence of federal agency judges and the due process afforded to individuals appearing before them. Recently the Social Security Administration (SSA) has proposed removing two classes of adjudicatory hearings from the purview of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) and transferring them to Administrative Appeals Judges and Attorney Examiners within SSA’s Appeals Council. This change would impact tens of thousands of cases and must be justified. In this hearing, we aim to examine the current ALJ issues at SSA and the broader issues of independence and agency control of officials who conduct administrative hearings throughout the federal government. Witnesses • Theresa L. Gruber Deputy Commissioner, Disability Adjudication and Review U.S. Social Security Administration • Marilyn D. Zahm Administrative Law Judge, Buffalo, New York Office of Disability Adjudication and Review U.S. Social Security Administration • Joseph Kennedy Associate Director for Human Resources Solutions U.S. Office of Personnel Management Sorry I missed it, but which two classes of claimant's are being proposed to be removed to the AC? |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on May 12, 2016 16:55:24 GMT -5
Recently, in an attempt to find unique ways to address the backlog, management has proposed to have the AC judges hear CDR and Age 18 redetermination cases (CDR [continuing disability review] are cases in which a claimant has been receiving benefits and is determined to be no longer disabled. Age 18 redetermination cases are those in which a person has been receiving Title 16 child's benefits and turns 18, in which they are newly assessed under the adult standard of disability rather than the child's standard.) Generally, both processes are started by the field office and in most cases a medical/vocational determination needs to be held, in which case such a person is entitled to a hearing officer's review at the reconsideration level. If the claimant does not like that decision, they can request a hearing before an ALJ. If they are dissatisfied with that decision, they can have it reviewed by the AC (Appeals Council). After that, their appeals are exhausted within the agency and they must file a complaint in District Court in order to have further review of the decision by SSA.
By removing these cases from ALJs (who have been deciding these cases in this process since the stone age), many argue that they are removing an element of due process inherent in the administrative system. Several, including the union, oppose this action.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 12, 2016 17:04:48 GMT -5
I haven't heard anything about cdrs or age 18s going to the AC. What the cares program does is takes nondisability and cases that would normally be remanded to an ALJ and puts those hearings in the hands of AC AAJs.
Cowboy, if you have seen something giving the AC the CDR and age 18 workload, please direct me to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on May 12, 2016 17:23:20 GMT -5
I sent you a PM. The hearing from the Senate should be in transcript form by now, but I don't have the link.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 12, 2016 17:44:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenticket on May 12, 2016 17:44:26 GMT -5
That is interesting. I will be anxious to hear what comes from that hearing/investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on May 12, 2016 18:03:19 GMT -5
Thanks JudgeRatty,
I agree with Funk that the Agency seems to be diligent in removing authority and independence from the ALJs. The AAJs do not have the kind of independence and permanency guaranteed to the ALJs. This attempt to remove certain cases from ALJs is but one step, but far from final. Fortunately, it seems the Senate investigation may give the agency second thought on that idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 12, 2016 18:17:59 GMT -5
I normally, and have always supported management, I was in a management position for a short detail. But on the issue of having AAJs rehear any remands and then make a new decision in the case is just plain wrong. I take issue with a non-APA person RE-hearing MY decision without giving me an opportunity to hear the case on remand. It just does NOT make any sense. They say it will decrease wait times. Really? They have to HIRE all those people, get them up to speed on what they need to know, AND then make an entirely NEW decision after an ALJ has already made a decision. This is worse than the Bellmon review. This is BEYOND a review of the ALJ decision, this is a total replacement of my decision. They do not agree with my decision, and THEY ... NOT ALJs... will now replace my ALJ decision with a NON ALJ decision? NOT impressed. Not impressed at all. For the first time working for ODAR I am not happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 12, 2016 18:30:09 GMT -5
I normally, and have always supported management, I was in a management position for a short detail. But on the issue of having AAJs rehear any remands and then make a new decision in the case is just plain wrong. I take issue with a non-APA person RE-hearing MY decision without giving me an opportunity to hear the case on remand. It just does NOT make any sense. They say it will decrease wait times. Really? They have to HIRE all those people, get them up to speed on what they need to know, AND then make an entirely NEW decision after an ALJ has already made a decision. This is worse than the Bellmon review. This is BEYOND a review of the ALJ decision, this is a total replacement of my decision. They do not agree with my decision, and THEY ... NOT ALJs... will now replace my ALJ decision with a NON ALJ decision? NOT impressed. Not impressed at all. For the first time working for ODAR I am not happy. When the AC reverses (not remands) a decision, they're doing the same thing. Of course, I would guess my learned colleague, Judgeratty, will never make a decision that would warrant a reversal.  |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 12, 2016 18:41:06 GMT -5
I normally, and have always supported management, I was in a management position for a short detail. But on the issue of having AAJs rehear any remands and then make a new decision in the case is just plain wrong. I take issue with a non-APA person RE-hearing MY decision without giving me an opportunity to hear the case on remand. It just does NOT make any sense. They say it will decrease wait times. Really? They have to HIRE all those people, get them up to speed on what they need to know, AND then make an entirely NEW decision after an ALJ has already made a decision. This is worse than the Bellmon review. This is BEYOND a review of the ALJ decision, this is a total replacement of my decision. They do not agree with my decision, and THEY ... NOT ALJs... will now replace my ALJ decision with a NON ALJ decision? NOT impressed. Not impressed at all. For the first time working for ODAR I am not happy. When the AC reverses (not remands) a decision, they're doing the same thing. Of course, I would guess my learned colleague, Judgeratty, will never make a decision that would warrant a reversal. HA! Thank you for the confidence. My issue is that those reversals are very rare and there is NOT a hearing involved. These remands will involve another hearing and an brand new decision. I think reversing based upon new evidence that is clearly a pay case is one thing--and frankly reversing is just fine since that means new evidence shows it should be a pay case. Here once they remand, they can come to a new decision either pay OR deny, totally replacing the ALJ decision. I don't know. Maybe I am being sensitive about this because I feel it is a slippery slope to replace ALJs with AAJs down the road. It feels wrong and my gut tells me it is bad.
After all, as the DC Commissioner said, it is the same pay scale... and if they have to hire new AAJs to do this... WHY NOT HIRE more ALJs? There is something very wrong with this and if they have to hire someone, why NOT hire ALJs? This is the issue I think.
|
|
