|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on May 12, 2016 18:51:31 GMT -5
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.
They are trying to hire more ALJs. While I think they are facing an uphill battle, they have to find different ways to attack the problem. Let them try this approach and do not worry who can reverse you. The Senate is now involved. We have top cover. I don't think there is malice in their course of action.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 12, 2016 18:54:54 GMT -5
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.
I think you hit the nail on the head JudgeRatty. SSA wants to bypass OPM' hiring process all together.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 12, 2016 18:57:20 GMT -5
Yes, they are going to hire more ALJs.. I am the Queen of "it's a great time to be on the register." They DO plan to hire more. But if they ALSO hire this group AAJs to do these remands, what then? My point is that if they are making the effort to hire these AAJs just hire even more ALJs and not start down the slippery slope in the first place. Just like the Senator said, if there are enough qualified ALJs in the first place, they would not have put this plan in place. DC said that was a fair assessment. So it is a matter of creating a new legally vulnerable system using these AAJs versus just hiring the necessary ALJs in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 12, 2016 19:05:58 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" I'm sure there are lots of cities with multiple vacancies who don't even have a cert this round. And for those that do have a cert, that doesn't mean they will fill all the vacancies.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on May 12, 2016 19:08:20 GMT -5
Yes, they are going to hire more ALJs.. I am the Queen of "it's a great time to be on the register." They DO plan to hire more. But if they ALSO hire this group AAJs to do these remands, what then? My point is that if they are making the effort to hire these AAJs just hire even more ALJs and not start down the slippery slope in the first place. Just like the Senator said, if there are enough qualified ALJs in the first place, they would not have put this plan in place. DC said that was a fair assessment. So it is a matter of creating a new legally vulnerable system using these AAJs versus just hiring the necessary ALJs in the first place. It is important to acknowledge that they have decided they do not want to select some on the register for whatever reason. That is their choice. They have to wait until 2017 until the new applicants will be available. Yet, the DC has the mandate to impact the backlog. Place no malice on her efforts. She may have executed this strategy as a result of brilliant lawyering or bad lawyering. Only time will tell. In the meantime, come back to the light and enjoy being part of this wonderful agency. Kool aid, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 12, 2016 19:16:02 GMT -5
Yes, they are going to hire more ALJs.. I am the Queen of "it's a great time to be on the register." They DO plan to hire more. But if they ALSO hire this group AAJs to do these remands, what then? My point is that if they are making the effort to hire these AAJs just hire even more ALJs and not start down the slippery slope in the first place. Just like the Senator said, if there are enough qualified ALJs in the first place, they would not have put this plan in place. DC said that was a fair assessment. So it is a matter of creating a new legally vulnerable system using these AAJs versus just hiring the necessary ALJs in the first place. Qualified candidates are the issue, though, in their mind. We all know candidates on the register that would do well in the job, are obviously qualified to do the job, and are just waiting for the call, but you, I, and anyone else that's worked for or with the agency are well aware of judges that have essentially lifetime appointments and can't or won't do the job. Hiring known quantities and doing so quickly helps alleviate that problem somewhat, though therein also lies the concern with hiring AAJs.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 12, 2016 19:19:28 GMT -5
Yes, they are going to hire more ALJs.. I am the Queen of "it's a great time to be on the register." They DO plan to hire more. But if they ALSO hire this group AAJs to do these remands, what then? My point is that if they are making the effort to hire these AAJs just hire even more ALJs and not start down the slippery slope in the first place. Just like the Senator said, if there are enough qualified ALJs in the first place, they would not have put this plan in place. DC said that was a fair assessment. So it is a matter of creating a new legally vulnerable system using these AAJs versus just hiring the necessary ALJs in the first place. It is important to acknowledge that they have decided they do not want to select some on the register for whatever reason. That is their choice. They have to wait until 2017 until the new applicants will be available. Yet, the DC has the mandate to impact the backlog. Place no malice on her efforts. She may have executed this strategy as a result of brilliant lawyering or bad lawyering. Only time will tell. In the meantime, come back to the light and enjoy being part of this wonderful agency. Kool aid, anyone? I do appreciate her efforts for sure. She is very straight forward and truly wants what is best for the public. BUT... I also think this whole issue brings to light the OPM issues and providing people who SSA wants. I think this might result in some changes in how hiring proceeds for SSA ALJs in the long run. EVEN IF they bring on new AAJs to do this project, would they be on board, trained, ready to go before the next batch of eligibles are ready with the new group who just applied? Is creating a brand new track worth the effort and money or should they wait out OPM to give them more ALJ candidate names? I don't know. The effort is valiant, but maybe what would be better is for OPM to hire more staff to process the candidates and go that route? Interesting issues.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 12, 2016 19:19:53 GMT -5
"Yet, the DC has the mandate to impact the backlog. Place no malice on her efforts. She may have executed this strategy as a result of brilliant lawyering or bad lawyering." See, that's where you are wrong, she is not a LAWYER....
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 12, 2016 19:23:40 GMT -5
Yes, they are going to hire more ALJs.. I am the Queen of "it's a great time to be on the register." They DO plan to hire more. But if they ALSO hire this group AAJs to do these remands, what then? My point is that if they are making the effort to hire these AAJs just hire even more ALJs and not start down the slippery slope in the first place. Just like the Senator said, if there are enough qualified ALJs in the first place, they would not have put this plan in place. DC said that was a fair assessment. So it is a matter of creating a new legally vulnerable system using these AAJs versus just hiring the necessary ALJs in the first place. Qualified candidates are the issue, though, in their mind. We all know candidates on the register that would do well in the job, are obviously qualified to do the job, and are just waiting for the call, but you, I, and anyone else that's worked for or with the agency are well aware of judges that have essentially lifetime appointments and can't or won't do the job. Hiring known quantities and doing so quickly helps alleviate that problem somewhat, though therein also lies the concern with hiring AAJs. I think this may be the REAL end result of this entire process ... getting more input into the ALJ hiring process so that ODAR can hire more of the known quantities. This is not meant to start the old insider outsider debate at all, but ODAR does like known quantities over unknown. Very good point!
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 12, 2016 19:26:35 GMT -5
"Yet, the DC has the mandate to impact the backlog. Place no malice on her efforts. She may have executed this strategy as a result of brilliant lawyering or bad lawyering." See, that's where you are wrong, she is not a LAWYER.... Many a non-lawyer in this world has executed a strategy based on either brilliant or bad lawyering. Phoenix wasn't saying she's a lawyer, but she certainly got OGC and other attorneys to look into the issue first.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 12, 2016 19:34:55 GMT -5
Qualified candidates are the issue, though, in their mind. We all know candidates on the register that would do well in the job, are obviously qualified to do the job, and are just waiting for the call, but you, I, and anyone else that's worked for or with the agency are well aware of judges that have essentially lifetime appointments and can't or won't do the job. Hiring known quantities and doing so quickly helps alleviate that problem somewhat, though therein also lies the concern with hiring AAJs. I think this may be the REAL end result of this entire process ... getting more input into the ALJ hiring process so that ODAR can hire more of the known quantities. This is not meant to start the old insider outsider debate at all, but ODAR does like known quantities over unknown. Very good point! SSA is not unique in this regard. Every organization in the world, corporate or governmental, prefers known candidates.
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on May 12, 2016 19:44:16 GMT -5
It would be interesting to see how it plays out when an ALJ finds a claimant disabled, the AC reviews on its own motion, holds a "hearing," and finds the claimant not disabled. No remand. No further agency appeal. What will the rep say? What will the district court say?
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on May 12, 2016 19:47:22 GMT -5
"Yet, the DC has the mandate to impact the backlog. Place no malice on her efforts. She may have executed this strategy as a result of brilliant lawyering or bad lawyering." See, that's where you are wrong, she is not a LAWYER.... She has lawyers who advise her. C'mon, you know that.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on May 12, 2016 19:48:10 GMT -5
AJs can be fired and threatened with discipline and if "need" be, suffer an adverse rating at the end of the year. The issue is one of judicial independence. The organization will strive to protect itself from political winds.
AALJ and FALJC are united on this. IMHO, the issue is crystal clear.
|
|
|
Post by raylan on May 12, 2016 20:21:44 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? The poll was what cities are you keeping on your cert, not what cities are on your cert. I had over 70 on my list, but kept far, far fewer.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 12, 2016 20:36:53 GMT -5
I hate to belabor the point, but I still am seeing non-disability going to the AC not CDRs? I could be missing something. The DC report says specifically non-disability. maybe somebody else said it? Non disability and remands.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 12, 2016 20:49:28 GMT -5
I'm sorry, i quoted the wrong comment. Since they do remands now--- I was referring to the idea of the AC getting CDRs. CARES seems to be non-disability only. I know the union fears they will expand, but there's a long section in DC Gruber's written document about how they decided on adding just non-disability. I was just hoping someone would point to the CDR comment. They do not hold hearings on the remands. This would be new.
|
|
|
Post by mch135 on May 12, 2016 21:04:11 GMT -5
So if there was a big change and they went to some sort of hearing officer system, what would happen to the current ALJs?
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on May 12, 2016 21:06:19 GMT -5
So if there was a big change and they went to some sort of hearing officer system, what would happen to the current ALJs? Soylent green.
|
|
|
Post by ba on May 12, 2016 21:11:17 GMT -5
I'm sorry, i quoted the wrong comment. Since they do remands now--- I was referring to the idea of the AC getting CDRs. CARES seems to be non-disability only. I know the union fears they will expand, but there's a long section in DC Gruber's written document about how they decided on adding just non-disability. I was just hoping someone would point to the CDR comment. They do not hold hearings on the remands. This would be new. Which is yet another reason this is absurd. The ALJ wasn't policy compliant on something totally silly, so now the agency strips the claimant and taxpayers of the independent decision maker. Brilliant.
|
|