|
Post by southernfun on May 13, 2016 8:50:04 GMT -5
Could changing the analysis from credibility to consistency be part of the conspiracy?
I mean you need a judge to judge credibility, but isn't a medically trained person (or specially trained hearing officer) better suited to evaluate whether a claimant's testimony is consistent with medical records?
EDIT: I'm just discussing/spit balling/conversating, NOT advocating that there is a conspiracy or that we need hearing officers. My belief is that we need to hire 500 new permanent ALJs each year for four years, get rid of the backlog, then offer incentive retirement packages... By the time the case gets to an ALJ, doctors -- often multiple doctors -- have reviewed the file, and some or all of them considered the claimant not disabled. What would be the point of a hearing before a non-doctor (of any stripe) but to give the claimant a chance to persuade a human, face to face, that the doctors and the paper record are wrong? And how to persuade if not by sheer credibility as to purely subjective symptoms? I will be most interested to see the reaction of the federal district judges on review of decisions issued by non-judges who recognize no credibility on the claimant's part, not filtered through an additional agency appeal. How the DOJ lawyers are going to love defending those in Art. III courts! A recent Social Security Ruling change prohibits ALJs from evaluating the credibility of disability claimants. The judge's role now is to determine only whether the claimants allegations are consistent with the medical records.
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on May 13, 2016 9:13:13 GMT -5
By the time the case gets to an ALJ, doctors -- often multiple doctors -- have reviewed the file, and some or all of them considered the claimant not disabled. What would be the point of a hearing before a non-doctor (of any stripe) but to give the claimant a chance to persuade a human, face to face, that the doctors and the paper record are wrong? And how to persuade if not by sheer credibility as to purely subjective symptoms? I will be most interested to see the reaction of the federal district judges on review of decisions issued by non-judges who recognize no credibility on the claimant's part, not filtered through an additional agency appeal. How the DOJ lawyers are going to love defending those in Art. III courts! A recent Social Security Regulation change prohibits ALJs from evaluating the credibility of disability claimants. The judge's role now is to determine only whether the claimants allegations are consistent with the medical records. If you mean SSR 16-3p, it's not a regulation. That SSR does not recite that the "judge's role now is to determine only whether the claimant's allegations are consistent with the medical records." If there's a new regulation that says that, I would appreciate it if you would please cite it. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by southernfun on May 13, 2016 9:15:47 GMT -5
Look at SSR 16-3p. It is a ruling, not a regulation. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on May 13, 2016 9:23:39 GMT -5
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. They are already interviewing for the new AAJs, so my guess is yes, these new peeps will be on board soon.
|
|
|
Post by southernfun on May 13, 2016 9:26:33 GMT -5
A recent Social Security Regulation change prohibits ALJs from evaluating the credibility of disability claimants. The judge's role now is to determine only whether the claimants allegations are consistent with the medical records. If you mean SSR 16-3p, it's not a regulation. That SSR does not recite that the "judge's role now is to determine only whether the claimant's allegations are consistent with the medical records." If there's a new regulation that says that, I would appreciate it if you would please cite it. Thanks in advance. Here is a discussion on it in our forum. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3675/eliminating-credibilty-determination-ssr-16
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on May 13, 2016 10:39:27 GMT -5
Just to give my own, completely unbiased opinion, I think It would be beneficial to SSA to better utilize the senior attorneys. Rather than just being a glorified DW, why not let SAs play a bigger role in speeding up the process? I know the NAT is in effect, but SAs not on the team could review and develop cases, identify and research issues in non disability cases, and work closely with the judges to get things done. I'm all for hiring more ALJs, as we need them, but in the interim SSA should better use the assets they have. I think that going the AAJ route will result in a lot of issues (as indicated in the meeting). They should have a goal of obtaining more senior attorneys.
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on May 13, 2016 11:18:58 GMT -5
Right. SSR 16-3p is not a regulation and it does not say the ALJ's job is only to assess consistency with the OME. I've issued many decisions under the new SSR, saw the VOD, participated in the group ALJ discussion. Just don't want new aspirants to be under a misimpression.
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on May 13, 2016 11:22:16 GMT -5
Just to give my own, completely unbiased opinion, I think It would be beneficial to SSA to better utilize the senior attorneys. Rather than just being a glorified DW, why not let SAs play a bigger role in speeding up the process? I know the NAT is in effect, but SAs not on the team could review and develop cases, identify and research issues in non disability cases, and work closely with the judges to get things done. I'm all for hiring more ALJs, as we need them, but in the interim SSA should better use the assets they have. I think that going the AAJ route will result in a lot of issues (as indicated in the meeting). They should have a goal of obtaining more senior attorneys. I agree. The lawyers could be put to much more effective use. We have some great minds who could contribute very meaningfully, and who should be compensated accordingly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 11:22:35 GMT -5
Article on Fed News Radio regarding this hearing
choice tidbit - "to address the critical need to increase delusional capacity quickly"
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on May 13, 2016 12:18:12 GMT -5
Just to give my own, completely unbiased opinion, I think It would be beneficial to SSA to better utilize the senior attorneys. Rather than just being a glorified DW, why not let SAs play a bigger role in speeding up the process? I know the NAT is in effect, but SAs not on the team could review and develop cases, identify and research issues in non disability cases, and work closely with the judges to get things done. I'm all for hiring more ALJs, as we need them, but in the interim SSA should better use the assets they have. I think that going the AAJ route will result in a lot of issues (as indicated in the meeting). They should have a goal of obtaining more senior attorneys. I agree. The lawyers could be put to much more effective use. We have some great minds who could contribute very meaningfully, and who should be compensated accordingly. Actually, they already do. In our office and in some others, certain DWs and SAAs review and provide a memo on Non-DIB cases prior to the hearing. This is on a volunteer basis and offers a break and a little bit of research from otherwise repetitive work. The ones we have here do good work and it is helpful in order to avoid dedicated research by the ALJ (which I don't mind really, but don't seem to have the time). I agree that this would seem to be a better use of resources than moving these cases to AAJs.
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on May 13, 2016 12:32:21 GMT -5
Thanks for the info, cowboy. Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator ALJ on May 13, 2016 12:46:20 GMT -5
The fundamental difference between Ole Perplexing Madness and S.S.A. ("We're A.S.S.backwards"), in my opinion, is the view of the "register". It creates all the hiring problems. OPM takes the view that everyone on the register has been rigorously tested and is extremely qualified to be an "ALJ". Thus, subject to gal preferences, all on the register are basically plug and play and having 600 on the list is plenty if hiring is expected to be half that. SSA basically views the "register" like a car dealership. Sure, you have 600 models. But only a small percentage of those models have the gas mileage, seating capacity, cargo capacity etc to meet SSA needs. While everyone on the list is qualified to be an "ALJ," the agency "fit interview" test drive shows much fewer have what they want in an "SSA ALJ." To me, today's testimony essentially shows irreconcilable differences with neither side granting ground and the threat of congressional mediation possibly causing more problems than it fixes. I dunno what the answer is short of divorcing SSA ALJ hiring from OPM. No one would argue SSA doesn't have the right, within applicable legal constrictions, to hire who it wants. As expansive as hiring rules are in the federal government, there is nothing that entitles anyone to the the job nor mandates an agency hire someone they know is a bad fit or incapable of doing the work. If a divorce is the outcome and SSA is ultimately placed in power of its own, independent selection process, I fear that road eventually leads to "Hearing Officers" and all the negatives that entails. Thus, while "it's a great time to be on the register," particularly if you have whatever inarticulated and likely inane qualities SSA seeks, it is also abundantly clear we are on the precipice of a a massive sea change in regard to the position itself. Good luck all interviewing and certed. 2016 may be the last hurrah of alj hiring as we know. For 2017 and beyond, beware, past that point there may well be monsters. Beautifully, if depressingly, put Funky!
|
|
|
Post by christina on May 13, 2016 12:48:23 GMT -5
Article on Fed News Radio regarding this hearing
choice tidbit - "to address the critical need to increase delusional capacity quickly"
delusional capacity quickly?
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on May 13, 2016 12:53:46 GMT -5
Article on Fed News Radio regarding this hearing
choice tidbit - "to address the critical need to increase delusional capacity quickly"
Spider, you really should have included the headline: "Senators say SSA’s backlog reduction plan violates due process."
I am merely an humble civil servant, but that smells like blood in the water to me. I am intrigued to learn the Agency's response.
As for the choice tidbit, I would have thought we had pretty much pegged the meter on "delusional capacity," but perhaps I was wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 13:24:55 GMT -5
Article on Fed News Radio regarding this hearing
choice tidbit - "to address the critical need to increase delusional capacity quickly"
Spider, you really should have included the headline: "Senators say SSA’s backlog reduction plan violates due process."
I am merely an humble civil servant, but that smells like blood in the water to me. I am intrigued to learn the Agency's response.
As for the choice tidbit, I would have thought we had pretty much pegged the meter on "delusional capacity," but perhaps I was wrong.
Well, the article's author seems to have a different perspective than the board members who were following along at home (and I was hesitant to trust his judgment or pass it along considering the "delusional capacity" v. dispositional capacity statement).
Since ODAR just nixed one of the "All Hands on Deck" approaches, I'm sure a little Senatorial pressure could blow this house of cards over as well. Does anyone know if they have actually made selections for the AAJs w/ greater than 50 percent travel? If so, maybe the AC is pot-committed.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 13, 2016 13:29:43 GMT -5
While agreeing that I don't mind losing the over-payment cases, one must remember that these are almost never represented and for that reason never appealed to the district court. Therefore there is ample room for claimant abuse in front of Agency Judges and their record will look great as there will be no district court remands..
|
|
|
Post by inpatientlurker on May 13, 2016 14:31:22 GMT -5
I just wish that the Senators would have asked about the backlog at Appeals Council. I have several cases that are taking longer than 18 months for Appeals Council to review. If the AAJs can't handle their own caseload, shouldn't new AAJ hires be made to reduce this backlog before borrowing them for other reasons? (Not that I agree that AAJs should be used for any other purpose). I also feel stupid that after all my years in practice, I didn't realize that the AAJs weren't ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by southernfun on May 13, 2016 14:40:11 GMT -5
If so, maybe the AC is pot-committed. Ahh, explains why so few cases get remanded for drug abuse being material to the impairments.
|
|
momo
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by momo on May 13, 2016 15:46:29 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" Thanks for posting the quote.
|
|
luna
Full Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by luna on May 13, 2016 15:48:58 GMT -5
This is all fascinating and a good way to spend my time, especially since I have a trial next week. Taking into account the transcripts I read and comments on this list, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get the call, because I just got over 1000 new business cards. And the magic 8 ball told me so.
|
|