|
Post by privateatty on May 13, 2016 16:04:36 GMT -5
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. While Puzzle Palace certainly has an unfettered right to hire whom they please, their pace of hiring should not lead to a divorce from OPM. The latter is there to protect agencies from themselves and to ensure that all get the same treatment coming in. Today's political developments are very interesting and I hope all read the testimony and the Senate Statements.
|
|
|
Post by saaao on May 13, 2016 16:06:06 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. Actually under the Sklar/Borland regime a plan was in place to hire about 75 more AAJ's to keep up with the additional output coming from the increase in ALJ's. I don't remember hearing anything about adding hearings to their duties under that plan but I know there was supposed to be a proportional hire.
|
|
|
Post by christina on May 13, 2016 16:15:15 GMT -5
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. While Puzzle Palace certainly has an unfettered right to hire whom they please, their pace of hiring should not lead to a divorce from OPM. The latter is there to protect agencies from themselves and to ensure that all get the same treatment coming in. Today's political developments are very interesting and I hope all read the testimony and the Senate Statements. there have been new developments today? in response to yesterday's hearings?
|
|
|
Post by upperwolfjaw on May 13, 2016 19:02:03 GMT -5
That is incorrect. Requests for benefit continuation may only be granted through the ALJ decision, not while another appeal is sought with the Appeals Council.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 13, 2016 19:06:10 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. I'm also a little curious to know how things work at the AC. I have pending appeals from decisions a year old, and I've had an affirmation decided a month and a half after the decision was issued. I'm not judging them for the former because I'd love my hearing requests to only be a year old, but I'm genuinely curious about how they do things since it's not necessarily FIFO.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on May 13, 2016 23:45:16 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. I'm also a little curious to know how things work at the AC. I have pending appeals from decisions a year old, and I've had an affirmation decided a month and a half after the decision was issued. I'm not judging them for the former because I'd love my hearing requests to only be a year old, but I'm genuinely curious about how they do things since it's not necessarily FIFO. AAJs are Management Officials who serve under the Management Officials plan, per USAjobs. Their duties are not classifiable above GS-15 for SES, OPM, or pay purposes, which is why appointment requires 1 year at GS-14 or above. The AC has three bases for jurisdiction: Federal court remand, filing exceptions (request for review), and assuming jurisdiction (own motion or quality review). Request for review cases typically take ~18 months to process. Own motion cases must be pulled within 60 days and are worked by a different group within the AC. It is true that filing a request for AC review does not entitle one to statutory benefit continuation. I do note though that an AC remand of an ALJ decision removing benefits on medical grounds does.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on May 14, 2016 6:27:58 GMT -5
While Puzzle Palace certainly has an unfettered right to hire whom they please, their pace of hiring should not lead to a divorce from OPM. The latter is there to protect agencies from themselves and to ensure that all get the same treatment coming in. Today's political developments are very interesting and I hope all read the testimony and the Senate Statements. there have been new developments today? in response to yesterday's hearings? Sorry. A day late and a dollar short.
|
|
|
Post by christina on May 14, 2016 7:30:32 GMT -5
there have been new developments today? in response to yesterday's hearings? Sorry. A day late and a dollar short. no. that is fine. i thought there was some wild outcry the next day. interesting hearing, to be sure. Thanks for the support from ALJ's not in SSA. Getting a bit wild. All the best, C
|
|