agency hoping for 250 ALJ hires this FY...

[bartleby]

Considering the history of ODAR and the backlogs, by applying your theory, there would never be any incumbents re-elected... Amazingly they are re-elected time and again, backlog or not. The delay will continue because ODAR is afraid it will hire a whole bunch of ALJ's and then as the Baby Boomers reach retirement age (we are retiring at over 500,000 a month right now) the backlog will drop off and ODAR will have an unnecessarily large group of highly paid ALJ's and no way to get rid of them... JMHO, as usual.

[rp]

"Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!"

- Melville

[bartleby]

The Scrivener, "I would prefer not to." “At present I would prefer not to be a little reasonable,' was his mildly cadaverous reply.”

-Melville

[jagvet]

I think people may be reading the election tea leaves wrong. It doesn't take more hiring to fix SSA. There are some statutory and administrative changes, if anyone cares to look at them, that can reduce the pendings. In my short time here, I can already identify a few. Now don't pile on me here. I am not advocating for anything, but just stating things that might be considered:
1. Streamline appeals by establishing harmless error standard at AC and USDC level. Would reduce picayune remands.
2. 5-day closure rule on the record (should be waivable by ALJ for good cause).
3. Eliminate child cases over 5 years old unless claimant unable to attend school (ADA requires disability accommodations and services at public schools from K-12).
4. Update aging rules.
5. Integrate SSA law with ADA, so that VEs will consider the possibility of required employment accommodations for claimants in the workplace.
6. Expressly allow outright dismissals for no-shows, with right to refile if good cause shown.
Any thoughts?

[acttwo]

Um, just an outsider's question, please? Would hiring more staff also be a big help? That seems to be what I have picked up from reading the board. And, won't things really be more site specific, that is, some places won't need ALJs as badly whereas others will still be in need of help? Strategic hiring. At least I think there will be a budget, which is a good thing, right?

Sorry, had court this morning and stayed up watching so not sure if I make sense...time for a coffee I.V....

And to all, we are all Americans, we have the best and the brightest, let us pull together and create a future we can be proud to pass along. And once again [because it cannot be said too often] THANK YOU VETERANS!

[Deleted]

I'm betting the hiring freeze is for real. It's his second point in his 100 day action contract with America... The agency will have to re-start the senior attorney adjudication to deal its the only way.

[montyburns]

Nov 9, 2016 11:58:02 GMT -5 jagvet said:

I think people may be reading the election tea leaves wrong. It doesn't take more hiring to fix SSA. There are some statutory and administrative changes, if anyone cares to look at them, that can reduce the pendings. In my short time here, I can already identify a few. Now don't pile on me here. I am not advocating for anything, but just stating things that might be considered:
1. Streamline appeals by establishing harmless error standard at AC and USDC level. Would reduce picayune remands.
2. 5-day closure rule on the record (should be waivable by ALJ for good cause).
3. Eliminate child cases over 5 years old unless claimant unable to attend school (ADA requires disability accommodations and services at public schools from K-12).
4. Update aging rules.
5. Integrate SSA law with ADA, so that VEs will consider the possibility of required employment accommodations for claimants in the workplace.
6. Expressly allow outright dismissals for no-shows, with right to refile if good cause shown.
Any thoughts?

Well I guess I depends on what you are trying to "fix."  All your proposals would result in fewer favorable decisions, so if you think that SSDI/SSI is paying too much, these are all great. 

If you think the backlog is the problem, then these (with the possible exception of #3) would do nothing.  SSDI/SSI applicants are not typical litigants in that they will be dissuaded from filing by a low probability of success/cost of litigation.  There are basically no costs to applying.  People who apply are usually desperate for any help they can get and will try anything.  So just because they will probably lose, that may dissuade reps from repping them (a bad thing in my estimation if you want to reduce the backlog), but it will not stop people from applying.

 

The only obvious quick fix to the backlog problem was already done - the one app at a time rule. Other than that, restarting SAAs in force is the only other "no money" fix, but many interests converge to stop that from happening.   

So basically, sorry to tell you, but if the backlog is your concern, then yes, more $ is the only clear solution.           

[montyburns]

Hey I heard some coffee needed peeing in; some mellows needed harshing; and some reality therapy administered. So here I am!

Now first, who knows what our new leader will do.  He has taken every position on just about every issue in the last 20 years or so.  So who knows really.  But he did say fed hiring would be frozen, and he said it recently.  In addition, he also recently(ish) said that he did not agree with privatizing SSA. That's certainly good news.  Assuming he still remembers this, then I would expect that ALL hiring, ALJs and others, will be stopped.  We already suspected/knew there would be no hiring of attorneys or support staff.  But this would seem to go further.  He is trying to starve the beast - hiring a bunch of 150K+ lifetime tenured judges does not fit into that plan. 

Of course that's just this year.  We can hope that as one learns of governance, they learn that agencies need to be funded to fulfill their missions.  But that ain't exactly his MO.  IMO, there is a real possibility that ODAR will be sold off to an insurance company.  He will not privatize SSA (i.e. retirement), but doesn't privatizing the administration of one of the programs' lesser functions (i.e. disability) sound like a good compromise to someone who knows almost nothing about government or due process?  I mean private industry always does things better than the government, right? (or so goes what passes for "wisdom" these days).

So yeah, big picture - there might not be any jobs to hire you to soon.  Not saying it will happen, but this is the magnitude of perspective that we need to have in our current environment. 

There, everyone have some pee in their coffee?  Yes?  OK, I'll go then.  Too-da-loo!          

[jagvet]

Nov 9, 2016 19:06:25 GMT -5 montyburns said:

Nov 9, 2016 11:58:02 GMT -5 jagvet said:

I think people may be reading the election tea leaves wrong. It doesn't take more hiring to fix SSA. There are some statutory and administrative changes, if anyone cares to look at them, that can reduce the pendings. In my short time here, I can already identify a few. Now don't pile on me here. I am not advocating for anything, but just stating things that might be considered:
1. Streamline appeals by establishing harmless error standard at AC and USDC level. Would reduce picayune remands.
2. 5-day closure rule on the record (should be waivable by ALJ for good cause).
3. Eliminate child cases over 5 years old unless claimant unable to attend school (ADA requires disability accommodations and services at public schools from K-12).
4. Update aging rules.
5. Integrate SSA law with ADA, so that VEs will consider the possibility of required employment accommodations for claimants in the workplace.
6. Expressly allow outright dismissals for no-shows, with right to refile if good cause shown.
Any thoughts?

Well I guess I depends on what you are trying to "fix."  All your proposals would result in fewer favorable decisions, so if you think that SSDI/SSI is paying too much, these are all great. 

If you think the backlog is the problem, then these (with the possible exception of #3) would do nothing.  SSDI/SSI applicants are not typical litigants in that they will be dissuaded from filing by a low probability of success/cost of litigation.  There are basically no costs to applying.  People who apply are usually desperate for any help they can get and will try anything.  So just because they will probably lose, that may dissuade reps from repping them (a bad thing in my estimation if you want to reduce the backlog), but it will not stop people from applying.

 

The only obvious quick fix to the backlog problem was already done - the one app at a time rule. Other than that, restarting SAAs in force is the only other "no money" fix, but many interests converge to stop that from happening.   

So basically, sorry to tell you, but if the backlog is your concern, then yes, more $ is the only clear solution.           

I have to respectfully disagree.  I didn't look at "paying too much" except in 3 and 5, but even there, reps won't take guaranteed loser cases.  They usually don't now. It means less cases coming in and lets us get through the pending faster to a smaller tail.

1. I had a couple of remands from AC on other judges that might have affirmed on harmless error for technical errors which didn't change result.  Those cost a couple thousand dollars to SSA, resulted in no money to claimant and take hearing slots.  Senior judges tell me that's not uncommon.

2. Last-minute filings sometimes result in delay in decisions and wasteful supplemental hearings, and AC's acceptance of after-hearing records results in remands. If reps knew 5-day rule, most would get the docs in earlier, and lesser number would be held over for records.

3. This is definitely a less-money to claimants (or rather their parents/guardians), but also less filings if a rep knows it's a waste of time.

4. Update aging rules (grid) is also less money to claimants, but again, less cases because reps won't waste their time on (e.g.) a 52-year-old HS grad with skilled/semiskilled sedentary who the grid now says is disabled.

5. is admittedly a big substantive change.  Since 1990, federal law says that an employer must accommodate a disabled employee and we say no it doesn't. Makes no sense.

6. Waste of time and staff to go through the notice to show cause, mailing, post office, etc., etc. on a simple no-show. Dismiss the case and allow a claimant who comes back later to refile for good cause.

We're not getting more money, so we have to get the pendings down.

[litigator52]

I agree with you jagvet.  I am an attorney advisor to the Appeals Council, and all those ideas are good ones, except a armless error doctrine is a bit tricky, can't really be formulated, since the circuits disagree on what may be harmless. But, without a formal rule for it, that is what we shoot for most of the time. -Lit52

[montyburns]

Nov 9, 2016 19:37:41 GMT -5 jagvet said:

Nov 9, 2016 19:06:25 GMT -5 montyburns said:

Well I guess I depends on what you are trying to "fix."  All your proposals would result in fewer favorable decisions, so if you think that SSDI/SSI is paying too much, these are all great. 

If you think the backlog is the problem, then these (with the possible exception of #3) would do nothing.  SSDI/SSI applicants are not typical litigants in that they will be dissuaded from filing by a low probability of success/cost of litigation.  There are basically no costs to applying.  People who apply are usually desperate for any help they can get and will try anything.  So just because they will probably lose, that may dissuade reps from repping them (a bad thing in my estimation if you want to reduce the backlog), but it will not stop people from applying.

 

The only obvious quick fix to the backlog problem was already done - the one app at a time rule. Other than that, restarting SAAs in force is the only other "no money" fix, but many interests converge to stop that from happening.   

So basically, sorry to tell you, but if the backlog is your concern, then yes, more $ is the only clear solution.           

I have to respectfully disagree.  I didn't look at "paying too much" except in 3 and 5, but even there, reps won't take guaranteed loser cases.  They usually don't now. It means less cases coming in and lets us get through the pending faster to a smaller tail.

1. I had a couple of remands from AC on other judges that might have affirmed on harmless error for technical errors which didn't change result.  Those cost a couple thousand dollars to SSA, resulted in no money to claimant and take hearing slots.  Senior judges tell me that's not uncommon.

2. Last-minute filings sometimes result in delay in decisions and wasteful supplemental hearings, and AC's acceptance of after-hearing records results in remands. If reps knew 5-day rule, most would get the docs in earlier, and lesser number would be held over for records.

3. This is definitely a less-money to claimants (or rather their parents/guardians), but also less filings if a rep knows it's a waste of time.

4. Update aging rules (grid) is also less money to claimants, but again, less cases because reps won't waste their time on (e.g.) a 52-year-old HS grad with skilled/semiskilled sedentary who the grid now says is disabled.

5. is admittedly a big substantive change.  Since 1990, federal law says that an employer must accommodate a disabled employee and we say no it doesn't. Makes no sense.

6. Waste of time and staff to go through the notice to show cause, mailing, post office, etc., etc. on a simple no-show. Dismiss the case and allow a claimant who comes back later to refile for good cause.

We're not getting more money, so we have to get the pendings down.

Not really disagreeing with you on merits, just on the scope of impact.  Less remands don't mean much.  A denied appeal only means a new app (in most cases, excepting DLI issues).  Not disagreeing you on the no-show dismissals either: you are right these are huge time-suckers (and often a hearing slot for a case that will just be dismissed...again), but again, a dismissal just = a new app in most cases.  And reps not wasting time on cases, it's a bad thing IMO.  Your experience may vary, but in mine (not a judge, but a former rep and current SAA) most unrepped claimants end up getting 2-3 hearings/ hearing slots.  Simply configuring rules that will result in denials will not have an appreciable effect on the amount of people applying, which ultimately will depend on economics more than the technical requirements of our rules.  Even if totally unsupported, we still have to take the app in most cases.   

To reiterate, all your ideas are meritorious and worthy of discussion on their own account, but I don't think any of them, individually or combined, would have an appreciable impact on the backlog.           

Just ETA: re the ADA, great points, but remember the ADA only applies to employers with what 25 (or is it 50) employees?  Also I think this a great area to look at where theory meets reality.  "Theoretically, that guy who did not get hired at Wal-Mart should have been per the ADA, and he should sue them for not hiring them."  Is this the level of minutae you want to get involved in?  Where is the theory vs. reality line drawn?  It's a good point worthy of discussion, and I think there should be some in the reg  in re: the ADA.               

[montyburns]

Nov 9, 2016 19:49:15 GMT -5 litigator52 said:

I agree with you jagvet.  I am an attorney advisor to the Appeals Council, and all those ideas are good ones, except a armless error doctrine is a bit tricky, can't really be formulated, since the circuits disagree on what may be harmless. But, without a formal rule for it, that is what we shoot for most of the time. -Lit52

Yeah, I have done a lot of fed appeals in a circuit that purports have a harmless error standard. I still won almost all my appeals, and from my current perspective at least, many of those errors were probably harmless.

[hopefalj]

Nov 9, 2016 19:37:41 GMT -5 jagvet said:

Nov 9, 2016 19:06:25 GMT -5 montyburns said:

Well I guess I depends on what you are trying to "fix."  All your proposals would result in fewer favorable decisions, so if you think that SSDI/SSI is paying too much, these are all great. 

If you think the backlog is the problem, then these (with the possible exception of #3) would do nothing.  SSDI/SSI applicants are not typical litigants in that they will be dissuaded from filing by a low probability of success/cost of litigation.  There are basically no costs to applying.  People who apply are usually desperate for any help they can get and will try anything.  So just because they will probably lose, that may dissuade reps from repping them (a bad thing in my estimation if you want to reduce the backlog), but it will not stop people from applying.

 

The only obvious quick fix to the backlog problem was already done - the one app at a time rule. Other than that, restarting SAAs in force is the only other "no money" fix, but many interests converge to stop that from happening.   

So basically, sorry to tell you, but if the backlog is your concern, then yes, more $ is the only clear solution.           

I have to respectfully disagree.  I didn't look at "paying too much" except in 3 and 5, but even there, reps won't take guaranteed loser cases.  They usually don't now. It means less cases coming in and lets us get through the pending faster to a smaller tail.

1. I had a couple of remands from AC on other judges that might have affirmed on harmless error for technical errors which didn't change result.  Those cost a couple thousand dollars to SSA, resulted in no money to claimant and take hearing slots.  Senior judges tell me that's not uncommon.

2. Last-minute filings sometimes result in delay in decisions and wasteful supplemental hearings, and AC's acceptance of after-hearing records results in remands. If reps knew 5-day rule, most would get the docs in earlier, and lesser number would be held over for records.

3. This is definitely a less-money to claimants (or rather their parents/guardians), but also less filings if a rep knows it's a waste of time.

4. Update aging rules (grid) is also less money to claimants, but again, less cases because reps won't waste their time on (e.g.) a 52-year-old HS grad with skilled/semiskilled sedentary who the grid now says is disabled.

5. is admittedly a big substantive change.  Since 1990, federal law says that an employer must accommodate a disabled employee and we say no it doesn't. Makes no sense.

6. Waste of time and staff to go through the notice to show cause, mailing, post office, etc., etc. on a simple no-show. Dismiss the case and allow a claimant who comes back later to refile for good cause.

We're not getting more money, so we have to get the pendings down.

I applaud your efforts, but you (a) underestimate reps willing to take on obvious denials and (b) claimants continuing on with obvious denials without representation.

The AC has gotten better about harmless error, and it does vary from region to region depending on which members of the AC are handling cases. The District Courts are largely clueless about the disability process, the law, and the application of the law as well in my experience.

[seeker7]

Oct 22, 2016 14:42:48 GMT -5 anderson said:

Oct 22, 2016 11:55:45 GMT -5 mango54 said:

Well.....Trump just announced a complete ban on Federal hires except for military and med folks should he win.....

An excerpt from his website of potential interest to federal employees and prospective ALJs:  

DONALD J. TRUMP CONTRACT WITH THE AMERICAN VOTER

“Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated...

Will his hiring freeze on all federal employees include SCOTUS justices?

[montyburns]

Nov 9, 2016 20:14:23 GMT -5 seeker7 said:

Oct 22, 2016 14:42:48 GMT -5 anderson said:

An excerpt from his website of potential interest to federal employees and prospective ALJs:  

DONALD J. TRUMP CONTRACT WITH THE AMERICAN VOTER

“Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated...

Will his hiring freeze on all federal employees include SCOTUS justices?

all except one!  for now....

[Baymax]

If there is a silver lining to Tuesday night, it is that the Congress and the WH are now controlled by the same party, which means, at the very least, that we may get a federal budget. Of course, that could mean that funding for our agencies may be on the chopping block, or certain agencies (like DOD) may get a boost in funding. But at least we won't have to worry about CRs and possible shutdowns. If we had a different outcome, we may have had 4 more years of budget fights, of furloughs, etc. If congress and the WH had both gone the other way, then I think all of our agencies would have benefited from increased funding and hiring.

What is the potential effect of this on ALJ hiring at SSA or OMHA? It really depends on how the new Congress prioritizes these two agencies and how much money they allocate.

There's more unknown than known at this point.

[Thru Hiker]

Baymax --> i'm not sure where $1 trillion for infrastructure is going to come from, except by cutting government. Defense budget cuts are out. Tax increases are out. Social benefit program: maybe by elimination of programs for undocumented persons, but that will take time.  Reducing federal health care expenses will a big focus: but there are (H)UGE vested interests there who benefit from Obamacare, and that's the medical providers, drug companies, and insurance companies themselves. i expect the "abolition" of Obamacare to be a long debate that will take a year or more.

questionable disability claimants waiting for hearings, where they've already been determined ineligible (read: lazy malingers) will NOT be high on the Congressional funding priority list. if there is motivation in the new Administration for dealing with the Social Security appeal backlog, it will be by cheaper ways than hiring additional, expensive, ALJs.  It is far easier politically just to let those waiting die, or age into SSDI, while they wait for their appeal.  (my apologies if that sounds harsh and cynical)  

with the result in the Senate, maybe the Dems can focus on Louisiana and win that Senate race, AND lure one or two Senators as part of a coalition (a la 2001 with Senator Jeffords), but they'd need at least 2 defectors. that is a very long shot.

focus in the near term is going to be nomination and confirmation for Supreme Court, to eliminate any possibility of frustration of that political priority.

so a first and easy "fix" is to stop hiring more federal government workers - except of course the higher echelons. i think hiring freeze is for real.

[peanutfancy]

Nov 10, 2016 6:48:02 GMT -5 Thru Hiker said:

so a first and easy "fix" is to stop hiring more federal government workers - except of course the higher echelons. i think hiring freeze is for real.

So do I. And having recently completed the SI, it bums me out a little.

[dragon]

If there is a complete hiring freeze, would OPM continue the SI and testing scheduled in early 2017? Would they still score and send out NOR's? If they don't plan to hire anyways would the pending SI's be scrapped and we start over again later? I'm fairly new to federal agency work, but am hoping some of the seasoned board members may know how that was handled in the past.

[Pixie]

Many of the people I talk with feel that the federal workforce is over populated and overpaid. Many also feel D.C. is corrupt and agree with the comments to "drain the swamp." Looks like it might be a while before the hiring freeze is lifted. Pixie