ALJ EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

[mango]

I guess I want to push back some on Happy's last. I do care, that is why I spend a lot of my own time working up cases. (and I know Happy's comment was not directed at me personally) And I do agree that the people in the office need to have some idea when you are going to be there. I am new to SSA and ODAR and have never worked in a place with flexitime and flexiplace. I can never figure out when anyone is going to be in the office as it seems everyone works their own schedule. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone works a traditional 8 to 5 schedule. It does make it more difficult to find someone you need to interact with.

That said, I work a lot of hour during the week just trying to catch up. The learning curve following school is/has been steep and there is tremendous pressure to produce decisions. In my case it is mostly internal as no one in the office is pushing me to produce more. While I could work the traditional 8 to 5, the flexitime is better for me as I like to get in early and have always put in a long day. With the limits on how many hours you can work in a day and the number of hours you can carry over, I prefer to use the flexitime to work at home while trying to catch up rather than at the office. I always make it known at the beginning of the week if I will not be in on a particular day so folks in the office will know. I think it is a matter of communicating with the support staff and the other judges in the office, particularly the HOCALJ.

I also agree with what Pixie said about being in on the close of the month Friday. I think we as the senior folks in the office need to be a part of the team and be seen as part of the team. It is good for the office productivity and I think the morale of the support staff. That is very important to me personally as I have found the support staff to be particularly helpful and interacting with them one of the better parts of the job. In my office they are a great bunch of people and I enjoy seeing and working with them. I would hate to do anything to alienate them. (The use of flexitime also allows me to avoid one day of driving and using $5/gallon fuel.)

[pm]

Hi Mango,

What is it that eats up most of your time? Is it reviewing the medical file or something else?

Thanks

[aaa]

In our office we have been trying to make weekly goals. We actually got away from mailing everything the last week of the month quite some time ago.

We've been doing well with the weekly goal concept and our mail day has been Thursday of each week. ALJs are asked to sign cases by 3:00 PM on Thursdays so everything gets mailed out either that day or Friday early. As it has happened, we've been achieving goal earlier in the month and the last Friday has been kind of a ho-hum day with little stress and lots of folks leaving early. Kind of a really nice deal.

My plan for next April when I can do flexiplace is to give it a try. I think it would be a good way for me to review files and prepare for hearing. I like working off the CD for electronic files. I'm not sure that flexiplace would work well on a travel week. Guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I echo Mango in that it's taking me longer to prepare for hearings than I thought it would. Preparing the hypotheticals is my biggest slow down. I'm hoping with time I won't suck at them so much and that I get better on the fly!

One thing I really do like is the bench decision. I've done that a few times and then it's done. I've even adjourned hearings for a short 10 minute break to finalize the bench decision I did ahead of time. Reps seem to like it also.

I don't know how folks are holding 30 hearings in one week. I never knew how physically draining it could be to hold disability hearings. One day last week I went home and took a nap after work - something I never do. I absolutely could not stay awake when I got home.

I owe sitting ALJs a big apology - although I wanted to be one, I think I thought that it was a really easy job and how they could be doing more. Wow - now that I am an ALJ it was big dose of reality for me that it's more challenging than I thought it would be.

[Propmaster]

I love the insight on this thread from Mango and aaa about the differences they encountered than what they expected. Since my new plan calls for me to reapply to be an ALJ in several years after I've added experience, I won't get to experience this myself; but this sort of window into the "thoughts" of ALJs is really interesting. Especially aaa's comment about how tiring having a bunch of hearings is.

I hope all the new ALJs, even while adjusting to the "reality" of the situation, keep their "outside" goals in mind as the years pass.

[deltajudge]

8-)For all concerned, especially new aljs with no leave time, the best way to go is credit hours. Having been an old timer, now retired did not know about the restrictions on the alternate work site. That is one of the few good ideas that OHA/ODAR came up with. It improved morale and increased production. In my office, some aljs abused it, but I was careful to document what I worked on at home, and advise all to do the same.

[woody]

aaa echos my point earlier in this thread. I think the biggest mistake any of us in this organization can make is to assume management duties when we are not management- especially in light of the extremely adversarial position adopted by our current leader. After nearly a decade as an alj, I sure don't feel like I am part of any 'team' not when the captain of my team likes to blame the entire backlog on me in sworn testimony to Congress. Our job is to hear and decide cases. I don't set goals, nobody consults me on goals, and I certainly don't buy into any. And whatever 'goals' you buy in to this year will be your quota next year plus 100.

I flex on Fridays and its by far my most productive day. So if management wants me to look at a case they have learned to get it me by a reasonable time on Thursday, and they have. Its management's job to motivate that writer who waits until the end of the month to get the case in, not mine. Anybody who handled my cases got told not to hold on to anything, we work as hard every week of the month. But I won't sign crap just because its the end of the month. Wouldn't you know, management caught on and now the whole office is away from the end of month madness.

You will not hurt my feelings if you say I'm not a team player. I started out with an entirely different attitude, but it only came back to bite me in the butt. Every time the alj's bail out management, management is not motivated to fix anything. Every time I remembered what my job is- to hear and decide cases- not shlep equipment, not worry about goals, not solve their mistakes, at least I don't make the job worse for the rest of us. So I think I'm part of the solution.

[mango]

PM

Sorry to respond so late. What eats up my time is the case review. I will admit to a lot of frustration right now. I spend hours going through files that are "pulled" but that are full of totally irrelevant information. (and yes I know a better way, but will save that discussion for later) I know some judges have different thoughts on how to handle this, but I know of no way to prepare for a case short of reading the file. When you get into it and are reading medical entries about some cyst being lanced or some SDT that has nothing to do with the claimant's DDD in the lumbar spine, it is frustrating. Records from the VA are the worst as they are always huge and have a lot of repetition. Most of it is unrelated to the issues I am to decide.

Holding the hearing is the easy part of the job. I have considerable experience as a trial judge and enjoy that part. The non-adversarial nature of the hearing is a disappointment. The reps seem to do very little in preparation and during the hearing. Hearings take me around one to one and a half hours. Some go a little quicker.

As to AAA's comment about folks holding 30 hearing per week, there are different methods. One is to use a medical expert on every case. This takes a lot of work off of the ALJ as a lot of the work of reviewing the case is on the medical expert who will review the evidence and then summarize as to what the claimant's circumstance is. Others just hold very short hearings and pay most cases. If you pay them, there is a very short process to writing the decision and virtually no appeal. Your numbers look great and so the senior leadership does not look too closely. Frankly, my impression is that the senior leadership is not interested as much in the correctness of the decisions as they are in seeing to it that the number of hearings goes up and the backlog goes down. Understandable given the pressure from Congress. I think it is incumbent on the judges to ensure that does not happen. We need to focus on ensuring that we hold a legally competent hearing and, if necessary push back against pressure that denies that. While there is only a claimant in the hearing room, there is an American public that is owed a legally correct decision just as much as the claimant.

I am hearing 36 plus cases a month and have 45 scheduled next month. Way too many for a new judge. While I made several inquiries when I got to my office, I got no advice other than what you are comfortable with. Having never heard a case and having no idea what was involved in the case preparation, I set too high a number. I was not privy to the mentoring package so was unaware of ODAR's guidance.

I would strongly recommend that new judges get a hold of a copy of the mentoring package as it sets out some goals and standards. Their mentor will have it and should make it available. 20 cases a month for the first month and growing slowly is a good starting point.

[woody]

Mango- Take this under consideration. . . When I first started years ago I spent many, many hours reviewing the files before the hearings. I basically conducted the entire hearing and the attorneys sat there being useless. Two things became a source of frustration: 1) evidence came in at or after the hearing that changed the entire character of the case or the claimant did not show, in either situation making all of that file review time wasted and 2) the attorneys were getting paid $5300 a case and I was doing all of the work.

In thinking about it, I asked myself the following question- who's case is it and who has the burden of proof here? Not mine, not me. So, now I do not do any file review prior to the hearing, I take a quick look and know that its a back/mental case or whatever. The attorney conducts the entire hearing. Most of the attorneys who appear before me do not work their case until the notice of hearing goes out, so most cases go into POST after the hearing. Once the file is complete, I review it and make the decision. Therefore, one review only with decision while the info is completely fresh.

The downside- in a small percentage of cases I come across something after the hearing that needs clarification and I write to the attorney and get it. I would never schedule an expert before a hearing (Remands the exception) because the files are rarely complete going in and because in our office we don't get the files before they are scheduled to review anyway. So sometimes I have to schedule a supplemental hearing for a VE after I review the file. But this effort pales in comparison to the time I was using up reviewing the file before the hearing.

The upside- after the initial shock, word got out and the attorneys know they are going to be held to their burden of proof and have to conduct the hearing. I feel better knowing that at least they are earning some of their fee. The better ones come more prepared and after they lost a couple because I found something they should have, they are more likely to look at the evidence they are sending in and address obvious problems with the evidence.

As for unrepped, over time you will get a better feeling for how to hold it on the fly and make a quick review of a file.

I know I will be criticized for this approach and would have criticized myself 10 years ago. But again, I function as the judge. The claimant has the burden of proof and the attorney has to help him meet it.

And your impression of the senior leadership and fellow judges is spot on.

[deltajudge]

I spent 17 years in the private sector before becoming an ALJ in 1976. During that time I was a claim adjuster, trial lawyer and worker's comp judge. As you probably know, those were adversary hearings and a lot of fun. When I came on board with OHA and it dawned on me what the hearing process was all about, thought I had died and gone to heaven. Easiest job I ever had. Back then we had the unit system, and I supervised my own group. The cases assigned to us, remained in our control until a decision was issued. A unit consisted of a hearing assistant, secretary (later clerk) and typist, but since we were under the mag card process at the time, our unit only had access to the system 2 days a week, so the typist filled in on clerical duties. If you got out 20 cases a month, you were burning rubber. I really enjoyed the job, although as you said, missed the adversary hearings. Like you, I strived to make a legally defendable record until the early 80s when they reconfigured to the pool system and took my unit away along with my control of my cases. Management also changed from a professional group to an incompentent, goal oriented bunch, and it has gotten worse over the years. My cynicism grew over those years. Do your job, but don't knock yourself out. You can put out a decision that glows with defensibility, but do not expect any recognition for doing it. Those looking down on you are looking at one thing, how many cases you are getting out in a month. So my advice to all new ALJs is try to reach a happy medium. You want to keep a low profile, so don't be a high or low producer. On hearing trips, which is probably fast becoming something of the past, I scheduled a minimum of 30 cases. On the average, I scheduled at least 40 cases a month if they had'm. For those of you like me, this you have an easy job, make the most of it.

[aljsouth]

Jul 18, 2008 8:57:46 GMT -5 mango said:

PM

Sorry to respond so late. What eats up my time is the case review. I will admit to a lot of frustration right now. I spend hours going through files that are "pulled" but that are full of totally irrelevant information. (and yes I know a better way, but will save that discussion for later) I know some judges have different thoughts on how to handle this, but I know of no way to prepare for a case short of reading the file. When you get into it and are reading medical entries about some cyst being lanced or some SDT that has nothing to do with the claimant's DDD in the lumbar spine, it is frustrating. Records from the VA are the worst as they are always huge and have a lot of repetition. Most of it is unrelated to the issues I am to decide.

Holding the hearing is the easy part of the job. I have considerable experience as a trial judge and enjoy that part. The non-adversarial nature of the hearing is a disappointment. The reps seem to do very little in preparation and during the hearing. Hearings take me around one to one and a half hours. Some go a little quicker.

As to AAA's comment about folks holding 30 hearing per week, there are different methods. One is to use a medical expert on every case. This takes a lot of work off of the ALJ as a lot of the work of reviewing the case is on the medical expert who will review the evidence and then summarize as to what the claimant's circumstance is. Others just hold very short hearings and pay most cases. If you pay them, there is a very short process to writing the decision and virtually no appeal. Your numbers look great and so the senior leadership does not look too closely. Frankly, my impression is that the senior leadership is not interested as much in the correctness of the decisions as they are in seeing to it that the number of hearings goes up and the backlog goes down. Understandable given the pressure from Congress. I think it is incumbent on the judges to ensure that does not happen. We need to focus on ensuring that we hold a legally competent hearing and, if necessary push back against pressure that denies that. While there is only a claimant in the hearing room, there is an American public that is owed a legally correct decision just as much as the claimant.

I am hearing 36 plus cases a month and have 45 scheduled next month. Way too many for a new judge. While I made several inquiries when I got to my office, I got no advice other than what you are comfortable with. Having never heard a case and having no idea what was involved in the case preparation, I set too high a number. I was not privy to the mentoring package so was unaware of ODAR's guidance.

I would strongly recommend that new judges get a hold of a copy of the mentoring package as it sets out some goals and standards. Their mentor will have it and should make it available. 20 cases a month for the first month and growing slowly is a good starting point.

Mango--
You are going to have to learn how to skim through the lanced boils, URI's, UTI's etc. Ditto, even more so, for almost unreadable handwritten notes. After I gained experience I found i could get through a case with 10 or fewer F exhibits in about 30 minutes or less. Much less in most children's cases. This includes making the notes and sending them to the private section of case documents.

The beauty of this job used to be that we could do the job different ways. I suspect this administration will do all it can to make you do it a set way -- like the Army. Until then you can review cases your way and conduct hearings your way.

I prefer to spend most of my time on a file in ARPR and make good notes. A quick review of those notes and any new exhibits usually puts me ready to conduct the hearing. I also try to do all necessary ce' s in advance so the case can go to the writer. I do not ask the staff to update medicals when there is a rep or attorney, including the incompetent ones. The staff does not have infinite time any more than we do.

Woody posted his way above. I know other judges who use his method. It works for them and I say great. I like what I do. You have to learn what works best for you.

ONE LAST LONG NOTE ON HEARINGS: Most judges start out with long hearings. I did. Now I can do most "routine" adult hearings in 30 to 40 minutes, including VE testimony.

Most new judges have a too detailed opening monologue. Very little is usually needed. Introduce yourself, say you are not bound by any earlier decision but will make up your own mind; that you will consider all the evidence including what you will receive at the hearing; introduce the reporter as recording the hearing, the VE (ME) and then turn to the attorney/rep if any and state the record is 1A through 9F and ask him/her is they have any objections. I ask attorneys or reps to waive reading of issues, they always do here. If one did not then, in front of their client, ask why they expect to be paid a fee if they have not bothered to explain disability to their client. Then ask if the rep/attorney has any witness other than the claimant. Swear in witnesses and off you go.

In unreped cases you have to take some time to explain rights of representation and, if it is the first time the claimant has appeared, the right to a continuance to seek representation. If they want a continuance explain that at the next hearing you will conduct the hearing if for some reason they have not obtained representation. If they decline representation then tell them that in adult disability cases they have to show they have a medical condition or conditions, which is something the doctors can put a name to; and that they have had this condition for 12 months or more, or that it will last 12 months or more. . Add that this condition or conditions has to prevent them from being able to work. I have NEVER had a case returned because I failed to adequately inform a claimant about disability or rights of representation when I did the above.

Talk to your mentor or other judges about what shortcuts at the hearing they have discovered. One good one is to ask about conditions complained of and ask a general any thing else you want to add question. You are not a physician taking a history and physical and if the claimant has never complained of a foot issue and one has not been identified in the evidence -- don't ask about their feet.

Good luck to all new judges.

[counselor95]

Thanks for all the advice on how to hold the hearings. Keep it coming!

As a baby ALJ, I went along with the "party line" to hold 30 hearings the first month (soon bumped up to 36 due to the office's need to schedule critical cases), 40 the second month, and 50 the third month. After my first day of hearings (six held), I knew I could not do that. Guess there will be a lot of hearings held which will be decided later. I have literally made myself sick trying to do it all -- and an ALJ cannot just stay home if hearings are set, so I soldier through.

The written guide says 20 hearings the first month. For those who have not yet scheduled, I strongly advise that. That will give time to self-instruct on the finer points of RFCs, etc. I consider it very important to learn the right way now, and training just pointed us in the right direction. In a very few months, we will be expected to produce big numbers, so we need to take these first few months to learn!

Pre-hearing file review is my biggest use of time, and like Mango, it takes me way too long. Another issue is refining the hearing script; the recommended info would take 20 minutes, by itself, and our hearings can only be 55 minutes or so (our video gets cut off just before the hour mark, in most cases).

[hooligan]

Jul 19, 2008 11:20:49 GMT -5 counselor95 said:

Another issue is refining the hearing script; the recommended info would take 20 minutes, by itself, and our hearings can only be 55 minutes or so (our video gets cut off just before the hour mark, in most cases).

My hearings typically last less than 1/2 hr. My intro script takes less than 5 minutes. You will learn, over time, to cut to the chase.

I am unfamiliar with the problem you note regarding video cut off after 55 minutes. I do video hearings and I have never heard of such a thing. On occassion, I have had hearings run over an hour and a half without incident. Can you give some more details about what you are encountering?

Note that docket slots and decisions are not interchangable concepts. Invariably, you will lose a certain percentage of hearings that can not be closed due to continuances to get a Rep, need for further development or just no-shows. There is a management report that reflects something called "heard-to-scheduled" ratio. Generally you are expected to keep it up above 70% but that is not a hard and fast rule. Individual offices and judges vary. Once your pipeline is full, you can supplement lost docket slots with OTR's, supplemental info that enables a decision without a supplemental hearing and dismissals. However, your sustainable annual production will generally be a function of how many filled docket slots you can handle in a month.

New judges are not held to the same production expectations as more experienced judges. There is a sliding scale used that increases over roughly the first 10 months. I believe it worked out that the first year they expected roughly 300 decisions instead of 500, but I am not up-to-date on those numbers. Working backwards from those numbers, 300 works out to 25 decisions per month. If you are getting 70% return on your docket slots, that would project to needing about 36 slots during the month. If you do hearings two weeks per month and prep the other two, that is only 18 per week or 4 per day. You should be able to get your average up to that early on. Take your time early on. I also recommend spending time writing some of your own decisions to make you more aware of things you might otherwise take for granted.

When the goal is to do at least 500, the monthly expectation is roughly 42. To get 42 assuming a 70% decision ratio, you would need at least 60 docket slots. That translates into a standard 10 hearing days per month with six slots per day. If you want to do more, you need to either increase your ratio of decisions to slots or increase the number of slots. If your hearings take 2 hrs each, you are not going to come close.

There are non-traditional ways to increase the number of docket slots you can accommodate in a month, but I would not recommend moving away from the standard approach until you are more comfortable with yourself in the hearing process.

[aljsouth]

Scheduled to heard ratio is crap. I get a lot of dismissals from no shows but the morons at region seem to think a hearing not heard is a waste. The agency requires us to give a continuance to get a rep and then belly aches when we do it. Lately, the management drones have stopped talking about scheduled to heard in the obsession over 900 day old cases. Next year it will be 750 day old cases and no one will pay any attention to scheduled to heard ratios.

[mango]

Hooligan makes good points about taking the time to learn the job. While the school points you in the right direction, there is a whole lot more to learn. One thing one of my fellow new judges pointed me to is the VOD courses offered by ODAR. There are a number directed to the decision writers and they are extremely good in helping to figure out how to better and more expeditiously analyze the case. You can watch them at work, log on from home and watch them via the internet, or get a copy of the class from your computer systems person. Either way, the more you learn in the early months, the better we will be in the long run. It is a pay now or pay later situation. I strongly recommend them to new judges.

As to short cuts, I know from experience we all learn them as we do a job longer. However, I think you have to learn it right first and then learn the short cuts. I also agree you have to skim through a lot of stuff. That said, it still takes time to do that. I still find it necessary to read the notes from treating sources. There is so much credibility information in them. I will admit to not spending a lot of time on hand written notes. They are just too hard to read and you will go blind trying to do so.

I do appreciate the comments above. It is helpful and I will keep it in mind as I continue to learn and develop my approach to hearing cases.

[extang]

concerning the comment:

"Frankly, my impression is that the senior leadership is not interested as much in the correctness of the decisions as they are in seeing to it that the number of hearings goes up and the backlog goes down. Understandable given the pressure from Congress."

You're much too kind to management by excusing their behavior based on "pressure from Congress." Long before there was pressure from Congress, management has consistently shown complete indifference to if not contempt for anything remotely having to do with quality in decision making. You really need to know that because you seem like a very conscientious ALJ, and management is going to do its best to beat that out of you if it means you're not cranking out 50 decisions a month.

[hooligan]

Jul 19, 2008 19:02:34 GMT -5 aljsouth said:

Scheduled to heard ratio is crap.

I agree that it is not a very helpful measure, mostly because it can be artificially manipulated. However, that is not the point.

The point I was trying to make was that just because a judge sets x number of docket slots does not mean that will translate into x number of decisions. There is leakage. We each have a somewhat different degree of leakage, but we all have it. As a result, to meet a specific goal, it is necessary to docket more cases than the goal. In my case, the 70% calculation tends to give me a reasonably reliable predictor. I am talking about planning, not policy or statistical validity.

[hooligan]

Regarding Conduct of the Hearing:

When I started hearing cases, I made the mistake of turning the hearing over to the Rep to "present" the case. Unfortunately, many of them are idiots who do not know how to focus on the issues and present them in a concise manner. I endured recitations of every element in the file, including how many steps up to the front door of their house, what they eat for breakfast and a long litany of woes. A couple of Reps had a 14 page article from Readers Digest that had sample questions for Social Security hearings and they insisted on asking every question, relevant or not.

I decided it was my courtroom and I was going to control the flow. Generally, there are only one or two reasons DDS did not pay the case. I quickly summarize the history, date of alleged onset, DDS findings, consultative exam findings, any treating source opinions, complaints noted in the application and my understanding of what the disagreements are. I then ask the Rep to point to any significant items I may have overlooked. I craft alternative hypotheticals for the vocational expert and get testimony about work history and ability to do any of those activities based upon the hypos. I ask the Rep whether I am overlooking anything and if so, where is the support in the record. Generally, I am more familiar with the file than they are, but sometimes they surprise me. When the Rep takes charge, you hear only the good stuff. When I lay it out, I force them to confront the warts in the case right away. Speeds things up considerably.

[nonamouse]

Yikes! Not the dreaded list of questions. I used to have a defense attorney come into hearings against me who read the same long list at every hearing no matter the actual fact pattern or the previous answers of the witness. It was painful every time.

I am already planning for how to (hopefully) keep the hearings on track and moving along with my own questions.

[aaa]

One of the reps in our office comes in with a list of questions and then pauses after each question to write down the claimant's response...

Another is all over the board when this person asks - they don't seem to be in a logical order - and I end up worn out when the rep is done...

It's a whole different world having the person who is claiming disability sitting in front of you - it's one thing to read the file - I'm finding more and more that the live hearing often presents a completely different picture than the written word does...

[notafed]

(1) You are supposed to hear the case de novo, not on appeal of specific issues from the state agency.
(2) <<Generally, I am more familiar with the file than they are...> Congratulations and Good job! In 25 years of representing claimants, I have never met an ALJ more familiar with the file than me.
(3) Atty reps do not know that any issue is off the table as having been decided favorably to the claimant unless you tell them. Thus, atty reps feel compelled to make a full and complete record on every issue. The hearing is the claimant's only shot to talk on the record.
(4) <<I craft alternative hypotheticals for the vocational expert>> In advance of the hearing? If so, again, Congratulations and Good Job. The vast majority of ALJs stop the hearing to make up the hypos or just do them on the fly.

Signed, Not one of the idiots