|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Oct 18, 2018 0:05:17 GMT -5
As a writer I will join lurkerbelow in his sentiments, particularly about not caring about instructions. Do whatever works for you. The less the better works for me, but if you want to pin cite a bunch of stuff, knock yourself out!
Frankly the writing of the instructions is not even close to the most important aspect to being a good judge, at least from my non-judge perspective. It should be a very secondary task. Now if a judge just makes ridiculous decisions- and here I mean not outcome, but just blatantly incorrect decisions about PRW, what does/does not constitute an MDI, or can’t somehow grasp the concept of the B criteria, well to paraphrase someone upthread said, some people just suck! But they are going to suck no matter what the instructions look like.
As someone else pointed out, quibbling about instructions does neither ALJ nor writers much good. Whenever the discussion comes to a certain point, I feel like judges just think of the worst writer they know and address that person, while writers do the same to judges. In reality almost anyone who spends anytime on here is probably much more invested in their work than those bad writers or judges we picture.
Moreover, fighting about instructions has only resulted in ALJs having to spend more time writing instructions, which means I have to spend more time reading them. Give me the smiley or frowny face, some audio, a competent judge and his/her confidence to resolve ancillary matters, and we’re good to go. Unfortunately the reality is that under our current system, the reliability and consistency (or in some cases, the familiarity) is not there for either judges or writers to get into a comfortable groove and spend less time writing and reading instructions and more time adjudicating and disposing of cases.
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Oct 18, 2018 1:52:42 GMT -5
As a writer I will join lurkerbelow in his sentiments, particularly about not caring about instructions. Do whatever works for you. The less the better works for me, but if you want to pin cite a bunch of stuff, knock yourself out! Frankly the writing of the instructions is not even close to the most important aspect to being a good judge, at least from my non-judge perspective. It should be a very secondary task. Now if a judge just makes ridiculous decisions- and here I mean not outcome, but just blatantly incorrect decisions about PRW, what does/does not constitute an MDI, or can’t somehow grasp the concept of the B criteria, well to paraphrase someone upthread said, some people just suck! But they are going to suck no matter what the instructions look like. As someone else pointed out, quibbling about instructions does neither ALJ nor writers much good. Whenever the discussion comes to a certain point, I feel like judges just think of the worst writer they know and address that person, while writers do the same to judges. In reality almost anyone who spends anytime on here is probably much more invested in their work than those bad writers or judges we picture. Moreover, fighting about instructions has only resulted in ALJs having to spend more time writing instructions, which means I have to spend more time reading them. Give me the smiley or frowny face, some audio, a competent judge and his/her confidence to resolve ancillary matters, and we’re good to go. Unfortunately the reality is that under our current system, the reliability and consistency (or in some cases, the familiarity) is not there for either judges or writers to get into a comfortable groove and spend less time writing and reading instructions and more time adjudicating and disposing of cases. JimmyJ makes excellent points. I prefer sufficient information so I don’t have to be mind reader, but also as little as possible to allow flexiblity. Do I need SGA, all severe and non severe, b criteria, etc? No I don’t. I can tell whether it is sga or uwa. Give me the main severe impairments, the other impairments I can put where they belong. I can figure out the B criteria from the RFC most of the time. I can also all medical opinions and the weight/persuasiveness need. Imho, if I passed the bar I can figure most of the rationale to support an alj’s RFC and decision. I have written for at least 2-3 judges who provide such detailed, I barely had to review the record. If I had any trouble with those instructions, it was the hestitation of adding information outside their instructions. I easily could draft their unfavorable decisions in less than 8 hours or less depending on file size. Under the current environment, we have to throw our preferences aside to meet the production goals. I would rather write for the 3 judges I mentioned, although, it wasn’t my preference, because I know I could exceed the goals writing for them even 50% of the time. In the current state, writers are just worried about meeting the goal. The more detailed instructions the less time they need to spend on drafting the decision. We are already below the dwpi based on non-writing tasks such OCEP training, staff meetings, other training, reading emails, etc. I will be the first to admit, it always bothered me when writers complained in the past about instructions or lack thereof. But now given the 95% DWPI, those complaints are valid. People (including really good writers) may lose their jobs, because 1-2 ALJs have poor instructions in their office.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Oct 18, 2018 7:50:27 GMT -5
I think part of the attitude I perceive in this thread is the result of not assigning a limited "pool" of writers to particular ALJs. Each HO has a "worst" writer, and a "worst" ALJ. The ALJ occasionally gets a crap draft - from a writer who always writes crap - and that can color their opinion of all writers. I suspect writers would feel the same, getting inadequate instructions from an ALJ whose overall approach they are not familiar with. But, TPTB have decided in their wisdom that familarity between ALJs and writers is not worth the effort. I have NEVER issued instructions which comply with all of the OCALJ requirements. Yet competent writers REGULARLY acknowledge my instructions as thorough and helpful. If I were to write instructions as directed, then I might as well just put in a little extra time and write the damn decision myself. Could probably do that if I dropped my production to 350 or so. But with 2.5-3 hrs per case, I just don't have the time to provide such detail. What I DO provide is a clear indication of my rationale: where I came out on the limited number of truly determinative issues and why, and some of the most probative support for that rationale. I expect the competent writer, who has at least 2x as much time with the case as I, to fill out and supplement my instructions to present a coherent, persuasive, and sufficiently complete decision. Not only does the writer have more time than me, but they have my instructions to provide - at the very least - a detailed framework. When I review a case, I often don't even have a brief. And when I DO have a brief, probably 1/2 of them are unreliable, inaccurate, or worthless. In a usual step 4 or 5 decision, it should not take much time to cobble together a sufficient step 2-3 analysis. And even steps 4 and 5 can be largely accomplished with adaptable boilerplate. To hear many writers talk, it impresses me that they spend a great deal of their time on issues that have nothing to do with the central determinative issues of a particular case. If I get the decision right, and a writer give me a coherent draft addressing the determinative issues and the most probative evidence, then let the AC or courts remand for whatever ticky-tack "articulation errors or omissions" they perceive - or whatever thinly disguised reweighing of the evidence they wish to conduct. My practice is to generally place some onus on the rep, and ask them at the hearing to identify any medical opinions in the record, or the most probative evidence supporting a specific limitation, such as the need for an ambulatory aide or to elevate legs. If I missed it on my review AND the rep didn't cite it, well, that's a pretty good bet that it wasn't too significant. Hopefully the writer will note anything truly significant in the time they have to spend on the case. And if the AC or court wishes to decide I missed something and remand, what the heck, I'll decide it again. The writer who says they ONLY write what is in the instructions knows they are being lazy and producing crap. And the reality is that in most cases, crap is sufficient. If the facts are strong enough, or the claimant/rep unlikely to appeal, no remand will result.
|
|
|
Post by captainobvious on Oct 18, 2018 8:28:53 GMT -5
I think part of the attitude I perceive in this thread is the result of not assigning a limited "pool" of writers to particular ALJs. Each HO has a "worst" writer, and a "worst" ALJ. The ALJ occasionally gets a crap draft - from a writer who always writes crap - and that can color their opinion of all writers. I suspect writers would feel the same, getting inadequate instructions from an ALJ whose overall approach they are not familiar with. But, TPTB have decided in their wisdom that familarity between ALJs and writers is not worth the effort. I have NEVER issued instructions which comply with all of the OCALJ requirements. Yet competent writers REGULARLY acknowledge my instructions as thorough and helpful. If I were to write instructions as directed, then I might as well just put in a little extra time and write the damn decision myself. Could probably do that if I dropped my production to 350 or so. But with 2.5-3 hrs per case, I just don't have the time to provide such detail. What I DO provide is a clear indication of my rationale: where I came out on the limited number of truly determinative issues and why, and some of the most probative support for that rationale. I expect the competent writer, who has at least 2x as much time with the case as I, to fill out and supplement my instructions to present a coherent, persuasive, and sufficiently complete decision. Not only does the writer have more time than me, but they have my instructions to provide - at the very least - a detailed framework. When I review a case, I often don't even have a brief. And when I DO have a brief, probably 1/2 of them are unreliable, inaccurate, or worthless. In a usual step 4 or 5 decision, it should not take much time to cobble together a sufficient step 2-3 analysis. And even steps 4 and 5 can be largely accomplished with adaptable boilerplate. To hear many writers talk, it impresses me that they spend a great deal of their time on issues that have nothing to do with the central determinative issues of a particular case. If I get the decision right, and a writer give me a coherent draft addressing the determinative issues and the most probative evidence, then let the AC or courts remand for whatever ticky-tack "articulation errors or omissions" they perceive - or whatever thinly disguised reweighing of the evidence they wish to conduct. My practice is to generally place some onus on the rep, and ask them at the hearing to identify any medical opinions in the record, or the most probative evidence supporting a specific limitation, such as the need for an ambulatory aide or to elevate legs. If I missed it on my review AND the rep didn't cite it, well, that's a pretty good bet that it wasn't too significant. Hopefully the writer will note anything truly significant in the time they have to spend on the case. And if the AC or court wishes to decide I missed something and remand, what the heck, I'll decide it again. The writer who says they ONLY write what is in the instructions knows they are being lazy and producing crap. And the reality is that in most cases, crap is sufficient. If the facts are strong enough, or the claimant/rep unlikely to appeal, no remand will result.
Producing crap?! Absolutely. Crap in, crap out. Lazy?! Not a chance! Most writers that are producing crap are well over 100% on their DWPI. Which is the only thing that the RO and HQ measure.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 18, 2018 8:37:50 GMT -5
captainobvious , do you literally mean that if the ALJ misses an non-severe impairment or doesn't address an opinion in the instructions you leave it out of the decision?
|
|
|
Post by captainobvious on Oct 18, 2018 9:33:16 GMT -5
Based on what I hear, if you're an ALJ that provides decent instructions, the status quo will likely remain. Like previous folks said above, there are good and bad DW's. However, if you're a judge that does not identify/address ANY opinion and think that the only thing you need to do is list an RFC that's 1 page long, and feel the need to identify 20 impairments that are non-severe but provide no guidance as to why, start warming up to the idea that you're going to be seeing a LOT more crap. I think this is to be expected when being held to a 95% standard that is not based in reality.
|
|
|
Post by plinytheelder on Oct 18, 2018 9:39:51 GMT -5
I think I will take a nice walk this morning and sample a new beer with lunch
|
|
|
Post by captainobvious on Oct 18, 2018 10:05:24 GMT -5
I think I will take a nice walk this morning and sample a new beer with lunch
IN!
|
|
|
Post by charlsiekate on Oct 18, 2018 11:15:20 GMT -5
Do you know what would help all of us? If the writers and judges both understood the computer programs we both work with, and gave each other the benefit of the doubt. There is a lot to be said for approaching people in the mindset that they have good intentions.
The new case analysis thing is a complete mess - it's different for different judges and different cases for the same judges and things are lost and I think the judges have to manually enter certain dates and things that I cannot draft FIT without, requiring me to go into eview and find that date and whether or not new evidence was submitted. The VE jobs names might be in one place and the DOT numbers might be somewhere else, and I'm convinced judges don't even know when pieces are getting dropped somewhere along the line.
They told us yesterday we are still expected to be searching every case for SSRs that were rescinded more than 18 months ago. Writers cannot trust the closed period template, or the DAA template, or the Child/Adult SSI template. If these issues could be fixed on the front end, we could all be so happy.
I think most judges are trying to give all the info necessary, and the writers are trying to keep track of where to look when something isn't where it supposed to be, and to be able to spot something that is out of place. But this takes a lot of experience and patience, and most importantly, time.
It also takes a certain level of communication between writer and judge, a certain amount of confidence and trust in a relationship to say - hey, why are all your instructions in all caps and did you know that your autotext has a typo in the CFR cite? Look at the way it looks for me, is this what you see? Did you know the DLI is often never updated in CPMS from what the field office wrote down - if I have a case with an expired DLI can you double check that date for me? Do you know how to check that date? Do I? Who does? Where are you copy/pasting from?
Also, some of my favorite judge convos have been about Microsoft shortcuts. The windows button and the right arrow key will send your document window to the right. Try it out, it's fun. Shift +F3 will change the highlighted portion of text between upper case/lower case/all caps. It makes copy and pasting a lot easier.
Anyone else got any good keyboard shortcuts they use every day? Any judge want to say the one thing it would help them out to find in decision that is often missing? I would love every judge to put the initial notice date and whether or not there was 5 day rule evidence and what you want me to do with it. Age and education are also super helpful. If you put the disposition codes in CPMS I will bring you a pound cake and give you a high five.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Oct 18, 2018 12:08:55 GMT -5
If I were a writer continually getting really crappy instructions, I think I would just email the judge and ask to meet to discuss the issue. I would point out where the instructions were deficient and explain that it was costing me a lot of time to figure out certain things and that it was affecting my ability to retain my job. If that didn't work, I'd ask for management to try to get the judge to correct the instructions. And I would document all of it in case my head got selected for the chopping block.
Sometimes it's just easier to write around the bad instructions. I did plenty of that. But I made a note to myself on becoming judge that I would not be that ALJ causing grief for the writers - or at least not with respect to my instructions.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Oct 18, 2018 13:55:08 GMT -5
If I were a writer continually getting really crappy instructions, I think I would just email the judge and ask to meet to discuss the issue. I would point out where the instructions were deficient and explain that it was costing me a lot of time to figure out certain things and that it was affecting my ability to retain my job. If that didn't work, I'd ask for management to try to get the judge to correct the instructions. And I would document all of it in case my head got selected for the chopping block. Sometimes it's just easier to write around the bad instructions. I did plenty of that. But I made a note to myself on becoming judge that I would not be that ALJ causing grief for the writers - or at least not with respect to my instructions. That might work in some hearing offices, but not for writers working in national centers, at which contacting the ALJ is strongly discouraged and it’s unusual to write for a judge more than a couple of times. Most of the new attorneys that are being hired to write are at the NCACs. I know we are all getting squeezed from both sides, but good instructions really help, even if it’s just to identify something for the writer and let us figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Oct 18, 2018 14:33:32 GMT -5
I was on a conference call this week and someone high in OCALJ made a plea to the newer judges to remember quality. The remand rates are creeping up, they said. Take the time to really review the decisions, they said. All I could think of was ALJ's have been ordered to hear 50 under threat of removal of telework and the issuing of directives with removal from the transfer list. AA's have been ordered to produce at 95% under threat of job loss. And we get a plea for quality. Actions, not words, and the actions tell me quality is the last thing on anyone's mind. Increase in remand rate is not surprising since the A/C has been removed from ODAR. A/C needs to justify its continued existence. Remanding cases is how it does that. Now that the A/C is independent, OCALJ has no ability to the stop the insanity of frivolous remands.
|
|
|
Post by monday on Oct 18, 2018 17:40:46 GMT -5
If I were a writer continually getting really crappy instructions, I think I would just email the judge and ask to meet to discuss the issue. I would point out where the instructions were deficient and explain that it was costing me a lot of time to figure out certain things and that it was affecting my ability to retain my job. I suspect the management in my office would not be pleased if we went to the judge on that type of thing rather than them. If it's a one-time thing, like "this step 5 unfavorable has the wrong grid rule because he grids out as disabled with a limited education, so what do you want to do?", then I would contact the judge. If it's an ongoing failure to give good instructions, then no.
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Oct 18, 2018 17:53:57 GMT -5
I suspect the management in my office would not be pleased if we went to the judge on that type of thing rather than them. If it's a one-time thing, like "this step 5 unfavorable has the wrong grid rule because he grids out as disabled with a limited education, so what do you want to do?", then I would contact the judge. If it's an ongoing failure to give good instructions, then no. Management appears to have taken a more aggressive stance on this issue then in the past, don't they? I wonder (and this isn't sarcastic) what their angle on this stuff is? This stuff is going to be giving them plenty of headaches.
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on Oct 18, 2018 18:50:40 GMT -5
A man thinks this NY Lawyer asks for mercy from the Temple of Black and White. We are not so merciful as the "Gangs of NY."
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Oct 19, 2018 17:28:52 GMT -5
FWIW, judges have about 2.35 hours to spend on a case - from review, to hearing, to instructions, to reading decisions, and all the e-mails and stuff in between. For an unfavorable decision, a writer gets about 8 hours. Complaints about incomplete instructions do not get a very sympathetic ear.
|
|
|
Post by captainobvious on Oct 19, 2018 18:23:37 GMT -5
FWIW, judges have about 2.35 hours to spend on a case - from review, to hearing, to instructions, to reading decisions, and all the e-mails and stuff in between. For an unfavorable decision, a writer gets about 8 hours. Complaints about incomplete instructions do not get a very sympathetic ear.
FWIW, sounds like you can't do the job...
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Oct 19, 2018 20:32:39 GMT -5
FWIW, judges have about 2.35 hours to spend on a case - from review, to hearing, to instructions, to reading decisions, and all the e-mails and stuff in between. For an unfavorable decision, a writer gets about 8 hours. Complaints about incomplete instructions do not get a very sympathetic ear.
FWIW, sounds like you can't do the job...
A great number of judges have been attorney advisors prior to becoming judges, so that may not be the best argument.
|
|
|
Post by statman on Oct 20, 2018 19:05:24 GMT -5
The difference between writers and judges is that if a judge does 350 cases there are virtually no consequences, except for telework, but if writer goes well below his quota he/she can be terminated.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Oct 20, 2018 19:37:54 GMT -5
The difference between writers and judges is that if a judge does 350 cases there are virtually no consequences, except for telework, but if writer goes well below his quota he/she can be terminated. This is why when there is a great writer I make a point of telling the writer’s supervisor and the HOD. It may not help much but I want to make sure if there is an issue with that writer’s “numbers” management knows the work product is appreciated and outstanding.
|
|