|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 20, 2018 19:58:20 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. If a writer has done a good job on a lengthy or complicated decision in-house, I will always keep my eye out for the 80-pages-of-evidence unfavorable or the 200-page later onset grid case and ask their GS to assign the high credit/low time suck case to that writer to help make up some of the time. I don't have that kind of control for an NCAC/RCAC/regional writing unit, so those writers only get an email to their GS that they are CC'd on.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Oct 20, 2018 23:11:15 GMT -5
Yes, this language was actually written by the Agency: "When writing or reviewing a draft decision, an ALJ will keep in mind that the primary audience for a decision is the claimant." Uh, like, when has that ever been the case? The primary audience for my decisions is the A/C followed by the District Court. If I write for the claimant, how is that going to avert a remand? Please, we in the hearing offices live in the real world. Those in Baltimore, where this was written, have not a clue. Guidance like this I don't need. Pixie So true. The page the claimant almost always starts and stops reading on is the one that says “Fully favorable,” “Partially favoriable,” or “unfavorable.” I’m editing decisions for the AC to deny review, and then for the district courts and my circuit to affirm. The concept of writing for the claimant is divorced from reality.
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Oct 21, 2018 12:50:27 GMT -5
There is a slight element of reality in trying to dissuade the claimant (or counsel) from appealing in the first place, by showing that the decision is “bullet-proof”.
Perhaps easy-to-understand language promotes this. If it can be done without sacrificing legal sufficiency and (too much) time, why not?
At the very least, simplifying the boilerplate in Fully Favorables seems a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Oct 22, 2018 16:18:19 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. IDK. I've had many jobs in the my legal career from public defending to DW to thankfully, now being an ALJ. By far, the most difficult job I've ever had was being a DW because it's so hard to sustain 8/5/40. Dealing with incomplete or poor instructions just make that job harder. I appreciate our DWs and would happily adjudicate a case in even 2.35 hours (if that's the time allotted) than draft an UF with lousy instructions in 8 hours.
For the DWer, if you can't use your independent legal judgment to make sense of incomplete instructions, send that email to the ALJ. It's the ALJ's job to give you sufficient instructions like it's your job to write a legally defensible and policy compliant decision.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 22, 2018 20:03:25 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. IDK. I've had many jobs in the my legal career from public defending to DW to thankfully, now being an ALJ. By far, the most difficult job I've ever had was being a DW because it's so hard to sustain 8/5/40. Dealing with incomplete or poor instructions just make that job harder. I appreciate our DWs and would happily adjudicate a case in even 2.35 hours (if that's the time allotted) than draft an UF with lousy instructions in 8 hours.
For the DWer, if you can't use your independent legal judgment to make sense of incomplete instructions, send that email to the ALJ. It's the ALJ's job to give you sufficient instructions like it's your job to write a legally defensible and policy compliant decision.
Thank u
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Nov 5, 2018 10:16:27 GMT -5
I once made the mistake of looking at my remands. 3/4ths are simply errors that are in my opinion not especially significant and mistakes I would have only caught had taken the time to match up exhibits to the decision. Wrote one medicine instead of another similar sounding one, got a date twisted up. No affirmative statement that I reviewed exhibit 39F submitted after hearing (my notes most likely were an eloquent, "nothing new").
The ones I have screwed up? The Appeals Council most of the time denied the review and a district judge sent it back.
The only time I ever take the AC into account is when I have a favorable that I think is a close call. Last thing I want is a favorable returned to do over because it costs the claimants money these days with back pay being smaller because we hear cases sooner.
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Dec 3, 2018 15:59:29 GMT -5
Any DWs or ALJs try out that new "Insight" tool?
I just tried it out on an UF draft and must say, I was impressed. Insight was wrong (the RFC was right lol) but caught a very subtle yet important difference between the DOT and most VE testimony by comparing the step 5 job to the RFC. It's really fast and easy to run and I plan to use it on UF drafts.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Dec 10, 2018 19:51:50 GMT -5
I Love it. It catches DOT number errors by the writer, will flag 'obesity' if the claimant's self report is in the obese range and it is not addressed, and other issues. If we don't run it and catch the error ourselves, the AC will run it and it is an easy remand.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 10, 2018 23:49:16 GMT -5
I Love it. It catches DOT number errors by the writer, will flag 'obesity' if the claimant's self report is in the obese range and it is not addressed, and other issues. If we don't run it and catch the error ourselves, the AC will run it and it is an easy remand. And that becomes the problem. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Dec 11, 2018 6:18:36 GMT -5
I'm with Pixie. I don't love it because it tries to automate a process that is not amenable to that. Frankly it does very little that I wasn't already doing, but doesn't do a lot of things to follow up and deal with the other mistakes. If you find a questionable impairment in step 2, I can promise you that is not the last time the issue will pop up.
Also, it's absolute crud when it comes to PRW/OW. Sure, sure, it tells you that the job doesn't match the RFC...assuming that the RFC restriction provided is a 'normal' limit. Add in mental cases (SRT, adapting to infrequent and gradual changes, no production line work, etc.) and that obviously goes out the door. If this is relied on in the name of numbers, the AC will probably miss approximately 50% of RFC remands.
Also, the step 4/5 tools just tell you whether or not the job exists in the DOT and whether it matches the readable parts of the RFC. It does not give you numbers or even whether that current job exists in the national economy at all. That is, presumably, left to the VE's experience and observation of job placement. Which is a polite way to say that it doesn't check your vocational issues, not really.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Dec 11, 2018 8:19:45 GMT -5
Nor does it catch medical opinions as best as I can determine. That would be hard for it to do though.
But so far I find it a useful tool.
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Dec 11, 2018 9:08:41 GMT -5
Nor does it catch medical opinions as best as I can determine. That would be hard for it to do though. But so far I find it a useful tool. In our hands, yes, it is a useful tool. I’m concerned that another group without experience hearing cases will erroneously assume that it is equivalent to a calculator. It is definitely not. More like a spell check with some extra bells and whistles.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Dec 11, 2018 10:03:46 GMT -5
I Love it. It catches DOT number errors by the writer, will flag 'obesity' if the claimant's self report is in the obese range and it is not addressed, and other issues. If we don't run it and catch the error ourselves, the AC will run it and it is an easy remand. And that becomes the problem. Pixie Which part exactly? That we don't catch easy remands ourselves by using the tool or that the AC uses this tool and finds "easy remands" that aren't actually there?
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 11, 2018 16:38:41 GMT -5
The latter in your post and the bolded portion in my post. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Dec 11, 2018 16:52:48 GMT -5
I've been using it for every UF draft. Although it's not perfect, it's a quick tool we can use to catch apparent errors and maybe save all that hard work we (including our staff and DWs) put into these cases. Lastly, I'm happy Insight doesn't work too well since I fear someday AI will be adjudicating and drafting decisions instead of us!
|
|