|
Post by maquereau on Sept 22, 2018 9:49:41 GMT -5
Some ALJs are absolutely stellar in being thorough and explicit (in which case I can write their step 5 UF in 4 hours), and others are awful and I literally have to pretend to be an ALJ and analyze the case from start to finish, and then take more than the alloted time I have to get a “legally sufficient” decision out the door (which hinders my productivity and the other hundreds of cases in UNWR from the other Judges).
I agree with 99% of the post. However, I wrote for a lot of non-stellar judges - at least with regard to their ability to write instructions. That's just how it was back in the day. I ALWAYS made sure to "analyze the case from start to finish." I figured that was part of my job. When I got done, I OWNED that file. I knew that I had to help the judge and find things that she might have missed. Now that I am a judge, I wish all the attorney advisors and even the so-called "paralegals" would administer the same scrutiny to the file that I did when I was writing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2018 9:55:28 GMT -5
I cannot speak for all ALJs, but if I was so rushed I did not include a note of whether it was UF, FF, etc., or whether it was a Step 4 or 5, or any other of the issues above, I would anticipate receiving an email to that effect, so I could fix it. As a former AA, I would have sent a (very nice, professional) email to that effect to the judge and would have moved to the next case in my queue, (because I would have asked for more cases before I got to just one left in my queue). Lost time? 5 minutes to write the email. As a former GS, I mediated issues between writers and ALJs, to address patterns in such areas. Happened once? ok, bad day (whether it was bad instructions or bad writing). Repeatedly? that was an issue that adversely impacted the entire office, and management needed to address. Yes, it's a team effort and it is one in which we all bear some of the responsibility. Oh no, my queue has plenty believe me. That case just happened to be the last one “for the day” as I pulled it up about 15 mins before get off time figuring I could at least establish the decision in Word so it was ready to go come Monday. I am sure I will have to coordinate with that judge to get it straightened out before I can write it, and I will. Like I said, it was the worst one I’ve seen, but the ususal ones from that particular person aren’t much better generally. My point simply is that an ounce of prevention is worth 10 pounds of cure in this process because one single ALJ’s poorly written instructions has a deleterious effect not only upon him/herself, but also the decision writer’s productivity, his/her fellow judges’ dispo rates, and the Agency’s backlog time and quantity as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2018 9:59:16 GMT -5
Some ALJs are absolutely stellar in being thorough and explicit (in which case I can write their step 5 UF in 4 hours), and others are awful and I literally have to pretend to be an ALJ and analyze the case from start to finish, and then take more than the alloted time I have to get a “legally sufficient” decision out the door (which hinders my productivity and the other hundreds of cases in UNWR from the other Judges).I agree with 99% of the post. However, I wrote for a lot of non-stellar judges - at least with regard to their ability to write instructions. That's just how it was back in the day. I ALWAYS made sure to " analyze the case from start to finish." I figured that was part of my job. When I got done, I OWNED that file. I knew that I had to help the judge and find things that she might have missed. Now that I am a judge, I wish all the attorney advisors and even the so-called "paralegals" would administer the same scrutiny to the file that I did when I was writing. Exactly. And I did exactly this also, right up until the agency put unrealistic requirements on DWs. Now the luxury of “owning the file” is long gone.
|
|
|
Post by cookie on Sept 22, 2018 12:35:37 GMT -5
I feel so bad for all the decision writers—they are being squeezed beyond belief. I’m a newer ALJ and have tried to be thorough in my instructions (always welcoming and inviting feedback). It’s frustrating to repeatedly hear how some ALJs, who have been doing the job longer, give blatantly deficient instructions and get writers who spend hours and hours working on their decisions. Meanwhile, seemingly because my instructions and notes are pretty clear, I get something that feels rushed. I know there are only so many hours in the day, but I wish there was a better way to deal with this issue.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Sept 22, 2018 12:58:00 GMT -5
As a former AA, I would have sent a (very nice, professional) email to that effect to the judge and would have moved to the next case in my queue, (because I would have asked for more cases before I got to just one left in my queue). Lost time? 5 minutes to write the email. We do this in my office. But the fact is that a few - not all, not even most - ALJs refuse to change. We have repeatedly asked ALJs to better identify the severe impairments. There are 2 in my office who never specify. They simply use the broad DDS impairment categories (depressive and bipolar disorders, dysfunction of major joints, etc.). We have asked and asked and asked for clearer instructions. The HOCALJ has talked to them. But at the end of the day, they think their instructions are sufficient, and the HOCALJ is powerless to force them to change. We’ve learned to accept it and deal with it, but I also know that cases from ALJs X and Y are going to take longer because their instructions are garbage. But now with increased DWPI requirements, these same ALJs may find that I don’t have time to hunt down all the stuff they refuse to address. Bottom line is if they put out 470 decisions in a year, they’re not getting fired. If I clock in at 90 percent, I might. IME, 90 percent of the ALJs do a good job, respect the writers as professionals, and view us as a team. And 90 percent of writers have the same attitude. But like most jobs, there will always be a small number of outliers. If you are an ALJ in that 90 percent, I doubt you’ll see much change in what writers send you. But if you are in the other 10 percent, I suspect you may notice a change as writers just won’t have time to waste.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 22, 2018 13:57:44 GMT -5
In my instructions, I invite the writers to contact me if there's a problem. Many do, and it's soooooo much easier to deal with issues early. I try to get back asap - but often there's a time zone difference or I'm in a hearing, so it can be up to 24 hours. I expect that they writer would move on to the next case. BUT I still think it's more efficient for the writer & for me to deal with major issues before the draft is written.
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Sept 22, 2018 14:19:33 GMT -5
IME, 90 percent of the ALJs do a good job, respect the writers as professionals, and view us as a team. And 90 percent of writers have the same attitude. But like most jobs, there will always be a small number of outliers. If you are an ALJ in that 90 percent, I doubt you’ll see much change in what writers send you. But if you are in the other 10 percent, I suspect you may notice a change as writers just won’t have time to waste. My experience as a writer mirrors this. Also, I really hate to bring this up, but I think it needs to be said for the ALJs and AAs here. AAs are attorneys, hired by SSA. Our duties under the ABA model code (and therefore what most attorneys) are to SSA. They are not to individual judges. I am saying this not because of the real-world enforceability, but to illustrate that we have a client, which is SSA. We are obligated to protect their interest first. Also, we have a 1.6 duty, not to mention appropriate regulations. I know that we treat this forum like it's some sort of office watercooler, but it's not. It's an open forum to the public. It's probably not the best place for an indepth discussion of SSA issues. That's why I wanted to move on previously. That's the last I'll say on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 22, 2018 15:15:20 GMT -5
IME, 90 percent of the ALJs do a good job, respect the writers as professionals, and view us as a team. And 90 percent of writers have the same attitude. But like most jobs, there will always be a small number of outliers. If you are an ALJ in that 90 percent, I doubt you’ll see much change in what writers send you. But if you are in the other 10 percent, I suspect you may notice a change as writers just won’t have time to waste. My experience as a writer mirrors this. Also, I really hate to bring this up, but I think it needs to be said for the ALJs and AAs here. AAs are attorneys, hired by SSA. Our duties under the ABA model code (and therefore what most attorneys) are to SSA. They are not to individual judges. I am saying this not because of the real-world enforceability, but to illustrate that we have a client, which is SSA. We are obligated to protect their interest first. Also, we have a 1.6 duty, not to mention appropriate regulations. I know that we treat this forum like it's some sort of office watercooler, but it's not. It's an open forum to the public. It's probably not the best place for an indepth discussion of SSA issues. That's why I wanted to move on previously. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Yes, our members need to realize it is a forum open to the public and not discuss things that are best talked about around the water cooler.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Sept 23, 2018 7:04:36 GMT -5
One of the issues I have with 500 is that, IMO, it creates a mindset that all cases can be quickly resolved and moved. I recently had a wake up call when a claimant, who I had previously denied, came before me on a new app. Following my denial she had a breakdown and was hospitalized for 2 weeks. My point is that Whether I decided it rightly or wrongly, it really brought Home to me the gravity of the decisions made and why it’s so important that we give the claimants our best.
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 23, 2018 8:14:18 GMT -5
Yes, our members need to realize it is a forum open to the public and not discuss things that are best talked about around the water cooler. [/quote][br
Pixie,I respect your expertise and dedication monitoring this blog. I started reading it in 2013. It has been enlightening and at times it has provided much needed humor. In the past, discussion has been quite open, with a considerable amount of discussion about SSA procedures, practices, and funding needs.
If I were a claimant or representative reading this blog, I am sure I would be duly impressed with the level of commitment and desire to achieve equatible, accurate, and timely decisions that is articulated herein.
We here at SSA are a team mandated AND dedicated to achieving our mission to serve the public.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Sept 23, 2018 10:14:10 GMT -5
I had to dust off the Big Chief and stubby pencil today for this, but with 1 week to go in the FY, looks like we have ~1100 OHO ALJs who are short of 500.
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Sept 23, 2018 11:25:00 GMT -5
“Yes, our members need to realize it is a forum open to the public and not discuss things that are best talked about around the water cooler.”
Must be nice. Our office is so small, there is no water cooler. We use rain barrels and an intermittent spring for water.
Hamster
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Sept 23, 2018 13:01:55 GMT -5
“Yes, our members need to realize it is a forum open to the public and not discuss things that are best talked about around the water cooler.” Must be nice. Our office is so small, there is no water cooler. We use rain barrels and an intermittent spring for water. Hamster (spoken with cockney accents) ALJ1: Rain barrels, eh? - - - - - - LUXURY! All we had to drink out of was a rolled up newspaper! ALJ2: Pfft, the best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth! I am guessing most people don't recall this Python skit
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 23, 2018 13:02:27 GMT -5
I had to dust off the Big Chief and stubby pencil today for this, but with 1 week to go in the FY, looks like we have ~1100 OHO ALJs who are short of 500. Oh, Ace Midnight !! I haven't seen you dust off the Big Chief & stubby pencil in a long time!!
Maybe we should send a shipment of Big Chiefs & stubbies to Baltimore - they certainly do like to tally those numbers....
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 23, 2018 15:33:15 GMT -5
“Yes, our members need to realize it is a forum open to the public and not discuss things that are best talked about around the water cooler.” Must be nice. Our office is so small, there is no water cooler. We use rain barrels and an intermittent spring for water. Hamster OK, then, the proverbial water cooler. I thought about that as I typed it. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by pseudonymous on Sept 23, 2018 16:11:34 GMT -5
One of the issues I have with 500 is that, IMO, it creates a mindset that all cases can be quickly resolved and moved. I recently had a wake up call when a claimant, who I had previously denied, came before me on a new app. Following my denial she had a breakdown and was hospitalized for 2 weeks. My point is that Whether I decided it rightly or wrongly, it really brought Home to me the gravity of the decisions made and why it’s so important that we give the claimants our best. Right. I want to not simply issue policy-compliant decisions; I want to issue the *right* decision. That takes more thought and, yes, occasionally, reflection. I wonder how we would all feel about being arrested and convicted in a case that was procedure-compliant, but the conclusion was dead wrong, just because it was the easy conclusion. About one unfavorable every two months, a draft indicates the writer has had to work too hard to justify the conclusion (or frankly, stops trying, which is just as bad). I review the file again, and about 75% of those times I change my decision. It takes time, but I always sleep better that night. I simply don’t believe that judges that never revisit a case are actually better judges.
|
|
cle
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by cle on Sept 23, 2018 23:46:39 GMT -5
“Yes, our members need to realize it is a forum open to the public and not discuss things that are best talked about around the water cooler.” Must be nice. Our office is so small, there is no water cooler. We use rain barrels and an intermittent spring for water. Hamster (spoken with cockney accents) ALJ1: Rain barrels, eh? - - - - - - LUXURY! All we had to drink out of was a rolled up newspaper! ALJ2: Pfft, the best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth! I am guessing most people don't recall this Python skitA classic! (BTW I think it was Yorkshire accents).
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Sept 24, 2018 6:40:53 GMT -5
A classic! (BTW I think it was Yorkshire accents).
Well, you are right inasmuch as the skit was, in fact, Four Yorkshiremen. But I probably don't have sufficient background to distinguish well between Yorkshire and the general Cockney that they often employed. Listening to that production is an absolute scream. I'm glad someone remembers.
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 24, 2018 7:27:39 GMT -5
I had to dust off the Big Chief and stubby pencil today for this, but with 1 week to go in the FY, looks like we have ~1100 OHO ALJs who are short of 500. Okay, I will be that annoying little kid with the raised hand--why?
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Sept 24, 2018 7:41:28 GMT -5
Why not?
|
|