|
Post by Pixie on Sept 24, 2018 8:33:14 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. One way to distinguish between the two is fairly simple. If 20% of the speech can be understood (unless speaking "in dialect") it is Yorkshire. If nothing can be understood, it is Cockney. If the speaker is using Yorkshire in dialect, it is as indecipherable as Cockney. YMMV. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 24, 2018 12:53:32 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. I'm one of those, but I'll hit 500 by Friday. It'll be interesting to see how many of us get their by end of FY.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2018 16:48:25 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. I'm one of those, but I'll hit 500 by Friday. It'll be interesting to see how many of us get their by end of FY. 463 as of today. It looks like i will hit 470 by friday. 83 in UNWR. I tried my best but am short through no fault of my own.
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 24, 2018 21:09:15 GMT -5
Let me clarify, 1100 out of a total of how many. I do not question the usefulness of ciphering on your Big Chief tablet with a stubby pencil. Does your Big Chief provide a percentage? In your opinion, what is the main reason for reaching or not reaching goal?
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Sept 25, 2018 12:22:10 GMT -5
Let me clarify, 1100 out of a total of how many. On the books? 1634, but I'm sure 20 to 50 of those (or more) have retired. If I do that, "divide the little number over the big number, times 100" thing. Call it 67% short (as of last week). Or, to make it simple, 1 out of 3 at or above 500, 2 out of 3 below. Truthfully? A combination of things: (Some ALJs) Not scheduling enough hearings (push model) and (Overall, agency wide) insufficient writing resources to convert instructions into decisions (pull model) are the 2 most significant, in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Sept 25, 2018 12:24:53 GMT -5
For clarification, I do not mean to suggest these are the only 2 reasons - just the 2 with the most significant impacts on the final number.
Every office/region has different strengths and weaknesses, as does every ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by Burt Macklin on Sept 25, 2018 14:23:33 GMT -5
The ~100 new ALJs from the Oct 17 class would be also be among those short of the 500 goal.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 25, 2018 15:09:03 GMT -5
The ~100 new ALJs from the Oct 17 class would be also be among those short of the 500 goal. Bunch of slackers.
|
|
|
Post by aljwantabe on Sept 25, 2018 21:05:57 GMT -5
Yep. My office is at 100 percent DWPI, but we have the same number of writers and ALJs. That’s a math problem, plain and simple. I actually had a chance to ask someone from TPTB once about how they came up with the 500 number. There was a lot of hemming and hawing and “well we’ve found this is what most people can do” and the like. But bottom line is that there was no real data to show how long a case takes. The answer was basically a long-winded ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm assuming you weren't surprised by that . Never seen any statistical data on the DWPI either!
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 25, 2018 22:43:56 GMT -5
The ~100 new ALJs from the Oct 17 class would be also be among those short of the 500 goal. Bunch of slackers. Now that is funny. And I am sure not true.
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Sept 26, 2018 9:13:36 GMT -5
Lots of talk about DWPI in this thread. One way DWPI is going to affect judges is that management is going to send back instructions. DWs already complain about instructions, so it will only get worst under the new standard. So judges are going to have to spend more time editting decisions because DWs are going to “write faster” and spend more time drafting instructions so they don’t get sent back. It will vary by office and it will be interesting what NCACs decide to do. As one poster mentioned, it really is a team process. Hopefully, it will play out that way. Without pointing fingers, I will have to admit, I opened my last case for today to prep the draft decision for writing Monday and found writing instructions that neither stated whether it was an unfavorable decison, ff decision, or later onset. Based upon the the content contained therein I have determined it must be UF, however, the instructions do not indicate whether it is a step 4 or step 5 denial. It does not contain any citations to any exhibits, and it does not provide any evaluation of the evidence or assign any weight to any MSOs (much less indicate where they are in the record). I admit it is the first time I have encountered writing instructions this bad, but from my experience, writing instructions are like a box of chocolates. 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). Extremely frustrating. However, with the new DWPI standard, I now know which Judges will have a higher remand rate, and which ones will look like gold. I will also state that if any ALJ ever sends a case back to me, their initial writing instructions better be top notch. Otherwise, they will learn the biblical lesson about taking the plank out of their own eye before trying to remove the speck from mine. I understand that ALJs are very crunched for time and the very last thing they want to have to do is sit for hours rewriting a decision on a case they don’t hardly remember in the first place, but I would think that if they could take just a little bit more time writing the instructions when the facts of the case is fresh in their mind, it would not only help the DWs get a fully supported decision back to them quicker, but also mitigate the EDIT time and dispo rate as well. in my humble opinion. I have had "instructions" go out like that. The cases were in POST and supposed to go ALPO but went to UNWR without me seeing it, followed by emails that ranged from "I am unable to find the instructions" to some quite snotty and unprofessional.
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Sept 26, 2018 9:19:12 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. My notes when writing were pretty similar to the notes I take now at least for unfavorable decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Sept 29, 2018 16:37:14 GMT -5
Back to the 500 question . . . when we were all hired, at least over the last 12 years, we were asked if we thought we could dispose of over 500 per year and we ALL said YES. Hence we were hired . . . Just my 2 paws' worth
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 29, 2018 17:53:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by statman on Sept 29, 2018 19:55:34 GMT -5
I do not remember being asked if I could do 500 dispositions, and I strongly doubt that I was.
|
|
|
Post by statman on Sept 29, 2018 20:05:01 GMT -5
There is no reason for a poll. You can go to ALJ disposition data, and it will tell you exactly how many dispositions by each judge. It should be updated around October 10, 2018 with full results for the fiscal year. As of about a week ago, I was at about 460, give or take, and I was still in the top half of all ALJs. This data and comparative rank is available to all ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Sept 29, 2018 20:14:23 GMT -5
Back to the 500 question . . . when we were all hired, at least over the last 12 years, we were asked if we thought we could dispose of over 500 per year and we ALL said YES. Hence we were hired . . . Just my 2 paws' worth Whether or not you personally agreed, your references put their professional reputations on the line by answering they thought you could, (because they WERE asked that question). Unless you did all the work, scheduled 50 per month, signed every case in EDIT, and kept on top of your ALPO, but have over 100 in UNWR, sure. The official data does not include how many were left in UNWR.
|
|
|
Post by statman on Sept 29, 2018 20:25:00 GMT -5
I was told by a regional chief judge that the unofficial non-quota quota was 450. His exact language was that he would "defend 450." Thsigs may have changed since, but I doubt that there are any real repercussions if you do 450.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Sept 29, 2018 20:36:07 GMT -5
I was told by a regional chief judge that the unofficial non-quota quota was 450. His exact language was that he would "defend 450." Thsigs may have changed since, but I doubt that there are any real repercussions if you do 450. Been told the same thing in my region, and it's been that way for years. I have approximately 60 cases in unassigned writing. Including those, I'd be around 550 for the year. I scheduled 50+ every month, but at least 50 we're rocket docket cases, which don't amount to much and usually take 2 hearings for one decision/dismissal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 21:13:21 GMT -5
Just a voice from the back seat in a low tone saying, a dedicated core of us really pushed hard this last month to get your cases back to you in EDIT to help you meet your goal.
fwiw
|
|