|
Post by maquereau on Oct 11, 2018 6:59:45 GMT -5
Hamster got it right!
"YOU may be in here working every weekend and working late every night of the week. But it can be done." But I will NOT!
I did my selfless service during the 20 years in the U.S. Army, this year I didn't make it, I don't care as I worked my tail off and did weeks of travel dockets! Next year, looks like it will be easier as I have over 125 already in the hopper and I schedule 48 to 54 monthly with 3 or 4 weeks of leave and I get 208 hours a year and carry over 240 hours every year.
It's just a job, the Agency will not care about you for a second once you are retired, and maybe neither will any of your loved ones if you work every weekend and late every night.
But, that is my way, to each his/her own! As stated previously, I have no argument with your approach to the job. We are all wired a little differently. I probably get nervous about matters which do not significantly bother others. It's not so bad that I meet 12.06, but it's enough to motivate me to work longer hours. I wish the agency would back off the rather arbitrary quota that they have set for us, but those decision makers are not the ones who have to put in the time and effort to fairly adjudicate 500+ cases.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Oct 11, 2018 12:37:23 GMT -5
I have been out of the loop for a while and hope I am not repeating something already posted. Came back to work today to find a message from the RCALJ for our region. Of the 157 ALJs on duty, 109 met or exceeded 500 dispositions and 33 had between 400 and 499. That is 90% of the region.
All ten in my office exceeded 500 dispositions. But as others have said, it is a team effort from the day the file enters into the office until the day it is closed out. No one can do this alone. If there is any deficiency in any part of the operation, all will suffer eventually.
Nationwide, daily disposition per ALJ was up for the fiscal year. Total pending dropped from 1056026 to 858383. Some folks out there are doing something right.
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 11, 2018 13:36:16 GMT -5
So, if in fact each ALJ is issuing more decisions than in the past, the question becomes why? Has technology improved (if we ever get the program that can identify and remove duplicate records, that would be huge)? Have work flow procedure improved? Staffing levels? Is it just because newer ALJs are producing more than those who have left? Something else? Or is there a potential quality issue with the emphasis on numbers?
I haven't been here long enough to have an opinion on what has changed, so I'd be curious as to the thoughts of others.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Oct 11, 2018 14:44:03 GMT -5
I will say that most of the ALJ instructions I see do not bother to identify or weigh opinion evidence or provide rationale. I am of two minds on this: sometimes it is easier to just write it the way I would like, other times I am worried I’m missing something.
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Oct 11, 2018 15:23:47 GMT -5
So, if in fact each ALJ is issuing more decisions than in the past, the question becomes why? Has technology improved (if we ever get the program that can identify and remove duplicate records, that would be huge)? Have work flow procedure improved? Staffing levels? Is it just because newer ALJs are producing more than those who have left? Something else? Or is there a potential quality issue with the emphasis on numbers?I haven't been here long enough to have an opinion on what has changed, so I'd be curious as to the thoughts of others. This. I don't see judges giving the detailed review of the record that was more common in the past. Few instructions meet the requirements detailed in the chief judge memo, etc. I think everyone is now in the churn, churn, churn mode. It's not a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by plinytheelder on Oct 11, 2018 15:34:13 GMT -5
My experience was that the gibberish contained in the instructions was rarely helpful and I preferred minima instructions. Perhaps my experience was atypical.
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Oct 11, 2018 16:13:20 GMT -5
My experience was that the gibberish contained in the instructions was rarely helpful and I preferred minima instructions. Perhaps my experience was atypical. I actually agree with you....but it's the lack of review and issue spotting by ALJs that really make writing these cases difficult. Transferable skills issue? Oh whups, the judge didn't spot that and failed to ask the VE about it... Oh, judge didn't notice all those earnings in a FF case.... Judge says its a step 2 denial, but possibly didn't see the recent MRI of the back.... Argggggggggg There's a lot more cleaning up messes these days. Short instructions are great, but give me at least the rfc and make sure the ultimate conclusion is supportable.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Oct 11, 2018 16:22:32 GMT -5
Part of the reason that productivity is up is the "coming of age" of new judges. I know the new judges have a schedule for ramping up productivity but I still believe a new judge, regardless of prior experience, requires 12 to 18 months to really settle in. Sure someone with SSA experience knows the regulations, rulings and subtleties of disability, but that person still have to get comfortable conducting a hearing and developing work practices for handling the pre- and post-hearing workloads. But as they all get more experience, they generally get more productive.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 11, 2018 16:58:44 GMT -5
So, if in fact each ALJ is issuing more decisions than in the past, the question becomes why? Has technology improved (if we ever get the program that can identify and remove duplicate records, that would be huge)? Have work flow procedure improved? Staffing levels? Is it just because newer ALJs are producing more than those who have left? Something else? Or is there a potential quality issue with the emphasis on numbers?I haven't been here long enough to have an opinion on what has changed, so I'd be curious as to the thoughts of others. This. I don't see judges giving the detailed review of the record that was more common in the past. Few instructions meet the requirements detailed in the chief judge memo, etc. I think everyone is now in the churn, churn, churn mode. It's not a good thing.
I'm not sure of your duration with the agency, but is it worse than it was 8-10 years ago? I was part of the last mass hiring spree of attorneys (before this past year) to help with the backlog back in the 2009-2010 era, and that was in the height of quantity demands. The instructions I used to get were only slightly better than thumbs up/thumbs down or happy/frowny face. Impairments, opinions, RFCs, etc. were seldom included in the instructions, just basic "This person is/isn't disabled because [insert 12-word rationale here]." I haven't written for another judge in a long time, so I really don't know what the rest of us do these days. I have seen sets of instructions on remand from others that would confuse me if I were still a writer, but I don't know that I feel like the time crunch or numbers push is any worse than it was a decade ago before The Scandal That Shall Not Be Named that resulted in onerous QRs and 10-page favorables.
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Oct 11, 2018 17:39:29 GMT -5
This. I don't see judges giving the detailed review of the record that was more common in the past. Few instructions meet the requirements detailed in the chief judge memo, etc. I think everyone is now in the churn, churn, churn mode. It's not a good thing.
I'm not sure of your duration with the agency, but is it worse than it was 8-10 years ago? I was part of the last mass hiring spree of attorneys (before this past year) to help with the backlog back in the 2009-2010 era, and that was in the height of quantity demands. The instructions I used to get were only slightly better than thumbs up/thumbs down or happy/frowny face. Impairments, opinions, RFCs, etc. were seldom included in the instructions, just basic "This person is/isn't disabled because [insert 12-word rationale here]." I haven't written for another judge in a long time, so I really don't know what the rest of us do these days. I have seen sets of instructions on remand from others that would confuse me if I were still a writer, but I don't know that I feel like the time crunch or numbers push is any worse than it was a decade ago before The Scandal That Shall Not Be Named that resulted in onerous QRs and 10-page favorables. Much worse I think than 8-10 years ago. While instructions were at times challenging back then, maybe because they were hand written and they were more likely to be in some idiosyncratic format or give no rationale, I felt that the judges had a better handle on the how to apply the relevant law and less likely to miss determinative issues.
But I am not blaming ALJs. There is just no support staff compared to the old days and case work up is dismally worse.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Oct 11, 2018 18:39:53 GMT -5
Part of the reason that productivity is up is the "coming of age" of new judges. I know the new judges have a schedule for ramping up productivity but I still believe a new judge, regardless of prior experience, requires 12 to 18 months to really settle in. Sure someone with SSA experience knows the regulations, rulings and subtleties of disability, but that person still have to get comfortable conducting a hearing and developing work practices for handling the pre- and post-hearing workloads. But as they all get more experience, they generally get more productive. I was a NODAR. It was at the 2 year mark when I truly and confidently felt, “I got this — bring it on” ready to handle whatever came my way.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 11, 2018 22:00:33 GMT -5
Part of the reason that productivity is up is the "coming of age" of new judges. I know the new judges have a schedule for ramping up productivity but I still believe a new judge, regardless of prior experience, requires 12 to 18 months to really settle in. Sure someone with SSA experience knows the regulations, rulings and subtleties of disability, but that person still have to get comfortable conducting a hearing and developing work practices for handling the pre- and post-hearing workloads. But as they all get more experience, they generally get more productive. I was a NODAR. It was at the 2 year mark when I truly and confidently felt, “I got this — bring it on” ready to handle whatever came my way. Welcome back, Pumpkin. This is your time of the year. I think of you when I drive by the pumpkin patches in my rural community and see all of your brothers, sisters and cousins out in the fields ready to give pleasure to those who celebrate Halloween. It took me about 2 years as well. And then new stuff came along. And I kept learning. By now, I don't think there is anything I haven't seen. You will get more efficient as you move along in the job. If a judge is In a good office with good writers and a good staff, it is a fun job. If not, then not so much. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by pseudonymous on Oct 12, 2018 7:36:17 GMT -5
I have been out of the loop for a while and hope I am not repeating something already posted. Came back to work today to find a message from the RCALJ for our region. Of the 157 ALJs on duty, 109 met or exceeded 500 dispositions and 33 had between 400 and 499. That is 90% of the region. There is an enormous difference between 400 dispositions, or 450, and 500 dispositions. (Indeed, using my keen math skills, I’ve confirmed that it’s a 10%-20% difference.)
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 12, 2018 11:01:12 GMT -5
I have been out of the loop for a while and hope I am not repeating something already posted. Came back to work today to find a message from the RCALJ for our region. Of the 157 ALJs on duty, 109 met or exceeded 500 dispositions and 33 had between 400 and 499. That is 90% of the region. There is an enormous difference between 400 dispositions, or 450, and 500 dispositions. (Indeed, using my keen math skills, I’ve confirmed that it’s a 10%-20% difference.) It depends on where you measure the distance from. 400 dispositions is 20% less than 500. 450 is 10% less than 500. 500 dispositions is 25% more than 400 and 11% more than 450.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 12, 2018 11:27:26 GMT -5
Why is my head swimming? This is why I became an attorney; I couldn't do complex math. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Oct 12, 2018 12:47:26 GMT -5
Why is my head swimming? This is why I became an attorney; I couldn't do complex math. Pixie Hopefully you are only limited to detailed, not complex math. 🤓
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Oct 12, 2018 13:18:55 GMT -5
Hopefully you are only limited to detailed, not complex math. 🤓 Would that be reasoning 2 or 3? Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 12, 2018 16:29:00 GMT -5
Why is my head swimming? This is why I became an attorney; I couldn't do complex math. Pixie Hopefully you are only limited to detailed, not complex math. 🤓 If it is math, I don't do it. I have CPA for taxes, and calculators for everything else. I don't do math. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 12, 2018 23:20:50 GMT -5
I actually agree with you....but it's the lack of review and issue spotting by ALJs that really make writing these cases difficult. Transferable skills issue? Oh whups, the judge didn't spot that and failed to ask the VE about it... Oh, judge didn't notice all those earnings in a FF case.... Judge says its a step 2 denial, but possibly didn't see the recent MRI of the back.... Argggggggggg There's a lot more cleaning up messes these days. Short instructions are great, but give me at least the rfc and make sure the ultimate conclusion is supportable.
Instructions without a brief discussion of all 5 steps would be inexcusable, however, writers seem to be a whiny bunch. I have a very good friend that is at the top of all 1,900 Attorney writers and a former Group Sup and her idea of instructions is what I have focused on in the past 5 years. If I'm denying a case based upon the previous DDS determinations and CEs performed, do I really need to break it down to a damn attorney how they should focus on the concept that DDS had it right and any MERs since the Recon denial doesn't change that fact? If I do, then our problem is not instructions, we are hiring the bottom of the barrel of attorneys! As long as that’s accurate, that’s fine. But what we can see is a reliance on what you noted and MER since that time puts the state agency and ce findings into question. Let’s say both indicated cl can perform light work with standing and walking at 6 hours. But cl weighs 300 pounds with a bad back and knees.
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Oct 13, 2018 5:20:14 GMT -5
Never again I am confused by your response. Isn’t it the job of the ALJ to write complete instructions?
My first attorney job out of law school was as a decisionwriter. I did not graduate magma cum laude but I certainly was notbottom of the barrel.
Nor did I whine about in 18 months virtually never getting a detailed instruction- just yeah or nay and the RFC Maybe. I just recall wondering what the point of having an alj “decide” a case when the steps were actually decided by me. (I was in a national unit where I had no contact with the ALJ to even discuss the yeah or nay)
luckily I enjoyed writing and reading ALJs minds or otherwise puzzling out a legally defensible opinion.
|
|