|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 2, 2019 10:26:46 GMT -5
SAAs will be going under dwpi, but it is SAA dwpi, not the same as AA dwpi. I would anticipate that they will have benchmarks for reviewing cases as well as writing, and perhaps other functions they have been gathering beta on.
The 1000 day case thing won't last long. Can't be many left. I suppose they'll just go down to 900 then 800, etc. as the cases get adjudicated.
Hopefully they expand the NAT/let SAAs issue OTRs, that's probably the most efficient use of saa resources to keep the processing time down.
|
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Jul 2, 2019 11:05:26 GMT -5
This is not a good sign at all.. I would be very concerned for new hires employed as not to exceed.. Were those 500+ new attorneys hired last year all NTE?
This all just so silly. It's like a game of whack a mole! Too long a wait for a hearing?!?!?!? Hire judges only! Decision writing backlog "crisis"?!?!?! Hire only attorneys.....ah! now we have too many attorneys! I'm wondering why TPTB don't hire judges as a unit. Like for every judge brought on, they hire 1.5 attorneys and 2 staff people. You wouldn't staff a new district court position without a courtroom clerk, 2 law clerks, a deputy, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 2, 2019 11:16:10 GMT -5
I don't think I saw this noted elsewhere on the board, but a message went out last week from Region 2 to the judges imploring them to get cases out of ALPO into writing because of the lack of work for the writers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Jul 2, 2019 11:49:53 GMT -5
This is not a good sign at all.. I would be very concerned for new hires employed as not to exceed.. Were those 500+ new attorneys hired last year all NTE?
This all just so silly. It's like a game of whack a mole! Too long a wait for a hearing?!?!?!? Hire judges only! Decision writing backlog "crisis"?!?!?! Hire only attorneys.....ah! now we have too many attorneys! I'm wondering why TPTB don't hire judges as a unit. Like for every judge brought on, they hire 1.5 attorneys and 2 staff people. You wouldn't staff a new district court position without a courtroom clerk, 2 law clerks, a deputy, etc.
At the national centers, almost all employees hired over the last couple of years were hired on 2 or 4 year NTEs. There was a more recent batch of announcements for permanent positions for both hearings offices and national centers. I’m unsure of the results of those announcements, i.e. if anyone was actually hired. I fear and feel for my NTE colleagues. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 2, 2019 11:55:10 GMT -5
I don't think I saw this noted elsewhere on the board, but a message went out last week from Region 2 to the judges imploring them to get cases out of ALPO into writing because of the lack of work for the writers. There is no good reason to have a case in ALPO. Those cases should be moved as soon as they hit that status. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Jul 2, 2019 12:10:45 GMT -5
How would they have dwpi if they don’t have enough cases? I think they would have to change the evaluation criteria
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 2, 2019 12:35:38 GMT -5
I don't think I saw this noted elsewhere on the board, but a message went out last week from Region 2 to the judges imploring them to get cases out of ALPO into writing because of the lack of work for the writers. There is no good reason to have a case in ALPO. Those cases should be moved as soon as they hit that status. Pixie I have to disagree, but will not hijack the thread to do so. But I will agree that the best practice is to put in instructions immediately after the hearing whenever possible. |
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Jul 2, 2019 13:37:33 GMT -5
ALPO = dog food
|
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Jul 2, 2019 14:13:49 GMT -5
[ LOL, oh if I only knew this 10 years ago. It would have reduced soooooooo much grief. |
|
|
|
Post by slainte on Jul 2, 2019 17:05:19 GMT -5
I do not even feed my pup 🐕 ALPO, so why would I keep a case there more than a day or two (unless I’m on vacay)? I decide after hearing but I cannot because I’m missing records, the case goes into POST. My SCT waits for all the recs to come in then it’s goes to ALPO (yuck). I thereafter review + move it right away to UNWR.
|
|
|
|
Post by statman on Jul 2, 2019 19:26:54 GMT -5
A good reason is you are busy editing cases or hearing cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by oddis on Jul 2, 2019 19:33:15 GMT -5
The SSA is managed by the largest collection of __________ ever assembled.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jul 2, 2019 21:31:34 GMT -5
The SSA is managed by the largest collection of dumbasses ever assembled. Clearly, you’ve never served in the military. Best, Hamster |
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Jul 2, 2019 23:00:11 GMT -5
Got news for ya' TigerLaw, some of us still question your sanity ... 89 hearings in 35 days ... obviously you jumped into your foxhole head first. I'd say you likely meet or equal 12.15 secondary to TBI. Precisely why I rode into battle. You need more time at the Lake brother ...
Back on thread ... Wasn't it just 30-45 days ago or so they were telling SAA's they could anticipate being put on an 85% production quota - notwithstanding that they were still going to be tasked with doing all the tough/odd ball cases? Not to worry ... there will be plenty of cases to hear and write when all of those denials handed down by ALJ's hired/sworn in, in violation of the Appointments Clause beginning in late 2014 are remanded by the federal courts. And for those of you/us that took a second Oath of Office last year, I'd say third time's bound to be a charm now that we have a bona fide Commissioner. Two steps forward. Three steps back. Where's a good General Counsel when you need them?
Oh ... they jumped into TL's vacated foxhole head first.
|
|
|
|
Post by statman on Jul 2, 2019 23:05:43 GMT -5
I do not understand the logic of the order. It takes the best writers away from writing so that the quality of the drafts goes down. Unless it is expected that judges will decide these cases on the record (and I will not for many good reasons) it will not speed things up one iota. The 75 day rule is responsible for a large part of the delay, not any inability to analyze these cases effectively.
Also, will the summaries be exhibited? Are they discoverable in Federal court appeals? Who knows? What happens when the senior attorney says pay and the judge says no?
|
|
|
|
Post by oddis on Jul 3, 2019 6:35:57 GMT -5
Nearly 10 years, 8 of which on active duty. Half of active duty time was post 9/11. Not sure where you were, but the incompetence and the ascension of unqualified people in the SSA is unlike anything I've ever encountered.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 3, 2019 7:17:13 GMT -5
I do not understand the logic of the order. It takes the best writers away from writing so that the quality of the drafts goes down. Unless it is expected that judges will decide these cases on the record (and I will not for many good reasons) it will not speed things up one iota. The 75 day rule is responsible for a large part of the delay, not any inability to analyze these cases effectively. Also, will the summaries be exhibited? Are they discoverable in Federal court appeals? Who knows? What happens when the senior attorney says pay and the judge says no? Since the 75-day rule isn't even 1,000 days old, I'm going to say it has next to nothing to do with these cases being over 1,000 days old. This isn't the first time SAAs have done things like this. Summaries won't be exhibited. I doubt they'll be discoverable since I have never heard of other summaries or documents in the private section, like ALJ instructions, being discoverable (though I could be wrong). If a judge doesn't agree with the SAA's analysis, a hearing will be held unless SAAs are given signatory authority again, in which case, a judge will never see it to disagree with it. This isn't complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Jul 3, 2019 7:26:27 GMT -5
I do not understand the logic of the order. It takes the best writers away from writing so that the quality of the drafts goes down. Unless it is expected that judges will decide these cases on the record (and I will not for many good reasons) it will not speed things up one iota. The 75 day rule is responsible for a large part of the delay, not any inability to analyze these cases effectively. Also, will the summaries be exhibited? Are they discoverable in Federal court appeals? Who knows? What happens when the senior attorney says pay and the judge says no? Since the 75-day rule isn't even 1,000 days old, I'm going to say it has next to nothing to do with these cases being over 1,000 days old. This isn't the first time SAAs have done things like this. Summaries won't be exhibited. I doubt they'll be discoverable since I have never heard of other summaries or documents in the private section, like ALJ instructions, being discoverable (though I could be wrong). If a judge doesn't agree with the SAA's analysis, a hearing will be held unless SAAs are given signatory authority again, in which case, a judge will never see it to disagree with it. This isn't complicated. Will these summaries be significantly different from the pre-hearing reviews performed day in and day out by NHC attorney advisers? Those reviews are not exhibited. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 3, 2019 7:37:34 GMT -5
Also, will the summaries be exhibited? Are they discoverable in Federal court appeals? Who knows? What happens when the senior attorney says pay and the judge says no? Let me alleviate your concerns: 1. No; 2. No; 3. I do; and 4. Judges can do whatever they want since they are the the judge. This is not new. Atty adjudicator worksheets will be in the private section in Eview, read em or dont, no one really cares. |
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Jul 3, 2019 7:51:20 GMT -5
If these preheating reports are similiar to those produced by NHC attorneys why aren't all NHC attorneys Senior Attorneys? Since Senior Attorneys are to refocus on different tasks, who will write the more difficult decisions?
FYI: The AA jobs posted and filled last month were permanent, so for purposes of a RIF they will be retained before the 500 or so AAs hired in 2018. Interesting times.
|
|
