|
|
Post by lspst888 on Jul 8, 2019 18:21:58 GMT -5
Have any SAAs on this board received assignments under this directive yet? Anyone else’s supervisor ignoring the “no writing” part and continuing to assign the most complex/longest cases pending to save the AAs’ DWPI? I’m still writing (and so are the other SAAs in my office),although we have an attorney meeting later this week. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Jul 8, 2019 19:19:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Atkins on Jul 8, 2019 19:35:28 GMT -5
When decisions come within 2 days of sending to writing, there realistically is no way to avoid POST, then ALPO when the AC has actually said they will consider post hearing records whether in compliance with the 5 day rule or not. Until the AC will uphold the 5 day rule, or not hold remands against us, I can’t justify enforcing it and closing the record in the face of a request to hold it open. That means POST and ALPO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Atkins on Jul 8, 2019 20:36:33 GMT -5
A few bits of news from today First, all SAAs in my region have “officially” been retasked to reviews and research. I heard that a couple of exceptions were made based on individual office need (they had some high turnover in their writing staff this year). This isn’t a big change for the rest of the writers in our region. The SAAs in our region just haven’t been assigned the hardest or most complicated cases, as some have reported happens in their offices. It’s just a reduction in the number of writers actually writing. Second, I can confirm that at least one office in my region has had “collegial conversations” with their NTE writers. No mention was made of an actual risk of being let go. Their Group Supervisors spoke to them individually to “check in” and just make sure they understood the contours of being an NTE. There was reportedly lots of “we really can’t say for sure if and when your appointment will end or be extended. Or if you’ll be made permanent. We just want you to have the information necessary to make the best career and financial decisions for you.” During at least one meeting, the GS went off on a tangent about the financial hardships she’d experienced during the 2013 shutdown. I don’t know if the discussion swere mandated by the RO or if the managers took it upon themselves because they saw some writing on the wall (or the forum!). Third, as is often the case, the problems that HQ has with ALPO and POST is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I firmly believe that there are times when those statuses are appropriate. However, there are also some ALJs that use the statuses to play shell games because they can’t keep up. I know of multiple ALJs, one in my office, that put literally every case in ALPO. When it is about to age out of that status, the case goes to POST to update any source for which the claimant receives regular care, whether it is needed or not. When the evidence comes in (or even if we get a note that there is no MER), the case goes back into ALPO for a while. Hopefully, a decision gets made at that point. I have literally seen this happen in cases where a claimant met a clearcut listing (like 3.02) with evidence already available before the hearing. Now THAT’S a house of cards just waiting to collapse. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 9, 2019 9:52:15 GMT -5
A few bits of news from today First, all SAAs in my region have “officially” been retasked to reviews and research. I heard that a couple of exceptions were made based on individual office need (they had some high turnover in their writing staff this year). This isn’t a big change for the rest of the writers in our region. The SAAs in our region just haven’t been assigned the hardest or most complicated cases, as some have reported happens in their offices. It’s just a reduction in the number of writers actually writing. Second, I can confirm that at least one office in my region has had “collegial conversations” with their NTE writers. No mention was made of an actual risk of being let go. Their Group Supervisors spoke to them individually to “check in” and just make sure they understood the contours of being an NTE. There was reportedly lots of “we really can’t say for sure if and when your appointment will end or be extended. Or if you’ll be made permanent. We just want you to have the information necessary to make the best career and financial decisions for you.” During at least one meeting, the GS went off on a tangent about the financial hardships she’d experienced during the 2013 shutdown. I don’t know if the discussion swere mandated by the RO or if the managers took it upon themselves because they saw some writing on the wall (or the forum!). Third, as is often the case, the problems that HQ has with ALPO and POST is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I firmly believe that there are times when those statuses are appropriate. However, there are also some ALJs that use the statuses to play shell games because they can’t keep up. I know of multiple ALJs, one in my office, that put literally every case in ALPO. When it is about to age out of that status, the case goes to POST to update any source for which the claimant receives regular care, whether it is needed or not. When the evidence comes in (or even if we get a note that there is no MER), the case goes back into ALPO for a while. Hopefully, a decision gets made at that point. I have literally seen this happen in cases where a claimant met a clearcut listing (like 3.02) with evidence already available before the hearing. Now THAT’S a house of cards just waiting to collapse. Not just ALJ's, there have been writers play the status shell game as well |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jul 9, 2019 11:04:33 GMT -5
A few bits of news from today First, all SAAs in my region have “officially” been retasked to reviews and research. I heard that a couple of exceptions were made based on individual office need (they had some high turnover in their writing staff this year). This isn’t a big change for the rest of the writers in our region. The SAAs in our region just haven’t been assigned the hardest or most complicated cases, as some have reported happens in their offices. It’s just a reduction in the number of writers actually writing. Second, I can confirm that at least one office in my region has had “collegial conversations” with their NTE writers. No mention was made of an actual risk of being let go. Their Group Supervisors spoke to them individually to “check in” and just make sure they understood the contours of being an NTE. There was reportedly lots of “we really can’t say for sure if and when your appointment will end or be extended. Or if you’ll be made permanent. We just want you to have the information necessary to make the best career and financial decisions for you.” During at least one meeting, the GS went off on a tangent about the financial hardships she’d experienced during the 2013 shutdown. I don’t know if the discussion swere mandated by the RO or if the managers took it upon themselves because they saw some writing on the wall (or the forum!). Third, as is often the case, the problems that HQ has with ALPO and POST is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I firmly believe that there are times when those statuses are appropriate. However, there are also some ALJs that use the statuses to play shell games because they can’t keep up. I know of multiple ALJs, one in my office, that put literally every case in ALPO. When it is about to age out of that status, the case goes to POST to update any source for which the claimant receives regular care, whether it is needed or not. When the evidence comes in (or even if we get a note that there is no MER), the case goes back into ALPO for a while. Hopefully, a decision gets made at that point. I have literally seen this happen in cases where a claimant met a clearcut listing (like 3.02) with evidence already available before the hearing. Now THAT’S a house of cards just waiting to collapse. I have a hard time believing this is easier to manage than just doing your instructions right after the hearing. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 9, 2019 11:59:16 GMT -5
Now THAT’S a house of cards just waiting to collapse. I have a hard time believing this is easier to manage than just doing your instructions right after the hearing. It's much, much harder to manage. So much simpler to hear the case, make a decision, write the instructions and call the next case. I never leave the hearing room for the day until all of my instructions are completed. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jul 9, 2019 12:39:23 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing this is easier to manage than just doing your instructions right after the hearing. It's much, much harder to manage. So much simpler to hear the case, make a decision, write the instructions and call the next case. I never leave the hearing room for the day until all of my instructions are completed. Pixie I do the exact same and have 5 in POST. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 9, 2019 13:02:46 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing this is easier to manage than just doing your instructions right after the hearing. It's much, much harder to manage. So much simpler to hear the case, make a decision, write the instructions and call the next case. I never leave the hearing room for the day until all of my instructions are completed. Pixie I don't call the next case until the previous case instructions are done. Only exception is the rare time I order a CE, a unrepresented claimant has some newer medical I want to order, or a rep gave proper notice of an outstanding request for medical and even in those my notes reflect what my decision will be if the new medical never appears and what I'm looking for to change from that. Learned the hard way looking at a file cold 60 days after hearing its just too hard to get back into the hearing remember what impressions were created. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 9, 2019 13:40:09 GMT -5
It's much, much harder to manage. So much simpler to hear the case, make a decision, write the instructions and call the next case. I never leave the hearing room for the day until all of my instructions are completed. Pixie I do the exact same and have 5 in POST. I don't put anything in Post. If the attorney wants to submit something post hearing, I put it in UNRW with a note to let me see the new evidence, if it comes in. I know it will take at least 30 days for the case to be assigned to a writer. That gives the attorney plenty of time to submit new evidence, if there is a good reason why it wasn't submitted pre hearing. Usually there is a valid reason the evidence wasn't timely submitted. I just don't use POST. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jul 9, 2019 13:42:25 GMT -5
I used to do same. I don’t do this because now our cases are assigned within a week of hearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bellaluna on Jul 9, 2019 13:45:50 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing this is easier to manage than just doing your instructions right after the hearing. It's much, much harder to manage. So much simpler to hear the case, make a decision, write the instructions and call the next case. I never leave the hearing room for the day until all of my instructions are completed. Pixie Same here. I write all my instructions between the hearings. If it’s going to post, I still write preliminary instructions so I will remember what impression I had when the hearing ended. This makes it very easy to stay caught up. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 9, 2019 14:33:50 GMT -5
It's much, much harder to manage. So much simpler to hear the case, make a decision, write the instructions and call the next case. I never leave the hearing room for the day until all of my instructions are completed. Pixie I don't call the next case until the previous case instructions are done. Only exception is the rare time I order a CE, a unrepresented claimant has some newer medical I want to order, or a rep gave proper notice of an outstanding request for medical and even in those my notes reflect what my decision will be if the new medical never appears and what I'm looking for to change from that. Learned the hard way looking at a file cold 60 days after hearing its just too hard to get back into the hearing remember what impressions were created. I make a note to myself about my impressions, what the new evidence might or needs to show to change that impression, and any other salient points or observations from the hearing I might have had. The status manipulation described above is extreme, and I don't do that to avoid benchmarks. However, making this a numbers driven enterprise creates a lot of this type of behavior. When I wrote back in the productivity index days of yore, I would hold on to drafts on occasion because management has a short memory when it comes to numbers. Just because you exceeded goal last week doesn't excuse missing it by 5% this week. If I get 540 out the door this year and 495 out next year, do you think the former will be considered in evaluating the latter? Or do you think I'll get some form of communication prodding or "encouraging" me to hit 500 the following year? |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Jul 9, 2019 16:06:08 GMT -5
There's that sort of shenanigans with DWPI as well.
If you folks want to make your writers love you, issue everything as a partially favorable decision, just by a few weeks. We'll be bringing you martinis at work before long...
For any denizens of the internet who read this later: obviously I am completely kidding. That would unfairly harm claimants and any decent ALJ would hit me upside the head with their nonexistent gavel for even suggesting such a thing. Seriously though, why don't our ALJs have gavels?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 16:09:52 GMT -5
There's that sort of shenanigans with DWPI as well. If you folks want to make your writers love you, issue everything as a partially favorable decision, just by a few weeks. We'll be bringing you martinis at work before long... For any denizens of the internet who read this later: obviously I am completely kidding. That would unfairly harm claimants and any decent ALJ would hit me upside the head with their nonexistent gavel for even suggesting such a thing. Seriously though, why don't our ALJs have gavels?I read fine print but wanted to ask what is desirable about PF decisions from a writers POV? |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 9, 2019 16:21:35 GMT -5
There's that sort of shenanigans with DWPI as well. If you folks want to make your writers love you, issue everything as a partially favorable decision, just by a few weeks. We'll be bringing you martinis at work before long... For any denizens of the internet who read this later: obviously I am completely kidding. That would unfairly harm claimants and any decent ALJ would hit me upside the head with their nonexistent gavel for even suggesting such a thing. Seriously though, why don't our ALJs have gavels?I read fine print but wanted to ask what is desirable about PF decisions from a writers POV? He is being facetious. A PF decision is the least desirable and often the most difficult to write. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jul 9, 2019 16:22:25 GMT -5
They are allotted more time to draft the decision than a straight unfavorable but the additional work (if well-supported) is negligible. Pixie , I thought he was being serious. Especially an age-change later onset. I guess I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 9, 2019 16:46:22 GMT -5
There's that sort of shenanigans with DWPI as well. If you folks want to make your writers love you, issue everything as a partially favorable decision, just by a few weeks. We'll be bringing you martinis at work before long... For any denizens of the internet who read this later: obviously I am completely kidding. That would unfairly harm claimants and any decent ALJ would hit me upside the head with their nonexistent gavel for even suggesting such a thing. Seriously though, why don't our ALJs have gavels?I read fine print but wanted to ask what is desirable about PF decisions from a writers POV? Partially favorable come in two flavors. Annoying and REALLY annoying. The annoying ones have one RFC so you write an unfavorable decision but then because of calendar magic becomes a favorable under the Grid Rules. If the claimant has a rep who is tuned in, you often get an amended onset date to make it a fully favorable so it is frustrating for a writer knowing that an amended onset could have simplified everything. The REALLY annoying there is some change in the claimant's condition so you have to justify two different RFC's with supporting evidence and a justification for why a person might have been capable of light work on Tuesday but only sedentary on Wednesday. |
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jul 9, 2019 17:58:47 GMT -5
From my POV as a writer,PFs are a gift.Our ALJs do not typically make a giant leap without some supportive medical evidence, a birthday, or an opinion to hang the hat on. I don't find it that hard to say "things changed" and explain what happened. I experience sheer joy when an amended onset due to a birthday could have simplified everything. I wish we could add balloons!
|
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Jul 9, 2019 18:21:47 GMT -5
They are allotted more time to draft the decision than a straight unfavorable but the additional work (if well-supported) is negligible. Pixie , I thought he was being serious. Especially an age-change later onset. I guess I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. I think this is right. A PF with a grid out on age is the easiest couple of hours for a writer to pick up towards DWPI, with negligible additional work, usually just noting the autotext age change language. The only thing I found tricky is the 16-3p analysis. |
|
