|
|
Post by natethegreat on Jul 9, 2019 18:23:53 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! I concur. I saw no joke being made. Under DWPI, I believe most writers would prefer a PF over calling a rep for an amended AOD given the drastically different "values" of a FF vs PF decision under DWPI. |
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Jul 9, 2019 20:00:01 GMT -5
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. Pre-DWPI, I would agree about PF vs amended AOD. However, given current values assigned to a PF vs a FF, a clear cut later onset (such of changing age categories) is much better for the writer than hunting down an amended AOD to receive a little over 3hrs credit for the entire decision. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 9, 2019 20:18:38 GMT -5
There are a number of variables that would come into play (file size, length of time/amount of evidence, number of opinions, etc.), but straight grids and clear change in impairment/functionality cases aren't all that annoying so long as some random date isn't chosen out of thin air.
The best that I've given to writers are step 1 denials for 3-5 months followed by favorable decisions at the real cessation of their work activity. Those are few and far between (usually unrepped claimants), but they are great for making up time (as are straight step 1 denials).
The worst I have decided, and again it's a rarity, are dual periods of disability with a period of non-disability sandwiched in between. Having to cobble together the shell is the most annoying part, I assume.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 9, 2019 20:23:18 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. This discussion reminds me of when some ALJs talk about how easy it is to get 500-700 decisions. Offices are not created equal. In my current office, on 80% of my cases 2/3 of the evidence, including everything for the past 18 months, is coming in after the hearing. I looked, in the two weeks prior to this I had 24 hearings scheduled. Fifteen went to POST; four went to UNWR/ALPO (they went to ALPO but were there less than 24 hours). The rest either never showed or were rescheduled for whatever reason. Yes, it is ridiculously frustrating that I am reviewing the evidence and deciding the case three months after the hearings, but it would be utterly worthless to write instructions before reviewing the vast majority of the truly relevant evidence. Oh, and this is a recent development, but cases I put into UNWR are in my EDIT in less than five business days. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jul 9, 2019 20:59:54 GMT -5
nylawyer, you just tempered my annoyance at the new transfer environment. Maybe staying put is better in the long run. Thanks for the wake up call.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jul 9, 2019 21:25:01 GMT -5
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. This discussion reminds me of when some ALJs talk about how easy it is to get 500-700 decisions. Offices are not created equal. In my current office, on 80% of my cases 2/3 of the evidence, including everything for the past 18 months, is coming in after the hearing. I looked, in the two weeks prior to this I had 24 hearings scheduled. Fifteen went to POST; four went to UNWR/ALPO (they went to ALPO but were there less than 24 hours). The rest either never showed or were rescheduled for whatever reason. Yes, it is ridiculously frustrating that I am reviewing the evidence and deciding the case three months after the hearings, but it would be utterly worthless to write instructions before reviewing the vast majority of the truly relevant evidence.Oh, and this is a recent development, but cases I put into UNWR are in my EDIT in less than five business days. I won’t put up with that anymore. I swear in the claimant, explain it would be unfair to her to hold a hearing when her representative and I haven’t read 2/3ds of the medical evidence, and continue the hearing. I also rake counsel over the coals for not updating the file when they’ve been representing the poor claimant for two years already. It inconveniences the claimant, which is unfortunate. But it’s clear where the fault lies. And it inconveniences the rep having to come back, and hurts their bottom line. Eventually, I hope they’ll learn the lesson. Best, and in my personal capacity, Hamster |
|
|
|
Post by Mister Atkins on Jul 9, 2019 21:34:42 GMT -5
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 A case I send to UNWR today will be in EDIT by Friday. Can’t do it. |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Jul 10, 2019 7:48:59 GMT -5
"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?"
Fine print some of my ALJ friends seem to have missed (there's a reason you folks have us!)
I am disappointed that nobody has answered my question about gavels. And I want to emphasize that yes, it WAS a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 10, 2019 7:52:47 GMT -5
This discussion reminds me of when some ALJs talk about how easy it is to get 500-700 decisions. Offices are not created equal. In my current office, on 80% of my cases 2/3 of the evidence, including everything for the past 18 months, is coming in after the hearing. I looked, in the two weeks prior to this I had 24 hearings scheduled. Fifteen went to POST; four went to UNWR/ALPO (they went to ALPO but were there less than 24 hours). The rest either never showed or were rescheduled for whatever reason. Yes, it is ridiculously frustrating that I am reviewing the evidence and deciding the case three months after the hearings, but it would be utterly worthless to write instructions before reviewing the vast majority of the truly relevant evidence.Oh, and this is a recent development, but cases I put into UNWR are in my EDIT in less than five business days. I won’t put up with that anymore. I swear in the claimant, explain it would be unfair to her to hold a hearing when her representative and I haven’t read 2/3ds of the medical evidence, and continue the hearing. I also rake counsel over the coals for not updating the file when they’ve been representing the poor claimant for two years already. It inconveniences the claimant, which is unfortunate. But it’s clear where the fault lies. And it inconveniences the rep having to come back, and hurts their bottom line. Eventually, I hope they’ll learn the lesson. Best, and in my personal capacity, Hamster The majority of my cases are unrepped, or barely repped. By barely repped, I mean repped by a city agency that does nothing prior to the hearing, but isn't collecting a fee. I have thought of going to a model where I schedule 20 a week and just put over the hearings where I don't have the evidence. But, I'm concerned- what happens when they all are actually ready to go? Plus, I imagine TPTB will not be thrilled when every case ends up requiring 2 or 3 hearing days. Only so much I can do. I'm a new judge in a city with 4 different hearing offices and around 50 ALJs so I can't just make everything change. But when I'm Chief Judge... boy oh boy will there be changes. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 10, 2019 7:55:01 GMT -5
nylawyer, you just tempered my annoyance at the new transfer environment. Maybe staying put is better in the long run. Thanks for the wake up call. Grass is rarely truly greener. However, in as much as my wife and kids live near this particular lawn, I temper all of my complaints and remember to be grateful for that. |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jul 10, 2019 9:06:38 GMT -5
"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?" Fine print some of my ALJ friends seem to have missed (there's a reason you folks have us!) I am disappointed that nobody has answered my question about gavels. And I want to emphasize that yes, it WAS a joke. I have a gavel, though I rarely use it. It's a crab mallet from L.P. Steamer's in Balto. Because of this job, I've had to give up sarcasm. It's going great. |
|
|
|
Post by bp on Jul 10, 2019 9:33:36 GMT -5
I won’t put up with that anymore. I swear in the claimant, explain it would be unfair to her to hold a hearing when her representative and I haven’t read 2/3ds of the medical evidence, and continue the hearing. I also rake counsel over the coals for not updating the file when they’ve been representing the poor claimant for two years already. It inconveniences the claimant, which is unfortunate. But it’s clear where the fault lies. And it inconveniences the rep having to come back, and hurts their bottom line. Eventually, I hope they’ll learn the lesson. Best, and in my personal capacity, Hamster The majority of my cases are unrepped, or barely repped. By barely repped, I mean repped by a city agency that does nothing prior to the hearing, but isn't collecting a fee. I have thought of going to a model where I schedule 20 a week and just put over the hearings where I don't have the evidence. But, I'm concerned- what happens when they all are actually ready to go? Plus, I imagine TPTB will not be thrilled when every case ends up requiring 2 or 3 hearing days. Only so much I can do. I'm a new judge in a city with 4 different hearing offices and around 50 ALJs so I can't just make everything change. But when I'm Chief Judge... boy oh boy will there be changes. Just curious, is the 5-day rule not fixing some of this for you? It seems like if there isn't a good reason for these claimants to have failed to submit 2/3 of their medical evidence in advance, you would have a basis to decide their case on the record that exists at the time of the hearing and move on. |
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jul 10, 2019 9:39:06 GMT -5
"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?" Fine print some of my ALJ friends seem to have missed (there's a reason you folks have us!) I am disappointed that nobody has answered my question about gavels. And I want to emphasize that yes, it WAS a joke. I have a gavel, though I rarely use it. It's a crab mallet from L.P. Steamer's in Balto. Because of this job, I've had to give up sarcasm. It's going great. Not me. I had a gavel in my old job, but not any more. When the rep is being obstreperous, now I just hold up an 8x10 photograph of my ex-wife. This immediately cows them into submission. (A natural reaction.) Sometimes they even withdraw the Request for Hearing on the spot! So, really, who needs a gavel anyway to keep order? (No federal endorsement intended or implied, etc.). Hamster |
|
|
|
Post by Burt Macklin on Jul 10, 2019 11:27:41 GMT -5
The majority of my cases are unrepped, or barely repped. By barely repped, I mean repped by a city agency that does nothing prior to the hearing, but isn't collecting a fee. I have thought of going to a model where I schedule 20 a week and just put over the hearings where I don't have the evidence. But, I'm concerned- what happens when they all are actually ready to go? Plus, I imagine TPTB will not be thrilled when every case ends up requiring 2 or 3 hearing days. Only so much I can do. I'm a new judge in a city with 4 different hearing offices and around 50 ALJs so I can't just make everything change. But when I'm Chief Judge... boy oh boy will there be changes. Just curious, is the 5-day rule not fixing some of this for you? It seems like if there isn't a good reason for these claimants to have failed to submit 2/3 of their medical evidence in advance, you would have a basis to decide their case on the record that exists at the time of the hearing and move on. That would raise the ire of our paternalistic and clueless Appeals Council. |
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jul 10, 2019 13:47:33 GMT -5
Just curious, is the 5-day rule not fixing some of this for you? It seems like if there isn't a good reason for these claimants to have failed to submit 2/3 of their medical evidence in advance, you would have a basis to decide their case on the record that exists at the time of the hearing and move on. It was fixing it for a while. Then I got a remand from the AC stating I failed to examine evidence submitted the day before the hearing. In my decision I specifically found no good cause for the late filing, as the rep had no reason for not submitting records from 2015 in a timely manner. Along those lines, a friend went to the recent supplemental new judge training. A member of the AC was asked about the 5 day rule and she told them that the AC looks at all the evidence, and she just shrugged when challenged on it. It seems like before the AC looks at the evidence, they should be making a determination that the ALJ erred on the good cause for late filing determination. Otherwise, why have a five day rule? Sorry. You touched a nerve. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 10, 2019 14:03:56 GMT -5
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. This discussion reminds me of when some ALJs talk about how easy it is to get 500-700 decisions. Offices are not created equal. In my current office, on 80% of my cases 2/3 of the evidence, including everything for the past 18 months, is coming in after the hearing. I looked, in the two weeks prior to this I had 24 hearings scheduled. Fifteen went to POST; four went to UNWR/ALPO (they went to ALPO but were there less than 24 hours). The rest either never showed or were rescheduled for whatever reason. Yes, it is ridiculously frustrating that I am reviewing the evidence and deciding the case three months after the hearings, but it would be utterly worthless to write instructions before reviewing the vast majority of the truly relevant evidence. Oh, and this is a recent development, but cases I put into UNWR are in my EDIT in less than five business days. That's a nightmare. It is a huge disservice to claimants because looking at a file cold months later is not to their advantage. The first thing you know when you open it is that there wasn't enough evidence to make it favorable when you had the hearing, otherwise it would already be processed and probably in pay status. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 10, 2019 15:24:03 GMT -5
The majority of my cases are unrepped, or barely repped. By barely repped, I mean repped by a city agency that does nothing prior to the hearing, but isn't collecting a fee. I have thought of going to a model where I schedule 20 a week and just put over the hearings where I don't have the evidence. But, I'm concerned- what happens when they all are actually ready to go? Plus, I imagine TPTB will not be thrilled when every case ends up requiring 2 or 3 hearing days. Only so much I can do. I'm a new judge in a city with 4 different hearing offices and around 50 ALJs so I can't just make everything change. But when I'm Chief Judge... boy oh boy will there be changes. Just curious, is the 5-day rule not fixing some of this for you? It seems like if there isn't a good reason for these claimants to have failed to submit 2/3 of their medical evidence in advance, you would have a basis to decide their case on the record that exists at the time of the hearing and move on. I am recently in a new office so I can't speak to whether the five day rule changed anything. For the unrepped, what can you do? Maybe the senior attorneys whom they are looking to give work to could start reaching out to the claimants a couple of months out from the hearing date and make a real effort to find out what needs to be ordered and get it in. But my understanding of the rule is you can't hold the 5 day rule against unrepped claimants, and I wouldn't want to anyway. For the repped- they generally are sending in a five day letter and documenting some efforts to get the records. And some are reasonably complete at the hearing. The good thing about those is that they actually will come out of POST relatively quickly a lot of the time. The problem is they then get in the line with the cases I havent looked at in 4 months, and I'm pretty much taking them in the order they went into ALPO status. The other issue is what to do with the repped claimants whom the rep has lost track of because they are or became homeless, or were incarcerated, or mandated to some sort of treatment plan. I can't really blame the reps, there is only so much you can do to keep in touch with the client. Plus, even if the rep did a terrible job, do I punish the claimant for that? It's also hard to blame the claimant who likely has some sort of mental disorder, and in any case in the above situations I can see how the disability case they've heard nothing about for the past year isn't the foremost thing on their minds. So, I generally let them submit the records after the hearing. Am I too soft? I guess some would say so, but I feel I'm doing what's right. Or at least the lesser evil. But to my original point- every office is different. In some, the ALJ can keep their ALPO and POST numbers in the single digits. In others, it just isn't possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jul 10, 2019 15:33:26 GMT -5
I do something a little different (maybe). When cases come out of POST and into ALPO, I try to give it a quick look to see if all that much is changed. If it can be turned quickly, that's the perfect time to do it. Otherwise, it has to get in line with the other ALPO in date order.
The other thing I'm trying to do is give myself a line or three in the instructions (CHECK THE POST FOR X AND THAT'S IT) or more directive (LIGHT IS UF AND SEDENTARY IS FF - IT IS CLOSE SO SEE IF THE POST REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE).
The better the instructions are in draft form when the hearing is over, the less time I have to spend with it in ALPO. If I'm particularly lazy for an unrepped case where I'm certain there will be extensive post development, that typically hurts pretty bad in ALPO.
I do try to hold them in ALPO less than 30 days and keep fewer than 10 to 12 in ALPO at any one time, preferably 6 or less.
ETA: And I make it a goal to complete instructions before the next hearing starts unless it just can't be done. I'm doing that in 100% of repped cases where the record is complete, which helps a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Atkins on Jul 10, 2019 20:41:18 GMT -5
The majority of my cases are unrepped, or barely repped. By barely repped, I mean repped by a city agency that does nothing prior to the hearing, but isn't collecting a fee. I have thought of going to a model where I schedule 20 a week and just put over the hearings where I don't have the evidence. But, I'm concerned- what happens when they all are actually ready to go? Plus, I imagine TPTB will not be thrilled when every case ends up requiring 2 or 3 hearing days. Only so much I can do. I'm a new judge in a city with 4 different hearing offices and around 50 ALJs so I can't just make everything change. But when I'm Chief Judge... boy oh boy will there be changes. Just curious, is the 5-day rule not fixing some of this for you? It seems like if there isn't a good reason for these claimants to have failed to submit 2/3 of their medical evidence in advance, you would have a basis to decide their case on the record that exists at the time of the hearing and move on. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!! The AC is upfront about looking at records submitted post hearing regardless of the 5 day rule, close the record, and eat the remand. And it’s not like we should have to worry about that, but in this climate, who knows. In any case, enforce it, or any other rule, at your peril. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 10, 2019 21:10:16 GMT -5
If I had a situation like barkley did, I'd probably get myself into trouble. The next decision would certainly contain words of encouragement to the AC to learn the rules regarding the five-day notice requirement. It might even be simply reissued as soon as it got back into the office (I'm certainly not advocating this path for anyone else). I don't see anything in our Regs or SSR 17-4p that requires any leniency for unrepped claimants. In fact, the five-day rule in 17-4p is most specifically addresses the claimant and their obligations. Certainly reps have a higher standard with references to diligence, but that doesn't mean an unrepped claimant doesn't have to sufficiently and timely give us notice just because they're pro se (absent extenuating circumstances, of course). I haven't had anything come back for failing to consider untimely submitted evidence or evidence where a rep or claimant failed to sufficiently notify me of records (i.e., "all records from Hospital from January 1, 2015" is not sufficient under the language of the SSR). Maybe that will change with the AC folks reviewing our cases down the road, but if it does, see paragraph one above. |
|
