|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 25, 2019 18:48:59 GMT -5
But why review POST? If it is in that category, there is still outstanding evidence, unless the rep had been given a deadline and that deadline has already past. Then it should be moved to ALPO and a prompt decision made. Pixie Could be the evidence came in and it has been proffered and is just waiting to see if the claimant and/rep respond. But, your point is valid. All POSTs are not the same. For a case where the evidence isnt in yet, it's a waste for the SAA to look at it- anything they do has likely already been done by the ALJ. Or, the cases where the ALJ has done 80% of the instructions already and is just waiting for the record to close- any work done by the SAA is pretty much wasted. |
|
|
|
Post by statman on Jul 25, 2019 19:28:29 GMT -5
I do not need a senior attorney to advise me what decision to make. I need senior attorneys to draft my decisions so that the decision is well written and well-reasoned.
This is a big waste of time, money and talent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 19:48:58 GMT -5
I do not need a senior attorney to advise me what decision to make. I need senior attorneys to draft my decisions so that the decision is well written and well-reasoned. This is a big waste of time, money and talent. I agree. Big waste of time and duplication of effort. They should continue writing the more complicated cases and prevent remands |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jul 26, 2019 8:21:08 GMT -5
Previously, when I finished instructions involving a unusual or complex issue, I would notify the HOD of same and recommend that writing be assigned to a SA. Didn't happen very often, but those requests had always been honored. Now I'm being told that can't be done. Recently a SA wrote a very good pre-hearing memo re: a non-dib issue that was rather involved; I held the hearing and issued instructions. How inefficient to not allow that SA to draft the decision.
Edit: my point is that assigning your most experienced staff to conduct what is essentially busy work would seem to be a poor allocation of resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jul 26, 2019 8:25:03 GMT -5
At least you know. I only accidentally discovered SA reviews in the private section for a couple of my cases. Just sounds like wasteful busy work.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 26, 2019 8:25:34 GMT -5
Previously, when I finished instructions involving a unusual or complex issue, I would notify the HOD of same and recommend that writing be assigned to a SA. Didn't happen very often, but those requests had always been honored. Now I'm being told that can't be done. Recently a SA wrote a very good pre-hearing memo re: a non-dib issue that was rather involved; I held the hearing and issued instructions. How inefficient to not allow that SA to draft the decision. OTOH. An AA is about to be thrilled. |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Jul 26, 2019 8:31:25 GMT -5
Two options, either the case has been in POST too long, or not.
If cases are staying in POST status too long, it does not seem appropriate to assign a review to an SAA. (It seems unlikely the SAAs are assigning the cases to themselves as that would open another can of worms entirely.)
If overdue status is an issue, SAAs are not management, cannot fix the issue of an overdue status, other than to point it out. But, in assigning it to an SAA, it would seem management would have already been aware of that issue, and could have addressed it in any appropriate manner with the person who is assigned the case in POST. Regardless, the case will still need to be moved to ALPO anyway.
After the review, the case will not be assigned to the SAA for writing. So, one additional review, without any time savings.
If they have not been in POST too long, then the evidence has not arrived, or the deadline for an unrepresented clmt. to respond to the proffer has not expired.
Again, an SAA review is not helpful.
I would love to understand the thinking behind this. From a cost benefit standpoint, I simply cannot fathom any value or time savings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peabody on Jul 26, 2019 8:57:38 GMT -5
Previously, when I finished instructions involving a unusual or complex issue, I would notify the HOD of same and recommend that writing be assigned to a SA. Didn't happen very often, but those requests had always been honored. Now I'm being told that can't be done. Recently a SA wrote a very good pre-hearing memo re: a non-dib issue that was rather involved; I held the hearing and issued instructions. How inefficient to not allow that SA to draft the decision. OTOH. An AA is about to be thrilled. An AA would only be thrilled if the SAA uploaded their work to e-view. No SAA in my office does that, so the AAs have the joy of duplicating that work, as the SAAs will tell the AAs they already shared their info with the ALJ (who then cannot find said work). Fun times. |
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Jul 26, 2019 9:04:42 GMT -5
Apparently senior attorney's will now start reviewing aged cases in POST? Strikes me as a little odd. I think that this may not be correct. I have heard that SAs are reviewing 1000 page cases BEFORE the hearings. They complete a worksheet with suggested findings. This makes sense. Reviewing cases in POST should be the job of the Group Supervisor to ensure that the case techs are following the development instructions from the Judge. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 26, 2019 9:04:48 GMT -5
OTOH. An AA is about to be thrilled. An AA would only be thrilled if the SAA uploaded their work to e-view. No SAA in my office does that, so the AAs have the joy of duplicating that work, as the SAAs will tell the AAs they already shared their info with the ALJ (who then cannot find said work). Fun times. [ Well that sucks. I have info in eview and would gladly send my word memo to any AA if they ask. I can’t speak for my peers though. I’m currently taking notes in hcaps for disability cases which easily transfer between offices. For paper cases inc non dib I have paper memo in alj file And I think we’ll be back to plenty of writing come oct 1 anyway so judges, we will be back. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 26, 2019 9:07:54 GMT -5
Apparently senior attorney's will now start reviewing aged cases in POST? Strikes me as a little odd. I think that this may not be correct. I have heard that SAs are reviewing 1000 page cases BEFORE the hearings. They complete a worksheet with suggested findings. This makes sense. Reviewing cases in POST should be the job of the Group Supervisor to ensure that the case techs are following the development instructions from the Judge. It is correct. We r reviewing aged cases in a variety of statuses, inc post. We started project with cases before hearings but there have been changes. It’s an evolving project with frequent redirection to put it mildly |
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jul 26, 2019 9:09:06 GMT -5
I will agree with you only when the agency realizes that page count does not equal "more complicated" Yeah, 2500 pages, 1000 of which are for 2 hospitalizations near the beginning of the alleged period of disability? Not great, but that is less complicated than 900 pages of medical in 44 exhibits including 11 conflicting opinions. So, once again, the work we do defies simple metrics. F section pages are a great screening tool - at a glance. The total page count for the docket is often a big indicator of how much effort it is to prepare for that docket. For assessing individual cases? Even 300 and 400 pages F sections aren't all created equal. A lot could be remote. Could be a Title II only with a remote DLI, and very little prior to DLI. Could be cumulative VA (or similar) records. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 26, 2019 10:37:14 GMT -5
At least you know. I only accidentally discovered SA reviews in the private section for a couple of my cases. Just sounds like wasteful busy work. I get the sentiment, but I'd rather the SAAs be given busy work of limited value than watch SSA get rid of the NTE hires due to a lack of work. I may only think that because my office's NTE hires are among our best writers. If this is simply a way to stay staffed as we await the next big wave of applications, I'm all for it. |
|
|
|
Post by generalsherman on Jul 26, 2019 10:39:57 GMT -5
Yes, I think the page count in the F section is a poor indicator of how “complicated” a case is. I got some recently that were 2,500 and 1,500 pages. Both gargantuan. But the 2,500 one was manageable because it was mostly duplications, and about 800 pages were just readings from a hospital stay, and completely irrelevant to our purposes. Meanwhile, the 1,500 pager took me days because the claimant was seeing every provider in town and getting medical opinions from them. I don’t see a less time-consuming way to dole out case assignments, but page count is not always the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 26, 2019 10:42:44 GMT -5
At least you know. I only accidentally discovered SA reviews in the private section for a couple of my cases. Just sounds like wasteful busy work. I get the sentiment, but I'd rather the SAAs be given busy work of limited value than watch SSA get rid of the NTE hires due to a lack of work. I may only think that because my office's NTE hires are among our best writers. If this is simply a way to stay staffed as we await the next big wave of applications, I'm all for it. My thoughts as well. And I and peers I’ve talked to are doing a good enough job on cases we handle that most of what we are doing is not busywork. It should help judges with key evidence for decisions and is invaluable for writing staff assuming writing staff sees our memos. Mine can be seen but apparently this is not case in all offices. |
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Jul 28, 2019 7:54:19 GMT -5
Previously, when I finished instructions involving a unusual or complex issue, I would notify the HOD of same and recommend that writing be assigned to a SA. ... In our office, 2 of the SAs are far and away the worst of of our writers. For any disposition - no matter how simple or challenging - I'd rather the drafting be assigned to ANY of our newer hires than either of those 2. But they've been here forever, they clearly don't care, and mgmt apparently has no interest and/or ability to do anything about it. I'm THRILLED to have them perform tasks such as callbacks and pre-hrg reviews I will never read. (Although I imagine the eventual drafting will be assigned to whomever performed the pre-hrg review...) |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Jul 28, 2019 8:01:39 GMT -5
In our office, 2 of the SAs are far and away the worst of of our writers. For any disposition - no matter how simple or challenging - I'd rather the drafting be assigned to ANY of our newer hires than either of those 2. But they've been here forever, they clearly don't care, and mgmt apparently has no interest and/or ability to do anything about it. I'm THRILLED to have them perform tasks such as callbacks and pre-hrg reviews I will never read. (Although I imagine the eventual drafting will be assigned to whomever performed the pre-hrg review...) Unfortunately, I have had similar experiences. The new writers? Marvelous! The SAA? Who quotes Wikipedia, and simply regurgitates the Exhibits, without analysis? not so much |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jul 28, 2019 10:09:04 GMT -5
For those of you who appreciate country music (and maybe especially for those who do not), I cannot recommend highly enough the podcast by Tyler Mahan Coe called "Cocaine and Rhinestones." It's extremely well-researched and gets into the weeds. Also, the first year of Mike Judge's show "Tales From the Tour Bus" on Cinemax is a lot of fun, if not as weedy (at least not in the same sense).
|
|
|
|
Post by statman on Jul 28, 2019 20:14:40 GMT -5
In my office some of the best attorney, who are excellent writers, not writing nbrevause they are SAs. It is a total waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by zbornee on Jul 28, 2019 20:56:36 GMT -5
oh yes. i agree.
|
|
