|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 31, 2020 10:33:23 GMT -5
various offices hired Case Techs in (I recall) 2015-16, with writers being hired in 2017-18. My point is not that staff was hired everywhere. They are obviously trying to make all work portable so it can be moved between cities. Thus, I think the raw numbers may be more important than local numbers. To support this idea, there are/have been ALJ deficiencies in various cities, but this has not necessitated hiring because the work is portable and applications have been down. Increase applications and who knows what happens—I don’t know that this portable model has seen such a large-scale test. If there is a number of cases that await ALJ action and the bottleneck is clearly not because of a staff shortage, I think the answer would be an ALJ hire. When is the other question. As I have said before, in person hearings are the driver here. While ALJs are holding phone hearings, cases are much more portable. A claimant who might otherwise demand an in-person hearing in Alexandria LA can’t demand that right now. So the number of actual ALJs in Alexandria is not currently important. Nationalization/portable work agenda has been around for years. I once thought it would be effective for SSA. However, CSU and COVID made me realize SSA isn’t competent enough to implement such a process to effectively. Pre-COVID, they had a patchwork plan that heavily relied on AI for shifting workloads to various office. However, it had several cracks in the process. I can’t recall all the issues, but one was similar to CSU and ALJ review for scheduling. Even before COVID, the DOUT assignments were trouble. I have heard more than once how offices are being asked to DOUT all/most of their UNWR only to receive DOUT the same day or next. Simply, there are too many offices, too many case-specific issues, and too many outside factors to effectively nationalize the workload. Unless they decide to reorganize all HOs/NHCs into 20-40 offices (with paid relo), they just need to stop meddling and trying to manage HOs workloads so much. They should focus on assisting offices that have a backlog and offices that need work. APT cannot be consistent nationally for 100s of reasons not within SSA’s control. Something of an aside, but it is a pet annoyance for me- one of my problems with how we send out cases to other offices (NHC or otherwise) is that when they get remanded, they never go back to the ALJ who issued the decision, because they come back to the original office. I had a particularly egregious example recently where the ALJ who should have gotten the remand had only made his/her determination within the past couple of months, and may have even had some memory of the case. But even when the decision is much more distant, isn't one of the points of remanding to the same ALJ is that ALJ gets to see what they (allegedly) did wrong, so that they don't repeat the error? |
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Jul 31, 2020 11:16:25 GMT -5
... Nationalization/portable work agenda has been around for years. I once thought it would be effective for SSA. However, CSU and COVID made me realize SSA isn’t competent enough to implement such a process to effectively. ... Recent months have made me almost fondly reminisce about when we only had the predictable incompetence of our own office's employees. Sure, you knew each and every case in a certain portion of the alphabet would be screwed up one way or another. Some staff consistently did a lousy workup, or never noticed you about new developments. Others simply refused to conduct and proffer post development, but compared to the current system, such long-tolerated incompetence seems almost quaint. Now, each and every case is an adventure. There are names attached to the cases that I've never seen before, and you are instructed not to attempt any contact with them. I consistently encounter weirdness not even imagined possible in the prior decade. So who's steering this ship? |
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Jul 31, 2020 12:23:30 GMT -5
... Nationalization/portable work agenda has been around for years. I once thought it would be effective for SSA. However, CSU and COVID made me realize SSA isn’t competent enough to implement such a process to effectively. ... Recent months have made me almost fondly reminisce about when we only had the predictable incompetence of our own office's employees. Sure, you knew each and every case in a certain portion of the alphabet would be screwed up one way or another. Some staff consistently did a lousy workup, or never noticed you about new developments. Others simply refused to conduct and proffer post development, but compared to the current system, such long-tolerated incompetence seems almost quaint. Now, each and every case is an adventure. There are names attached to the cases that I've never seen before, and you are instructed not to attempt any contact with them. I consistently encounter weirdness even imagined possible in the prior decade. So who's steering this ship? "predictable incompetence" is the most apt description I've ever heard.  |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 31, 2020 14:26:46 GMT -5
I believe that is what is referred to as a feature, not a bug.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Aug 1, 2020 22:17:24 GMT -5
Hallex does state that a remand should go back to prior ALJ unless ordered not to or some other extraordinary circumstance applies. I have cited to same and successfully sent them back to the prior ALJ. No need for me to deal with their error or laziness... I think the prior ALJ not being assigned to the office that covers where the claimant lives is one of the extraordinary circumstances. One thing that would be a significant help would be a rule that if you did not opt out of video for the initial hearing you can't for the remand. |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Aug 4, 2020 17:19:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Aug 5, 2020 13:12:22 GMT -5
The robots are taking over.  |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Aug 5, 2020 21:53:43 GMT -5
Hallex does state that a remand should go back to prior ALJ unless ordered not to or some other extraordinary circumstance applies. I have cited to same and successfully sent them back to the prior ALJ. No need for me to deal with their error or laziness... I think the prior ALJ not being assigned to the office that covers where the claimant lives is one of the extraordinary circumstances. One thing that would be a significant help would be a rule that if you did not opt out of video for the initial hearing you can't for the remand. I have seen many remands assigned to the prior ALJ who ends up transferring it my office, because claimant moved to my area. I have seen remans with the COA in the records for months, NOH sent to new address, and then the case gets postponed and transferred, because “best interest of claimant.” A few of them I can get sent back, especially when the case was scheduled and simply postponed to transfer it. I agree such a rule makes sense. Maybe one day it will happen. I asked about 75 day rule on supplemental hearings and amended hearings and explained how it did not make sense even before 75 day rule went into effect. It took two+ years until they realized it. Maybe one day they will fix the flaw with remands. |
|
|
|
Post by milagros on Aug 8, 2020 10:33:54 GMT -5
SSA is working on AI. Last month Commissioner Saul sent out an email on "IT Modernization Plan Update." www.ssa.gov/open/materials/IT-Modernization-Plan-2020-Update.pdfIn the "Disability Domain," one of the "Key Investments" is in something called IMAGEN, which will "Provide claimants with more accurate and timely decisions" (page 14). Stands for Intelligent Medical language Analysis Generation. |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Aug 8, 2020 11:14:23 GMT -5
Seems like we already have INSIGHT (IMAGEN) which for the most part is good, but still has glitches ....
But, I found the information on page 15 to be interesting (ok, hilarious as I've used voice-to-text on my phone with "less than accurate" results) .....
"Voice to Text" for hearings with the anticipated benefit of ......."Eliminates the need and associated costs for
manual monitoring and recording of a hearing."
Setting aside the time requirement to train the more sophisticated types of voice-to-text, such as Dragon for those who use it, as the claimants will not have the time to train such software to their unique voice, even if the Reps, VEs, MEs, and ALJs are required to take that time to do so).
It will more likely have the anticipated benefit of keeping the AC busy with claimants alleging "I never said THAT." Unless, every single word said is brought up on a screen for the ALJ (or some other person, "manually monitoring" the testimony) to verify what was said was what was actually being typed into the transcript.
Someday? Sure. Now? No.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 8, 2020 12:56:45 GMT -5
Seems like we already have INSIGHT (IMAGEN) which for the most part is good, but still has glitches .... But, I found the information on page 15 to be interesting (ok, hilarious as I've used voice-to-text on my phone with "less than accurate" results) ..... "Voice to Text" for hearings with the anticipated benefit of ......."Eliminates the need and associated costs for manual monitoring and recording of a hearing." Setting aside the time requirement to train the more sophisticated types of voice-to-text, such as Dragon for those who use it, as the claimants will not have the time to train such software to their unique voice, even if the Reps, VEs, MEs, and ALJs are required to take that time to do so). It will more likely have the anticipated benefit of keeping the AC busy with claimants alleging "I never said THAT." Unless, every single word said is brought up on a screen for the ALJ (or some other person, "manually monitoring" the testimony) to verify what was said was what was actually being typed into the transcript. Someday? Sure. Now? No. Don't underestimate the resolve of TPTB. Who will ensure accuracy of the text in the absence of a hearing reporter? The judge, of course. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Aug 8, 2020 16:26:09 GMT -5
Seems like we already have INSIGHT (IMAGEN) which for the most part is good, but still has glitches .... But, I found the information on page 15 to be interesting (ok, hilarious as I've used voice-to-text on my phone with "less than accurate" results) ..... "Voice to Text" for hearings with the anticipated benefit of ......."Eliminates the need and associated costs for manual monitoring and recording of a hearing." Setting aside the time requirement to train the more sophisticated types of voice-to-text, such as Dragon for those who use it, as the claimants will not have the time to train such software to their unique voice, even if the Reps, VEs, MEs, and ALJs are required to take that time to do so). It will more likely have the anticipated benefit of keeping the AC busy with claimants alleging "I never said THAT." Unless, every single word said is brought up on a screen for the ALJ (or some other person, "manually monitoring" the testimony) to verify what was said was what was actually being typed into the transcript. Someday? Sure. Now? No. sounds like a disaster waiting to happen  |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Aug 9, 2020 20:57:44 GMT -5
TPTB have been developing the duplicate program (I forget its new name) forever. Does anyone know how to use it or who in the chain of case development is supposed to? Any AI is likely well outside of my 7 years, at this rate. But the concept is interesting and I am signed up for the webinar. I’m OK with adjudicating more cases with helpful innovation.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Aug 9, 2020 21:35:19 GMT -5
TPTB have been developing the duplicate program (I forget its new name) forever. ... How about simply requiring that reps actually review the file and inform the Agency of any duplicate files? Like - actually require that they meaningfully and responsibly participate in the efficient administration of the program? Naw - that's CRAZY talk! |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Aug 11, 2020 12:22:52 GMT -5
TPTB have been developing the duplicate program (I forget its new name) forever. ... How about simply requiring that reps actually review the file and inform the Agency of any duplicate files? Like - actually require that they meaningfully and responsibly participate in the efficient administration of the program? Naw - that's CRAZY talk! In fairness, while what far too many reps do (and don't do) is just ridiculous, for the good ones asking them to identify all duplicates docs isn't practical, they don't make enough $$ per case to expend that much time. Particularly given the tendency of some medical providers to just copy over the notes from one date to the next. I've seen cases where the patient lost his job last week- every month for the past three years! |
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Aug 11, 2020 13:48:32 GMT -5
In fairness, while what far too many reps do (and don't do) is just ridiculous, for the good ones asking them to identify all duplicates docs isn't practical, they don't make enough $$ per case to expend that much time. Particularly given the tendency of some medical providers to just copy over the notes from one date to the next. I've seen cases where the patient lost his job last week- every month for the past three years! I disagree. When the rep's office is submitting evidence, I do not think it unreasonable for them to be aware of what they are submitting, as well as what was previously submitted, and to make at least SOME effort to identify significant duplicates. I was not suggesting that reps identify record "artifacts" such as you describe, where the clmt perpetually quit his job last week. Nor do I imagine this software is intended to identify such redundancies within specific reports. But when the record contains (for example) 100+ pages from Clinic X, describing treatment from 1/18-12/19, I think it unprofessional for a rep to submit 102 pp from the same clinic covering essentially the same period - and expect the ALJ to review it to determine which 2 pages are new. Further, when a particular exhibit is horribly disorganized, I do not think it unreasonable to require that the Rep's office provide SOME clarity or explanation. Reps certainly have the option of hiring clerical staff to do this sort of function (many do). If they feel SS disability law does not pay enough, they can lobby to have the maximum fees raised, or to pursue more remunerative professions. What I do NOT think appropriate is to treat ALJs as "pigs hunting for truffles..." My personal experience is that the greatest problem is caused by a limited number of "frequent filer" reps, who have done work this for a long time, and simply make no effort to "further[] the efficient, fair and orderly conduct of the administrative decision-making process". I've said it before and will say it again, but it is very disheartening that OGC is unwilling to constrain the worst actors. But you or anyone else may disagree with any aspect of my opinion. The Agency obviously does not share my views, and that is all that matters. |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Aug 11, 2020 22:52:19 GMT -5
In the current world of anyone can hear a case from anywhere, the claimant moving and/or a hearing office taking over a service area generally are not valid reasons to assign a remand to a new ALJ without an AC order to do so. I suppose I cannot bat a thousand forever, but my requests that the prior ALJ deal with their own mess has won out. It appears that NHC decisions are treated differently. www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-02/I-2-1-55.html6. Non-Court AC Remand Flag and assign the case immediately. AC remands are assigned to the same ALJ who issued the decision or dismissal unless: the case was previously assigned to that ALJ on a prior remand from the AC and the ALJ's decision or dismissal after remand is the subject of the new AC remand; or the AC directs that the case be assigned to a different ALJ. NOTE: AC remands for decisions or dismissals issued by National Hearing Center (NHC) ALJs are sent to the HO servicing the claimant's current address. If the NHC is still providing assistance to the HO and the NHC ALJ is currently on duty in the same NHC, the case may be assigned to the NHC ALJ unless the claimant has filed a timely objection to appearing at the hearing by VTC. See HALLEX I-2-0-21. Awesome post! As much as I know and read Hallex, I forgot about this. I always re-read Hallex even when I know the policy. I get so many questions about remands, I might just start referring to this info on some of them. You might have started a remand revolt. |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Aug 11, 2020 22:59:14 GMT -5
SSA is working on AI. Last month Commissioner Saul sent out an email on "IT Modernization Plan Update." www.ssa.gov/open/materials/IT-Modernization-Plan-2020-Update.pdfIn the "Disability Domain," one of the "Key Investments" is in something called IMAGEN, which will "Provide claimants with more accurate and timely decisions" (page 14). Stands for Intelligent Medical language Analysis Generation. They have been working on AI since pre-2010. Insight alone is nothing but an AI tool. One of the purposes of Insight is to gather info about combinations of impairments resulting in favorable decisions. IMAGEN and CSU are pre-2010 ideas. I heard long ago about how the agency wants AI that can read mer and basically decide cases at dds level. It is what made HITMER happen. The first step was getting MER in a particular format that can be read by AI. Next step is IMAGEN. Funny how Saul tries to take credit for something that has been in the works for 10+ years. |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Aug 11, 2020 23:05:52 GMT -5
Seems like we already have INSIGHT (IMAGEN) which for the most part is good, but still has glitches .... But, I found the information on page 15 to be interesting (ok, hilarious as I've used voice-to-text on my phone with "less than accurate" results) ..... "Voice to Text" for hearings with the anticipated benefit of ......."Eliminates the need and associated costs for manual monitoring and recording of a hearing." Setting aside the time requirement to train the more sophisticated types of voice-to-text, such as Dragon for those who use it, as the claimants will not have the time to train such software to their unique voice, even if the Reps, VEs, MEs, and ALJs are required to take that time to do so). It will more likely have the anticipated benefit of keeping the AC busy with claimants alleging "I never said THAT." Unless, every single word said is brought up on a screen for the ALJ (or some other person, "manually monitoring" the testimony) to verify what was said was what was actually being typed into the transcript. Someday? Sure. Now? No. sounds like a disaster waiting to happen This was also talked about years ago. Not going to happen any time soon. They realized it can’t work. However! They have since implemented a new hearing room design model. I don’t know for a fact, but I think part of the redesign is in hopes that voice-to-text will work in the new redesign. Honestly, they could just pay for transcription services for what they pay VHRs + lost audible remands. One of the many problems when people up top haven’t been in a courtroom. |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Aug 11, 2020 23:19:03 GMT -5
TPTB have been developing the duplicate program (I forget its new name) forever. ... How about simply requiring that reps actually review the file and inform the Agency of any duplicate files? Like - actually require that they meaningfully and responsibly participate in the efficient administration of the program? Naw - that's CRAZY talk! Duplicate program is suppose to be ran before the hearing if I am not mistaken. It isn’t happen, at least in my office, because 1) hcsr/s are busy getting file ready and performing vhr duties, and 2) it is time-consuming, they must compare pages to make sure they are dups. I could be wrong on 2 since I have paid much attention recently to the program since it is inefficient. (I am a bit bias on it since a friend of mine owns a company a nationally recognized company that has been doing this since the 1990s. He has plenty of gov’t and Fortune 500 companies as clients. Why can’t SSA simply buy his software or a competitors is beyond me). Also, I hate when reps want to submit records we can get thru HITMER. Hitmer is much easier to read. I sometimes order all rep submitted records thru hitmer just to make it easier for judge and dw. One easy to read exhibit vs X exhibits submitted by the rep. I don’t know if it actually helps though. Reps are also in a pickle. They may order MER for a certain period and rec dept sends them everything. Plus, new rep rules don’t help. No one really has time to go thru it all. This is why I prefer hitmer when possible. Order everything in one exhibit, maybe a few if big file, and ignore the dup exhibits. |
|
