|
|
Post by prescient on Oct 3, 2020 6:41:52 GMT -5
Should be another revised CJB memo soon. Likely pausing abandonments again
|
|
|
|
Post by justasecuritymonitor on Oct 12, 2020 9:23:33 GMT -5
This thread, in a nutshell, is complaining that the requirements of legal sufficiency and policy compliance are unacceptable intrusions on judicial independence. It's not as if QR is substituting judgment as to whether an explanation for FTA should have been found to be good cause - the questions they are answering are along the lines of "was there proper notice of the hearing" and "was there a notice to show cause" and "were efforts made to confirm that the claimant's contact information is correct." The errors QR was seeing in dismissals the last month were ATROCIOUS (both in frequency and degree) - hearing notices going to the wrong address, giving well under 75 days' notice of hearing, calling the wrong number for the hearing, NTSCs not being issued, hearings being rescheduled and then cancelled without giving the claimant a chance to appear, etc. None of these had anything to do with the ALJ's judgment - except, perhaps, the decision to issue a dismissal despite these deficiencies, but judicial independence doesn't mean independence from the constraints of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 12, 2020 10:21:58 GMT -5
This thread, in a nutshell, is complaining that the requirements of legal sufficiency and policy compliance are unacceptable intrusions on judicial independence. It's not as if QR is substituting judgment as to whether an explanation for FTA should have been found to be good cause - the questions they are answering are along the lines of "was there proper notice of the hearing" and "was there a notice to show cause" and "were efforts made to confirm that the claimant's contact information is correct." The errors QR was seeing in dismissals the last month were ATROCIOUS (both in frequency and degree) - hearing notices going to the wrong address, giving well under 75 days' notice of hearing, calling the wrong number for the hearing, NTSCs not being issued, hearings being rescheduled and then cancelled without giving the claimant a chance to appear, etc. None of these had anything to do with the ALJ's judgment - except, perhaps, the decision to issue a dismissal despite these deficiencies, but judicial independence doesn't mean independence from the constraints of the law. What a bunch of bureaucratic speak. Typical solution looking for an agency wide problem. Instead of dealing with rouge and underperforming ALJs whose productivity numbers are probably breaking records and who are likely being lauded for their high productivity, why not institute another agency wide bureaucratic solution to clog up the system more than it already is. I assure you the ALJs I work with do not dismiss cases unless the requirements are met. If you find atrocious dismissal cases then management should reprimand the ALJs engaging in shortcuts |
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Oct 12, 2020 11:20:34 GMT -5
Instead of dealing with rouge and underperforming ALJs whose productivity numbers are probably breaking records and who are likely being lauded for their high productivity . . . . You can't makeup this stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by justasecuritymonitor on Oct 12, 2020 12:07:43 GMT -5
This thread, in a nutshell, is complaining that the requirements of legal sufficiency and policy compliance are unacceptable intrusions on judicial independence. It's not as if QR is substituting judgment as to whether an explanation for FTA should have been found to be good cause - the questions they are answering are along the lines of "was there proper notice of the hearing" and "was there a notice to show cause" and "were efforts made to confirm that the claimant's contact information is correct." The errors QR was seeing in dismissals the last month were ATROCIOUS (both in frequency and degree) - hearing notices going to the wrong address, giving well under 75 days' notice of hearing, calling the wrong number for the hearing, NTSCs not being issued, hearings being rescheduled and then cancelled without giving the claimant a chance to appear, etc. None of these had anything to do with the ALJ's judgment - except, perhaps, the decision to issue a dismissal despite these deficiencies, but judicial independence doesn't mean independence from the constraints of the law. What a bunch of bureaucratic speak. Typical solution looking for an agency wide problem. Instead of dealing with rouge and underperforming ALJs whose productivity numbers are probably breaking records and who are likely being lauded for their high productivity, why not institute another agency wide bureaucratic solution to clog up the system more than it already is. I assure you the ALJs I work with do not dismiss cases unless the requirements are met. If you find atrocious dismissal cases then management should reprimand the ALJs engaging in shortcuts It's hard to say it was a "solution looking for an agency-wide problem" when after just a month of 100% FTA/untimely filing dismissal reviews, the QR error data were apparently so alarming as to warrant a complete agency-wide moratorium on issuing those kinds of dismissals. |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Oct 12, 2020 12:14:04 GMT -5
Since the NTSC allowed a 30 day window for response, unless that time frame was ignored, it does not seem likely that many DISMs were issued.
If the 30 day time frame was ignored, that appears to be a/an (communication) issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Oct 12, 2020 13:14:22 GMT -5
If TPTB converted those QR FTEs into HO FTEs we might have more support staff who could to ensure 75 day notice was given and contact procedures were followed.
A bevy of long memos have been e-mailed, but not a simple checklist attached to any of them. I know, I know - HALLEX and POMS are the long-winded versions of checklists. But a bulleted checklist or very basic flowchart could go a long way in preventing unripe dismissals from getting to MAIL.
|
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Oct 12, 2020 13:47:40 GMT -5
The bottom line there are very very few instances in which a FTA dismissal is appropriate and legally sufficient right now. Don't forget, we have not sent out any hearing reminder notices since we came home. So then, unless your office miraculously got a hold of an unrepped claimant on the phone and directly spoke to them and advised them of their hearing and the claimant then did not pick up the phone at the designated time, no file contains the 2 required attempts to advise the claimant of their hearing so that it can be dismissed. sending a NTSC after the fact does not cure the failure to make 2 contacts beforehand. Personally, I have not had a single case since we came home that I could lawfully dismiss for FTA because fo this. I believe the AC is reviewing all FTA dismissals on their own motion. So, you can either have QA review tell before hand it cannot be legally dismissed or you can have AC tell you after you've signed it, either way you are wasting a lot of people's time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Oct 12, 2020 13:55:31 GMT -5
So then, unless your office miraculously got a hold of an unrepped claimant on the phone and directly spoke to them and advised them of their hearing and the claimant then did not pick up the phone at the designated time Yep, exactly this in three cases I have right now. |
|
|
|
Post by justasecuritymonitor on Oct 12, 2020 14:20:20 GMT -5
FTR, the regulation on reminder contact was modified earlier this year and only requires an attempt at contact, not necessarily successful contact. The HALLEX/POMS have not yet been updated but supposedly are in the process. The HALLEX keeps being cited for the point that successful contact must be made, but when the regulation and subregulatory policy conflict (as they do in this case), the regulation trumps.
|
|
