|
|
Post by nylawyer on Sept 24, 2020 16:21:24 GMT -5
I'd be super conservative about dismissing in that situation.
See what I did there?
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Sept 24, 2020 16:30:36 GMT -5
That was my first thoughts too. ALJ didn’t have to hold hearings, but claimants had to attend or else they would be issued a NTSC. Granted, it depends if the claimants were located in the area. Anyways, kudos to all the ALJs who volunteered. I assume we’d be super liberal on granting continuances in this situation OMG! What if it’s an AGED case! Bite your tongue. Please consider OHO metrics. Remember Starfleet’s OHO’s Prime Directive: Our Metrics Trump Our Lip Service About “due process” and “compassion.” Gee, don’t I sound cynical? Respectfully, H |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Sept 24, 2020 20:49:15 GMT -5
Yes, you do. Clearly, you must have worked for the federal government some time in the past.
/sarcasm button is pressed
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Sept 25, 2020 7:21:21 GMT -5
I'd be super conservative about dismissing in that situation. See what I did there? Back to this issue, saw that some dismissals to be cleared by QA before going out. At first blush, I don’t see how the approval of a QA attorney can stop an ALJ from dismissing a case without violating judicial independence and the APA. Not a hill I would choose to die on but slippery slope...what if QA stops an ALJ from issuing what they think is a non policy compliant decision? |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Sept 25, 2020 9:36:45 GMT -5
I'd be super conservative about dismissing in that situation. See what I did there? Back to this issue, saw that some dismissals to be cleared by QA before going out. At first blush, I don’t see how the approval of a QA attorney can stop an ALJ from dismissing a case without violating judicial independence and the APA. Not a hill I would choose to die on but slippery slope...what if QA stops an ALJ from issuing what they think is a non policy compliant decision? I guess it would come down to what exactly QA pointed at as the problem. If there was a procedural defect in the dismissal, then frankly the ALJ should just accept it back. The problem will arise when the claimany returns a NTSC with what the ALJ didn't deem to be an adequate excuse, because reasonable people can disagree about that and the ALJ is supposed to have final say. Have to say, in the incredibly small number of dismissal remands I have seen, the remand seemed to be correct (even if the flaw was either not the ALJs fault, or at most was but a small contribution to the error (I'm thinking of one where it got sent back because the hearing notice was sent a day too late). |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Sept 26, 2020 20:09:19 GMT -5
Solution to the dismissal mess, is for the AC to stop nit-picking and remanding just because they can, and have the claimants re-file and ask for the prior to be reopened. With the lack of new cases coming in, it would be a lot faster.
|
|
