|
|
Post by superdude on Dec 18, 2020 14:09:52 GMT -5
Does anyone know how or when the Powers That Be will start using the new metric of AC affirmation rate of ALJ decisions?
Have any ALJ's been counseled regarding their AC affirmation rate?
This new metric is clearly posted on the front page of the OHO website - thus there must be a reason for them tracking it.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Dec 18, 2020 22:39:33 GMT -5
No. I do not know. Never heard of it. And I don’t care about the new metric.
I think the Appeals Council remands cases with some frequency for erroneous, picayune, laughable, or absurd reasons. My particular track record is, I would like to think, awfully good. If an ALJ is picking up a lot of legitimate remands, however, then he or she needs to refine and correct their practices. I detest the AC, but they might ferret out an ALJ who has to do a better job. The ALJ could only benefit from such a counseling, and the public deserves to see an improvement. Let’s face it—there have been some tragically incompetent ALJs. I know that first-hand. As public servants, we must be honest, civil, compassionate, and capable. A person can be a good person, but still not be cut out for this job.
Respectfully, Hamster
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Dec 18, 2020 23:40:48 GMT -5
Does anyone know how or when the Powers That Be will start using the new metric of AC affirmation rate of ALJ decisions? Nothing new here, this metric has been used for at least a decade if not more. Special attention was paid to it after that debacle at Huntington, WV. Yes. The really bad ones. That's because OHO can't brag about quantity right now due to the impact of COVID... so it's spotlighting "quality" instead. Bottom line, nothing to really worry about. Back to the grind.  |
|
|
|
Post by statman on Dec 19, 2020 19:08:48 GMT -5
The quality of AC decisions leaves much to be desired. I recently was remanded because I asked a medical expert for his opinion as to whether the claimant could sedentary work. I have asked this type of questionliterally thousands of times and it has passed muster. Not this time. The AC has no effective oversight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 19, 2020 23:29:01 GMT -5
The quality of AC decisions leaves much to be desired. I recently was remanded because I asked a medical expert for his opinion as to whether the claimant could sedentary work. I have asked this type of questionliterally thousands of times and it has passed muster. Not this time. The AC has no effective oversight. Perhaps you should have asked the ME about the specific limitations of sedentary work * and not the general term, "Sedentary Work." I have learned to parse it out and not use the broad language. I no longer get remands unless I deserve them—maybe one a year? You have to remember that the A/C lawyers are anally constituted. They have no experience in the real world. Their noses and eyes are stuck in the rules, regulations, policy and memos from above. Also the ones from above have no experience in the real world either, and may not even be attorneys. If attorneys, they probably have not even tried one jury trial to verdict. And these are the ones running our adjudication section? Pixie ______ * Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. I wouldn't use this as the RFC for sedentary work, but it would follow this language. |
|
|
|
Post by statman on Dec 22, 2020 12:29:41 GMT -5
I usually do explicitly state the definition to make sure we are all on the same page. However the AC remand said I could not have the ME “decide” the RFC, which I certainly did not do. The AC then said I relied on the ME decision which I did, along with the rest of the evidence. The AC decision was just plain wrong.
|
|
