|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Feb 20, 2021 14:40:25 GMT -5
Aforementioned hypothetical ALJ works in a Region where CSU schedules hearings. This ALJ schedules around 480 - 490 per year. Due to COVID and subsequent issues, this hypothetical docket has been melting away, so to speak, resulting in 3-5 hearings per hearing day.
At least 3-5 times a week, an email request will arrive from the Regional Office asking if an ALJ will volunteer to pick up additional cases.
Issue: Whether this hypothetical individual is a 'bad' ALJ if they never volunteer to pick up additional cases?
DISCUSS
|
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on Feb 20, 2021 18:05:28 GMT -5
Unless the ALJ has actually run out of any things to do, I don't think s/he is a bad ALJ for not volunteering. In any other system I've ever seen, the judge who can no longer proceed with his/her docket on a particular day either adds a new day of dockets or adds cases to an already existing docket. The judge who can no longer cover the docket has probably already reviewed the cases. This whole emergency coverage thing is about agency PR rather than logical administration of justice, and I don't think anyone is bad for not holding hearings without sufficient file review just to help the agency's branding. It's also a horrible optic when the case transfers from a historically high paying judge to a historically low paying judge, or vice versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 20, 2021 18:07:22 GMT -5
This thread will tread some dangerous ground.
IMHO, the answer is- eventually, yes. Not necessarily the first month or two or three, but after awhile, if you have nothing to do you should step up and not force claimants to have to wait another three months because a fellow ALJ needed to cancel his or her hearings.
Having said that, I could argue that until management actually acknowledges that they are going to be scheduling us for less than 30 cases a month, that an ALJ is justified to continue to anticipate that they will be doing the 50 cases a month that they scheduled for in their telework request, and proceed accordingly.
(I personally frequently volunteer when it is cases in my own office that require coverage, but my one experience volunteering for cases for a different office was pretty negative.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 20, 2021 19:01:59 GMT -5
Unless the ALJ has actually run out of any things to do, I don't think s/he is a bad ALJ for not volunteering. In any other system I've ever seen, the judge who can no longer proceed with his/her docket on a particular day either adds a new day of dockets or adds cases to an already existing docket. The judge who can no longer cover the docket has probably already reviewed the cases. This whole emergency coverage thing is about agency PR rather than logical administration of justice, and I don't think anyone is bad for not holding hearings without sufficient file review just to help the agency's branding. It's also a horrible optic when the case transfers from a historically high paying judge to a historically low paying judge, or vice versa. If I don't have enough cases to fill my docket, I certainly will volunteer to take additional cases as long as I have sufficient time to review the file before the hearing. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Feb 20, 2021 20:12:54 GMT -5
Unless the ALJ has actually run out of any things to do, I don't think s/he is a bad ALJ for not volunteering. In any other system I've ever seen, the judge who can no longer proceed with his/her docket on a particular day either adds a new day of dockets or adds cases to an already existing docket. The judge who can no longer cover the docket has probably already reviewed the cases. This whole emergency coverage thing is about agency PR rather than logical administration of justice, and I don't think anyone is bad for not holding hearings without sufficient file review just to help the agency's branding. It's also a horrible optic when the case transfers from a historically high paying judge to a historically low paying judge, or vice versa. If I don't have enough cases to fill my docket, I certainly will volunteer to take additional cases as long as I have sufficient time to review the file before the hearing. Pixie I would gladly take additional dockets with time to prepare like Pixie states. Usually dockets for the following days or weeks. I have jumped on dockets on the same day of hearing for fellow ALJs in same office because I might need that coverage one day myself. we do have one ALJ that seems to be an emergency recidivist, you name it, sick, power outage, internet outage, computer problems and a host of other reasons. I no longer jump at covering for that fellow ALJ. I can count on one hand the number of times that I have not been able to cover my dockets and other ALJs have covered them. I make sure I sent each one of them a thank you email and offered to help them anytime they need coverage If I do not have hearings that conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Feb 21, 2021 0:08:24 GMT -5
It is a real pain, especially when it comes in from another office. I always consider it, though, when requests come in. My thoughts are with the claimants waiting for determinations, not the production numbers. It is interesting to see all the variations in prep. Some judges seem to have judge-clerk relationships with AAs who do lengthy memos in advance on each case. Most other-office judges seem to have no prep ever; or maybe it's scribbled on a napkin and hidden in a desk drawer because there's no evidence in any HACPS file!
Anyway, don't think of the numbers. Just pitch in if you can. Someday, you might need that help.
|
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on Feb 21, 2021 12:53:10 GMT -5
I’ve got to hand it to management on selling the whole help another judge in need obligation. If I get sick overnight and can’t do my cases, I want to be able to reschedule them in a week or two (something particularly easy to do when we’re at home, and what happens in any other justice system). The last thing I want is to have spent time and energy preparing cases and then have them taken away from me. I just don’t see how a fellow judge is helping me by taking these cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Feb 21, 2021 13:33:49 GMT -5
I have rescheduled a day of hearings a week later when I had to be out of town in an emergency. When a judge was sick last week at the last minute, several others picked up the cases on an hour's notice. If you don't want to give them up, you don't have to. That's different from being asked a few weeks in advance to pick up cases in another office.
Either way, it's the claimants who suffer if it goes back in the CSU hopper.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 21, 2021 18:58:49 GMT -5
I have rescheduled a day of hearings a week later when I had to be out of town in an emergency. When a judge was sick last week at the last minute, several others picked up the cases on an hour's notice. If you don't want to give them up, you don't have to. That's different from being asked a few weeks in advance to pick up cases in another office. Either way, it's the claimants who suffer if it goes back in the CSU hopper. I believe it is no longer true that you don't have to give up the cases. At this point I believe management can reassign cases without permission of the assigned judge. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 21, 2021 19:01:27 GMT -5
I’ve got to hand it to management on selling the whole help another judge in need obligation. If I get sick overnight and can’t do my cases, I want to be able to reschedule them in a week or two (something particularly easy to do when we’re at home, and what happens in any other justice system). The last thing I want is to have spent time and energy preparing cases and then have them taken away from me. I just don’t see how a fellow judge is helping me by taking these cases. I don't view it as I am doing a favor for another ALJ when I cover their cases, or that they are doing a favor for me when they cover mine. It's not practical to just move the cases back a week, odds are some of the reps won't be available. |
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit Bat Reindeer on Feb 21, 2021 19:33:36 GMT -5
I'll consider picking up another ALJ's cases within my office because I like the people I work with and we tend to step up for the greater good of our workplace. Otherwise, I delete those emails as soon as they come in. I schedule 50 every single month, I'm prepared for the hearings, and I move the cases along well within the recommended time frames. I simply don't have time to take anything else on at this point, and management isn't going to suddenly say, "thanks, kind and thoughtful ALJ! Schedule 7 less cases in a future month!"
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Feb 21, 2021 20:12:59 GMT -5
I'll consider picking up another ALJ's cases within my office because I like the people I work with and we tend to step up for the greater good of our workplace. Otherwise, I delete those emails as soon as they come in. I schedule 50 every single month, I'm prepared for the hearings, and I move the cases along well within the recommended time frames. I simply don't have time to take anything else on at this point, and management isn't going to suddenly say, "thanks, kind and thoughtful ALJ! Schedule 7 less cases in a future month!" I am similar in my thinking here. I do, however, take cases when I have some capacity. Not as altruistic as some here, I just do it because I like being busy. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 21, 2021 21:17:37 GMT -5
I don’t take extra hearings and haven’t for a while, and I’d never take a docket a day before or day of. To pixie’s point earlier, I’d think the claimants would rather have their ALJ be sufficiently prepared 45-90 days later than have one with little familiarity with the file. I could be entirely wrong, of course.
I’d think these extra dockets would be great opportunities for management judges to do something besides running reports and sitting on conference calls all day.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Feb 22, 2021 11:07:02 GMT -5
I routinely volunteer to pick up hearings for other judges when we receive the emails from TPTB. I guess my feeling is that we are better serving the claimant by holding the hearing instead of kicking it down the road for at least 75 days. Yes, that does presuppose sufficient time, at least 24 hours, to prep those cases.
In our office, it would be virtually unheard of to reschedule for a week or two later - logistically too difficult given the small number of schedulers available to coordinate with reps, find an available VE, and reach unrepped claimants in time - not to mention updating call orders and obtaining notice waivers.
The reality is that more than half of the time when I have volunteered to cover a hearing day, I receive a response back from Region that says thanks for the offer, but Judge Altruista from the Springfield office has beaten me to it. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Feb 22, 2021 18:04:14 GMT -5
The “volunteer” dockets are taken in literally seconds sometimes not even by an ALJ but by a HOD wanting cases for their office. Even those ALJs wanting extra dockets can’t get them. It’s lean times until the receipts go up.
Personally, I look at taking volunteer dockets as trying to make my individual goal rather than a “favor” to management due to the dearth of cases that my office schedules for me. I have no problem with your hypothetical “unmotivated” ALJ.
Lastly, look for more micromanagement in the future as management ALJs do less and less cases and focus on running reports and sending emails about out of status cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Feb 22, 2021 22:22:59 GMT -5
It all depends.
Firstly, your hypothetical ALJ is scheduling around, but slightly less than, 500 cases per year. Our Chief Judge, without a study, without input from other "stakeholders," and with zero pretense at justification, dictates that 500 dispositions per year is reasonably achievable. When our Chief Judge, and his predecessors, without shame, pulls from his nether regions such a mandate and terms it reasonable and achievable--then he should prove it. Put up or shut up. Simply calling something "reasonable" or "achievable" does not make it so, and it insults the sentient ALJ Corps to refuse to back up the mandates with facts and figures. Does this mean that our Chief Judge is a "bad" Chief Judge?
Too, Our Leader mandates that ALJs schedule 50 hearings per month, and that such number of hearings is "reasonably attainable." Again, this was without a study, without input, and with zero pretense at explanation or justification. Failure to meet this dictate--which has never been temporarily relaxed on account of the pandemic or the shrinking backlog, can result in reproach, discipline, and/or (previously, anyway), the prohibition of telework. Does this mean that our Chief Judge is a "bad" Chief Judge?
When our Chief Judge and the other Powers That Be sign affidavits which are professionally insulting to the ALJ Corps--without nuance, and when seemingly multiple Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges are despised and distrusted by sober and thoughtful subordinate ALJs, does this mean that TPTB are "bad"?
When ALJs have to submit their calendars five months in advance, and then may be jerked around or even denied leave for something truly important that crops up by surprise (full disclosure--it happened to me), is that "bad"? What about transfer lists that aren't worked? I have a colleague (an AA) who requested a temporary hardship transfer to help a sick family member recovering from major surgery--her request wasn't even acted upon.
In at least one entire Region, earlier in the pandemic, teleworking employees were told they had to purchase their own office supplies which they needed to do their day-to-day Agency work--e.g., paper, pencils, pens, etc. IMHO--this is an appalling and illegal policy. I still do not know if it was nation-wide or just in that one Region. Soak the GS-7s and spare the Treasury!
When a minority of claimants outright lie to your face during hearings, and when at least one-third of the lawyer and non-lawyer representatives are incompetent and lazy (at least in my experience; YMMV), does this mean they're "bad"? What about all the claimants who ignore repeated calls from the hearing office, and who fail to return any paperwork, and who sometimes even fail to let us know they've moved, but who gobsmack us by nonetheless showing up at their hearing and complain we haven't updated their file since 2003?
When a Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge and the HOCALJ micromanage and interfere with an ALJ's reasonable management of his or her work--and are, in general, unpleasant people, are they "bad"? When our Agency, in the early days of the pandemic, prioritized dispositions over the lives of its employees, is that "bad"?
Sometimes, there is poor clerical support in an office, poor IT support, poor group supes and other Management folks who do not enforce reasonable, professional expectations, and poor writers. Who can understand a large percentage of the time why our friends at the Appeals Council do what they do?
So, perhaps your hypothetical ALJ is actually doing his or her level best to get their assigned work done without taking on other work. We do not know their particular circumstances. ALJs--who, admittedly, are well-compensated and have wonderful job security and benefits, work in a challenging environment. I expect that most do their utmost every day to impartially and professionally serve the public--in spite of the challenging environment. If, on the other hand, your hypothetical ALJ is just skiiving off, then, yes, he or she is a "bad" ALJ.
Respectfully, Hamster
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 23, 2021 9:37:36 GMT -5
It is a real pain, especially when it comes in from another office. I always consider it, though, when requests come in. My thoughts are with the claimants waiting for determinations, not the production numbers. It is interesting to see all the variations in prep. Some judges seem to have judge-clerk relationships with AAs who do lengthy memos in advance on each case. Most other-office judges seem to have no prep ever; or maybe it's scribbled on a napkin and hidden in a desk drawer because there's no evidence in any HACPS file! Anyway, don't think of the numbers. Just pitch in if you can. Someday, you might need that help. You’re right about the napkin memos. If I hear u might get the file I make sure my handwriting is worse than normal 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 23, 2021 9:43:19 GMT -5
I'll consider picking up another ALJ's cases within my office because I like the people I work with and we tend to step up for the greater good of our workplace. Otherwise, I delete those emails as soon as they come in. I schedule 50 every single month, I'm prepared for the hearings, and I move the cases along well within the recommended time frames. I simply don't have time to take anything else on at this point, and management isn't going to suddenly say, "thanks, kind and thoughtful ALJ! Schedule 7 less cases in a future month!" Sadly true from what I hear |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Mar 1, 2021 22:00:40 GMT -5
Aforementioned hypothetical ALJ works in a Region where CSU schedules hearings. This ALJ schedules around 480 - 490 per year. Due to COVID and subsequent issues, this hypothetical docket has been melting away, so to speak, resulting in 3-5 hearings per hearing day.
At least 3-5 times a week, an email request will arrive from the Regional Office asking if an ALJ will volunteer to pick up additional cases.
Issue: Whether this hypothetical individual is a 'bad' ALJ if they never volunteer to pick up additional cases?
DISCUSS
Based on hypothetical, ALJ must not have been teleworking prior to Covid as scheduling less than 50 per month would put him/her on the naughty list. Unlikely anyone is keeping track of who volunteers and who doesn’t. If the email comes from the region, the HO ALJs didn’t volunteer or couldn’t do it. Most of the time, the same ALJs volunteer and as others have mentioned, multiple ALJs can volunteer but only one/two are selected. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 2, 2021 7:57:37 GMT -5
I don't necessarily believe that there would be consequences for those that don't volunteer.
However, the end of year stats would be revealing even if no one was writing down who did and didn't volunteer.
My original answer wasn't based on the issue of whether failing to ever volunteer would negatively impact the ALJ.
My point was that, if you get to a point where you just don't have anything to do, you really should step up.
Not because there will be consequences if you don't, and Lord knows not because you will get any sort of credit with management for doing so.
Just because it is the right thing to do.
|
|
