|
|
Post by Rabbit Bat Reindeer on Apr 30, 2021 12:41:26 GMT -5
Long time passing. This week I asked for 18 hearings. I got 3. Yikes!? We were warned by TPTB that there would be a reduction, but wow.. I am very used to being stretched to the limit ..have dealt with it, not always well. I’m curious how the other judges and attorneys are dealing with this dry spell. Will it last? RIF in our future? I had asked for 20 for the week and was scheduled for ZERO. Our HO has been handling cases from our area plus at least six other HOs, and I’m averaging about 5 hearings per WEEK. This is insane. I mean, I don't want zero or anything but I still have 50+ scheduled for May and at least six for every hearing day (twice per week) from now until the end of July. (Could do a much better job on them if I had more time!) |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on May 1, 2021 15:41:36 GMT -5
So because I’m actually detailed to that office and counted as one of their own, it is a random assignment through CSU. I do know that when offices transfer cases out to other offices, they have been known to send an extraordinary number of very large files. Unfortunately that is standard practice. I try to keep it to a minimum in my office, but it sometimes gets by me. That practice makes it less likely that someone will volunteer to help out. Pixie To be fair, (bow to the Letterkenny fans), after having worked in several offices, another possible explanation is that some offices simply have larger files. They are sending out the "standard" size files. This is another reason why the "goal" of 500 cases is not a good estimate of actual productivity across all offices. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 1, 2021 20:15:44 GMT -5
Unfortunately that is standard practice. I try to keep it to a minimum in my office, but it sometimes gets by me. That practice makes it less likely that someone will volunteer to help out. Pixie To be fair, (bow to the Letterkenny fans), after having worked in several offices, another possible explanation is that some offices simply have larger files. They are sending out the "standard" size files. This is another reason why the "goal" of 500 cases is not a good estimate of actual productivity across all offices. On top of that, they’re usually aged cases that cover a much longer time period and have many more records as a result. The cases I got from outside offices have AODs and PFDs back to 2017. My local cases are regularly 2019 forward. 1-2 years of extra treatment can be a lot of records. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on May 2, 2021 18:59:22 GMT -5
To be fair, (bow to the Letterkenny fans), after having worked in several offices, another possible explanation is that some offices simply have larger files. They are sending out the "standard" size files. This is another reason why the "goal" of 500 cases is not a good estimate of actual productivity across all offices. On top of that, they’re usually aged cases that cover a much longer time period and have many more records as a result. The cases I got from outside offices have AODs and PFDs back to 2017. My local cases are regularly 2019 forward. 1-2 years of extra treatment can be a lot of records. Which is why I’ll never willingly detail to certain offices again. |
|
|
|
Post by southerner on May 5, 2021 16:37:51 GMT -5
In our office, though those that like telework are asked to schedule 50, it appears there are not enough to do so. I have 45 this month, and 30 or so each month for the next few months. I was told they do not have enough cases to schedule--though we are doing a number of cases for Texas and some from Kentucky. I will be glad when normalcy returns and I can drive my 7 minutes to the office 4 days a week--I do 4/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on May 5, 2021 20:32:01 GMT -5
In our office, though those that like telework are asked to schedule 50, it appears there are not enough to do so. I have 45 this month, and 30 or so each month for the next few months. I was told they do not have enough cases to schedule--though we are doing a number of cases for Texas and some from Kentucky. I will be glad when normalcy returns and I can drive my 7 minutes to the office 4 days a week--I do 4/10. I am booked solid through the end of August. In the office or not, won't fix the issue of unequal filling of hearing slots. Seems like a few clicks on someone's keyboard would fix such disparate issues. |
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on May 5, 2021 23:11:35 GMT -5
In our office, though those that like telework are asked to schedule 50, it appears there are not enough to do so. I have 45 this month, and 30 or so each month for the next few months. I was told they do not have enough cases to schedule--though we are doing a number of cases for Texas and some from Kentucky. I will be glad when normalcy returns and I can drive my 7 minutes to the office 4 days a week--I do 4/10. It could be worse. AA here doing pre-hearing reports for hearings scheduled next week and of course all the ALJs have reviewed the files as demonstrated by the highlighting. Or SAAs calling claimants to advise them of the right to representation sometimes more than once. We are supposed to have enough work until the end of the fiscal year then... AA numbers dropped from 2099 at the end of February to 2076 by the end of April. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on May 5, 2021 23:36:06 GMT -5
I'm very light for next 6 weeks, then from last week of June through end of July every hearing slot has been filled. (And it does not appear we got any cases from another office to explain the surge).
I have no explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on May 6, 2021 12:34:49 GMT -5
In our office, though those that like telework are asked to schedule 50, it appears there are not enough to do so. I have 45 this month, and 30 or so each month for the next few months. I was told they do not have enough cases to schedule--though we are doing a number of cases for Texas and some from Kentucky. I will be glad when normalcy returns and I can drive my 7 minutes to the office 4 days a week--I do 4/10. It could be worse. AA here doing pre-hearing reports for hearings scheduled next week and of course all the ALJs have reviewed the files as demonstrated by the highlighting. Or SAAs calling claimants to advise them of the right to representation sometimes more than once. We are supposed to have enough work until the end of the fiscal year then... AA numbers dropped from 2099 at the end of February to 2076 by the end of April. And the ALJs aren’t told that AAs are reviewing the cases and putting the analysis in the private section. How many of you regularly look there now? |
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on May 8, 2021 19:13:39 GMT -5
Finally finished five pre-hearing reviews, ranging from 2500-3700 pages each, and in every one the ALJ had highlighted evidence throughout the record. I knew before, but this reinforced, just how much work the position of ALJ involves. My experience in this agency is that no ALJ wants to go to hearing unprepared. Not a walk in the park job.
|
|
salvo
Full Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by salvo on May 10, 2021 8:34:40 GMT -5
I would like to add that the agency seems to be attempting to rebalance, but it's still not enough. A few weeks ago, ALJs in my immediate region were offered the chance to take multiple cases/hearing days from another region. Hundreds of cases. I volunteered to take up something like 30-40 cases. I was given 3. My office is getting regular volunteer requests to grab cases from across the country; every time I've volunteered (once only a couple minutes after posting), I've never heard back, because they're being snatched up so quick.
|
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on May 12, 2021 20:34:25 GMT -5
R6. I’ve been getting 50 per month and we’ve been asked to scale back to 40.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on May 12, 2021 21:38:16 GMT -5
R6. I’ve been getting 50 per month and we’ve been asked to scale back to 40. I deleted my rant to this info. But really, can’t we do a little better with leveling the work flow? |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on May 13, 2021 14:45:31 GMT -5
Reps at Charles Hall's blog are saying they are now having record numbers of clients at initial and recon levels, so I expect things will heat up for us before long.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on May 13, 2021 16:28:42 GMT -5
Reps at Charles Hall's blog are saying they are now having record numbers of clients at initial and recon levels, so I expect things will heat up for us before long. Hmmm. I just looked at the data for initial DI claims, what I show (through end of April) is for FY 2021 there were 16,135 new claims filed each month; FY 2020 had 16,769; FY 2019 had 17,746; 2018- 18,551; 2017 18,892; and 2016 20,075. So there does not appear to be a surge of applicants, unless it is in the past two weeks. I wonder if what they are referring to is it taking longer for cases to get processed through at state level, so the reps themselves have more cases just because they aren't moving as quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on May 13, 2021 18:54:28 GMT -5
Reps also complaining about SSA employees not wanting to go back into their offices on the blog. Some of the posts conflated a concern about COVID related safely to a certain political perspective. I wonder if these reps would prefer open offices with ALJs appointed under the previous administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baymax on May 17, 2021 7:45:13 GMT -5
It could be worse. AA here doing pre-hearing reports for hearings scheduled next week and of course all the ALJs have reviewed the files as demonstrated by the highlighting. Or SAAs calling claimants to advise them of the right to representation sometimes more than once. We are supposed to have enough work until the end of the fiscal year then... AA numbers dropped from 2099 at the end of February to 2076 by the end of April. And the ALJs aren’t told that AAs are reviewing the cases and putting the analysis in the private section. How many of you regularly look there now? EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. And I know which AAs in my office prepare really useful analysis, and which are simply giving basics that I can find from a CIS. It has actually made my review much smoother because it’s the equivalent of having a bench memo from a law clerk. I love it, when it’s done right. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on May 17, 2021 8:28:12 GMT -5
And the ALJs aren’t told that AAs are reviewing the cases and putting the analysis in the private section. How many of you regularly look there now? EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. And I know which AAs in my office prepare really useful analysis, and which are simply giving basics that I can find from a CIS. It has actually made my review much smoother because it’s the equivalent of having a bench memo from a law clerk. I love it, when it’s done right. I love them too! What I don’t love is the inconsistency of when they are assigned and where they are put. Could be private section, general notes, case notes or remarks. Or not at all. Why can’t they all be in general notes cause at least there is a flag for that? |
|
|
|
Post by Baymax on May 17, 2021 15:39:34 GMT -5
EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. And I know which AAs in my office prepare really useful analysis, and which are simply giving basics that I can find from a CIS. It has actually made my review much smoother because it’s the equivalent of having a bench memo from a law clerk. I love it, when it’s done right. I love them too! What I don’t love is the inconsistency of when they are assigned and where they are put. Could be private section, general notes, case notes or remarks. Or not at all. Why can’t they all be in general notes cause at least there is a flag for that? Agreed. Except I prefer them to be in the private section. I rarely end up checking general notes. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on May 17, 2021 18:18:55 GMT -5
And the ALJs aren’t told that AAs are reviewing the cases and putting the analysis in the private section. How many of you regularly look there now? EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. And I know which AAs in my office prepare really useful analysis, and which are simply giving basics that I can find from a CIS. It has actually made my review much smoother because it’s the equivalent of having a bench memo from a law clerk. I love it, when it’s done right. I can't say I am looking every time. On a case with a fairly short F section that appears very straightforward I might not look. Also, I have happened upon some cases that are on for a supplemental only (because rep wants to examine a witness) that get assigned for a review, and I am definitely not looking then. But, I very much second, when done right they are great. |
|
