Lead to More SSA ALJ Hiring?

[privateatty]

I have no idea as to whether or not this new SCOTUS opinion, Saul v. Carr will have a positive effect on hiring--am I missing something? I have never worked at ODAR/OHO, so some expert opinion on this issue might be helpful. Thanks.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1442_971e.pdf

[roymcavoy]

Apr 30, 2021 11:05:32 GMT -5 privateatty said:

I have no idea as to whether or not this new SCOTUS opinion, Saul v. Carr will have a positive effect on hiring--am I missing something? I have never worked at ODAR/OHO, so some expert opinion on this issue might be helpful. Thanks.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1442_971e.pdf

First, no one is an expert on OHO.

The issue in this case has been hanging over SSA for several years, as the decision notes. At that time, we were told to flag cases where the issue was raised. I think this decision renders that process inept. Only 25% of the ALJs in my office had been properly appointed at that time.

If your question is if they will have to hire “new ALJs who are properly appointed” I think the answer is “no.” They will correct the appointments—one of the ALJs on here can confirm if and when their appointments were corrected.

If your question is if this will lead to more cases, it seems as though any claimant who was denied benefits at ALJ level can get a rehearing, so some of these cases will likely be going through the system on remand. It’s likely some number of claimants have filed new applications since that time, which will cause some consolidation issues.

But overall I don’t think it moves the needle. Honestly, as low as the case numbers are across the country, I think SSA is likely happy to have the work.

[christina]

No one is an expert on OHO 🤣

[hamster]

“Honestly, as low as the case numbers are across the country, I think SSA is likely happy to have the work.”

OHO is a self-licking ice cream cone.

Respectfully, H

[2rvrrun]

Apr 30, 2021 12:31:04 GMT -5 hamster said:

“Honestly, as low as the case numbers are across the country, I think SSA is likely happy to have the work.”

OHO is a self-licking ice cream cone.

Respectfully, H

😁 Best definition of OHO I have ever heard. I think it should go on letterhead or maybe a T-shirt.

[nylawyer]

"OHO est glacies crepito pyramidis sui lambendo"

You can emblazon it over the doors, except that will just add to the expense when in a couple of years OHO is known by some other acronym.

[Pixie]

May 1, 2021 6:53:48 GMT -5 nylawyer said:

"OHO est glacies crepito pyramidis sui lambendo"

You can emblazon it over the doors, except that will just add to the expense when in a couple of years OHO is known by some other acronym.

We need to go back to OHA. That's what it was when I joined up, and it describes what we do. Pixie

[privateatty]

Apr 30, 2021 11:43:55 GMT -5 roymcavoy said:

Apr 30, 2021 11:05:32 GMT -5 privateatty said:

I have no idea as to whether or not this new SCOTUS opinion, Saul v. Carr will have a positive effect on hiring--am I missing something? I have never worked at ODAR/OHO, so some expert opinion on this issue might be helpful. Thanks.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1442_971e.pdf

First, no one is an expert on OHO.

The issue in this case has been hanging over SSA for several years, as the decision notes. At that time, we were told to flag cases where the issue was raised. I think this decision renders that process inept. Only 25% of the ALJs in my office had been properly appointed at that time.

If your question is if they will have to hire “new ALJs who are properly appointed” I think the answer is “no.” They will correct the appointments—one of the ALJs on here can confirm if and when their appointments were corrected.

If your question is if this will lead to more cases, it seems as though any claimant who was denied benefits at ALJ level can get a rehearing, so some of these cases will likely be going through the system on remand. It’s likely some number of claimants have filed new applications since that time, which will cause some consolidation issues.

But overall I don’t think it moves the needle. Honestly, as low as the case numbers are across the country, I think SSA is likely happy to have the work.

Thank you. Our Agency "cured" the defect as well like most, if not all, did. I have not seen any challenges.

Not to change the subject too much, but I thought we'd have a new EO that would raise OPM from the dead--Lazarus like. And get the Agencies out of the hiring business.

[neufenland]

May 1, 2021 8:00:05 GMT -5 privateatty said:

Apr 30, 2021 11:43:55 GMT -5 roymcavoy said:

First, no one is an expert on OHO.

The issue in this case has been hanging over SSA for several years, as the decision notes. At that time, we were told to flag cases where the issue was raised. I think this decision renders that process inept. Only 25% of the ALJs in my office had been properly appointed at that time.

If your question is if they will have to hire “new ALJs who are properly appointed” I think the answer is “no.” They will correct the appointments—one of the ALJs on here can confirm if and when their appointments were corrected.

If your question is if this will lead to more cases, it seems as though any claimant who was denied benefits at ALJ level can get a rehearing, so some of these cases will likely be going through the system on remand. It’s likely some number of claimants have filed new applications since that time, which will cause some consolidation issues.

But overall I don’t think it moves the needle. Honestly, as low as the case numbers are across the country, I think SSA is likely happy to have the work.

Thank you. Our Agency "cured" the defect as well like most, if not all, did. I have not seen any challenges.

Not to change the subject too much, but I thought we'd have a new EO that would raise OPM from the dead--Lazarus like. And get the Agencies out of the hiring business.

I was hopeful to have such an EO by now, but I don't think it's something the receiving agencies actually want.  We certainly know that SSA does not, and they are the biggest recipient of new ALJ blood.  

As much as the President wants to purge the Executive Branch of everything his predecessor did, it might be that in this case, he's sticking to what his agency heads and career people are telling him.  Or I could be completely wrong and it's just #375,689 of things to undo, and he's only on #267,988 right now.  

[jagvet]

May 3, 2021 14:43:25 GMT -5 neufenland said:

May 1, 2021 8:00:05 GMT -5 privateatty said:

Thank you. Our Agency "cured" the defect as well like most, if not all, did. I have not seen any challenges.

Not to change the subject too much, but I thought we'd have a new EO that would raise OPM from the dead--Lazarus like. And get the Agencies out of the hiring business.

I was hopeful to have such an EO by now, but I don't think it's something the receiving agencies actually want.  We certainly know that SSA does not, and they are the biggest recipient of new ALJ blood.  

As much as the President wants to purge the Executive Branch of everything his predecessor did, it might be that in this case, he's sticking to what his agency heads and career people are telling him.  Or I could be completely wrong and it's just #375,689 of things to undo, and he's only on #267,988 right now.  

#neufenland, You hit the nail on the head.