|
|
Post by arkstfan on May 31, 2021 19:46:29 GMT -5
From Rough Country by John Sandford
“Basically, I like the work. I just don’t like it all the time.”
Had some head scratcher remands last week or at least partially head scratchers. I like the work but there are times it feels like running up a sand dune.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on May 31, 2021 20:56:06 GMT -5
That’s a great quote.
However, two-thirds of the remands from the AC ARE “head scratcher remands.” That is, many seem wholly idiotic and arbitrary. As such, I ignore them once I confirm it’s a typical head scratcher. I try not to pay any attention to them, same as I ignore annoying, yappy little dogs.
Do not pet or acknowledge the dog. Do not pet or acknowledge the AC.
Respectfully, Hamster
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 1, 2021 7:10:56 GMT -5
That’s a great quote. However, two-thirds of the remands from the AC ARE “head scratcher remands.” That is, many seem wholly idiotic and arbitrary. As such, I ignore them once I confirm it’s a typical head scratcher. I try not to pay any attention to them, same as I ignore annoying, yappy little dogs. Do not pet or acknowledge the dog. Do not pet or acknowledge the AC. Respectfully, Hamster At ur size, u should be more careful with small yappy dogs!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 1, 2021 18:55:21 GMT -5
That’s a great quote. However, two-thirds of the remands from the AC ARE “head scratcher remands.” That is, many seem wholly idiotic and arbitrary. As such, I ignore them once I confirm it’s a typical head scratcher. I try not to pay any attention to them, same as I ignore annoying, yappy little dogs. Do not pet or acknowledge the dog. Do not pet or acknowledge the AC. Respectfully, Hamster I would only make one correction to your post. 2/3 of the remands are idiotic or arbitrary, not just “and.” There are plenty that are idiotic but not necessarily arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jun 1, 2021 19:06:48 GMT -5
That’s a great quote. However, two-thirds of the remands from the AC ARE “head scratcher remands.” That is, many seem wholly idiotic and arbitrary. As such, I ignore them once I confirm it’s a typical head scratcher. I try not to pay any attention to them, same as I ignore annoying, yappy little dogs. Do not pet or acknowledge the dog. Do not pet or acknowledge the AC. Respectfully, Hamster Of late much odder. Paraphrasing RFC: claimant cannot frequently crouch AC: decision does not state how often the claimant can crouch. AC: Decision does not provide evidence medical improvement has occurred. For example DDS consultant report cited states the the condition is non-severe but not that medical improvement has occurred. I’m used to a doctor listing the claimant’s complaints and statement the person can’t work being interpreted as an opinion when the record isn’t crystal clear or remands on other opinion related matters such as not specifically addressing each of the five letters friends and family submitted individually. These are conflicting on their face and that’s odd. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jun 2, 2021 9:58:13 GMT -5
The AC historically increases their remand rate at the beginning of a new POTUS administration to justify their existence so expect more bush league remands for the next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 2, 2021 12:47:55 GMT -5
The AC historically increases their remand rate at the beginning of a new POTUS administration to justify their existence so expect more bush league remands for the next year. I’ve noticed |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jun 2, 2021 12:49:55 GMT -5
I can't tell if I am seeing more remands or if it just seems that way because they have had fewer new cases to schedule us with, so I am doing more remands proportionally.
I know of at least a few judges who are convinced the remand rate is going up because they need to get us more cases to schedule.
I'm not ready to embrace that level of cynicism myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jun 2, 2021 13:08:25 GMT -5
I can't tell if I am seeing more remands or if it just seems that way because they have had fewer new cases to schedule us with, so I am doing more remands proportionally. I know of at least a few judges who are convinced the remand rate is going up because they need to get us more cases to schedule. I'm not ready to embrace that level of cynicism myself. , Embrace your inner cynic! I have. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jun 2, 2021 14:09:51 GMT -5
I can't tell if I am seeing more remands or if it just seems that way because they have had fewer new cases to schedule us with, so I am doing more remands proportionally. I know of at least a few judges who are convinced the remand rate is going up because they need to get us more cases to schedule. I'm not ready to embrace that level of cynicism myself. , Embrace your inner cynic! I have. If it was just affecting the ALJs I would be happy to go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. But, to believe this I'd have to believe TPTB have made a conscious decision to screw with a bunch of claimants, and I'm not willing to accept that without a lot more proof |
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Jun 2, 2021 15:45:55 GMT -5
That’s a great quote. However, two-thirds of the remands from the AC ARE “head scratcher remands.” That is, many seem wholly idiotic and arbitrary. As such, I ignore them once I confirm it’s a typical head scratcher. I try not to pay any attention to them, same as I ignore annoying, yappy little dogs. Do not pet or acknowledge the dog. Do not pet or acknowledge the AC. Respectfully, Hamster Of late much odder. Paraphrasing RFC: claimant cannot frequently crouch AC: decision does not state how often the claimant can crouch. AC: Decision does not provide evidence medical improvement has occurred. For example DDS consultant report cited states the the condition is non-severe but not that medical improvement has occurred. I’m used to a doctor listing the claimant’s complaints and statement the person can’t work being interpreted as an opinion when the record isn’t crystal clear or remands on other opinion related matters such as not specifically addressing each of the five letters friends and family submitted individually. These are conflicting on their face and that’s odd. We can agree to disagree, but the first one is a remand in my past analyst life experience because the RFC is not stated maximally. As for the second, I’d need more to comment, but medical improvement also gets extra scrutiny from the AC. That being said, while this goes against the board wisdom that AC is bad, I’ve worked for both great and poor ALJs and AAJs, and they’re trying to catch the outliers. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jun 2, 2021 18:54:01 GMT -5
nylawyer , Embrace your inner cynic! I have. If it was just affecting the ALJs I would be happy to go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. But, to believe this I'd have to believe TPTB have made a conscious decision to screw with a bunch of claimants, and I'm not willing to accept that without a lot more proof I don't believe most conspiracies, but I do think the AC is a hammer and every case looks like a nail. After all, if ALJs have an agree rate, might not AC judges have a disagree rate? |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Jun 2, 2021 19:25:22 GMT -5
I had one where the AC did not understand "avoid concentrated hot or cold temperature extremes." Really???
|
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jun 2, 2021 23:15:24 GMT -5
Of late much odder. Paraphrasing RFC: claimant cannot frequently crouch AC: decision does not state how often the claimant can crouch. AC: Decision does not provide evidence medical improvement has occurred. For example DDS consultant report cited states the the condition is non-severe but not that medical improvement has occurred. I’m used to a doctor listing the claimant’s complaints and statement the person can’t work being interpreted as an opinion when the record isn’t crystal clear or remands on other opinion related matters such as not specifically addressing each of the five letters friends and family submitted individually. These are conflicting on their face and that’s odd. We can agree to disagree, but the first one is a remand in my past analyst life experience because the RFC is not stated maximally. As for the second, I’d need more to comment, but medical improvement also gets extra scrutiny from the AC. That being said, while this goes against the board wisdom that AC is bad, I’ve worked for both great and poor ALJs and AAJs, and they’re trying to catch the outliers. I’ve got more than a decade under my belt and haven’t seen anything similar before in such quantity. EDIT Want to add until the last few weeks the typical remand I see where it’s coming from. Don’t always agree but I get how they got there. |
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jun 3, 2021 12:18:38 GMT -5
I just had a remand because a document timely received was not exhibited. The document was an IME with attachments. The IME report was a duplicate that was considered in the original decision and the AC acknowledged that, but the attachments were not. The attachments made the case worse for the claimant, as the IME had notes where he had consulted with a subspecialty radiologist and a transcription of an interview with the claimant. Nothing to change the outcome of the decision. The only thing the remand accomplished was dragging the cl through another hearing.
Whatever happened to harmless error.
Only thing I hate worse are the remand where the AC refuses to follow the five day rule. What is the point of having a rule if they don't follow it?
|
|
|
|
Post by statman on Jun 3, 2021 16:37:30 GMT -5
Harmless error is not a factor that the AC ever formally considered. I assume it is considered at some level n cases that are affirmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 4, 2021 11:28:53 GMT -5
nylawyer, Embrace your inner cynic! I have. If it was just affecting the ALJs I would be happy to go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. But, to believe this I'd have to believe TPTB have made a conscious decision to screw with a bunch of claimants, and I'm not willing to accept that without a lot more proof You think TPTB see claimants as people rather than just a statistic. That’s cute. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jun 15, 2021 15:08:40 GMT -5
That’s a great quote. However, two-thirds of the remands from the AC ARE “head scratcher remands.” That is, many seem wholly idiotic and arbitrary. As such, I ignore them once I confirm it’s a typical head scratcher. I try not to pay any attention to them, same as I ignore annoying, yappy little dogs. Do not pet or acknowledge the dog. Do not pet or acknowledge the AC. Respectfully, Hamster Out of curiousity- does the AC for some reason feel compelled to find (invent) multiple reasons to remand even when they have one that is legitimate? I had one like that today, and it is so infuriating reading through the nonsense portions that I end up forgetting about the one reason that was valid. As I said, just curious. If so, then maybe that needs to be rethought because useful lessons are being buried beneath the hooey. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 15, 2021 15:43:04 GMT -5
I had one where the AC did not understand "avoid concentrated hot or cold temperature extremes." Really??? After my first remand for using "avoid," I determined the A/C didn't understand the word. Henceforth, I used, "No exposure to . . . ." Hard for them not to understand "no." It worked. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 15, 2021 15:47:54 GMT -5
That’s a great quote. However, two-thirds of the remands from the AC ARE “head scratcher remands.” That is, many seem wholly idiotic and arbitrary. As such, I ignore them once I confirm it’s a typical head scratcher. I try not to pay any attention to them, same as I ignore annoying, yappy little dogs. Do not pet or acknowledge the dog. Do not pet or acknowledge the AC. Respectfully, Hamster Out of curiousity- does the AC for some reason feel compelled to find (invent) multiple reasons to remand even when they have one that is legitimate? I had one like that today, and it is so infuriating reading through the nonsense portions that I end up forgetting about the one reason that was valid. As I said, just curious. If so, then maybe that needs to be rethought because useful lessons are being buried beneath the hooey. Some do, some don’t. I’ve seen plenty of single issue remands, usually for technical reasons related to the record (failure to exhibit, 5-day absurdity, failure to consider a duplicate, etc.). I’ve seen some where they add on ridiculous or incorrect reasons on top of them as well. It depends on how zealous the reviewer is, I guess. Or maybe it depends on whether the reviewer has a marked or an extreme limitation in understanding, remembering, and applying information. |
|
