|
|
Post by barkley on Jun 3, 2021 12:41:46 GMT -5
Does anyone know what triggered all this heightened scrutiny? Am I the only one offended that they must get the HOCALJ permission to issue one? Will we really let cases age forever if someone is lost to our follow up but never signed the form agreeing to a telephone or video hearing?
Things that make me head hurt.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jun 3, 2021 19:46:17 GMT -5
I think it’s absurd and wasteful, and so does S, a colleague I recently spoke to. So, counting you, that’s three of us.
I know of an office in Region IX where a Senior Attorney Advisor has been paid for the past 20 days. She has done zero Agency work. She’s waiting on a new wireless hotspot to be mailed to her. Previously, she was off line for about eight weeks earlier in the pandemic, waiting for a hotspot but getting her full salary. What an atrocious waste of money! Not with respect to paying her for doing nothing, but with the bureaucratic unwillingness to deliver a hotspot to her quickly. Clearly, with respect to the endless recycling of no shows, the moribund and complicated policy regarding dismissals, and the SAA hotspot thing I know of, our Agency is happy to simply waste taxpayer dollars.
IMHO anyway. Respectfully, H
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jun 3, 2021 20:50:12 GMT -5
Does anyone know what triggered all this heightened scrutiny? Am I the only one offended that they must get the HOCALJ permission to issue one? Will we really let cases age forever if someone is lost to our follow up but never signed the form agreeing to a telephone or video hearing? Things that make me head hurt. I too am offended we have to route ALL dismissals through HOCALJ including written withdrawals. The guidance for dismissals has changed so much I do not even attempt to do anything, no show right to Pre and will see the dismissal at a later date. And I do not understand what authority the agency relies on for all these rules which are changes to codified regulations. The Union has asked for the authority and the answer has been “we have the authority” it is a mess |
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jun 4, 2021 8:37:18 GMT -5
HQ doesn’t like the optics of dismissing cases during this pandemic particularly since we are using a hearing forum that previously was only utilized in very limited circumstances. Obviously it’s super frustrating to have the hamster wheel of rescheduling these cases so they were resumed in the fall. It was a colossal disaster with 90%+ failing to comply with the limited extra procedures. So the plug was pulled after barely a month. Hence when they resumed in March, we have the more stringent requirements. If you don’t like it, you can just park them in PRE till the pandemic is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jun 4, 2021 9:55:43 GMT -5
It’s political and probably comes from the WH instead of TPTB at SSA as upper management is absolutely hysterical about dismissals.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 4, 2021 10:05:30 GMT -5
Does anyone know what triggered all this heightened scrutiny? Am I the only one offended that they must get the HOCALJ permission to issue one? Will we really let cases age forever if someone is lost to our follow up but never signed the form agreeing to a telephone or video hearing? Things that make me head hurt. I too am offended we have to route ALL dismissals through HOCALJ including written withdrawals. The guidance for dismissals has changed so much I do not even attempt to do anything, no show right to Pre and will see the dismissal at a later date. And I do not understand what authority the agency relies on for all these rules which are changes to codified regulations. The Union has asked for the authority and the answer has been “we have the authority” it is a mess You sure it’s all dismissals? The guidance I see is failure to appear/untimely filing that requires extensive review. I haven’t been running withdrawals through anyone and haven’t heard anything about it at this point. I don’t waste time or effort to try and clear all the hurdles for FTA or untimely dismissals. |
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit Bat Reindeer on Jun 4, 2021 11:55:19 GMT -5
I think I've just become a Nihilist ALJ about this stuff. It's truly whatever at this point, the names get recycled every 75 days and fill out dockets at a time when we're hurting for cases. I've already reviewed the files, nothing has been added to them for months or sometimes years. I really don't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jun 4, 2021 12:22:06 GMT -5
Even withdrawals require HOCALJ review and must cite to the record according to QR so no more boilerplate WD dismissals. If you are not running your WD dismissals by the HOCALJ, please start or at least ask for clarification. I’d hate to see you accused of being “non-compliant” my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Jun 4, 2021 12:59:40 GMT -5
We recently removed withdrawals from the list of 'HOCALJ approval required'
|
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jun 4, 2021 13:48:18 GMT -5
Even withdrawals require HOCALJ review and must cite to the record according to QR so no more boilerplate WD dismissals. If you are not running your WD dismissals by the HOCALJ, please start or at least ask for clarification. I’d hate to see you accused of being “non-compliant” my friend. Whoever’s requiring that is misinformed. Only FTA/untimely filing require HOCALJ to sign off. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 4, 2021 14:14:55 GMT -5
Even withdrawals require HOCALJ review and must cite to the record according to QR so no more boilerplate WD dismissals. If you are not running your WD dismissals by the HOCALJ, please start or at least ask for clarification. I’d hate to see you accused of being “non-compliant” my friend. Whoever’s requiring that is misinformed. Only FTA/untimely filing require HOCALJ to sign off. Au contraire. My region got the all dismissals directive last week. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jun 4, 2021 15:43:24 GMT -5
Whoever’s requiring that is misinformed. Only FTA/untimely filing require HOCALJ to sign off. Au contraire. My region got the all dismissals directive last week. So a written withdrawal of request for hearing signed by the claimant and rep requires HOCALJ approval to issue the dismissal? |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jun 4, 2021 17:10:58 GMT -5
Au contraire. My region got the all dismissals directive last week. So a written withdrawal of request for hearing signed by the claimant and rep requires HOCALJ approval to issue the dismissal? Exactly and also a deceased claimant with no SOP dismissal. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 4, 2021 17:16:48 GMT -5
Whoever’s requiring that is misinformed. Only FTA/untimely filing require HOCALJ to sign off. Au contraire. My region got the all dismissals directive last week. No way! You mean management is giving inconsistent instructions and guidance around the country? I’m shocked, I tell ya. Just shocked. Requiring W/Ds to be approved by management might be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard of. That’s worse make-work than what attorneys have been doing the last several months. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Jun 4, 2021 19:10:02 GMT -5
The original story from our RCALJ was that an ALJ dismissed a no show who sent in a response to a NTSC that s/he missed the hearing because said claimant was having chemo. This either got to a congress person or TV person, and thus someone was embarrassed.
As a result, we now have probably thousands of no shows across the country who cannot be found and did not explicitly and give us in writing with their blood that they would accept a telephone hearing, and we are being forbidden from going back into the office to even sit there by buy ourselves waiting for the missing claimants to not show for their in person hearing. Even if we sign a waiver to hold the Agency harmless should we ever get sick while in said office that has been vacant for a year and a half.
Of course, in two months, we will be inundated with daily questions as to why we have not "moved" these now AGED cases. Mid July is the drop dead date for giving 75 days notice for said in-person possible dismissals before the end of the FY.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jun 4, 2021 20:44:57 GMT -5
HQ doesn’t like the optics of dismissing cases during this pandemic particularly since we are using a hearing forum that previously was only utilized in very limited circumstances. Obviously it’s super frustrating to have the hamster wheel of rescheduling these cases so they were resumed in the fall. It was a colossal disaster with 90%+ failing to comply with the limited extra procedures. So the plug was pulled after barely a month. Hence when they resumed in March, we have the more stringent requirements. If you don’t like it, you can just park them in PRE till the pandemic is over. I respectfully disagree that we “can just park them in PRE.” Judges don’t set the time and place for hearings any more. We used to, ostensibly, but The Master decided we had too much discretion. So it’s the Agency that does it. It is the Agency that keeps recycling these no shows—taking up a hearing slot and paying for another VE. Lather, rinse, repeat with respect to hemorrhaging the taxpayers’ jack. So—I don’t put them in PRE. That’s above my pay grade. That’s how I see it. Regards, H |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jun 4, 2021 22:37:46 GMT -5
I think I've just become a Nihilist ALJ about this stuff. It's truly whatever at this point, the names get recycled every 75 days and fill out dockets at a time when we're hurting for cases. I've already reviewed the files, nothing has been added to them for months or sometimes years. I really don't care. I'm with you, although at first I had found the no shows being constantly rescheduled to be quite annoying. The way I see it- when the offices re-open we are going to see a bunch of cases that had refused a phone hearing, all of which will be quite old and once fully developed will have a pretty full F section. So having all these dismissals to mix in won't be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 4, 2021 23:09:14 GMT -5
Au contraire. My region got the all dismissals directive last week. So a written withdrawal of request for hearing signed by the claimant and rep requires HOCALJ approval to issue the dismissal? Yep. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 4, 2021 23:10:18 GMT -5
The original story from our RCALJ was that an ALJ dismissed a no show who sent in a response to a NTSC that s/he missed the hearing because said claimant was having chemo. This either got to a congress person or TV person, and thus someone was embarrassed. As a result, we now have probably thousands of no shows across the country who cannot be found and did not explicitly and give us in writing with their blood that they would accept a telephone hearing, and we are being forbidden from going back into the office to even sit there by buy ourselves waiting for the missing claimants to not show for their in person hearing. Even if we sign a waiver to hold the Agency harmless should we ever get sick while in said office that has been vacant for a year and a half. Of course, in two months, we will be inundated with daily questions as to why we have not "moved" these now AGED cases. Mid July is the drop dead date for giving 75 days notice for said in-person possible dismissals before the end of the FY. Mass overreaction or punishment, rather than targeted training to those who need it. It’s the SSA way. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jun 5, 2021 22:35:14 GMT -5
I personally wouldn’t call it HOCALJ approval, but in my region HOCALJ review is required of all dismissals. I don’t personally think HOCALjs can stop an ALJ from issuing a non policy compliant dismissal under the APA. Regardless, all dismissals must be reviewed.
When I was an attorney, many a client declined to follow my advice so I again personally think it’s up to the individual ALJ. However, a successful HOCALJ will note any legal issues in remarks or otherwise document their review findings so they should be seriously considered.
My friend who called me misinformed should check with his/her local management because failure to submit a dismissal for review could be more troublesome than a good faith disagreement as to the merits of the dismissal.
|
|
