|
|
Post by aljsouth on Jul 27, 2008 11:58:52 GMT -5
The software is being tested and, of course, is a wild success. The problem is that it is misnamed. Its does not pull a file (for newbies, organize a file into sections according to type of evidence with exhibit numbers). It scans for duplicates and attempts to identify certain kinds of documents -- MRI's, xrays, etc. While helpful this is hardly pulling the file. It cannot scan hand written notes.
While it may be helpful, it is not the pulling software that management keeps talking about as a way around the lack of staffing in ODAR offices. The agency continues in its naive faith in technology. Indeed, the agency seemingly is adding to the time required of the judge in each case with its technology. I heard it speculated at the mandatory ALJ conference that the judge might need to do the recording of hearings.
|
|
|
|
Post by gromit on Jul 27, 2008 16:41:03 GMT -5
The agency continues in its naive faith in technology. Indeed, the agency seemingly is adding to the time required of the judge in each case with its technology. I heard it speculated at the mandatory ALJ conference that the judge might need to do the recording of hearings. If you mean using a digital court recording system which entails hitting a record button on a computer at the start of a hearing and hitting the stop button at the end of a hearing, that's what I did as a state workers compensation magistrate. Actually, I'm surprised that we have hearing monitors - it seems like a waste of money. In fact, the State of Michigan dumped court reporters years ago in admininistrative law hearings. Seriously, it's no trouble at all. |
|
mango
Full Member
Posts: 50 
|
Post by mango on Jul 27, 2008 17:30:07 GMT -5
The e-pulling is supposed to be a 70% solution. The case tech still has to finish it up. And yes it does continue to push more work onto the ALJ. To improve the speed of processing, ALJs need to be holding hearings and not spending countless hours reviewing files. If ODAR would put more resources into paralegals or senior case techs and have them provide a good review where the dups were pulled along with endless pages of lab reports etc and things that are generally of little interest or use, the ALJ would not spend so much time reviewing files and spend the time holding hearings. If they got really good, the paralegal or case tech would provide a summary of each doc and the the ALJ would spend even less time reviewing and more time holding hearings. As it is, the move is in the opposite direction. They are now using streamlined pulling where dups are not removed and very little time is spent organizing the file. This is even more problematic in paper files than in e-files. It shifts the work to the ALJ slowing him/her and decreasing the number of hearings that can actually be held.
Yes I know using paralegals etc is a pipe dream, but it sure would be nice.
As to the use of the reporter/recorder, they also produce case notes that are used (I am told) by the writers and burn the audio recording to disk. The latter is helpful as Someone has to do it. Their notes tell the case tech whether the case is ready for writing or needs post development. On road trips involving VTC, the recorder escorts the claimant, rep and any witnesses into the hearing room. They actually get a lot more involved than just recording the audio. For me, anything that takes work off of me and allows me to focus on holding hearings is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jul 27, 2008 19:29:07 GMT -5
As to the use of the reporter/recorder, they also produce case notes that are used (I am told) by the writers and burn the audio recording to disk. The latter is helpful as Someone has to do it. Their notes tell the case tech whether the case is ready for writing or needs post development. On road trips involving VTC, the recorder escorts the claimant, rep and any witnesses into the hearing room. They actually get a lot more involved than just recording the audio. For me, anything that takes work off of me and allows me to focus on holding hearings is a good thing. I don't know about the notes telling a case tech about case status (maybe they do in some places - kind of depends on whether the judge has made his decision at that point), but having a good hearing monitor makes all the difference in writing a decision. If all the monitor does is start the machine, the writer must then listen to the entire hearing prior to drafting the decision 'cause you never know at exactly what point something important will be brought up, plus make their own notes. Sometimes sections have to be heard several times to get the notes right. A good hearing monitor highlights when the speaker changes (there is a column where they put "REP" "VE" ALJ" "WIT") and they summarize what is being said, much like a court stenographer. The program tags the speaker changes, so if, for example, a writer needs to hear a specific section of testimony, they can click right to it. With the really good hearing monitors, there is no need to listen to the tape at all for content - you can write straight from the notes. The good hearing monitors are worth every cent they are paid, for the service they do for the ALJs in assisting the claimants and files and for the time they save the GS12 and GS 13 writers. I would really hate to see that function go. ALong the lines of the other topic, pre-HPI (a reorganization in the late 1990s), they had Legal Assistants rather than SCTs. The key duty they had to justify their grade was writing medical summaries for the judges. It was a good job for motivated employees wanting to become paralegals some day. In HPI, the medical summary function was moved to the writers, but was quickly dropped when TPTB realized that if the writers were writing medical summaries, they were not writing decisions. Unfortuneately, they just dropped the summaries rather than reassigned the task to the clerical staff. |
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Jul 27, 2008 21:21:56 GMT -5
The agency continues in its naive faith in technology. Indeed, the agency seemingly is adding to the time required of the judge in each case with its technology. I heard it speculated at the mandatory ALJ conference that the judge might need to do the recording of hearings. If you mean using a digital court recording system which entails hitting a record button on a computer at the start of a hearing and hitting the stop button at the end of a hearing, that's what I did as a state workers compensation magistrate. Actually, I'm surprised that we have hearing monitors - it seems like a waste of money. In fact, the State of Michigan dumped court reporters years ago in admininistrative law hearings. Seriously, it's no trouble at all. Well, the problem is that you may be alone with the claimant. When the claimant says you demanded sex for a favorable decision or told her she was a leech with no case BEFORE you turned on your machine, don't expect ODAR to believe you. ODAR assumes the worst of all alj's. Having a hearings reporter protects you from such claims. Your only hope is that you turned on the recorder before you activated the video. Even then hope there is some sort of record of when you opened the video ( currently there is not) or you will not be believed. Also, it isn't a matter of pushing a button, the reporter enters a lot of information on the disk such as your questions and responses that the writers can view. This includes your hypotheticals. Pushing a button does not do this. |
|
mango
Full Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by mango on Jul 28, 2008 18:54:08 GMT -5
Barkley;
What is TPTB and it is more than unfortunate they did not reassign the work. The summaries would be a tremendous time savings.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jul 28, 2008 20:21:33 GMT -5
The Powers That Be  |
|
