|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 21, 2021 13:27:59 GMT -5
Anyone want to wager how fast SSA will move to hire a round of ALJs now that they see this coming? Has SSA ever moved fast on anything? My guess is it will still be in the same situation 6 months from now, even though this would be a good time to pick up some valued insiders. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Jul 21, 2021 13:32:01 GMT -5
Anyone want to wager how fast SSA will move to hire a round of ALJs now that they see this coming? I suspect that nothing will happen toward hiring until the FY 2022 budget is passed. Funding currently ends Oct 1, so I would guess to see something after that, if it is going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jul 21, 2021 13:58:23 GMT -5
Anyone want to wager how fast SSA will move to hire a round of ALJs now that they see this coming? It might be coming. This isn't that controversial but I don't see a reason for 10 republican senators to vote for it and I don't see the parliamentarian calling this budget related. |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Mar 16, 2022 11:01:08 GMT -5
President signed the appropriation bill so its official. We have a budget. Until September 2022. www.crfb.org/blogs/appropriations-watch-fy-2022docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220307/BILLS-117HR2471SA-RCP-117-35.pdfAs far as I can tell SSA's appropriation is on pages 1098 - 1104. Of note the appropriation for the agency is through the end of the first quarter of the 2023 FY, so they are clearly not planning on dealing with this again until after the November election. There is also $55 million appropriated to reduce the OHO hearing backlog, and that appropriate is good through the end of the 2023 fiscal year (9/2023), which is a good thing considering the state of the back log currently is non-existent. Maybe that will change in FY 2023. Notably its an OHO appropriation. At first I thought it would mean OT for FO/DDS employees to get through the initial reviews which is where the current back log is, but it specifically says Office of Hearing Operations, so I don't know if the agency can reappropriate it. Additionally the agency gets to keep the money and use it on tech if its unspent, so maybe they will just hold onto it for a new contract for phone or IT infrastructure. This looks really similar to the prior "backlog" appropriation and I suspect it is really just a roll over. |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Mar 16, 2022 15:46:27 GMT -5
I am clearing out all my ALPO. Carefully reviewing and making lots of edits on decisions, reviewing all remands and ordering development and clearing out all fee petitions. Although I offered availability to be Scheduled for 64 cases this month, I barely got 30 and some of them were what I call phantom cases because claimant is in the wind rep withdrew and I will not be able to dismiss or hold a hearing.
The allotment of ALJ FTEs is down so they can hire but right now there is not enough cases to meet the production quota they have been harping about for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Mar 16, 2022 15:59:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the links, Fowlfinder. 2711 pages--and I bet they read them all!
|
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Mar 16, 2022 19:43:32 GMT -5
I’m not sure that the current caseload will be the big driver of hiring. There seems to be a belief that there are claims in the pipeline that will need hearings. More importantly, it is common for agencies to fill FTEs when they get the opportunity because those FTEs can be taken away in the future if left unfilled and there is no guarantee that future appropriations will match actual need.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 16, 2022 21:32:51 GMT -5
I am clearing out all my ALPO. Carefully reviewing and making lots of edits on decisions, reviewing all remands and ordering development and clearing out all fee petitions. Although I offered availability to be Scheduled for 64 cases this month, I barely got 30 and some of them were what I call phantom cases because claimant is in the wind rep withdrew and I will not be able to dismiss or hold a hearing. The allotment of ALJ FTEs is down so they can hire but right now there is not enough cases to meet the production quota they have been harping about for years. That’s interesting because I was in that boat last summer and was having a hard time finding work to do. That’s changed for me. My usual schedule is designed with the idea that a few cases won’t go each week. Now that our office is only scheduling cases with explicit agreements for phone or video hearings, I’m busier than I was before the pandemic because everything is going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Mar 16, 2022 22:31:36 GMT -5
Replacing this appeals step and the role of independent administrative law judges (ALJs) with SSA employees jeopardizes the independence of the process.
ALJs are SSA employees No? At this point, what's the difference between an AAJ and an ALJ? just performance reviews? No. ALJs are inferior officers while AAJs are SSA cherry-picked employees who were never vetted through multiple examinations and interviews by an independent OPM. AAJs do not have the skill set to fact find and conduct hearings. They need to stay in their lane. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 17, 2022 23:53:25 GMT -5
All SSA has to do is create a screening test which has points and allows for a veteran preference and they can have their cake and eat it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Mar 18, 2022 18:07:08 GMT -5
I am clearing out all my ALPO. Carefully reviewing and making lots of edits on decisions, reviewing all remands and ordering development and clearing out all fee petitions. Although I offered availability to be Scheduled for 64 cases this month, I barely got 30 and some of them were what I call phantom cases because claimant is in the wind rep withdrew and I will not be able to dismiss or hold a hearing. The allotment of ALJ FTEs is down so they can hire but right now there is not enough cases to meet the production quota they have been harping about for years. That’s interesting because I was in that boat last summer and was having a hard time finding work to do. That’s changed for me. My usual schedule is designed with the idea that a few cases won’t go each week. Now that our office is only scheduling cases with explicit agreements for phone or video hearings, I’m busier than I was before the pandemic because everything is going forward. Your office is way more efficient than mine is. We are still scheduling people by just sending out letters. No agreements are ever returned and way too many of my cases do not go. and although the policy says do not schedule if they have not agreed, they take cases out of pre that have not shown up 2-3 times and schedule them because they are aged. These age metrics should be suspended because they are driving this insane and inefficient work |
|
|
|
Post by trp888 on Mar 24, 2022 11:49:33 GMT -5
As someone who’s has worked closely with both ALJs and AAJs, I can say without a doubt that if AAJs wanted to conduct hearings (which I’d bet money on they do not unless the Agency makes them), the vast majority posses the skills and knowledge to do so. To the original comment - there are quite a few differences between AAJs and ALJs in duties, training etc. , but the primary one is basic - ALJs hold the hearings and issue the decisions; AAJs are appellate Judges - they review ALJ’s decisions/dismissals and decide if a remand is warranted or not. They don’t hold appellate level hearings (even though they technically can) and the ones I worked with had no desire to. ALJs are SSA employees No? At this point, what's the difference between an AAJ and an ALJ? just performance reviews? No. ALJs are inferior officers while AAJs are SSA cherry-picked employees who were never vetted through multiple examinations and interviews by an independent OPM. AAJs do not have the skill set to fact find and conduct hearings. They need to stay in their lane. |
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Mar 24, 2022 13:30:06 GMT -5
As someone who’s has worked closely with both ALJs and AAJs, I can say without a doubt that if AAJs wanted to conduct hearings (which I’d bet money on they do not unless the Agency makes them), the vast majority posses the skills and knowledge to do so. To the original comment - there are quite a few differences between AAJs and ALJs in duties, training etc. , but the primary one is basic - ALJs hold the hearings and issue the decisions; AAJs are appellate Judges - they review ALJ’s decisions/dismissals and decide if a remand is warranted or not. They don’t hold appellate level hearings (even though they technically can) and the ones I worked with had no desire to. No. ALJs are inferior officers while AAJs are SSA cherry-picked employees who were never vetted through multiple examinations and interviews by an independent OPM. AAJs do not have the skill set to fact find and conduct hearings. They need to stay in their lane. As someone who’s also worked for both, I second this, and note that many AAJs are former ALJs. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Mar 25, 2022 8:49:51 GMT -5
As someone who’s has worked closely with both ALJs and AAJs, I can say without a doubt that if AAJs wanted to conduct hearings (which I’d bet money on they do not unless the Agency makes them), the vast majority posses the skills and knowledge to do so. To the original comment - there are quite a few differences between AAJs and ALJs in duties, training etc. , but the primary one is basic - ALJs hold the hearings and issue the decisions; AAJs are appellate Judges - they review ALJ’s decisions/dismissals and decide if a remand is warranted or not. They don’t hold appellate level hearings (even though they technically can) and the ones I worked with had no desire to. No. ALJs are inferior officers while AAJs are SSA cherry-picked employees who were never vetted through multiple examinations and interviews by an independent OPM. AAJs do not have the skill set to fact find and conduct hearings. They need to stay in their lane. I realize that it may *feel* that way, but structurally that is not true. AAJs lack the required decisional independence of ALJs. And, if they had it, it would be unconstitutional. AAJs must be controlled, with salary controls (eg bonuses) and termination as sticks, by the Commissioner, otherwise they are principal officers. That is because they sit as designees of the Commissioner in reviewing independent ALJ decisions. That is not the case for ALJs. ALJ decisions can be reviewed by the agency before becoming the decision of the Commissioner, as contemplated by the APA. So the agency can call its reviewing attorneys whatever it wishes, AAJs, Appeals Officers (as is the case in some other agencies), or Policy Magicians. The title doesn’t matter. They are attorneys that the Commissioner has designated to review ALJ decisions on the agency’s behalf and that are subject to having their salary altered and being terminated at will, including for the substance of their decisions, by the Commissioner. Whether some of them were ALJs or not is irrelevant. When they left being an ALJ, they became an agency attorney with a nicer title and salary. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Mar 25, 2022 15:01:30 GMT -5
I second that AAJs lack of judicial independence. I often wonder if AAJs have a “quota” of cases they remand. For those of you wanting to become ALJs, thick skin is a job requirement so I have no problem being told I’m wrong if I am actually wrong. However, after years and years of gotcha and bush league remands (I estimate at least a third of my remands are such) I have to wonder. I am especially wondering after remands for slam dunk FFs on their own motion. What ever happened to substantial evidence? I hope I’m being paranoid but many of my colleagues feel the same way. Lastly, check the numbers especially on FF remands. Is it a coincidence that different ALJs are in moderately large office have roughly the same amount of own motion reviews with about the same percentage of own motion remands? I hope so.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 25, 2022 16:35:47 GMT -5
I second that AAJs lack of judicial independence. I often wonder if AAJs have a “quota” of cases they remand. For those of you wanting to become ALJs, thick skin is a job requirement so I have no problem being told I’m wrong if I am actually wrong. However, after years and years of gotcha and bush league remands (I estimate at least a third of my remands are such) I have to wonder. I am especially wondering after remands for slam dunk FFs on their own motion. What ever happened to substantial evidence? I hope I’m being paranoid but many of my colleagues feel the same way. Lastly, check the numbers especially on FF remands. Is it a coincidence that different ALJs are in moderately large office have roughly the same amount of own motion reviews with about the same percentage of own motion remands? I hope so. I have it on good authority there was an absolute quota of remands that had to happen. That information is a few years old, so it could have changed. Speaking strictly for myself- if the AAJs want to start issuing decisions (without a hearing) on cases that they are otherwise going to remand back to the ALJ, I have no problem with that. Regardless of what the rules say, a fair number of our remands come down to the AAJ just doesn't agree with how the ALJ weighed the evidence. So what's the point of sending that back? If the agency is determined to reverse the ALJs decision, just do it. Don't go through the charade of sending it back to the ALJ to get them to change their decision. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 25, 2022 17:52:56 GMT -5
I second that AAJs lack of judicial independence. I often wonder if AAJs have a “quota” of cases they remand. For those of you wanting to become ALJs, thick skin is a job requirement so I have no problem being told I’m wrong if I am actually wrong. However, after years and years of gotcha and bush league remands (I estimate at least a third of my remands are such) I have to wonder. I am especially wondering after remands for slam dunk FFs on their own motion. What ever happened to substantial evidence? I hope I’m being paranoid but many of my colleagues feel the same way. Lastly, check the numbers especially on FF remands. Is it a coincidence that different ALJs are in moderately large office have roughly the same amount of own motion reviews with about the same percentage of own motion remands? I hope so. I have it on good authority there was an absolute quota of remands that had to happen. That information is a few years old, so it could have changed. Speaking strictly for myself- if the AAJs want to start issuing decisions (without a hearing) on cases that they are otherwise going to remand back to the ALJ, I have no problem with that. Regardless of what the rules say, a fair number of our remands come down to the AAJ just doesn't agree with how the ALJ weighed the evidence. So what's the point of sending that back? If the agency is determined to reverse the ALJs decision, just do it. Don't go through the charade of sending it back to the ALJ to get them to change their decision. They already do this, and they generally do it poorly like so many other things. They’ll kick cases to a “medical expert” to review the record and issue a largely baseless opinion of disability on some listing that isn’t met and without supporting rationale. Then they’ll accept this opinion without explanation other than “it’s consistent with and supported by the record” without any substantive discussion of how or why. It just is, which would (and should) never be accepted by them if we did that. I’ve seen them effectively make up the criteria by saying that even though the labs cited don’t actually satisfy the listings, a doctor said things are pretty bad, so the labs basically satisfy the listing’s criteria. They’ll use post-decision evidence, including a treating source opinion obtained to argue against a decision, to reverse a decision as well. They’re just exceptional adjudicators overall. |
|
