|
|
Post by anciano on Jan 21, 2022 13:11:20 GMT -5
The good news is that it is anticipated that there will be some new ALJ hires in calendar year 2022. The not so good news is that there may not be an authorization for the necessary additional support staff. With the advent of re-entry, additional otherwise unanticipated resignations and retirements may take place, and if certain SSA actuaries are correct, there could also be a spike in claims being filed. This confluence of factors maybe the catalyst to fuel the need to move the process forward. Some trainers have been given a "heads up". Stat tuned, it may be a short notice situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Jan 22, 2022 11:08:12 GMT -5
The good news is that it is anticipated that there will be some new ALJ hires in calendar year 2022. The not so good news is that there may not be an authorization for the necessary additional support staff. With the advent of re-entry, additional otherwise unanticipated resignations and retirements may will take place, and if certain SSA actuaries are correct, there could also be a spike in claims being filed. This confluence of factors maybe the catalyst to fuel the need to move the process forward. Some trainers have been given a "heads up". Stat tuned, it may be a short notice situation. Just tweaking it a tad anciano |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jan 22, 2022 13:32:43 GMT -5
I hope so, but I’ve also heard that TPTB are bringing back retired ALJs in senior judge statuses.
Personally, I’d much prefer a new class instead of bringing back folks that have already had the best job in government and retired.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Jan 22, 2022 13:55:18 GMT -5
I agree with getting 'fresh faces', so to speak. Training, however, might need to be very different from previous 'Judge Camps' (not in-person). Staying at a Hotel for 30 days and 8 hours a day of classes?
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 22, 2022 15:10:29 GMT -5
I hope so, but I’ve also heard that TPTB are bringing back retired ALJs in senior judge statuses. Personally, I’d much prefer a new class instead of bringing back folks that have already had the best job in government and retired. I am certainly rooting for a new class. But, I could see TPTB's logic, if they believe that long term they need to right size the ALJ corps by bringing the total number way down that they'd rather temporarily bring back a few old hands than hire a new class. I don't agree with the logic, but I understand it (and I don't have access to all the data they do). And, as for this being the best job in government... |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 22, 2022 18:00:26 GMT -5
Especially if training would be difficult for a new class (I’d hate for new ALJs to miss out on the friendships formed in judge school), six months of retired judges helping out makes sense when/if the tsunami hits.
|
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jan 24, 2022 7:18:07 GMT -5
The good news is that it is anticipated that there will be some new ALJ hires in calendar year 2022. The not so good news is that there may not be an authorization for the necessary additional support staff. With the advent of re-entry, additional otherwise unanticipated resignations and retirements may take place, and if certain SSA actuaries are correct, there could also be a spike in claims being filed. This confluence of factors maybe the catalyst to fuel the need to move the process forward. Some trainers have been given a "heads up". Stat tuned, it may be a short notice situation. The bad news is that they will not be hired after the exhaustive and exhausting gauntlet process the rest of us had to run through. Not only should this be reinstated immediately, it should be a requirement for appointment as an AAJ. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 24, 2022 10:17:26 GMT -5
The good news is that it is anticipated that there will be some new ALJ hires in calendar year 2022. The not so good news is that there may not be an authorization for the necessary additional support staff. With the advent of re-entry, additional otherwise unanticipated resignations and retirements may take place, and if certain SSA actuaries are correct, there could also be a spike in claims being filed. This confluence of factors maybe the catalyst to fuel the need to move the process forward. Some trainers have been given a "heads up". Stat tuned, it may be a short notice situation. The bad news is that they will not be hired after the exhaustive and exhausting gauntlet process the rest of us had to run through. Not only should this be reinstated immediately, it should be a requirement for appointment as an AAJ. There is still a nice chunk of folks sitting in the register. There is no reason SSA couldn't use those names. Even a SSA specific examination/selection process has to pass muster or they will get sued. There is no path that involves developing a new test, administering a new test, hiring folks, and getting them on the bench by the end of 2022. Or TPTB try to use AC judges and all hell breaks loose. |
|
|
|
Post by rov on Jan 24, 2022 11:10:10 GMT -5
Not a moment to soon for my office has had one ALJ retire last year and three this year (along with numerous support staff). We are down from 18 judges to 10. Moreover, the REPs have informed me that they are signing a record amount of claimants, so it's just a matter of time until we can an avalanche of new hearings. Any other office seeing an uptick in retirements?
|
|
|
|
Post by zbornee on Jan 24, 2022 14:29:32 GMT -5
The bad news is that they will not be hired after the exhaustive and exhausting gauntlet process the rest of us had to run through. Not only should this be reinstated immediately, it should be a requirement for appointment as an AAJ. There is still a nice chunk of folks sitting in the register. There is no reason SSA couldn't use those names. Even a SSA specific examination/selection process has to pass muster or they will get sued. There is no path that involves developing a new test, administering a new test, hiring folks, and getting them on the bench by the end of 2022. Or TPTB try to use AC judges and all hell breaks loose. The ALJ register no longer exists. Trump killed it in an EO. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jan 24, 2022 14:36:33 GMT -5
To my recollection, there was a small group of ALJ candidates who already ran the gauntlet, and for whom offers were imminent. A sudden hiring freeze threw this group into limbo. Would it be possible to reactivate that hiring?
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 24, 2022 16:04:45 GMT -5
Lucia was 8-1, so it's not likely to be walked back. Under current executive policies, the old OPM ALJ register could not be used. I'm not sure simply revoking the EO restores the old register in which OPM decided who was eligible for appointment. It doesn't solve the Lucia problem. The current administration may revisit the process, but Lucia still requires that however candidates are screened, they must be appointed by the president. The issue remaining would be whether the president's choice could be limited to candidates screened by non-appointed civil servants, like OPM.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Jan 24, 2022 17:15:09 GMT -5
To my recollection, there was a small group of ALJ candidates who already ran the gauntlet, and for whom offers were imminent. A sudden hiring freeze threw this group into limbo. Would it be possible to reactivate that hiring? As one of those interviewees I would love for that to be the case but I suspect that wont happen. We got FOADs last year, specifically a notice that the listing had been canceled (about two years after the agency requested applications). |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jan 24, 2022 18:19:12 GMT -5
Five years has gone by and no hiring. I saw that they are now looking for HOCALJs in Morgantown WV, Dover, DE and San Antonio TX. The numbers must be down and I suspect that AAJs are going to be employed to perform remote hearings when the need arises.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jan 24, 2022 20:14:53 GMT -5
Five years has gone by and no hiring. I saw that they are now looking for HOCALJs in Morgantown WV, Dover, DE and San Antonio TX. The numbers must be down and I suspect that AAJs are going to be employed to perform remote hearings when the need arises. I hope the new union president reads this thread demands that the AAJs stay in their lane during contract negotiations. The AAJs already adjudicate too much as evidenced by some of their bush league remands. My two cents…invest in a new class of ALJs instead of allowing AAJs to hold hearings, which is outside their skill set. |
|
otter
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by otter on Jan 25, 2022 9:46:13 GMT -5
Lucia was 8-1, so it's not likely to be walked back. Under current executive policies, the old OPM ALJ register could not be used. I'm not sure simply revoking the EO restores the old register in which OPM decided who was eligible for appointment. It doesn't solve the Lucia problem. The current administration may revisit the process, but Lucia still requires that however candidates are screened, they must be appointed by the president. The issue remaining would be whether the president's choice could be limited to candidates screened by non-appointed civil servants, like OPM. Lucia doesn't require presidential appointment of ALJs. Footnote 3 confirms what the Appointments Clause says. Inferior officers can, if Congress allows, be appointed by agency heads. The Supreme Court confirmed that again in Arthrex. About 10 agencies have hired ALJs since Lucia. None of those ALJs were appointed by the president. Why couldn't candidates be screened? Magistrate judges are inferior officers and they have to go through screening by people who aren't even federal officials. |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jan 25, 2022 10:05:57 GMT -5
"I hope the new union president reads this thread demands that the AAJs stay in their lane during contract negotiations. The AAJs already adjudicate too much as evidenced by some of their bush league remands."
Exactly. To paraphrase either Tom or Ray (I forget who) from Car Talk, "if you don't think so good, please don't think so much."
|
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jan 25, 2022 10:39:55 GMT -5
"There is no path that involves developing a new test, administering a new test, hiring folks, and getting them on the bench by the end of 2022."
I feel like some folks are stuck in the past. There is no requirement to develop or administer a new test. The hiring aspect of the job is not special anymore. It's no different than any other excepted service job. The path is you post a job, collect resumes, interview and hire. The new ALJ jobs we have seen posted since Lucia/EO for other agencies have not involved tests; generally they have just required a lot of agency specific experience presumably shown by resume/interview.
As a side, it kind of seems like the exact scenario the AAJ rule was published. If you're gonna publish it, why not use it? From the final rule published 11/16/20 "This final rule will ensure the Appeals Council is not limited in the type of claims for which it may hold hearings. We expect that this rule will increase our adjudicative capacity when needed, and allow us to adjust more quickly to fluctuating short-term workloads, such as when an influx of cases reaches the hearing level. Our ability to use our limited resources more effectively will help us quickly optimize our hearings capacity, which in turn will allow us to issue accurate, timely, high-quality decisions."
You have a short-term influx of cases due to reopening. Throw some AAJs at it, then you're back to 3.9% unemployment, firms desperate to fill low skill jobs with rising wages, and Gen-X in prime disability years. The ALJ corps is sized for a 2012-17ish massive influx of claims due to boomer demographics and residuals from a financial crisis with slow recovery. The economy is booming, supply can't keep up with demand. There are 11 million fewer Gen-X in prime disability years now than there were Boomers then. The ALJ corps has come down some through attrition but it might still be too big or right sized if you believe ALJs should adjudicate 500-700 claims per year. We shouldn't need a substantial increase in ALJs from current levels until there is a recession, massive job dislocation due to automation, and/or millennials begin to age into disability prime years.
Service delivery goals website says 469,700 or fewer receipts for FY2022. The case analysis report Charles Hall posted was for November 2021 and showed 1176 available ALJs. 469,700/500 is only 940 ALJs.
Screened = Interviewed by SSA Commissioner or her designee, why am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 25, 2022 14:23:38 GMT -5
Lucia was 8-1, so it's not likely to be walked back. Under current executive policies, the old OPM ALJ register could not be used. I'm not sure simply revoking the EO restores the old register in which OPM decided who was eligible for appointment. It doesn't solve the Lucia problem. The current administration may revisit the process, but Lucia still requires that however candidates are screened, they must be appointed by the president. The issue remaining would be whether the president's choice could be limited to candidates screened by non-appointed civil servants, like OPM. Lucia doesn't require presidential appointment of ALJs. Footnote 3 confirms what the Appointments Clause says. Inferior officers can, if Congress allows, be appointed by agency heads. The Supreme Court confirmed that again in Arthrex. About 10 agencies have hired ALJs since Lucia. None of those ALJs were appointed by the president. Why couldn't candidates be screened? Magistrate judges are inferior officers and they have to go through screening by people who aren't even federal officials. As I said, I don't think the screening process is critical, and maybe the new administration would still have OPM screen, but I am unaware of any congressional delegation of the appointment of SSA ALJs from the President to the Commissioner. Maybe I'm wrong, but a casual search showed nothing. That said, as much as I want people on this board to be appointed, it is hard to justify using a years-old process and not letting in new applicants. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 25, 2022 14:32:29 GMT -5
My two cents on both AAJs hearing cases and possible ALJ hiring without some sort of OPM-like screening process-
A year ago, the agency was pretty much in full out war with the unions. There was a pandemic that was allowing the executive branches of the state and federal government to do all kinds of things that would be considered way outside their powers in normal circumstances. And, the President wasn't facing an impending midterm needing in which his party is liked to get smooshed.
I have a hard time seeing TPTB doing anything right now that would trigger a fight with the unions, or with any Democrats on the hill.
Do I pretend that any of these issues are even on the radar of the average American voter? Not at all.
But it just doesn't seem like the time to pick these fights, particularly when they could have done so much more easily just a short time ago.
|
|
