ALJ Life Expectancy

[apppending]

Is it just me, or are any of you noting that many of the new ALJ's are quitting within 4 years? I know of three locally. Yes, I know OPM recently offered an early retirement plan for ALJ's with prior government service, but..... What makes me crazy is that many of the new hires HATE their job, and when I ask them if they ever did social security work prior to being hired, they answer no. And when I say they HATE their job, I mean they HATE it. A recent new hire indicated it was just matter of finding another job. Oh well, it is another open position for us........

[happy]

That's too bad. Unfortunately, I guess a lot of people don't realize that this is a production job. We have a LOT of people that need decisions and basically need them yesterday. They've waited too long as it is. Yes, you are expected to get your butt in your chair and start cranking out decisions. That's the deal. I don't think that the Commish has been at all ambiguous about that.

Seriously, if you can't or don't want to do that kind of job, then don't accept a job with SSA. Hold out for another Agency. If you interview and decline two offers, you'll drop to the bottom of the Register. However, you don't have to interview with SSA in the first place -- that doesn't affect your place on the register at all. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

[apppending]

I think many make the job harder by not using bench decisions, then fall behind in getting the decisions out, and it just goes downhill from there....

[wallace]

It matters not whether others hate or like this job. It only matters how you feel.

[judicature]

Well, as someone who has come to the job from the outside, I am enjoying what I am doing as an ALJ. What an ALJ does in ODAR matters very much to those who are seeking benefits and it matters to the taxpayers...if you are struggling for meaning in your life and you want to make a lasting impact (in the place where it really counts: people's lives), then an ALJ job with SSA may just be the ticket.

[decadealj]

I spent the first 16 years of my legal life prosecuting or "adjudicating" fraud, waste and abuse; I have been an accessory to the commission of that crime since the adoption of HPI. I abandoned my charge to being the bulwark between the people of our great nation and it's bureacracy long ago. I rationalize it all by considering myself a "triage physician"- save what you can- don't let anyone fall through the safety net of disability. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

[sunshine]

Well said, Judicature. As an individual who was already with the agency and recently hired as an ALJ, I share your sentiments. The ALJ job is very rewarding, and is one where you do get a sense that you are having a real impact on the lives of others. Just a note as to the longevity of ALJ's. In my office, the ALJ's stay so long that they are well past their eleigible retirement years before they even consider leaving this wonderful career.

[deltajudge]

8-)I was an ALJ with OHA for 30 years, beginning in 1976. It was fun to go to work back then, and we got to travel a lot, and we still got to travel a lot right up to the time I retired. That will totally end once televised hearings come into full play. Then they took my staff and personal control of my files away from me, and as one poster stated, OHA went in to production mode. Absolutely no professionalism. People in management cared for nothing, other than getting the cases out the door. The job is now a boring, redundant job, no traveling, no details, just an everyday office job. No change of scenery and once you have seen a social security disability file, you've seen them all. So all of you baby ALJs, have fun.

[mango]

There is a new OIG rpt out dated August 2008 you might want to take a look at. It is in response to a congressional inquiry on how SSA is going to improve the productivity of ALJs and decrease the backlog of cases.

Two observations: At footnote 25 the commissioner is going to propose a reg change that will state SSA will set the time and place of hearing rather than the ALJ. I know in some offices, the cases are docketed by staff and then given to the ALJ. For me this is a big issue as controlling my docket is very important to proper case development and work flow.

The other observation is that it is a strictly numbers analysis with no effort to evaluate the legal accuracy of the decisions made by high and low producers. This is a stated assumption. With productivity ranging from a low of 1 case per year to a high of 2,592 one should question what is happening with judges at such extremes in production. I am not sure how one reads 2,500 records a year. I was surprised to read that there are 17 judges deciding over 1,000 cases per year. and over 48 deciding fewer than 100. To base management decisions on something as simplistic as the number of cases heard is a very misguided decision making process (IMO). There really has to be a lot more to it than that.

Bottom line, I would encourage you take a look at it. It is available on the SSA web site. Search on the following: a-07-08-28094

[extang]

As somebody who did not initially but over time came to HATE this job, I have a couple of observations about some of the comments above. I do not think for most of us the issue is that it is a "production" job. Most people who have had legal jobs outside OHA/ODAR have worked much harder, under more significant time pressures, and under circumstances where the consequences of not "producing" could be much more drastic than at OHA [e.g., try missing the deadline for filing a notice of appeal in federal circuit court by one minute and see what happens].
The overwhelming problem at OHA is well summarized by deltajudge: "Absolutely no professionalism." For whatever odd reasons, many of us before working at ODAR thought of the practice of law as a profession and thought of ourselves as professionals. I will not try to justify that belief, and cheerfully accept that many will have trouble understanding or agreeing with it.
It can be hard to give up that idea, but I believe I am getting there: I think I am now ODAR almost to the bone: virtually all I care about is numbers. If it does not contribute to my getting a dispo, don't bother me with it .

[woody]

Count me int HATE category now too. Love the regular hours and the regular paycheck. But if it were not for 'closely approaching advanced age' a mortgage and a couple of kids in college would go back to being a prosecutor. Production is not a problem, but at this point in my career, I don't need somebody else telling me how to manage a docket,when to set a hearing and which cases to get out first. "Absolutely no professionalism' is right on. You may even be asked to let somebody else sign your name to a decision you have never seen. The COSS wants hearing examiners under his thumb that he can hire and fire based on production and tell what to do down to what cases to hear on what day. And he's nearly there.

[Pixie]

The proposed rule change probably is the first overt step toward centralized scheduling that has been in the works for a while. Haven't paid much attention to how it will work, but I believe it is designed to be automated with little input from a real live person.

Sounds like another boondoggle to me. Will anyone call the rep to check for conflicts. Will the judges efficiency, or lack thereof, in conducting hearings be taken into consideration. Or will it be, as usual, the standard cookie cutter design of one size fits all? Lots of questions with few answers.

Perhaps others of you out there have stayed on top of it and know its machinations? Pix.

[mango]

Pix;

I was told by support staff that is where "management" wanted to go. I am not sure, but now with e-signatures, I think we have gone to centralized printing and mailing now so this would be a next step. I really think that this is an impingement to judicial discretion and I don't say that lightly. Deciding when a case is ready to be heard is one of the ALJ's key responsibilities and such centralized docketing would be a serious hit to that. I prefer a case to be worked before I hear it and not in post. I know others prefer to make use of post. What ever the preference, it should be the ALJ's decision as he/she is the one that is responsible to decide the case.

On the cookie cutter issue, in my office the docketing (scheduling) clerk will try and double or triple up the reps cases so they can better use their time and will work around holidays etc. I think that a wise thing to do. I don't know whether a computerized docketing program will consider those things.

The other issue the report spent a lot of time discussing is how long a hearing takes. Some regularly are under an hour, others over. Again, the amount of time necessary is the ALJ's decision and he/she should be make it and should decide what days he/she will hear cases and how long he/she will allow for each one. In my case, some cases go very quickly (under 30 minutes if it is an obvious pay case with a ve for example) or 2 hours (if you have a very complex set of facts with me and ve testimony and a slow difficult clmt). The question of how many to schedule in a day and how far between is really, I think, a matter of judicial discretion and not a decision to be made by "management."

As to non or under producing ALJs. "management" should look at that and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. That is how you address low productivity. On the same issue, they should take a look at over producing judges as well. If, as "management" says 500-700 cases a year should be the right production, what are they dong to address judges that are hearing over 1,000 cases a year. I can't even speculate how one could read that many files, let alone understand and hear those cases. There might be a way and as I learn more, maybe I will discover it. I would think if there were, however, "management" would bottle it and give it to all ALJs. That surely would solve the backlog problem.

[deltajudge]

8-)We get back to professionalism again. You have people up in Falls Church, who do not have a clue that ODAR is a quasi-judicial agency, and have no idea how a field office functions. To them it is a production line to get rid of all those cases that back-logged due to the HPI fiasco and bringing e-dib in before that was cleared up. Now they are going to iniatate another fiasco with this centralized, computerized scheduling, taking this discretion from the ALJs, and basically from the staff in the field office. It won't work. What those idiots in Falls Church don't reliaze, is the ALJs and attorneys and field office staff are human beings. ALJs have their own life, attorneys have their practices that involve more than ODAR cases and they are involved in other jurisdictions, and the support staff have their other life activities. Just plain stupid. Back when I was among those employed at OHA, which went to ODAR right after I retired, we always said it can't git no worse, but it always did. It continues.

[globalpanda]

Aug 16, 2008 13:44:11 GMT -5 mango said:

Pix;

I was told by support staff that is where "management" wanted to go. I am not sure, but now with e-signatures, I think we have gone to centralized printing and mailing now so this would be a next step. I really think that this is an impingement to judicial discretion and I don't say that lightly. Deciding when a case is ready to be heard is one of the ALJ's key responsibilities and such centralized docketing would be a serious hit to that. I prefer a case to be worked before I hear it and not in post. I know others prefer to make use of post. What ever the preference, it should be the ALJ's decision as

he/she is the one that is responsible to decide the case.

On the cookie cutter issue, in my office the docketing (scheduling) clerk will try and double or triple up the reps cases so they can better use their time and will work around holidays etc. I think that a wise thing to do. I don't know whether a computerized docketing program will consider those things.

The other issue the report spent a lot of time discussing is how long a hearing takes. Some regularly are under an hour, others over. Again, the amount of time necessary is the ALJ's decision and he/she should be make it and should decide what days he/she will hear cases and how long he/she will allow for each one. In my case, some cases go very quickly (under 30 minutes if it is an obvious pay case with a ve for example) or 2 hours (if you have a very complex set of facts with me and ve testimony and a slow difficult clmt). The question of how many to schedule in a day and how far between is really, I think, a matter of judicial discretion and not a decision to be made by "management."

As to non or under producing ALJs. "management" should look at that and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. That is how you address low productivity. On the same issue, they should take a look at over producing judges as well. If, as "management" says 500-700 cases a year should be the right production, what are they dong to address judges that are hearing over 1,000 cases a year. I can't even speculate how one could read that many files, let alone understand and hear those cases. There might be a way and as I learn more, maybe I will discover it. I would think if there were, however, "management" would bottle it and give it to all ALJs. That surely would solve the backlog problem.

Do you not see any logical conflict between some of these positions? Exactly how is management to manage (and incidently deal with slackers, slowpokes and shirkers) if you do not grant the point that management should have some control over the mechanics of the process?

[deltajudge]

8-)Well in the first place, management has to be competent. With Odar, forget it. They have no idea or any comprehension of what goes on in the field offices and how to manage the control and flow of cases, other than come up with outlandish initiatives that further increase the backlog and complicate the everyday handling of cases.

[aljsouth]

Globalpanda wrote:


Do you not see any logical conflict between some of these positions? Exactly how is management to manage (and incidently deal with slackers, slowpokes and shirkers) if you do not grant the point that management should have some control over the mechanics of the process?



Every time the "professional managers" insert themselves into the process the process slows down or nearly breaks. In 1999 the office I am in had no cases over 1 year old. . Then the great managers, wanting control over the process, invented HPI. It now takes 2 and 1/2 years to get a case heard.

Then they piloted DSI in New England. It had some good points, but insisted with the RO program on federalizing the recon stage with inadequate resources and making the RO decision another level of appeal. The system crashed in New England.

Taking control of the process sounds good. One of the problems is we have is this agency sloganeers, that is it uses slogans instead of solving problems. This is another sound good concept; until you realize the people taking control have no concept of what an actual hearing office is like and have never been in a hearing, never scheduled a case, spoken to attorneys or reps.

The agency got the software for centralized scheduling from Ft. Lauderdale traffic court. I have grave doubts it can handle the entire US. Attorneys will be expected to tell the agency all days they can be at hearings for at least 6 months in advance, maybe more. I know because I asked at the mandatory ALJ conference. I then asked about the attorneys who do other work such as workers comp or other court issues and said it would be impossible for them to tell the agency that far in advance [they can schedule a day or 4 days in January with staff at a local office for a specific date, but can't say they will have all but two work days in january available]. I was told, "Tough for them." I.e., they won't get any hearings.

Frankly, I admit resenting the agency thinking it can tell when a case is ready to be heard better than I. I actually look at each file, make notes and develop any issue needing development before I put the case in RTS--ready to schedule. The agency simply plans to schedule without any of this.

Finally, as to "shirkers, etc." all agencies can pursue any employee who fails to do his or her job. This does include judges. I know because I used to do it to elected state judges; but you have to be willing to build a case. This takes work. This COSS simply wants employment at will, his will. The agency wants DDS examiners who can be told how many decisions a week to issue without any thought to due process or fairness. In other words, management controlling the process. The same management that has twice told the claimant he or she was not disabled.

[pm]

The bureaucracy does nothing more than place people in places where they say they are willing to work. The problem rests with those who lie about where they want to work just to get the job. And yes, I do know that some people made an honest choice and just don't like their new city, but I see far more people who intentionally took a job in a city they didn't like and then whine endlessly about it.

[aljsouth]

It is a chronic problem with judges getting hired only to vacate as soon as possible to go where they wanted or closer to where they wanted.

PM is correct that the judges should not put down a location then spend half their time agitating for a transfer. The problem I see is that agency insiders seem to manage to transfer out within first few months while those hired from outside the agency seem to have to wait two years to get on the transfer list and then wait.

It is not just disheartening to the locations where they chronically leave. It screws up the work process because then cases have to be reassigned and staff reassigned every time there is a transfer. Having a judge for less than one year hurts the work process more than it helps. Yet it happens to almost every unpopular HO --repeatedly.

[morgullord]

HPI was designed with the specific intent of killing OHA. The fact that it staggers on eight years later is a testament to all who work for ODAR.