|
|
Post by Top Tier on Jun 24, 2023 2:21:38 GMT -5
Get ready. Coming soon to a theater near you...
Hint #1: Provide availability for no less than 50 hearings per month
Hint #2: The wave of cases coming from DDS will get you back to pre-pandemic operations.
Prepare now and get in shape to handle the workload before the tempo onsets.
We will deal with the spending cuts and RIFs, if and when, they arrive in October 2024.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 24, 2023 6:32:10 GMT -5
Rifs with increased caseloads? Which work functions are among the targeted rifs?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jun 24, 2023 6:41:27 GMT -5
Get ready. Coming soon to a theater near you... Hint #1: Provide availability for no less than 50 hearings per month Hint #2: The wave of cases coming from DDS will get you back to pre-pandemic operations. Prepare now and get in shape to handle the workload before the tempo onsets. We will deal with the spending cuts and RIFs, if and when, they arrive in October 2024. Do these reviews ever result in anything? Seen them on a couple of ALJs in office who are outliers and not aware of anything happening after review. ALJs cannot be evaluated. And if there is an ALJ who is not performing then you do not need a focused review to take action the non performance or conduct issues are usually enough to take disciplinary action. According to the union, the last administration was able to evaluate exactly how much time you spent preparing each case. I will just keep plowing along till things get back to normal in the case loads. Since the pandemic, it is rare for all of my projected hearing days to be filled. |
|
|
|
Post by anciano on Jun 24, 2023 13:37:53 GMT -5
I am aware of at least two focused reviews that preceded the affected ALJ's departure from the Agency. The scrutiny and directives attached to this process can make an individual quite uncomfortable. My advice is to stay as policy compliant as possible and avoid getting on the HQ radar.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jun 24, 2023 17:59:48 GMT -5
I begin every work day committed to doing the best job I can as an ALJ. I prepare for my hearings, I listen to the claimants and representatives, and I issue what I truly believe in my heart is the correct decision.
This is not an easy job when it comes to recognizing the impact the decision will have on someone’s life. Focused reviews, or not, I will continue to endeavor to do the best job of which I am capable.
I cannot live in fear wondering whether my hearing schedule, dispositional totals, or percentage of favorable versus unfavorable decisions will bring a focused review my way. Do I want to be subjected to a proverbial trip to the principal’s office? Heck, no.
I will continue to provide the best service I can to the claimants, in a manner consistent with providing them the opportunity to be heard. I will continue to make my decisions based on the facts and the Regulations. I will well and faithfully carry out the duties inherent in the job of ALJ. I would like to think that is sufficient to keep all of us who are so committed off the “focused review” radar screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jun 25, 2023 11:30:06 GMT -5
oig-files.ssa.gov/audits/full/A-12-16-50106.pdf#14Interesting report on these focused reviews. Based on OP it seems they went away for pandemic. My view on report. It seems to me that agree rates is the biggest driver triggering these reviews. And who gets appealed and remanded more? The ALJs that have low pay rates. In fact, the examples cited specifically point out four ALJs without naming them but they ID their hearing offices. Result is a talk by management and if you do not get the implied message then more VOD training. Perhaps in extreme cases you might be directed to go to remedial training by attending New ALJ training again? The minimum number goal has supposedly gone away although those OCALJ memos are still out there but now telework is covered by the CBA so I would say they were essentially superseded. After reading this report and looking at my agree rate which is essentially driven by my pay rate, it looks to me that most of us really have nothing to be concerned about
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 25, 2023 11:36:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 25, 2023 14:09:14 GMT -5
oig-files.ssa.gov/audits/full/A-12-16-50106.pdf#14Interesting report on these focused reviews. Based on OP it seems they went away for pandemic. My view on report. It seems to me that agree rates is the biggest driver triggering these reviews. And who gets appealed and remanded more? The ALJs that have low pay rates. In fact, the examples cited specifically point out four ALJs without naming them but they ID their hearing offices. Result is a talk by management and if you do not get the implied message then more VOD training. Perhaps in extreme cases you might be directed to go to remedial training by attending New ALJ training again? The minimum number goal has supposedly gone away although those OCALJ memos are still out there but now telework is covered by the CBA so I would say they were essentially superseded. After reading this report and looking at my agree rate which is essentially driven by my pay rate, it looks to me that most of us really have nothing to be concerned about You are correct that the majority of us have little to worry about. I believe prior to the pandemic that my HOCALJ was directed to speak to us about every individual remand we received for whatever reason. Depending on your HOCALJ, that could either be a nothing burger or a nuisance time waster. I wrote for one of the problem offices in the long, long ago. I’m pretty sure at least 2 of the 27 sub-65% folks came out of that office. One had a 90+% favorable rate (also featured in the 2014 congressional report!) and the other a 90+% unfavorable rate. It wasn’t so much their allowance rate as their general inability to grasp the rules or the job that led to their terrible remand rates. If you (the royal you) can’t keep it above 65% regardless of the issues with the AC, you might be in the wrong line of work. Same if you can’t hold more than 25 hearings in a month or issue more than 200 dispositions in a year. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 25, 2023 14:36:32 GMT -5
The report u are citing to is 6 years old
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jun 25, 2023 17:30:32 GMT -5
The report u are citing to is 6 years old The last one i could find—is there a more recent one? The last 3.5 years have been years spent dealing with covid and its resulting revolution on the way we do business. Remand rates for dismissals are likely very low because of the extra scrutiny they get in order to leave the office. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 25, 2023 17:40:54 GMT -5
The report u are citing to is 6 years old The last one i could find—is there a more recent one? The last 3.5 years have been years spent dealing with covid and its resulting revolution on the way we do business. Remand rates for dismissals are likely very low because of the extra scrutiny they get to leave the office. Not that I know of. But a lot can change in 6 years. The issues that interest the agency enough to do focused reviews now may be totally different. In fact I assumed the focused reviews were due to high allowances not denials because around 10 years ago, high allowances got lots of attention after the Huntington issues came to light. So 10 years ago it was for lots of allowances and 6 years ago, focused reviews directed at denials. |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jun 25, 2023 18:51:23 GMT -5
The last one i could find—is there a more recent one? The last 3.5 years have been years spent dealing with covid and its resulting revolution on the way we do business. Remand rates for dismissals are likely very low because of the extra scrutiny they get to leave the office. Not that I know of. But a lot can change in 6 years. The issues that interest the agency enough to do focused reviews now may be totally different. In fact I assumed the focused reviews were due to high allowances not denials because around 10 years ago, high allowances got lots of attention after the Huntington issues came to light. So 10 years ago it was for lots of allowances and 6 years ago, focused reviews directed at denials. Yes, I would agree agency is reactive to the latest Flavor of criticism. I suspect they will consider last month’s supposed expose by the Washington post. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/25/social-security-disability-denials-court-remands/ |
|
|
|
Post by monday on Jul 1, 2023 11:17:23 GMT -5
Not that I know of. But a lot can change in 6 years. The issues that interest the agency enough to do focused reviews now may be totally different. In fact I assumed the focused reviews were due to high allowances not denials because around 10 years ago, high allowances got lots of attention after the Huntington issues came to light. So 10 years ago it was for lots of allowances and 6 years ago, focused reviews directed at denials. Yes, I would agree agency is reactive to the latest Flavor of criticism. I suspect they will consider last month’s supposed expose by the Washington post. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/25/social-security-disability-denials-court-remands/Interesting article. It never would have occurred to me to write a book about my boring decision writing job. Maybe they should do a CDR on the claimant who said her symptoms were tied to her menstrual cycle. At 53, it's highly like she no longer has a menstrual cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jul 1, 2023 13:05:54 GMT -5
If you (the royal you) can’t keep it above 65% regardless of the issues with the AC, you might be in the wrong line of work. Same if you can’t hold more than 25 hearings in a month or issue more than 200 dispositions in a year. I agree with most of what hopefalj said but this is the true nugget. The agency doesn't have time to worry about an ALJ that schedules 585 hearings annually and issues 490 decisions annually with a 79% agree rate. Your HOCALJ may get told to talk to you about it but the fact is nobody is going to spend the hours necessary to do a focused review for someone well within the curve. |
|
|
|
Post by gavelman on Jul 22, 2023 10:43:52 GMT -5
Right there with you, Pumpkin.
|
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 26, 2023 22:09:30 GMT -5
Rifs with increased caseloads? Which work functions are among the targeted rifs? It is apparently board tradition that someone will post their somber prediction of impending RIF's. |
|
|
|
Post by Burt Macklin on Jul 27, 2023 7:58:16 GMT -5
Rifs with increased caseloads? Which work functions are among the targeted rifs? It is apparently board tradition that someone will post their somber prediction of impending RIF's. RIFs are being openly considered at OMHA. |
|
|
|
Post by marathon on Jul 27, 2023 10:42:40 GMT -5
It is apparently board tradition that someone will post their somber prediction of impending RIF's. RIFs are being openly considered at OMHA. I assume there will be some issues due to the fact they have two tiers of ALJs, some in competitive and the new hires in excepted…. |
|
|
|
Post by aljudgmental on Jul 27, 2023 12:53:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marathon on Jul 27, 2023 18:49:37 GMT -5
Looks like it’s actually in a different section for ALJs. Reduction in Force. The proposed rule amends the ALJ reduction in force (RIF) regulations currently described at 5 CFR 930.210. When implementing a reduction in force, the provisions in this section are a supplement to the RIF provisions in 5 CFR part 351 that have separate provisions for the treatment of competitive service and excepted service positions. The existing rule, which references part 351, makes clear that competitive service ALJs are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 that apply to competitive service employees and that excepted service ALJs are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 that apply to excepted service employees. The proposed amendment establishes procedures for placement assistance for ALJs reached in an agency's reduction in force for those in both the competitive and excepted service. Under the proposed changes, an agency is required to establish an administrative law judge priority reemployment list and provide consideration to ALJs on its administrative law judge priority reemployment list before it may consider candidates on its regular employment lists, with certain exceptions. www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/21/2020-17684/administrative-law-judges |
|
