|
|
Post by valard on Oct 10, 2007 15:51:34 GMT -5
learnedhand stated:
"Re: Confirmation of Hiring timeline by COSS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSS is speaking this morning, apparently to management. Our managers are watching. I saw a small bit, but wonder whether he said anything to add to this discussion. I also wondered whether he addressed the soon-to-fail sr atty program."
--- I have heard other comments indicating that the revised Senior Attorney program is not going to be anything like the earlier, robust version that cleared over 50,000 cases in a year.
I have not heard an explanation as to how or why it is different and will not be as successful. Also, I do not understand why it is taking so long to launch. Does anyone have any current, accurate information?
|
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Oct 10, 2007 18:44:17 GMT -5
What I know for sure is that it will be limited to some portion of the current senior attorneys. The downside is that all the decisions drafted by these attorneys will be reviewed by the disability quality review staff (not attorneys) and sent back if not adequate. (I also know this for sure.) Thus, SA's used to having their decisions signed by aljs and sent out will have to do a lot more work to get out anything. Unconfirmed, but I have heard the HOCALJ will have the option of going with the program or not in each office. I am also told that many SA's who have been informed of the program details want to get out of it. I know that I would prefer not to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Oct 10, 2007 19:01:45 GMT -5
Everything always seems to come back to numbers. I may not have this right, but my impression is that the Fully Favorable remands made by the Senior Attorneys will not count as part of each office's disposition goal. These numbers are being characterized as additional output. If that is true, it will effectively divert the most productive writers away from core office production. It may make no difference to the claimant how his/her case is counted, but individual office managers will care.
If it takes the same amount of time to write a Fully Favorable for the judge to sign or a Fully Favorable remand and one counts and the other doesn't, how do you think managers will allocate resources?
|
|
|
|
Post by kimmy on Oct 10, 2007 19:05:05 GMT -5
Hi everyone. I have been reading these boards (I used to read the old one before this one) since about March of this year. Many times, I have had to bite my tongue. There are several reasons however, why I just sit back and read. Like old Abe said, tis better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Anywho, I believe one of the main reasons why this has not started up is because the comment period just closed yesterday. JMO of course. Have a great evening y'all! tinyurl.com/23hglm |
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Oct 10, 2007 19:25:12 GMT -5
The effectuating instructions are not yet out, but the numbers for fiscal 2008 assume Senior Attorney dispositions of (and I could be wrong here) 30K. Until the instructions are out (and they are expected next month) the rest is pure speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Oct 10, 2007 20:18:06 GMT -5
I got my information from people who spoke directly with the commissioner.
|
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Oct 11, 2007 9:03:23 GMT -5
The HOD in our office indicated the SA signatory authority will commence in November for us, but the exact date was unknown.
|
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Oct 11, 2007 10:07:37 GMT -5
I got my information from people who spoke directly with the commissioner. Not to take anything away from anyone who has this kind of access, but even the Commissioner only speaks on matters like this in writing. Whatever he may say, it doesn't count til it's in writing. |
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Oct 12, 2007 21:25:42 GMT -5
What I know for sure is that it will be limited to some portion of the current senior attorneys. The downside is that all the decisions drafted by these attorneys will be reviewed by the disability quality review staff (not attorneys) and sent back if not adequate. (I also know this for sure.) Thus, SA's used to having their decisions signed by aljs and sent out will have to do a lot more work to get out anything. Unconfirmed, but I have heard the HOCALJ will have the option of going with the program or not in each office. I am also told that many SA's who have been informed of the program details want to get out of it. I know that I would prefer not to do it. I can't help but wonder about the ramifications for a HOCALJ who opts out of the program, or the SA who opts out of the program. In my office, accepting unpulled cases was initially optional. But it soon became apparent that anyone wishing to have cases provided for prehearing review had no choice but to accept unpulled cases. The same appears to be true for the unpulled efiles. When the F section exceeds 500 pages, its problematic, but easier to deal with than having no cases to hear.  |
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Oct 12, 2007 22:52:27 GMT -5
The difference here is that the SA opting for the status quo is contributing to the office performance numbers. Since there is little judge support at any level for a sr atty program, it seems reasonable that the RCALJ would back the HOCALJ to keep higher performance numbers coming out of an office. The SA may have less of a choice if the HOCALJ asks them to take part in the program. I'm not sure it is optional for the SA's, but this is all just my speculation.
|
|
