3 hours per case...

[judicature]

Dismissals also count as dispositions. You pick up some of these from no show pro se claimants - provided they have proper notice documented in the file and HALLEX has been followed.

[mango]

It is about the numbers and yes they should be as concerned about the pays and the denials. The reality is they are not. It is also very true that a properly prepared case would make 500-700 per year very doable. The reality is that the cases are not well prepared. All offices are different. This is in part do to personalities of the people in the office and in part do to the circuits they are in. In most legal specialties, there is support staff that helps to sort the wheat from the chaff. Not so much at ODAR. The support staff does carry out the instructions of the judge, and, in my office, do a pretty good job pulling the case. They do not, however, help to sort the wheat from the chaff. Even a pulled file requires the judge to wade through the exhibits to find those that bear on the issue of disability. A good para legal could sort through this and provide direction to which exhibits were relevant to the issue. This would of course allow judges to focus on hearing and deciding cases. The presence of an advocate for the gov't and a more aggressive advocates for the claimant would help as well as they could help to focus the attention of the judge on the relevant exhibits. All would be nice, but it is not the case. The best I have found is to get MEs on the more complex cases to help me to understand sometimes very complex and confusing medical information. Often the ME will tell you he/she does not entirely understand the evidence. They will also at times recommend additional testing to help figure it out. This can be very helpful.

Like some said above, the claimant is a person who deserves our considered decision. The taxpayers are also people that we owe an obligation not to pay a case that does not warrant payment. It all requires time to review and hear the case. I have not gotten it down to 30 minutes unless there is an ME that says it meets or equals. The big time grab is often the claimant and they need an opportunity to be heard. We are the first and I believe only person at SSA that they actually get to see and make their case to.

[tater]

What happens if the alj does not do but say 30 in a months time?
That is reasonable is it not? They way I understand it nothing can or will be done. What is the incentive once you get job?

[counselor95]

Dec 18, 2008 21:18:58 GMT -5 tater said:

What happens if the alj does not do but say 30 in a months time?
That is reasonable is it not? They way I understand it nothing can or will be done. What is the incentive once you get job?

Management will "counsel" ALJs who do not meet their expectations. For hard workers who are conscientious, that's hard to take. Denials take quite a bit more time. 500 pay cases are doable; but the more denials are added, the less that 500 is doable.

The "incentive"to get the job done is that the claimants are people in need of a decision, many in dire straits; even if found not disabled, at least they will have an answer. It is important work; that's enough incentive for many ALJs.

As for bringing up the numbers with dismissals, even dismissals for "no shows" cost some time, whatever the file review takes (and that is a good portion of my time).

I have seen nothing to justify the 500-700 figure, other than management wants it. It apparently was picked out of the air and OIG decided the backlog would go away if each ALJ did those numbers. Emphasis on the numbers without regard to fair disposition of each case disregards the claimant's right to due process-- if the ALJ doesn't know the evidence, how can a fair and legally correct decision be made?

[rhialto]

Twenty years ago, ALJs who decided 30 cases a month were well thought of. Somewhere along the way, we learned we could do more with less (no more unit system: 1 ALJ, 1 hearing assistant; 1 hearing clerk) - and in the light of that perspective we now realize all those ALJs were slackers and their reputations only continue in ignominy.

Since then we have had fewer employees, more regulations, and vastly thicker files, in part because attorneys learned there was a cash cow to be milked.

I know ALJs who can speed read, have a firm grasp of the file, can proceed into the hearing, and be able to talk knowledgeably about the case 6 months later. I cannot do that. I have to make pretty good notes before, during, and after the hearing. It takes me about an hour to make it through 200 pages of medical notes, on the average (in an eFile).

They tell me there are places where DDS (the State Agency) has actual doctors look at a claimant's file, instead of just single decision makers. They tell me that there are places where the record is complete at the day of the hearing. Rumors are that this place is Des Moines. Maybe I should seek a transfer.

In the meantime, I have compromised. I no longer schedule extra time for hearings including a Medical Expert, and instead have only 1 ME scheduled per day. I try to read the files as quickly as I can, often finding more than a thousand pages in the medical section for a day of hearings, and I try to just scan the "E" section, repository for work history, statements by friends and family, statements by the claimant, etc. Frankly, I read decisional drafts at a gallop. If nothing leaps out at me, like a typo, out it goes. I'm bailing as fast as I can, except in one category.

I will not compromise on development. Having a supplemental with a medical expert costs me under the current administration. If I request a consultative evaluation, that also costs me - in actual time spent and also as the representative can request a supplemental hearing on an adverse examinaiton. If I write a treating doctor, as is sometimes outright required by the regulations, that also costs me. Tough noogies- it's my job. If Administration officials wish to change the requirements of due process, then they need to change the regulations. Unfortunately, they are not that honest.

Sometimes I make 40 dispositions a month, once I made 53. A lot of months I don't make 40. I CAN"T THINK ABOUT THAT. We'll see how it works out...

But, for now, Happy Holidays to all!!!!!

[decadealj]

You are not alone- the only way I can look at myself in the mirror is to consider the hearing a pre-hearing conference; I am not going to schedule a VE or ME until I at least know the file is complete. Efile has aggravated the problem with hundreds of pages often being barcoded into the file the night before or morning of the hearing. Since the agency won't allow us to require the rep to certify the record is ready for hearing before scheduling, I am left with the process of scheduling a "supplemental" hearing when necessary.

[hooligan]

Talking about the concept of "3 hours per case" seems to assume that "one size fits all." Every case does not process through all the same steps with a standard amount of information to be digested. I see cases that I can resolve very quickly and others that are nightmares.

The efficency of a judge is highly correlated to the quality of his/her staff. A properly prepared case can be reviewed much quicker than one that is a jumble. A reliable writer takes little time to review, but a problem writer can demand considerable edit time. It is not valid to assume that a judge deciding 450 cases per year is failing or worse than a judge deciding 550 cases. The devil is in the details and focusing on averages ignors the details.

Think of the runners in a marathon. Some can finish in under 3 hours. Others may struggle and finish in 5 to 7 hours. They all got the job done, but some were faster at it than others. Judges are not hired or fired based on how fast they run. Some are inevitably going to be faster than others. While fast may be desireable in some fashion, that can not be the prime measure of the job.