|
|
Post by pm on Mar 15, 2009 23:24:13 GMT -5
I was looking over a backlog report someone had provided a link to (thanks). The ten offices with the fastest turn around times were:
1. Mayaguez (184 days)
2. San Juan
3. Portland region 1
4. Chicago screening unit
5. Kingsport (just another reason why Kingsport probably won't get a judge)
6. Ft Lauderdale (278 days)
7. Charleston region 3
8. Harrisburg
9. Houston Downtown
10. Las Vegas (294 days)
The ten slowest offices were:
139. Oak Brook (663 days)
140. Columbus
141. Springfield region 7
142. Chicago video center
143. Madison (712 days)
144. Indianapolis
145. Greensboro
146. Jackson
147. Oak Park
148. Greenville (754 days)
All other things being equal, which of course they are not, the fastest offices probably won't get much help and the slowest probably will. Who knows, maybe Greenville has no office space. We should know the cities for sure this week. Someone who has listed "ALL" will let us know what "ALL" is.
I'm surprised at the huge difference between the fastest and the slowest. I assume there are numerous factors at play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 16, 2009 7:37:17 GMT -5
Greenville has dropped drastically over the last year or so due to death of two judges and transfer out of two others, so I am sure there is space. They did get 3 of the newbies in 2008.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 16, 2009 8:04:28 GMT -5
"All other things being equal, which of course they are not, the fastest offices probably won't get much help and the slowest probably will."
I think it depends on the office's productivity vs its staffing. Due to the increased flexibility afforded by the electronic files and video hearing capacity, Falls Church is more willing to reinforce success and hesitant to throw additional staff into a stagnant office that is not showing production commensurate with its level of staffing. Certain offices have completed work from other offices, in addition to their own work, and have been rewarded with additional staff in return.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Mar 16, 2009 8:12:51 GMT -5
Based upon information previously gathered through this site, following are the numbers of new ALJs assigned in 2008 to the various offices on PM's list:
Fastest Processing Offices:
1. Mayaguez (184 days) – 1 new ALJ
2. San Juan – 3 new ALJs
3. Portland region 1 – 2 new ALJs
4. Chicago screening unit - 0
5. Kingsport - 0
6. Ft Lauderdale (278 days) – 3 new ALJs
7. Charleston, W Va – 3 new ALJs
8. Harrisburg – 1 new ALJ
9. Houston Downtown - 0
10. Las Vegas (294 days) - 0
...
Slowest Processing Offices:
139. Oak Brook (663 days) - 0
140. Columbus – 2 new ALJs
141. Springfield region 7 – 1 new ALJ
142. Chicago video center - 0
143. Madison (712 days) - 0
144. Indianapolis – 1 new ALJ
145. Greensboro - 0
146. Jackson – 4 new ALJs
147. Oak Park – 2 new ALJs
148. Greenville (754 days) – 3 new ALJs
|
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Mar 16, 2009 13:06:06 GMT -5
Is your no. 7 Charleston, WV or SC? I think both of those cities have hearing offices don't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Mar 16, 2009 13:12:23 GMT -5
Is your no. 7 Charleston, WV or SC? I think both of those cities have hearing offices don't they? Good question. There were four new ALJ hires last year in Charleston, SC and three in Charleston, West Virginia. The former had a processing time of 593 days as of 12/08, and the latter had a processing time of 305 days, according to NOSSCR. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 16, 2009 13:33:12 GMT -5
It is the Charleston in Region 3 - so it must be WV
|
|
k
New Member
Posts: 8 
|
Post by k on Mar 16, 2009 15:53:45 GMT -5
All other things being equal, which of course they are not, the fastest offices probably won't get much help and the slowest probably will. Don't count on it. Unfortunately, as you've noted, things are inherently unequal among ODARs. Some judges will be placed where they are not needed simply because a particular ODAR has the necessary office space and/or support staff. The ODAR where I work is in the top 10% in terms of processing times. The judges must accept cases from other jurisdictions to complete their dockets. This means many VTC hearings and also considerable traveling. Yet, there is an indication that we might get yet another judge. It makes no sense to put a judge in one location and require him/her to travel to another for hearings, but that's what will probably happen. Fiscal irresponsibility at its finest. |
|
|
|
Post by oldjag on Mar 16, 2009 19:47:03 GMT -5
That is why we went to e-files and video hearings. You can move the work and not the judge.  |
|
k
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by k on Mar 16, 2009 20:36:56 GMT -5
That is why we went to e-files and video hearings. You can move the work and not the judge. If there were enough VTC hearing rooms, traveling would not be an issue, but at this time many ODARs only have 1 or 2 VTC rooms. The end result is that several judges must compete over scheduling opportunities. Therefore, it is in fact the judge who has to 'move' in many instances. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 16, 2009 20:42:10 GMT -5
If I were a judge (which I hope I will be), I would prefer to have in-person hearings. On video, you can see the claimant, but not smell or use any other senses in judging their credibility. Someone with COPD for example, that comes in smelling like a smokestack, will have a lot less credibility tome than someone who does not. Just as a claimant would like to look a live, in person judge in their eyes, it should be the same way the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 16, 2009 23:04:40 GMT -5
"All other things being equal, which of course they are not, the fastest offices probably won't get much help and the slowest probably will." I think it depends on the office's productivity vs its staffing. Due to the increased flexibility afforded by the electronic files and video hearing capacity, Falls Church is more willing to reinforce success and hesitant to throw additional staff into a stagnant office that is not showing production commensurate with its level of staffing. Certain offices have completed work from other offices, in addition to their own work, and have been rewarded with additional staff in return. Another consideration is simple politics. If Greensboro doesn't add a judge, for whatever reason, ODAR might get blasted by some politician with constituents in that region. |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 16, 2009 23:05:03 GMT -5
Is your no. 7 Charleston, WV or SC? I think both of those cities have hearing offices don't they? Region 3. I corrected it |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 16, 2009 23:06:05 GMT -5
If I were a judge (which I hope I will be), I would prefer to have in-person hearings. On video, you can see the claimant, but not smell or use any other senses in judging their credibility. Someone with COPD for example, that comes in smelling like a smokestack, will have a lot less credibility tome than someone who does not. Just as a claimant would like to look a live, in person judge in their eyes, it should be the same way the other way around. A lot of people would agree with you, on both sides of the bench, but that's not the way ODAR mgmt looks at it. |
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Mar 17, 2009 8:48:59 GMT -5
If I were a judge (which I hope I will be), I would prefer to have in-person hearings. On video, you can see the claimant, but not smell or use any other senses in judging their credibility. Someone with COPD for example, that comes in smelling like a smokestack, will have a lot less credibility tome than someone who does not. Just as a claimant would like to look a live, in person judge in their eyes, it should be the same way the other way around. I do video hearings. They are not my favorite hearings, but I do them. The reality is that my office is doing video hearings for another office with a worse backlog. Would a claimant prefer to look a live judge in the eyes, well, probably yes. Would they choosea video hearing now over waiting another year or so for a live, in person hearing, well, probably no. Although credibility is always at issue, I also find that smelling like a smokestack is not usually what determines credibility. It is, instead, looking at the written record and comparing it to the testimony - checking for consistencies and inconsistencies. I wish you luck on your pursuit of an ALJ position LB. I suspect you will find that once in the job, things you thought you'd never consider doing (like video hearings) become quite acceptable when faced with the realities of the backlog the claimants face in having their cases heard. |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 17, 2009 8:51:45 GMT -5
"If I were a judge (which I hope I will be), I would prefer to have in-person hearings. On video, you can see the claimant, but not smell or use any other senses in judging their credibility. Someone with COPD for example, that comes in smelling like a smokestack, will have a lot less credibility tome than someone who does not. Just as a claimant would like to look a live, in person judge in their eyes, it should be the same way the other way around."
There are a lot of claimants that would be happy to see Yosemite Sam in a robe on a 13" black and white if he would give them a decision on their disability claim within the next 12 months.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 17, 2009 8:56:29 GMT -5
[quote author=valkyrie board=general thread=789 post=12730 time=1237297905There are a lot of claimants that would be happy to see Yosemite Sam in a robe on a 13" black and white if he would give them a decision on their disability claim within the next 12 months.[/quote]
Yes, but only if it were a favorable decision. I look forward to seeing the numbers of denials / approvals of video versus live hearings. There may not be any difference - and if so, then I will stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 17, 2009 9:08:21 GMT -5
Lurker, you are right, and perhapd credibility was not the right word for me to use in that sense. If the backlog is to be reduced and the certain influx of new cases kept to a manageable level, video hearings are a necessity, and I am sure we all will do what is needed. The focus should be on the claimants and getting them a fair decision in a timely manner.
Spending most of my career as a claimant's attorney, I have seen things from that side, and can only say what I would prefer to do, but I will do whatever is within my power to help resolve the problems that have resulted in the backlogs, wherever I am. I am sure that once on the other side of the bench, it will be apparent that the issues are not just the lack of judges, space, etc., but a whole bevy of problems that need to be resolved or worked around.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 17, 2009 9:24:28 GMT -5
"Yes, but only if it were a favorable decision. I look forward to seeing the numbers of denials / approvals of video versus live hearings. There may not be any difference - and if so, then I will stand corrected."
I haven't seen the favorable/unfavorable results skewed in my own office. There has been some resentment regarding the technology intrusion, but otherwise all of the same prior prejudices or lack thereof have applied. I also think that speed is of the essence even with an unfavorable decision. Its a lot easier to stomach a denial after a 12 month wait versus a denail after a 3 year wait.
|
|
