|
|
Post by valard on Sept 2, 2007 16:17:45 GMT -5
Our ODAR hearing office has lagged behind in the paperless hearing area, but it looks like the number of paperless hearings will be increasing dramatically and quickly. There has been a lot of speculation that this will cause the number of hearings scheduled per ALJ per month to drop, causing the inventory of cases to grow even larger.
Does anyone have any actual experience in a hearing office that does a lot of paperless hearings? (e.g., 50% or more). Anything we shoud be looking for? Any tips on how to avoid problems?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 2, 2007 16:30:19 GMT -5
Forgive my ignorance, but why would it cause the number of hearings to drop?
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Sept 2, 2007 16:34:20 GMT -5
Next to the active bar membership requirement currently being litigated, eDib is probably the most likely cause of ALJ retirements in the next few years. While I'm all for technology and how it can improve efficiency, computer files are a pain for some of the older ALJs (and older support staffers used to paper files) who are technologically challenged. Hence the speculation that it will slow down processing time even more.
Regards,
Drone
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 2, 2007 17:17:52 GMT -5
Interesting. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Sept 2, 2007 18:01:57 GMT -5
Our office was one of the first to go efile. The problem is that working with Efile is slower than paper. The writers in the office confirm that experience from SA to paralegal. ARPR is the slowest stage of efile. The hearings are very little different -- as long as the reps/attorneys know how to open the disc. This has been a problem. Unrepresented claimants probably never view their file.
Anyway, the time loss is significant in ARPR and is far worse in cases with more than 10 F exhibits. If you catch VA records then a lot slower.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 2, 2007 18:35:40 GMT -5
Most of the judges are finding electronic review of the files to be much slower than the paper review. Many exhibits are page after page of computer generated reports. Don't really say much, but the paper files can be quickly thumbed through. With the electronic files every page has to be opened individually. Even when the system is working well, an e-file is slower to review than the paper files. Also, the medical source statements are buried in the files and hard to find without looking at each page. These are comments I am hearing mainly about the unworked electronic files.
Once an e-file is worked up, it is much easier, and faster to review. But that takes staff time, and lots of it. Those judges who like to stay on top of the cases and save staff unnecessary work, are finding it so time consuming to review the raw files that it really isn't worth the time invested. This type of review is required for requests for on the record decisions, dire need, and over age 55 review.
When the file gets to hearing, many judges are finding that it is not that much slower to review than the paper files. If the medical source statements are marked, then that makes for a much quicker review . The standard for review in a file where there is a MSS from a treating physician is much different than in a file without one. In that situation the judge only has to determine if the treating notes from the TP, and the other medical evidence of record, support the opinion of the treating physician.
My information is that in a hearing, it is easier for the attorney to refer a specific exhibit and page number to support her position as everything is marked. With the paper files, many attorneys made copies of the file before workup, and don't have the exhibit number and page number. Very difficult in a large file to refer the judge to a particular page when the attorney doesn't know what the page number is!
I think that things will speed up as the staff, attorneys, and judges find shortcuts and ways to work around the limitations of the e-file.
|
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Sept 2, 2007 19:00:21 GMT -5
Actually, there are tricks to working with an e-file, but it takes experience to figure them out. And the face sheet on the front of the file is very poor. Our office has developed an excellent cover sheet but it is impossible to get any review of this sheet by e-staff. I just wish the agency was more flexible in accepting suggestions from people actually performing the job and really reviewing them. I had one case recently where it took forever to find the historical information which was necessary for me to have to draft the decision. When information is excluded in workup it makes it very hard to do your job.
|
|
|
|
Post by cinderella on Sept 2, 2007 19:18:09 GMT -5
Our office is working with e-files. I've been to training and learned to "work up" the file (yes- I think I'm the only attorney in our office to go through both paper file work-up training and e-file training), review e-files, and draft e-decisions. I currently review and draft in the electronic environment. I hate to admit it, but for me, it's really slowed the process- especially reviewing raw, unworked cases. Pretty rough. I hope as the months go by, it will become second nature, but for now- it's slower for sure. Only 3 (maybe 4) of our ALJs are conducting e-hearings so far- but I believe all are on board.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer on Sept 3, 2007 6:25:07 GMT -5
I'm also told that it's more challenging to draft decisions, b/c you have to toggle from the exhibits, on one screen, to the Word decision on another screen, which is especially problematic for writers with access to only one monitor while working ADS.
|
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Sept 3, 2007 7:25:17 GMT -5
It's even more challenging than that if you are outside the office. The CDs for the cases do not give you access to any notes you've made or the bookmarks, from which many of us draft our decisions. In other words it would be like reviewing a paper file and attaching tabs to all relevant material for drafting the decision only to find later that all the tabs had been removed and you were left with what appeared to be an unmarked file.
|
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Sept 3, 2007 10:02:43 GMT -5
The SA's have been screening e-files for a while in our office. We have 2 monitors which I thought all offices had now and that is easier. We draft on flexdays and we take files home, but mostly print out pages we need for drafting along with our notes. It does take a bit longer to screen when there are numerous pages, e.g., VAMC, but we are adjusting. It is true some of the less techno-savvy people, ALJ's and techs, are having difficulty and likely will lead to some early retirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Sept 4, 2007 13:15:27 GMT -5
Judges experienced with handling e-files are suggesting that it is impacting their production by 15-20%. My experience is about the same, but not for the reasons indicated. Things go wrong with e-files on the day of the hearing that make it impractical to schedule as many cases as previously possible. Computers need passwords, unrepresented claimants want help, Reps have extra exhibits or things have not been properly posted. Other than on hearing days, my processing is actually faster because I do not have to go looking for files and I have learned how to find what I need more efficiently. Over time, I expect we will get back to efficiency levels similar to where we started, but there will be those who never adjust.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Sept 7, 2007 23:23:33 GMT -5
For ALJ's who spend time on ARPR the efile process will be slower. SA's have told me review of raw files are worse than worked files and that certainly makes sense. If reps/attorneys know how to open the disc then hearings generally go well in efiles. The DRAP equipment is another matter.
You need two screens unless you want to go crazy in review and writing. ADS is a more difficult because you have to minimize and toggle every sigle exhibit on the mandated agency laptop.
It is now common to have 80% efile at a set of hearings. The agency does not provide for someone to assist a claimant in reviewing the disc but I am not sure they are required to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 8, 2007 7:37:49 GMT -5
If the agency doesn't provide a file in an accessible format to a claimant, it is a due process violation.
With the restrictions the agency places on the hearing reporters, they can't assist the claimant. The only option is to call an employee away from her work to show the claimant how to operate the equipment. Demonstrating is one thing; actually digging into the file is another. By the time the claimant has started looking at the file, it is time for the hearing.
The judge's only real alternative, assuming a full docket for the day, is to postpone the case. The agency abhors a postponement--cuts into the numbers. Just one more unintended consequence due to the e-file.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Sept 8, 2007 9:00:37 GMT -5
The problem with calling in an employee is that there are many HO's that have remote sites. ODAR has always forgotten these sites. There is no employee at those sites. Basically the unrepresented claimant at that site, whether in a regular hearing or VTC, is given a disc and at most pointed to a computer. Management does not like this being brought up and ignore the whole issue. One HOCALJ in Florida told me he did not even send the disc or file to the claimants in VTC but sent an exhibit list with an offer to send a copy of an exhibit if they requested it.
The counter argument is that due process requires only the opportunity to examine the file. If this is true then ODAR is correct. We never offered to read the file to illiterate claimants, why operate the computer for computer illiterate claimants.
Obviously I am not comfortable with this situation, but have no solution.
|
|
