The only real solution for Social Security's humongous hearing backlog is many more warm bodies to get the work done. That will happen, but not immediately. There are some things that can be done now, however that will help to some extent. I had posted these ideas earlier in a very long post. I thought I ought to split it up into bite sized chunks. Here is the first installment
Hold hearings on cases without "pulling" exhibits
When case files come into ODAR, they are a mess. There are duplicate copies of medical records. Medical records may have been requested from a single provider on several occasions, meaning that the records from that provider are spread out at several places in the file. Even when all of the records from a single provider are in one place, they may not be in chronological order. Even if they are in chronological order, the order will go forward in one set of records and backwards in another. The files are jumbles. A staff member "pulls" out the relevant medical evidence and places it in some order. The exhibits are marked with numbers. This is extremely helpful for all involved and should never be abandoned permanently. However, staff shortages have made pulling exhibits a bottleneck. Many ALJs would like to hold more hearings but cannot because files have not been "pulled."
Some hearing offices have abandoned "pulling" exhibits as a general matter. The exhibits are "pulled" only if a claim is to be denied. This is inconvenient for all concerned and can lead to confusion and misunderstandings, but there is no doubt that it improves productivity. Social Security seems to have no fixed policy on this. My opinion is that instructing ALJs to hold hearings routinely on unpulled files would improve ODAR productivity by at least 10%. This is a temporary expedient that should be abandoned quickly after the crisis is over. This could probably be implemented in less than three months, although the complaints about it would continue for years after it was over.
6 comments:
The Chief ALJ has alredy taken a step in this direction: only the E and F evidence needs to be exhibited. The A, B, and D evidence doesn't need to be marked. (C is the junk stuff.) This is based on memory, not on rereading old memos
This is for paper folders.
Based on the description of the files before records are “pulled” I have to wonder how often relevant medical evidence is overlooked initially causing the need for a hearing or higher level of appeal. Kind of gives new meaning to being in the right place at the right time!
How hard can it be to put a document in a folder in the right place the first time? I'm sure plenty of people waiting for a hearing would be glad to come in to help!
If that’s all that was involved, pulling wouldn’t require much effort. But unpulled medical evidence is full of duplicates and typically isn’t in chronological order. That’s still not a large problem to cure if you’re talking about 50 pages. But when it’s 500 pages, that’s an entirely different matter.
Yes, but how to the duplicates wind up in the file in the first place, and shouldn't documents be added to the file in the proper place and chrolological order in the first place?
Seems easier to do it right the first time!
I doubt there’s enough room here to answer in any detail. You get duplicates because when SSA (actually, DDS) request updates from treatment sources, the treatment sources sometimes send everything all again. And then when there’s a representative, sometimes everything gets resubmitted. On top of that, the individual will filing the claim will sent in bits and pieces of duplicate evidence.
None of this arrives in chronological order. Dr. X’s records don’t arrive first because Dr. X’s records predate Dr. Y’s. Evidence arrives at it arrives. Plus, files accumulate odds and ends that aren’t evidence and need to be weeded out.
Nobody sends in material marked “Exhibit 1F,” “Exhibit 2F” or “Exhibit 17F.” And except for fairly rare exceptions neither Dr. X nor Dr. Y paginates his or her evidence. I omit other complications.
Post a Comment