The
database posted by The Oregonian makes it possible to generate a list of the most and least productive Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in the country. I am not going to bother posting a list of the least productive ALJs in the country since it would be misleading. I can recognize many of those who would be on the list as being in supervisory positions. Others were sick or retired or died early in the year. Here is a list of the most productive Social Security's ALJs in fiscal year 2008.
| Judge Name | Decisions | Total Dispositions | Fully Favorable | Partially Favorable | Approval Rate | Unfavorable | Denial Rate | Year |
| BUSICK, DENZEL R | 838 | 945 | 649 | 49 | 74% | 140 | 15% | 2008 |
| SPARKS, JAMES A | 860 | 975 | 715 | 11 | 74% | 134 | 14% | 2008 |
| PILOSENO, JR., DANIEL A | 892 | 1,544 | 871 | 10 | 57% | 11 | 1% | 2008 |
| BURKE, JAMES A | 899 | 958 | 832 | 35 | 91% | 32 | 3% | 2008 |
| DAWSON, MARK R | 901 | 974 | 579 | 40 | 64% | 282 | 29% | 2008 |
| CONGER, JR., PAUL S | 905 | 981 | 816 | 10 | 84% | 79 | 8% | 2008 |
| JEWELL, W. GARY | 920 | 1,188 | 860 | 24 | 74% | 36 | 3% | 2008 |
| MANICO, WILLIAM M | 941 | 971 | 780 | 16 | 82% | 145 | 15% | 2008 |
| TAYLOR, II, HARRY C | 989 | 1,020 | 942 | 7 | 93% | 40 | 4% | 2008 |
| WASHINGTON, CALVIN | 1,038 | 1,106 | 981 | 27 | 91% | 30 | 3% | 2008 |
| DAUGHERTY, DAVID B | 1,250 | 1,291 | 1,238 | 1 | 96% | 11 | 1% | 2008 |
| MCGRATH, FREDERICK | 1,380 | 1,679 | 815 | 94 | 54% | 471 | 28% | 2008 |
| BUNDY, W. THOMAS | 1,450 | 1,732 | 400 | 93 | 28% | 957 | 55% | 2008 |
| O'BRYAN JR., W HOWARD | 1,690 | 1,750 | 1,670 | 10 | 96% | 10 | 1% | 2008 |
| BRIDGES, CHARLES | 1,939 | 2,194 | 1,820 | 23 | 84% | 96 | 4% | 2008 |
71 72 73 
3 comments:
"I am not going to bother posting a list of the least productive ALJs in the country since it would be misleading."
Or that you might happen to wind up in front of one of them one day.
"Productive" is misleading. With 2,080 hours in a work-year, those doing as many as 1,000 or more are spending 2 hours or less per case (including the hearing (if any), file review, decision-making, and reading the draft decisions.) That is simply not possible if they actually were reading the files or the decisions. You'll note most are simply paying great numbers, as those require less work. Another way to get high numbers is to dismiss cases.
A fair adjudicatory process requires a certain minimum of time to review the evidence and make a decision.
It is true the most productive ALJs tend to be claimant friendly. But what's wrong with that? Most people wait it out before a hearing are not out of work for nothing. An ALJ should grant 60-80 percent of cases. Anything less or more than that is probably a little suspicious.
Post a Comment