From the Buffalo News (emphasis added):
The Social Security Administration is making some progress in its efforts to cut the backlog of disability cases in Buffalo and other offices.
But not enough progress, according to Social Security Administration judges who came to Buffalo for a conference this week.
Many people with serious illnesses or injuries still wait two years or more to get a hearing, and the judges say that is a source of frustration.
“People deserve the right to have their cases heard within a reasonable amount of time. The current waiting time is not acceptable,” said Marilyn Zahm, an administrative law judge in the Buffalo district.
“I once received a letter from a family member of a man who waited for a long time for his case to be heard, and before it could be heard, the man died,” said Randy Frye, an administrative law judge from Charlotte, N. C. “It made me feel terrible. . . . That just shouldn’t happen.”
Frye is the president and Zahm the vice president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, a national union of judges that held an educational conference Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. About 130 judges attended the event in the Hyatt Regency Buffalo.
The two officials said the system in which they work is in a “crisis.” According to the judges, the long wait for hearings is only one of several serious problems that affect a system on which millions of Americans depend.
Among the other problems, according to the judges:
• Far too many applicants — about two of every three — are turned down, sometimes for no logical reason, when they first apply. Later — only after months of waiting and having to hire attorneys — most of those people are approved for disability.
• The system has little or no flexibility. The judges are required to approve disability pay for life to a person who, in their opinion, should receive it for a year or two.
• They are pressured by Social Security Administration officials to rush cases through the system, when, in some cases, they would like to spend more time researching a case in the best interest of taxpayers and applicants.
“Right now, the only pressure we get from Washington is to push the cases through the system,” Frye said. “That seems to be the only priority.”
Mark Hinkle, a national spokesman for the Social Security Administration, disagreed. He noted that 7.5 million Americans and their dependents now received $106 billion a year in Social Security disability benefits.
“There are no pressures, goals or quotas for judges. We’re just trying to do the best job we can for the American public,” Hinkle said. “I don’t think you’ll find anyone who feels that the waiting times are acceptable.”
"They are pressured by Social Security Administration officials to rush cases through the system, when, in some cases, they would like to spend more time researching a case in the best interest of taxpayers and applicant".
ReplyDeleteIn all cases,that spark reasonable questions,alj/adjudicators should fully develope the claim. That's why,in my opinion,claimants suffer and appeal backlogs exist.
I'd say two or three years is plenty of time for ALJ's to fully evaluate cases.
ReplyDeleteThey are wrong about the statement that most cases are denied initially and that most of those denied cases are later approved. In fact, most are not later approved since a large percentage of people never appeal their initial denials. The ALJ's only see a small subset of the initial denial cases. There is no basis for claiming that the initial denials are for no logical reason, or that these decisions are wrong. SSA has a strong quality review process to make sure that these decisions are accurate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ALJ's approve 70% of the claims brought to them. That seems awfully high. If I were a judge and the state court of appeals overruled 70% of my decisions, I would probably need to find another job.
ReplyDeleteYou nailed it No Saj! That type of scrutiny/consequence does not exist at ODAR and the ALJs take full advantage of it. The problem you have is that ODAR ALJs have been given the powers (in the context of disability claims) and insulation of Article III judges but they have absolutely no accountablity. Article III judges and State court judges must abide by courts rules and judical tenure comissions. ODAR has Hallex (procedural rules) but those are rarely enforced and a ALJ tenure Commission is non existent. ALJs are ODAR are not even required to maintain a Bar membership so local ethics rules don't apply to them. ODAR ALJs have been left unchecked for too long and have since carved out a nice little nitch for themselves as they have more freedom and protections than Article III and state court judges. The ALJ system has to be totally scraped and there simply is no way around out.
ReplyDeleteIf only ALJs approved 70% of the cases they hear. I am a representative, and that number is not accurate. It is the rare judge that approves that many cases.
ReplyDeleteOn average, an ALJ will approve roughly 72% of cases where a medical decision was rendered. This is from SSA's own statistics. This number does not include dismissals, however.
ReplyDeleteTake a look for yourselves:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2007/sect04.html#table62
Please note that the data from after 2003 is somewhat skewed due to case delays, since it was counted by the year the claims were filed.
"The system has little or no flexibility. The judges are required to approve disability pay for life to a person who, in their opinion, should receive it for a year or two".
ReplyDeleteBS. ALJs always have the option of ordering a 12, 18, or 24 month medical review. They just don't do it.
If a shorter medical review is not ordered, it defaults to three-years. Hardly "for life".
ReplyDeleteI do think that judges order the reviews on a fairly regular basis, the issue is that with the backlog the agency simply isn't doing them. The ALJ only has the power to recommend the review, not compel that it be done.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the latest "kudos" email from Falls Church stated that the FY2009 approval rating was 61%. I'm sure this number takes into account dismissals. I would imagine that on cases actually heard the approval rating is 70% or above.