We are amending our rules to state that our agency is responsible for setting the time and place for a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). This change creates a 3-year pilot program that will allow us to test this new authority. ...
The ALJs [Administrative Law Judges] who conduct the [Social Security] hearings are dedicated, hard working professionals; they will play a central role in helping us reduce the backlog. However, some ALJs do not schedule or hold a minimally acceptable number of hearings, and our current rules are arguably unclear as to certain scheduling issues. ...
We anticipate using this pilot authority primarily in a very small number of situations where an ALJ is scheduling so few hearings that he or she is compromising our efforts to make timely and accurate decisions for people applying for benefits. One impetus for proposing these rules was a New England judge who scheduled no hearings for many years. Because we expect that virtually all ALJs will work with us to schedule hearings in a timely manner, administrative action under this regulation should be an exceptionally rare occurrence. ...
We will consult with the appropriate Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ) and the ALJ before we exercise the pilot authority provided in these rules to determine if there are any reasons why we should not set the time and place of the ALJ's hearings, such as the ALJ being on leave for an extended period or insufficient staff support to prepare cases for hearings. If the HOCALJ does not state a reason that we believe justifies the limited number of hearings scheduled by an ALJ, we will then consult with the ALJ before deciding whether to exercise our authority to set the time and place for the ALJ's hearings.
Jul 8, 2010
More On New Regs On Scheduling ALJ Hearings
From today's Federal Register:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Finally a reasonably useful hammer with which to whack a few incompetent, essentially worthless ALJs over the head. Can this new authority be abused? Undoubtedly. But is it essential in weeding out ALJs who either will not or can not perform the work? Absolutely.
The agency has made progress in addressing problem ALJs via "failure to follow legitimate agency directives," but that is a convoluted process. This will make it abundantly clear (to the MSPB, in particular) that the ALJ who the agency seeks to have removed would not do the most fundamental part of the job: schedule and hold hearings.
Post a Comment