OIG Report Shows Bad ALJ Dismissal Problems

From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) (footnotes omitted):

In an August 4, 2009 letter, Senator McCaskill requested that we review dismissals of hearing requests to ensure disabled individuals are afforded the rights and protections required by law and regulations. The Senator also requested we determine whether there were any unusual dismissal trends by individual ALJs [Administrative Law Judges] or by regions. ...

For our review, we analyzed selected hearing request dismissals to determine whether there was documentation in the case folder to support the dismissal. In addition, we examined dismissal rates by region, hearing office, and ALJ. ...

We reviewed 50 cases dismissed in FY 2009 where ODAR determined the claimant filed the hearing request untimely ...

In 2 of the 50 untimely hearing request dismissals we reviewed, it appeared the ALJ should not have issued an untimely hearing request dismissal. ...

For 7 of the 50 untimely hearing request dismissals we reviewed, there was no evidence in the claimants’ case folders that ODAR requested an explanation for late filing from the claimant (good cause). ...

In 3 of the 50 untimely hearing request dismissals we reviewed, we could not determine whether the ALJ considered the claimant’s good cause explanation. ...

For the 50 untimely hearing request dismissals we reviewed, ODAR took between 6 and 637 days to issue the dismissal to the claimant. ... In fact, more than half the dismissals took more than 60 days. ...

We reviewed 50 cases dismissed in FY 2009 because the claimant abandoned the hearing, that is, the claimant did not appear at the scheduled hearing. For seven cases, the claimants’ case folders did not contain evidence that ODAR attempted to contact the claimants, as required. ...

We reviewed 50 cases dismissed in FY 2009 because the claimant withdrew the hearing request. However, one claimant’s case file did not contain evidence the claimant wanted to withdraw the hearing request. ...

We analyzed all dismissals issued in FY 2009 and found that dismissal rates varied among ODAR regions, hearing offices, and ALJs. ...

For example, one hearing office in the Philadelphia Region had a dismissal rate of 10 percent, while another hearing office in the region had a dismissal rate of 25 percent. ...

Finally, we identified a wide variance in dismissal rates by ALJ. Although 95 percent of ALJs had dismissal rates of 25 percent or less, the dismissal rates by ALJ varied from 0 to 60 percent.

Most of the claimants whose requests for hearing are dismissed are unrepresented. Even when claimants are represented there can be inappropriate dismissals. For example, an ALJ is not supposed to dismiss a request for hearing because the claimant does not appear for his or her hearing as long as the attorney representing the claimant appears but ALJs frequently dismiss in these cases. The Appeals Council always remands them. I must have had a dozen of these cases remanded over the years.