The Social Security Administration placed on leave an administrative law judge who has approved an unusually high number of applications for disability benefits, one week after a page one article in The Wall Street Journal detailed his decisions.
David B. Daugherty, based in Huntington, W. Va., awarded benefits in each of the 729 disability cases he decided in the first six months of fiscal 2011, according to government data. In fiscal 2010, Mr. Daugherty denied benefits in just four of the 1,284 cases he decided.
On May 19, the day the Journal story ran, a team from the agency's inspector general's office seized computers and interviewed employees from the West Virginia office....
Mr. Daugherty, who joined the agency as a judge in 1990, was escorted out of his office Thursday.
I regard the Wall Street Journal's articles on Judge Daugherty to be a hatchet job, unworthy of what was once a great newspaper. Certainly, there is reason to question how Judge Daugherty exercised his discretion but the Journal's articles strongly suggest corruption without producing the slightest proof of it. Implying collusion between Judge Daugherty and a local attorney without presenting proof is out of bounds in my book. All that was presented was proof that one local attorney's clients benefited greatly from Judge Daugherty's largess but the only apparent reason for that was that the attorney in question had more clients with cases before that hearing office than any other attorney. Undoubtedly, that attorney also had more hearings before each of the other judges in that office and received more decisions, both favorable and unfavorable, from that office than any other local attorney. Where is the corruption? Has the Wall Street Journal become nothing more than Fox News in print?
"Has the Wall Street Journal become nothing more than Fox News in print?"
ReplyDeleteThey're both own by Rupert Murdoch, so yes.
Really great blog. My friends referred me your site. Looks like everyone knows about it. I'm going to read your other posts. Take care. Keep sharing.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the fact that he had been cherry picking that particular attorney's cases for years, with the HOCALJ finally having to issue a written directive for him to stop? This was the best researched article I have read about the hearing office process to date. And I have to say-the Agency wanted crazy production, these types gave it to them and they got held up to the rest of us as the gold standard. For anybody in management to assert they could do nothing is complete nonsense- you can't pay a case unless its assigned to you- they assigned him every single one, and provided him whatever extra (substantial) clerical support that was necessary for him to do it.
ReplyDeleteThis is just ridiculous. The commish doesn't take ANY action against the evil ALJs who deny 90%+ cases but will remove an ALJ who grants too many? Where's the logic there? Someone should be be putting a hard line on the "Queens Five" who were recently named in a class action suit for alleged bias and misconduct.
ReplyDeleteBoth the ones who paid everybody (and are loved/defended by the reps) and the ones who deny everybody (and are hated/accused by the reps) should be subjects to termination ('cause they are employees despite the APA, not Article 3 judges). Similarly, all the reps who are in bed with them should be prevented from practicing before the agency and disciplined by their respective bars, if they are lawyers. BTW, claiming that there's no corruption here is an insult to everyone's intelligence - even if there was no legally (highly unlikely), there was morally.
ReplyDeleteWhile I question if this is the WV case, ...
ReplyDeleteI could see an ALJ who would very fully develop the case record (usually including VE & ME) for a clear pay or no pay. This would take work and a lot of staff effort. [The harder question is how to impartially do it with the "three hats"].
This could allow for a large number of cases where the full medical record would very much limit the world of work for the individual. Or, a medical record (including minimal or rejected treatment) and daily activities. allowing a ME to justify a good range of activities and VE pointing to REAL jobs/occupations (not the present _joke_ jobs that do not exist in the current economy, if they ever really existed for the typical claimant).
Given the right amount of work and a well crafted decision, IT IS POSSIBLE for 90% of the raw cases coming into a hearing office to became quite defensible affirmations or denial.
But it is a lot of work -- which one must doubt can be seen in the transcripts and written pay-pay-pay decisions here in question.
Look back at your own blog. The Judge re-assigned that attorney's cases after they had already been assigned to other judges, which is clearly against policy. Therefore, that attorney would not have more decisions from the other judges in the office; he would have hardly any to none.
ReplyDeletei see no huge problem in the lack of investigation into the new york class action. if claimants are denied, they still have the a/c (technically, though they just rubber stamp every denial without any kind of analysis and in disregard of new evidence), and then federal court, where there is a 50% chance of at least remand.
ReplyDeletebut in an affirmance, no one has any recourse to challenge those. "but who is the victim?" you ask? the american taxpayers and those who would have benefited from disability benefits in the future, but the "trust funds" ran out.
All of this interest in the story by the Wall Street Journal. But it appears that this has been known much earlier as this link shows almost the exact same story posted on a blog on January 31, 2011.
ReplyDeletehttp://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2010/11/has-social-security-appeals-process.html
I suspect the REAL problem is a number of ALJs don't want to do their $165,300 job properly and simply pay/deny everyone to move cases to meet productivity goals. Remember, ODAR's stated mission is to "Provide Timely and Legally Sufficient Hearings and Decisions."
ReplyDelete