Edmund Round, a Social Security Administrative Law Judge, was suspended without pay for five days for insubordination. He appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Round has lost.
Inferentially, I suspect he was one of the Cleveland ALJs that were sending orders to reps requiring prehearing briefs (which threatened sanctions if a brief was not submitted). That in itself wasn't such a big deal, except the Cleveland ALJs were specifically and repeatedly told to stop sending the orders and he decided that he could ignore the instructions to stop sending the orders. I suppose ODAR eventually lost patience with him.
Some of my fellow ALJs love briefs 'cause they don't have to read the file - if the briefs look "logical" they go ahead and pay the case. Such a wonderful way of not doing your job and collecting a decent pay!
The question of whether it is a good idea to submit briefs, and whether an attorney who does not prepare a brief is not doing his or her job is a different question than whether an ALJ has the authority to issue sanctions against the rep for failing to do his or her job. Current Agency policy (like it or not) is that prehearing correspondence may not include a threat. See HALLEX I-2-5-85: "The ALJ must not impose penalties, threaten sanctions or otherwise state that a representatives fee may be reduced by the ALJ for failure of the claimant or representative to complete and submit responses to the Prehearing Questionnaire."
Having been a decision writer in a hearing office and now a Senior Attorney for many, many years I would like to put my two cents in here. Whether or not required, a claimant's representative does his client a major injustice by NOT submitting a brief. With the workload we have, which cases do you think get the attention during prehearing screening?????? If I were a disabled claimant shopping around for a representative, you can bet I would find out which representatives sent in requests for on-the-record review and which ones submitted briefs. It is a no brainer in my opinion.
10 comments:
You sure this was not Abruzzo?
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-3218.11-17-11.1.pdf
Never mind - that was another interim order issued yesterday. Here is the link to Round:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-3093.pdf
anyone know what his prehearing orders looked like? what was so objectionable tht he had to be suspended?
I wonder how much time and money was wasted on this one.
Inferentially, I suspect he was one of the Cleveland ALJs that were sending orders to reps requiring prehearing briefs (which threatened sanctions if a brief was not submitted). That in itself wasn't such a big deal, except the Cleveland ALJs were specifically and repeatedly told to stop sending the orders and he decided that he could ignore the instructions to stop sending the orders. I suppose ODAR eventually lost patience with him.
why aren't prehearing briefs required in cases that are repped?
the fact that ODAR specifically asked ALJ's NOT to issue these orders is a good example of how clueless management is
Glad to see the commissioner controlling his aljs.
Signed,
disabled
Some of my fellow ALJs love briefs 'cause they don't have to read the file - if the briefs look "logical" they go ahead and pay the case. Such a wonderful way of not doing your job and collecting a decent pay!
The question of whether it is a good idea to submit briefs, and whether an attorney who does not prepare a brief is not doing his or her job is a different question than whether an ALJ has the authority to issue sanctions against the rep for failing to do his or her job. Current Agency policy (like it or not) is that prehearing correspondence may not include a threat. See HALLEX I-2-5-85: "The ALJ must not impose penalties, threaten sanctions or otherwise state that a representatives fee may be reduced by the ALJ for failure of the claimant or representative to complete and submit responses to the Prehearing Questionnaire."
Having been a decision writer in a hearing office and now a Senior Attorney for many, many years I would like to put my two cents in here. Whether or not required, a claimant's representative does his client a major injustice by NOT submitting a brief. With the workload we have, which cases do you think get the attention during prehearing screening?????? If I were a disabled claimant shopping around for a representative, you can bet I would find out which representatives sent in requests for on-the-record review and which ones submitted briefs. It is a no brainer in my opinion.
Post a Comment