The Appeals Council Is A Mess
From a recent
report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) (emphasis added):
In FY
[Fiscal Year] 2013, AC
[Appeals Counsel] request for
review
dispositions exceeded FY 2007 dispositions by about
102
percent. However,
receipts
were greater than dispositions during the same period, resulting
in a tripling of pending cases from about 53,000
to about 157,000
cases by the end of FY
2013.
The increase in pending claims resulted in longer average processing times (APT)
at the end of
FY 2013, with claimants waiting about 364
days for an
AC
action
, up from 227
days in FY
2007.
While SSA had an APT goal for AC workloads in prior years, SSA
ended
its annual reporting on
APT
in FY 2012. During this same period, t
he AC
focused
its
efforts on processing the oldest
cases in the backlog under the Agency's
Aged Case
initiative
and made progress in reducing the
average age of its pending claims. Moreover,
the growth in
the number of
dispositions
over this
7-year period
follows the addition of
adjudicators and staff
as well as efforts to
increase
the
productivity
of
analysts and staff supporting adjudicators.
While
OAO [Office of Appeals Operations] established
numerical productivity goals for
analysts,
it did not
establish
similar
productivity goals for
AC adjudicators, although it did
have timeliness goals for its adjudicators.
In FY 2012,
AAJ
[Administrative Appeals Judges] annual
dispositions
ranged from 780
to 3,471
cases.
We found a similar range
with AO [Appeals Officer]
adjudicators.
The lack of productivity goals and
cap
s
for AAJs or AOs, particularly
given the wide range in the number
of dispositions each
AAJ
and AO issued, increases the risk
that OAO may miss opportunities to increase production
as well as identify potential quality
issues.
Finally, while
OAO
executives
had
created internal,
division-level
productivity goals for
every DPA division
and communicated those goals with OAO manager,
some
managers and
staff
were confused as
to how those
internal
goals were determined. ...
In SSA’s FY 2013 APP, SSA explained that it eliminated the
APT
goal because
“We have successfully reduced Appeals Council average processing time over
the
last few years and want to now focus on eliminating Appeals Council cases pending 365 days
or over.”
However, as shown in
Table
1, APT had increased over the last few years. ...
[W]e found
the number of dispositions per adjudicator
dropped
in FY 2009
before
rising
annually
through FY 2012. However, by the end of FY 2012,
adjudicator productivity had
not
reached the FY 2008
disposition level ...
10 comments:
I'm an ODAR senior attorney and I am more than a little jealous and upset that my AC comrades don't have to deal with the lovely productivity goals and related joys we here work under.
With such a high level of USDC remands, one would figure the AC would be more productive since it appears that they only actually take the time to review every other case.
Your AC comrades (the analysts) do have productivity goals according to the report, it's the adjudicators that do not.
Just wait until the CDR appeals begin to hit them. Then they will know chaos. Anyone that is on a pay status that loses said paid status has no reason not to appeal and now they know the system so get braced...
AC adjudicators have "unofficial" productivity goals. AOs are expected to "review" 15 cases a day; AAJs, 2-3. AOs review recommendations to deny review and sign denial notices. At a rate of 15+ a day, you can imagine how closely they're really looking at those cases.
AC adjudicators have "unofficial" productivity goals. AOs are expected to "review" 15 cases a day; AAJs, 2-3. AOs review recommendations to deny review and sign denial notices. At a rate of 15+ a day, you can imagine how closely they're really looking at those cases.
3:45 I'm just curious and truly ignorant - have there been a large number of claimants removed from pay status recently due to CDRs?
@8:12 - This isn't 3:45, but the issue is the agency's ramped up CDR efforts that are getting underway. It's a given that lots of folks will get ceased in the process, and in that case, as 3:45 said, they'll have no reason *not* to appeal. So, there is an anticipated deluge coming down the pike...
AC attorneys most definitely have official production goals just like the hearing level writers.
So is the SSA using this tactic to delay effectuation of fully favorable decisions? I was approved after a 30 month wait, am on verge of homelessness only to be told by operator at SSA 800# I must wait another year. Even if interim benefits get granted after 110 days, I will have lost everything. Believe me, if I could work, I WOULD.
Post a Comment