Mar 11, 2014

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:

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Your AC comrades (the analysts) do have productivity goals according to the report, it's the adjudicators that do not.

Anonymous said...

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...

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

@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...

Anonymous said...

AC attorneys most definitely have official production goals just like the hearing level writers.

Anonymous said...

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.