Here is the witness list for tomorrow's hearing before the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, with the reversal rate for the Administrative Law Judges in parentheses:
- Tom Coburn, M.D. Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate
- Charles Bridges Administrative Law Judge, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (80% reversal rate)
- James A. Burke Administrative Law Judge, Albuquerque, New Mexico (87% reversal rate)
- Gerald I. Krafsur Administrative Law Judge, Kingsport, Tennessee (96% reversal rate)
- Harry C. Taylor II Administrative Law Judge, Charleston, West Virginia (83% reversal rate)
15 comments:
It's also worth noting that all of these judges were exceptionally high producers with most issuing 1000 or more decisions a year before the agency limited the number that could be assigned
And what percentage of their favorable decisions withstand quality control review? I'd bet they are in line with most other judges because so many cases aren't bright lines.
I'd bet that close scrutiny would find that many are not supported, because to process as many cases as these judges process, you have to take significant shortcuts and are probably relying on MSSs submitted by representatives and not supported by the treating source records
I wonder when the Gentleman From Oklahoma will schedule a hearing featuring 5 judges that deny 80%.
We could follow that with a hearing featuring the next of kin of a representative sample of claimants who passed away as a result of their thoughtful jurisprudence.
Berry beat me to the punch
All 4 of those ALJs who are testifying have very high approval rates. ALJ Krafsur, for example, approves almost 99% of cases before him. I feel like Issa is setting up to berate these judges, and Coburn is there to spew his nonsense about 50% of claims being fraudulent.
Also, I may be missing this but what are these reversal rates, and where does one find that information?
I hope the committee addresses the real point.
It is not the high approval rate. It is how these ALJs can go through over 1,000 cases/year. That is really the issue.
I agree. They should also bring some of the low granting ALJs (those below 30%). Nah, would not do that. That would be too fair.
Perhaps it's numbers, but an ALJ who did 3750+ cases a few years ago isn't being called to testify.
...hmmm...
I believe they will conclude the Hearings with an awards ceremony for the ALJ's who have denied the most cases to claimants with missing limbs.
Considering that these are all outliers, of what significance can their testimony be??
They're being called for theatrical display not for significance. The Kock brothers get to see their champions rise up in righteous indignation to scorn and shame those ALJ's who spend Kook brothers tax money.
oops, it's Koch brothers.
I wouldn't mind seeing similarly low payers called to account, especially if they were pumping out a completely unreasonable number of decisions per year. But you don't often see the low payers producing that much--because they hate the AC and being reversed, so they tend to make sure their decisions aren't one paragraph of rationale pieces of garbage like the innumerable FF ones passed on by these ALJs.
I agree, 1:22. If we're looking to protect the "integrity" of the system, you can make the argument that similarly low paying ALJs are doing even more damage by denying otherwise valid claims. You could easily present claimants whose lives were destroyed because they were wrongly denied by an outlier "low payer." This hearing is just to serve notice to the rest of the ALJs not to pay too many cases, lest they, too, get dragged to testify at a congressional hearing.
Post a Comment