The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the lawsuit filed by the Association of Administrative Law Judges, a labor union, claiming that agency productivity guidelines interfered with ALJ independence.
I have always thought that the argument that encouraging greater productivity somehow forced ALJs to approve more claims was preposterous. For goodness sake, the ALJs don't write their decisions!
The agency has not always treated its ALJs with the respect they deserve but this lawsuit wasn't the answer. The ALJ Association would be on sounder ground if it stuck to issues like removing the decision writers from hearing offices. That's an issue where most people would agree that the agency's position is preposterous.
16 comments:
And the ALJ union would have been on more solid ground with its membership had it discussed with them its intent to file this lawsuit. Not many ALJs I know believed this lawsuit was well-considered.
My heart bleeds for the ALJ's, I am encouraging a prayer circle...
heh. Looks like some real judges have put the SSA aljs in their place. How many ways does it need to be said: buck up aljs and stop whining - you're underworked and overpaid as it is.
Okay, the ALJs are an easy target for many reasons. However, Posner's opinion went a little too far. Most ALJs are hardworking and really care about their work. The problem is that some of them are pompous and so busy trying to prove they are real Judges that they end up doing the exact opposite. However, comparing them to chicken deboners is beyond the pale. The cases are more complex and more papered than ever. Having a quota is simply bad business. But I think it is only going to get worse now. A fine mess you got us into now Ollie ........
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/social-securitys-christmas-present-benefit-cuts-for-millions-of-disabled-workers/
This is very disturbing if true. As a person with a disability,this is very unfair to anyone who have not been able to work over a long period of time.
2:00
Actually, according to the stat he dropped in his opinion, most ALJs (52% if I remember correctly) were not that hard working, managing less than 500 dispositions a year until very recently.
7:25
You share the same flawed logic that Messrs Cristaudo and Astrue championed - that the only way to measure how hard an ALJ works is through the number of decisions put out. Quite obviously, a judge can increase the quantity by reducing the quality. Even Posner conceded that.
If ODAD rescinded the "work-at-home" program, productivity would skyrocket. Most ALJs do nothing, or next to nothing, at home.
1:20 pm, I suspect that you are the same person who complained about the SAA's working at home in the post above. Must be a clerical. Pot calling the kettle black, just saying.
7:25, by your logic the West Virginia Judge was a hard worker. Its not quantity and its not supreme court worthy decisions--it is some sweet spot of the two and it will vary from office to office because of numerable factors including the size of the files, the quality of the staff, the diligence of the reps --just to name a few. The one size fits all metrics is doomed to fail and then the contractors will come marching in.
1:20 PM: If an ALJ is meeting the quota of 500 decisions per year, what difference does it make if they work at home? If they are not meeting the quota, don't they lose the right to work at home?
If their combined intelligence of 1400+ with law degrees cannot make an intelligent argument that will stand up in a federal district court ... don't offend us chicken deboners ... you don't see us getting arguments thrown out of court ... just saying ...
Besides having quotas, clocking in and out for work and paying union dues, there is little resemblance between ALJ's and Chicken Deboners.
@ 7:23
not quite. From what I understand the Agency can only take away (or is only taking away) work from home if they are not scheduling enough hearings each month. Nearly the same as having 500 dispositions, but not quite.
@ 4:31
We get the notes from their time and home and get to see how "much" they do, so yeah, he or she probably is a clerical.
Heard from a longtime ALJ out here in San Diego that the quota of 500-800 decisions per year was just a made up figure. They (I assume most of the head ALJs at the time) hashed it out over dinner and drinks. No real research to come up with this figure.
Another reason why total number of decisions is bogus. Out here, the low granting ALJs have many dispositions because they dismiss a lot of request for hearings based on bogus technicalities.
I actually had hearing w/ a an ALJ, she got sick before rendering a decision, and the new low granting ALJ dismissed the request for hearing based on a technicality 1.5 years before. And this is a chief ALJ. Why? Because he disposes about 800-1000 hearings per year. But he is a horrible ALJ not just because he produces.
My point is sheer number of dispositions does not show an ALJ is doing good work. All cases are not alike.
Most of the ALJs seem to work fairly hard (even though I routinely disagree w/ their decisions). You can probably expect at least 300 dispositions per year.
But this arbitrary 500-800 number is just that arbitrary
300? Give me a break.
Assuming an ALJ takes more than four full weeks of leave a year, counting holidays, weekends, etc, that ALJ has over 200 duty days. If they can only manage 1.5 dispositions per duty day (that would be 300 assuming a pretty low number of duty days), knowing that at least 10% will be dismissals, with a staff of writers, well, then...
300 is an awfully low bar, is all I'm saying.
Post a Comment