I'm interested in the behavioral psychology aspect of the rule. People tend to do what is easiest for them. If an ALJ has the choice between reviewing more records by letting them in, or less records by ruling them inadmissible, they will always have the incentivize to find the records inadmissible. This is an even stronger incentive since the ALJs (according to the ALJ Union) view themselves as being very stressed with the amount of work already on their plate and the growing sizes of claims files. I don't doubt many legitimately are considering the burgeoning backlog.
Finding records inadmissible, regardless of whether they really should be considered, is a way ALJs can scrape some of that work off their plate with little fear of being held accountable. The rules make it difficult to appeal successfully if an ALJ improperly fails to let records in. Crafting a rule that gives great discretion to an adjudicator, in a circumstance in which they are strongly incentivized to rule against claimants, seems like a really bad idea for what is supposed to be a non-adversarial system.
That being said, I know there are plenty of ALJs whose personal integrity allows them to overcome such incentives and rule objectively. Sadly there are some who don't as revealed in the examples in NOSSCR's published letter. Bravo to NOSSCR for collecting and publishing such examples. They should keep reporting abuses of these harsh rules to build pressure for change.
The type of ALJ that likes to wield rules like this aggressively, in my experience, is the type who gets a kick out of making things as difficult as possible for everyone involved in the process, even if that means creating extra work for themselves as a byproduct. It's easier to pay cases than deny. That doesn't change the behavior of a 10% granter.
@9:34 The ALJs that complain about reps tend to complain about every rep and criticize every rep. The reasonable ALJs understand that getting records isn't always easy and seldom complain. Thus if you make a rep list, depending upon which ALJ you ask, the list will either contain almost no reps or almost every rep.
8 comments:
The sound of one hand clapping.
I'm interested in the behavioral psychology aspect of the rule. People tend to do what is easiest for them. If an ALJ has the choice between reviewing more records by letting them in, or less records by ruling them inadmissible, they will always have the incentivize to find the records inadmissible. This is an even stronger incentive since the ALJs (according to the ALJ Union) view themselves as being very stressed with the amount of work already on their plate and the growing sizes of claims files. I don't doubt many legitimately are considering the burgeoning backlog.
Finding records inadmissible, regardless of whether they really should be considered, is a way ALJs can scrape some of that work off their plate with little fear of being held accountable. The rules make it difficult to appeal successfully if an ALJ improperly fails to let records in. Crafting a rule that gives great discretion to an adjudicator, in a circumstance in which they are strongly incentivized to rule against claimants, seems like a really bad idea for what is supposed to be a non-adversarial system.
That being said, I know there are plenty of ALJs whose personal integrity allows them to overcome such incentives and rule objectively. Sadly there are some who don't as revealed in the examples in NOSSCR's published letter. Bravo to NOSSCR for collecting and publishing such examples. They should keep reporting abuses of these harsh rules to build pressure for change.
@2:45,
The type of ALJ that likes to wield rules like this aggressively, in my experience, is the type who gets a kick out of making things as difficult as possible for everyone involved in the process, even if that means creating extra work for themselves as a byproduct. It's easier to pay cases than deny. That doesn't change the behavior of a 10% granter.
@6:37
I've never seen an ALJ be removed. Also, the most aggressive in my experience is a local chief ALJ.
I like how the report calls out specific ALJ's by name. I appear before of several of these folks, and it is well deserved.
Wonder if the opinion would be the same if SSA started calling out firms and reps by name?
@9:34 The ALJs that complain about reps tend to complain about every rep and criticize every rep. The reasonable ALJs understand that getting records isn't always easy and seldom complain. Thus if you make a rep list, depending upon which ALJ you ask, the list will either contain almost no reps or almost every rep.
Any update on ssa's response, if any, to the nosscr letter?
Post a Comment