From the Social Security Administration's explanation of the Trump Administration's fiscal year 2020 budget proposal:
To improve oversight of the quality of decisions issued by the Office of Hearings Operations (OHO), we are finalizing plans to perform a pre-effectuation review of OHO decisions in FY 2019 that will provide feedback at the national level. We will provide feedback on deficient cases, and the Appeals Council will take corrective action on individual cases as needed. Using the FY 2019 data, we will assess potential review changes to provide additional information and determine resources needed to expand the review or conduct targeted reviews in FY 2020.
8 comments:
All cases? All Favorable cases? All Unfavorable Cases?
Targeted to specific ALJs? High all powers/High Deniers
Random Cases? Protested Cases? (By who) The details are always what matter.
As it is now, the AC has the authority to review cases within 60 days. And, on occasion they do, but it has always seemed to me that the threat of review of favorable cases weighs more on the mind of ALJs than the actuality. How many times have we heard comments to the effect that " I would like to pay this case but I need x so the powers that be won't overturn it". Happy to oblige whenever possible but really Judge, if you think the case should be paid, i.e. you believe the claimant and there is at least some evidence to support it, just go ahead and do it. If the AC remands, then we can deal with it then. Slowing the process for the many to protect against the one in a hundred, if not one in more, own motion reviews wastes everyone's time.
Just what we need, something else to slow the process down. They already have a quality review for most favorable decisions made by the state Disability Determination Services.
Two things in play here.
Number one. For at least the last five years, AC has focused on technical errors instead of substantive errors. That emphasis has changed the writing process and now there is an automated tool to help sniff out those mistakes.
Remands have been declining because the technical errors are becoming less frequent. So AC needs work.
Number two. The executive branch and the Senate believe too many claims are paid. Redirecting AC energy to catching all those ridiculous approved claims fits their viewpoint.
@7:16 at one time we were told up to 25% of favorable decisions would be reviewed and never a straight answer on how they were selected.
When I receive a remand of an unfavorable decision I review what happened.
Sometimes it's evidence I didn't get to see because it was submitted later. Sometimes it's a technical mistake that I could have prevented had I taken 90 minutes or several hours reviewing all the evidence instead of just my notes prior to signing. I spend zero minutes worrying about those remands.
Sometimes, I'm wrong. I read the remand and either agree that I screwed up or at the very least something needs to be further explored. I hate it when it happens but my frustration isn't the AC or district court, it is with myself for letting the claimant down.
Sometimes the remand (almost always from district court) happens because they look at the same evidence and choose to substitute their judgment for mine. I grumble and do it over except in the cases where the magistrate (always the magistrate) dictates exactly what the RFC should be even if the only way to get that RFC is to ignore several exhibits, if the RFC is dictated, I'll will either issue a favorable based on the prior VE testimony or I'll send interrogatories to get it done. I'm not wasting my time or anyone else's with a hearing when I've been ordered to find something.
Remands of favorable grate on me far worse.
My "pay rate" is just below the national, regional and state averages. If I stand before the pearly gates and Saint Peter says, "Judge you paid 250 people you shouldn't have paid and denied benefits to 25 who should have received them" that I will be far more disappointed about the 25 I denied.
If I'm paying a case and I think there is an issue that could trigger a remand and the claimant is represented, I will tell the representative that I plan to issue a favorable or partially favorable and will point out what I believe is a remand concern (say its a close call as to whether UWA applies) and they can take the decision the way I lay it out or they can amend their claim to address the concern.
If I think the onset date should be 1/1/2017 but think 5/1/2017 would be a "safer" onset I'm not going to use the "safer" date unless the rep amends. I don't know what other ALJs do in that situation.
If the claimant is unrepresented, they get the date I think the evidence supports not the one that is "safest" and I'm not going to discuss it because they are too likely to just agree to anything once they understand they are getting benefits.
@7:16
From what it sounds like, they intend to review a certain number of all ALJ decisions, but they already do that. It's pretty rare, but the AC does at times review ALJ determination on their own motion. I think what they are saying is they intend to use the already existing review process to get data, analyze that data, and produce a report explaining where there are deficiencies in the process.
This sounds a whole lot more like focused reviews as the ultimate endgame. It may start out a wide swath of some sort, but knowing how the brass is feeling empowered to manage ALJs more in all sorts of realms lately, I think it's likely they are about to flex their ability to determine what is SSA policy and make ALJs follow it. Expect the small number of judges who regularly have decisions with major issues, etc., to feel the heat primarily.
I wish ten percent of the ALJ corps had the integrity and pride of 1120
Well said, 11:20. We appreciate your insight on this forum. You sound like one of the good ones.
Anon 1120 Appreciate your commitment.
The AC is there to correct errors. My remands usually start with "the ALJ erred..." Everybody makes mistakes even ALJs. The AC is there to cover up those mistakes.
A significant drop in remands should mean there are less errors. I doubt it. I believe the AC is getting pressured to remand less and let decisions stand.
Post a Comment