From The Tennessean:
A controversial [Social Security Administrative Law] judge who was disciplined in Texas over his refusal to watch a LGBT sensitivity training video has transferred to Franklin, Tenn., where he now hears cases from Tennesseans who believe they were wrongly denied federal disability benefits.
The judge, Gary Suttles, was also the subject of an internal inquiry after a Texas newspaper reported he had made disparaging remarks to a Gulf War veteran seeking disability for service-related health problems.
Veterans groups expressed outrage. The Social Security Administration issued an apology for the judge's comments. ...
There is a longstanding tradition of encouraging ALJs who become controversial to transfer. It foists the troublesome ALJ on another region. However, controversial ALJs generally remain controversial even after they've moved.Three Nashville-area attorneys who routinely represent clients in disability hearings said they were concerned about whether their clients, who include veterans and people of all sexual orientations, can get a fair hearing before Suttles. The three attorneys requested anonymity because they could appear before Suttles in the future. ...
20 comments:
Union must be protecting this ALJ.
Seems like there are plenty of well qualified, even-tempered, and tolerant, attorneys who want these ALJ jobs. So how do people like this ALJ get the job in the first place?
I've appeared before him since his transfer. He doesn't tell anyone his name, doesn't admit evidence, doesn't ask for objections of the evidence, doesn't mention the VE's qualifications, doesn't ask for objections to the VE, and only gives one denial hypo where he says "Based on my review of the evidence, I'm finding ". He asked the same questions that are typical denial posturing from a low payer. Questions about their travel in general, travel outside of local area, travel outside of the state. He will repeatedly ask questions regarding medical treatment he knows the answer to as he'll pipe up and say that "I read that in the file/record". The hearing is just a gotcha-game to him.
One can always go to a Congressional Representative. SSA takes an inquiry from such a source seriously.
Is there any good reason why an ALJ who exhibits such egregious behavior (if true) cannnot be fired?
@5:36 If the ALJ in question did exhibit such behavior, he should be fired. Period. One can only wonder why he has not been fired if, in fact, he did exhibit such behavior.
Responding to a few things here -
1. SSA always tries to transfer problems to another region to avoid dealing with them. There are practically high fives when a problem employee puts in a transfer request. Performance plans stop dead in their tracks if it looks like they can transfer the employee to another region. Especially if the employee has or is going to go through the process of filing for a reasonable accommodation or claiming an EEO violation.
2. There is a testing process to become an ALJ. The old system was mostly controlled by the Office of Personnel Management. It hired for all federal agencies with ALJS. That’s why so many have no prior SSA experience. The new system that went into place after Trumps executive orders last year is more internal (the candidates had to pass the OPM test due to a line in the budget, but SSA gets to do its own interviews). It’s just as bad. The new judges about to be hired are mostly SSA staff who did well, but not too well that they’d be hard to replace in there current jobs. Heavy focus on Spanish language proficiency even though they aren’t hiring for Puerto Rico this round. It’s all about what the people making the hiring decision think is important at that point in time. (There was a rush to get the interviews done before Andrew Saul got confirmed, so there was already a pool of “approved” candidates to choose from.) It’s the last hiring expected for years and they’re only hiring around 35, so expect wait times to go back up as they lose ALJS to attrition.
3. No, we don’t care about Congressional inquiries unless it gets to an actual hearing before Congress. If a Congressmember sends in a letter on a specific case, we add a little flag to the case to make it look like we’re paying attention. Then we send out form letters when the case hits certain statuses. They aren’t like critical cases.
4. It’s always been hard to fire ALJS. Google what happened in West Des Moines and Huntington. The union goes to bat for them, but the system has always made it really hard to fire ALJS. And because it is hard, it is more likely that they’ll be a transfer, a condescending answer (you’re way too sensitive if you were offended by the ALJ commenting on the claimant’s appearance in his notes and decision writing instructions), or even retaliation against whatever poor employee bothered to bring the issue up with a chief ALJ.
Another reason ALJs do not need a union and should have a review every 5 years to see if they deserve the right to be a judge. Personally, I think they should be fired and replaced after 10 years. No ALJ can hear nothing but disability cases and not become jaded, oh another back case, another fibro case, another depression case, it is just human nature.
Suttles has an approval rate of 16% dating back to 2010. In the current fiscal year, he has issued 342 dispositions, with 258 decisions with 62 awards, of which 24 were partial. That would be an 18% approval rate.
Seems like a lovely guy
Would he be lovely with a 90% approval rating? 65%? 50%? Asking for a friend.
To 4:07
I don't know the approval rate that makes someone a lovely guy. Somewhere between 40-60% would probably suggest someone who seriously looked at every case and made their best decision based on that review of the record and the applicable law.
A 90% approval would be great for me, but probably not a Judge who takes the job particularly seriously but a less than 20% approver is far worse since they are the cause of much suffering and pain.
The person 9:58 AM described is never a high payer. By the way... Where do you think those denied by a 16-18% payer go? They appeal to the AC and Federal Court. They reapply for SSDI/SSI. In the meantime, they apply for food stamps, Medicare, rent assistance, etc. They declare bankruptcy, maybe even chapter 7.
People like this guy are clearly biased against the disabled and should be removed for this reason alone. Frankly, ANY judge who isn't fair should be removed!
As for even the 90% or 50% payers: those they wrongly (incorrectly) deny are just as pained and the suffering is just as great. The 20% clearly do it to a lot more people, though.
What about the 90% payer wasting govt money paying it to someone who isn't disabled?
Required sensitivity training is pretty much worthless, just something for SSA to say they have done to address any problem. Someone who is not apt to treat a certain segment of society well isn't going to change based on a 30 or 60 minute presentation. There's training on how to treat disabled, old, blind, deaf, gay, the general public, etc and many of them are repeated every few years, if not every year. It may not be such a waste of time and money if it was effective but in my experience, it isn't.
Fair is a place where they judge pigs. This isn't about "fair" this is if a case meets the law. If the evidence does not support disability it is not approved. If it is denied at Int, Recon, Hearing, AC and Fed, obviously the person is not disabled for programmatic purposes. 1 in every 19 people in the country is on disability so they are not just blindly denying people. If we went back to the beginning of the disability program, we would have about 1 in every 100 getting benefits.
@2:43 - That's ridiculous and ignores the fact that two judges looking over the same type of cases have wildly different approval rates. So it's not as simple as saying "if the evidence does not support disability, the case is denied". I am not assuming or asserting that the higher paying judge is somehow fairer. But let's not blindly pretend the system works in an objective evidence-based fashion. It's a fairly subjective process in ways it shouldnt be.
3:13. PM A 90% payer can pay 9 cases of "questionable" merits of people who actually could work and still be wrong about denying the next person. The nature of the MDI and the bias for and against that MDI go a long ways to SSA's decisions. A diagnosis of ALS is basically enough to get benefits. "Everyone" knows ALS is a terrible way to go, so "everyone" pays. This is true despite the fact that there is little "objective medical evidence" for ALS. The tests, such as an MRI, are done to eliminate other potential causes of the symptoms. Fibromyalgia is even harder to "prove." But, it is the bias against Fibromyalgia, both in and out of the medical profession, that makes it so easy for SSA to deny. The lack of "proof" is not the fault of the claimants. Expecting someone "to prove" something that is "unprovable"...
As for 2:43 PM's assertion that "denied at Int, Recon, Hearing, AC and Fed, obviously the person is not disabled... " This is called circular reasoning. The AC has become a rubber stamp... Federal Court decisions seem based upon ideology as much as anything, plus a standard that allows those who want to affirm the ALJ's decision... need only to find SOME evidence to support the decision. That could be the ALJ's claim that the claimant "wasn't entirely credible... " One of those things you see as "evidence" for this in Fibromyalgia is statements from a doctor that "the pain levels seem out of proportion for" the X-rays, etc. This is actually a SIGN of Fibromyalgia.
I am sure 2:43 PM is either a troll or a Koch Brothers type that thinks a 20% payer pays "TOO MUCH."
Tim "Expecting someone "to prove" something that is "unprovable"..
The govt is not going to pay people who have something that is not provable. Medical evidence has to support the allegations in order to get paid. When someone has an unprovable disability, date of birth, relationship, earnings they don't get the benefit of the doubt. That would be bad stewardship.
They deny the smorgasbord cases, "I have some back pain (no surgery controlled with meds), a bad shoulder (I dislocated it in high school), depression from not working (usually treated by a GP if it at all), I have seizures (controlled by medication with no recurrence in 5 years and a drivers license drove to hearing) and then toss in some hard to define stuff like fibro. Nothing meets or equates on its own and even in combination hard to prove. I am in favor of denying those claims, and if paid, medical diary often and completely.
BEFORE everyone starts screaming "I don't know what it is like to be disabled" and all that junk, I have above the knee ambutation of the left leg, two non moving fingers of the right hand (right hand dom) and PTSD (thanks Uncle Sam I was healthy when I signed up)I get my happy butt up every day and go to work.
@8:45
It's not the type of case that makes a person jaded. It's the type of testimony they hear, including ALJs being lied to on a consistent basis and hearing exaggerated tales. No one can lift more than a gallon of milk. Everyone goes to the grocery store in the middle of the night. No one can sit/stand for more than 5 minutes at a time. No one can walk more than a block without resting. Meanwhile, the records have nothing remotely close those limits.
And if you think those judges approving or that approved 80-90% aren't causing people pain, it's only because you're not dealing with the CDRs on their approvals from 5-10 years ago.
9:02 AM. SSR 12-2p: Evaluation of Fibromyalgia. Help me out here... Of the symptoms that can be SIGNS of Fibromyalgia....
[9] Symptoms and signs that may be considered include the “(s)omatic symptoms” referred to in Table No. 4, “Fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria,” in the 2010 ACR Preliminary Diagnostic Criteria. We consider some of the “somatic symptoms” listed in Table No. 4 to be “signs” under 20 C.F.R. 404.1528(b) and416.928(b). These “somatic symptoms” include muscle pain, irritable bowel syndrome, fatigue or tiredness, thinking or remembering problems, muscle weakness, headache, pain or cramps in the abdomen, numbness or tingling, dizziness, insomnia, depression, constipation, pain in the upper abdomen, nausea, nervousness, chest pain, blurred vision, fever, diarrhea, dry mouth, itching, wheezing, Raynaud's phenomenon, hives or welts, ringing in the ears, vomiting, heartburn, oral ulcers, loss of taste, change in taste, seizures, dry eyes, shortness of breath, loss of appetite, rash, sun sensitivity, hearing difficulties, easy bruising, hair loss, frequent urination, or bladder spasms.
[10] Some co-occurring conditions that may be considered are referred to in Table No. 4, “Fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria,” in the 2010 ACR Preliminary Diagnostic Criteria as “somatic symptoms,” such as irritable bowel syndrome or depression. Other co-occurring conditions, which are not listed in Table No. 4, may also be considered, such as anxiety disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bladder syndrome, interstitial cystitis, temporomandibular joint disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disorder, migraine, or restless leg syndrome.
[11] “Waking unrefreshed” may be indicated in the case record by the person's statements describing a history of non-restorative sleep, such as statements about waking up tired or having difficulty remaining awake during the day, or other statements or evidence in the record reflecting that the person has a history of non-restorative sleep.
So, could you please identity ANY of these SIGNS, CO-CONDITIONS, etc. that can be PROVEN by "objective medical evidence?" Then, why does SSA ask for it?
Post a Comment