... Administrative law judges (ALJ) decided 49,579 Appeals Council remand decisions from Fiscal Years (FY) 2016 through 2018. Appeals Council remands represent the modification of a prior hearing decision often because the ALJ applied the wrong law, additional claimant or other witness testimony was needed, the claimant did not receive a fair hearing, or the ALJ decisional rationale was insufficient.
SSA’s policy states that remands should be processed as a priority workload. Hearing offices are required to flag remands when they are docketed into the hearing office and assign them immediately to an ALJ for review. ...
Although remands should be processed as a priority workload, SSA does not define “priority” and does not have a processing time goal for this workload. Of the 49,579 remands processed in FYs 2016 through 2018,
In my experience, this is definitely a problem. I've never understood what's going on behind the scenes but remands often take longer to schedule than new request for hearing cases.Our sample analysis found some remands took longer to process because they were not always input immediately in the hearing offices’ master docket or the remands stalled in the Ready to Schedule, ALJ Review Pre-hearing, or ALJ Review Post-hearing stages. ...
- 22,144 were processed in fewer than 270 days,
- 10,043 took between 270 and 360 days,
- 5,191 took between 361 and 430 days,
- 7,179 took between 431 and 595 days,
- 4,717 took between 596 and 999 days, and
- 305 took 1,000 days or longer to process.
5 comments:
I have worked with ALJ’s over the years who take a personal interest in a case for reasons not entirely clear. I have had ALJ’s have some sort of a beef with the claimants representative. Sometimes, this is across the board due to a representatives aggressiveness during the hearing, their clear knowledge of the law, and zealousness representing their client. Occasionally, the ALJ developed some sort of issue with the claimant, usually because of disrespect or inappropriate/annoying conduct during the hearing.
I have also worked with ALJ’s who get pissed by some of the silly, nuanced reasons that are sometimes given for an AC Remand, presumably to meet some sort of unjustifiable numerical quota the AC must meet. In fairness, I have also seen many such AC Remands. Because the particular ALJ is more than displeased with the AC Remand, these cases somehow manage to stay the longest amount of time possible in each status stage. You know, they are the last case reviewed and scheduled for hearing by the ALJ, or the decision writer is so confused by either elaborate, overly detailed decision writing instructions, which may include remarks to also come to the ALJ to further discuss orally, or the complete opposite of nominal, at best, decision writing instructions, where no mention is even made about how to address the specific issues the case was remanded.
That ALJ may also order additional medical records, an updated CE, or Medical/Vocational Interrogatories that may either be ordered by the AC, or are within the ALJ’s discretion, or may not really be necessary, but are tools that may also be used to delay for whatever reason.
I have also worked for some ALJ’s who openly expressed in-house, an overall approach to disability cases of, “Let’s delay, delay, delay as long as possible with the idea the claimant will have no choice but to return to work.”
This being said, most of the ALJ’s for whom I have worked are outstanding individuals who give well beyond a 100% to the very important work they perform, and I am honored to have worked with so many. For the record, my work with OHO several years.
Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to underfunded HOs with skeleton support staff. All my remands are supposed to come to me for pre hearing review, a step no longer permitted for ALJs for first-hearing files. All my remands have to be developed, with the evidence usually three years out of date; this sort of pre hearing development is only allowed on remands. Once I move a case out to the support staff (and we now have less than one legal assistant per ALJ in this office), it could take ages to come back. Followed by post hearing work if and WHEN the rep is unprepared or dilatory.
Most of the time my remands come from an out of region NHC judge who denies everyone, or a right wing former colleague with an 80% denial rate. Those usually wind up as pay cases after the evidence is secured, but getting the evidence is the longest step.
Part of the problem is that the stupid scheduling requirements now. My dockets are fully scheduled through December. The earliest open slot I have is January. There is no way to give a true priority given how far out the scheduling unit is working.
Why does it take a year or more to go from the ALJ to the Appeals Council?.
manager comment.
Scheduling is the biggest hurdle. As of Sept 15, 2019, the ALJs in my office are scheduled through January 2020, meaning the earliest available hearing slot is Feb 1, 2020. At a minimum, the case will sit in my office 120 days before a hearing is held. This assumes that I get a case in today and it is completely ready to schedule (it never is).
Before it can be scheduled, it must be "worked up" (a process that can take 2-6 weeks, depending on the legal assistant and complexity of the case) and then reviewed by the ALJ. Some ALJs review a case in 1 day, others take a few weeks.
At this point it is ready for scheduling...so add 120 days (minimum), but more likely 150 days accounting for rep availability. So we are at 190 days pending on the hearing day. As reps know, these are often "complicated" cases and require additional development after the hearing.
Post a Comment