The AC went nuts with remands earlier this year, probably after the rumors (which ceased as soon we cleared out the backlog) that they were getting our jobs. My year 2019 agree rate won't be so high.
They went nuts with remands this year because, for some ridiculous reason, they didn't want to send back Lucia remands without additional rationale. In doing so, they created their own policy or manufactured baseless or absurd reasons to tag on to the remands. Some have been embarrassingly poor suggest minimal understanding of either SSA law or substantial evidence.
Are these reviews that the claimant's requested or the random reviews that they do? I do not know why it takes hem over a year to review these things in either case..
The link is to the ssa.gov site foia section (AKA freedom of information act). So now some believe that inside connections are needed to get a foia posting from the SSA website. I supposed these same people also believe you need inside connections to get an SSA online account or file an application online. Scary that these people are working as ALJ's and interpret a document as being completely opposite from what is says on its face. I wonder if they give the same thoughtful consideration to the medical reports they read.
A $130,000 to $175,000 salary and you can keep your job even if you're only doing it right 60%-70% of the time? I see why there's an entire online discussion forum dedicated to getting this job.
RG = Region TOT RVW = Total Reviewed AGR = Agree (i.e. affirm) REM = Remand (new hearing) REV = Reversal (Vacate ALJ's decision and award benefits by AC directly) DSM = Dismissal EXC = ??? Not sure. Maybe when AC vacates ALJ's decision, but issues their own unfavorable determination.
EXC is a category for excluded. These remands are excluded from counting against an ALJ because of something out of the ALJ's control, like new evidence not submitted until appeal, missing recordings, etc.
Exc = excluded. These don't count against the remand rate because they were out of the ALJ's control. Examples include missing claimants who show up after a dismissal and appeal, representatives who submit stale evidence to the Appeals Council that they never bothered to submit at the hearing level, addresses that were updated at a field office but never caught at OHO, dismissals of no-show claimants who were found to be incarcerated, claimants who claim their representative pressured them into signing an amended AOD or withdrawal of the request for hearing, etc.
It's interesting to see the AC agree rates for each ALJ. However, I find these stats less relevant than ALJ hearing disposition data.
A number of years ago the AC drastically reduced the percentage of claims in which it granted remands. As evidenced by high US District Court remand rates despite the courts having to give a lot of deference to agency findings, the AC is now "agreeing" with a lot of bad ALJ decisions that it should have remanded. Thus, I take AC agree rates with a grain of salt.
My experience is that the AC mostly reacts to facially evident procedural errors like failure to proffer evidence, etc., and a few kinds of unmistakable legal errors. Anything much beyond that is likely off the AC's radar. If my anecdotal experience fairly represents what's going on, then that means that ALJs getting a lot of AC remands are ones who have trouble consistently applying the procedural and legal basics, both when they conduct hearings and when they write or edit decisions. That's a problem and it should be fixed, but I am more worried about the AC agreeing with so many bad decisions. It's not the ones they catch, it's the ones they miss.
9:02 am: The appeals process is not traditional judicial review. The AJs at the Appeals Council are hearing officers rather than independent ALJs. In other words, it's the only judicial system where the appeal goes down to a lower level, from ALJ to AJ.
Like, imagine if a Circuit Court of Appeals decision had to be appealed to municipal court in the judge's home city, before going to the Supreme Court.
Weird system, specifically designed to make busy work, rather than to generate good law or policy. Don't read too much into the numbers.
14 comments:
Interesting. Has SSA released AC outcomes before? I know they release ALJ determination numbers, but I've not seen AC outcome numbers released.
The AC went nuts with remands earlier this year, probably after the rumors (which ceased as soon we cleared out the backlog) that they were getting our jobs. My year 2019 agree rate won't be so high.
They went nuts with remands this year because, for some ridiculous reason, they didn't want to send back Lucia remands without additional rationale. In doing so, they created their own policy or manufactured baseless or absurd reasons to tag on to the remands. Some have been embarrassingly poor suggest minimal understanding of either SSA law or substantial evidence.
Are these reviews that the claimant's requested or the random reviews that they do? I do not know why it takes hem over a year to review these things in either case..
The link is to the ssa.gov site foia section (AKA freedom of information act). So now some believe that inside connections are needed to get a foia posting from the SSA website. I supposed these same people also believe you need inside connections to get an SSA online account or file an application online. Scary that these people are working as ALJ's and interpret a document as being completely opposite from what is says on its face. I wonder if they give the same thoughtful consideration to the medical reports they read.
Sorry, the post I just made above was intended as a comment for the October 16, 2019 article.
Some are clear, but what do each of the headings on the chart mean?
A $130,000 to $175,000 salary and you can keep your job even if you're only doing it right 60%-70% of the time? I see why there's an entire online discussion forum dedicated to getting this job.
@8:15
I believe they are as follows:
RG = Region
TOT RVW = Total Reviewed
AGR = Agree (i.e. affirm)
REM = Remand (new hearing)
REV = Reversal (Vacate ALJ's decision and award benefits by AC directly)
DSM = Dismissal
EXC = ??? Not sure. Maybe when AC vacates ALJ's decision, but issues their own unfavorable determination.
EXC is a category for excluded. These remands are excluded from counting against an ALJ because of something out of the ALJ's control, like new evidence not submitted until appeal, missing recordings, etc.
@9:02 am. It's a miracle that they even get stuff right that often as most of them are lazy or incompetent or both.
Exc = excluded. These don't count against the remand rate because they were out of the ALJ's control. Examples include missing claimants who show up after a dismissal and appeal, representatives who submit stale evidence to the Appeals Council that they never bothered to submit at the hearing level, addresses that were updated at a field office but never caught at OHO, dismissals of no-show claimants who were found to be incarcerated, claimants who claim their representative pressured them into signing an amended AOD or withdrawal of the request for hearing, etc.
It's interesting to see the AC agree rates for each ALJ. However, I find these stats less relevant than ALJ hearing disposition data.
A number of years ago the AC drastically reduced the percentage of claims in which it granted remands. As evidenced by high US District Court remand rates despite the courts having to give a lot of deference to agency findings, the AC is now "agreeing" with a lot of bad ALJ decisions that it should have remanded. Thus, I take AC agree rates with a grain of salt.
My experience is that the AC mostly reacts to facially evident procedural errors like failure to proffer evidence, etc., and a few kinds of unmistakable legal errors. Anything much beyond that is likely off the AC's radar. If my anecdotal experience fairly represents what's going on, then that means that ALJs getting a lot of AC remands are ones who have trouble consistently applying the procedural and legal basics, both when they conduct hearings and when they write or edit decisions. That's a problem and it should be fixed, but I am more worried about the AC agreeing with so many bad decisions. It's not the ones they catch, it's the ones they miss.
9:02 am: The appeals process is not traditional judicial review. The AJs at the Appeals Council are hearing officers rather than independent ALJs. In other words, it's the only judicial system where the appeal goes down to a lower level, from ALJ to AJ.
Like, imagine if a Circuit Court of Appeals decision had to be appealed to municipal court in the judge's home city, before going to the Supreme Court.
Weird system, specifically designed to make busy work, rather than to generate good law or policy. Don't read too much into the numbers.
Post a Comment