Below is Social Security's Regulatory Agenda as of this summer. Proposed rule stage means that no proposal has been published in the Federal Register for comments. Final rule stage means that the proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register for comments. Social Security is dealing with the comments. In one case, the Musculoskeletal Listings changes, the agency has sent a proposed final rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review prior to publication as a final rule. How many of these will be completed by next inauguration day?
| Agency | Stage of Rulemaking | Title | RIN |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSA | Proposed Rule Stage | Minimum Monthly Withholding Amount for Recovery of Title II Benefit Overpayments (3752P) | 0960-AH42 |
| SSA | Proposed Rule Stage | Use of Electronic Payroll Data To Improve Program Administration | 0960-AH88 |
| SSA | Proposed Rule Stage | Administrative Rules For Non-Attorney Representatives and Claimant Representatives | 0960-AI22 |
| SSA | Proposed Rule Stage | Privacy Act Exemption: Anti-Fraud Enterprise Solution (AFES) | 0960-AI31 |
| SSA | Proposed Rule Stage | Revising Evaluation of Vocational Factors in the Disability Determination Process | 0960-AI40 |
| SSA | Proposed Rule Stage | Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Cardiovascular Disorders | 0960-AI43 |
| SSA | Proposed Rule Stage | Civil Monetary Penalties, Assessments and Recommended Exclusions | 0960-AI49 |
| SSA | Final Rule Stage | Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders (3318P) | 0960-AG38 |
| SSA | Final Rule Stage | Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Digestive Disorders and Skin Disorders | 0960-AG65 |
| SSA | Final Rule Stage | Hearings Held by Administrative Appeals Judges of the Appeals Council | 0960-AI25 |
| SSA | Final Rule Stage | Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews | 0960-AI27 |
| SSA | Final Rule Stage | Improved Agency Guidance Documents | 0960-AI47 |
| SSA | Final Rule Stage | Extension of Expiration Dates for Three Body Systems | 0960-AI48 |
One has to wonder if the proposal regarding hearings by Appeals Judges at the Appeal Council is the beginning of the end for ALJ's at hearing offices. Since so many ALJ's at hearing offices do so little work well, maybe it is not such a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteOh, hearings by the Appeals Council will be the alpha and omega of solutions. Any transparency there at all. Maybe Trump's man can just call in the outcomes when he wishes. Sure this can happens since we have so many lazy ALJ's. Are you joking? Are you a bot? The American public when it gets on to this extremist nonsense will rise up and demand fair and transparent hearings. You are barking up the wrong tree sweetheart.
ReplyDelete@ 9:43 - "The American public when it gets on to this extremist nonsense will rise up and demand fair and transparent hearings."
ReplyDeleteThey haven't done so yet. What makes you think they will anytime soon?
@9:43 AM
ReplyDeleteActually, I think most members of the "American public" would welcome a system that enables the agency to review decision-makers' performance to ensure they're doing the job correctly over a system that allows people to, under the guise of "judicial independence," keep their jobs and evade scrutiny regardless of how well they do the job.
What the hell is the argument for the AC other than ditching any administrative independence for hack political control. Sounds like Steve Bannon's dirtiest night time dream. I predict about a 30% approval rate. Why don't we get rid of the appeals council instead.
ReplyDelete@5:18
ReplyDeleteI've always understood the AC to be a stumbling block meant to reduce the number of cases that reach the courts.
"administrative independence" isn't working so well now. This system is the most arbitrary and capricious thing I've ever seen. It is too often the luck of the draw for claimants. DDS doctors don't review the records. ALJs deny claimants for reasons totally unrelated to their disabilities. It too often depends on which judge a claimant gets as to his or her chances, moreso than the nature of their disabilities. Thank God for the appeals council. I have a case in which no one seriously reviewed the file until it got to the appeals council. Its obvious the DDS docs didn't look at the records - one admitted it. The ALJ felt she didn't live up this moral standard and so there was no need for him to look at the file too closely. Thanks to the AC she may finally get the benefits she should have had 3 or 4 years ago. Let me ask you 5:18, what the hell is the argument for maintaining such an awful system. The whole thing needs to be scrapped and start all over.
ReplyDeleteYou are a bot @7:37.
ReplyDeleteIf you think that your chances of winning a case improve with the AC being able to hold hearings - I think you are sorely mistaken.
ReplyDeleteThe AC is not some august body full of the best experts in their field. Their affirmation rate is historically DDS-level high - if you're really a rep who wants to win cases, you're better off with ALJs -- and mostly what they're doing now is finding FF decisions to reverse. I saw one earlier this year where they reversed an FF decision issued to the family of a deceased claimant. I wanted to ask if they could resurrect my claimant so he could testify on remand.
ReplyDeleteAlso, for the record, of the 200+ comments submitted on the AAJ NPRM, only one favored the AC takeover. One. Clearly the multiple anti-ALJ trolls in this thread didn't even bother to write to Saul to express their feelings.
@8:04 AM
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone questions that ALJs approve more claims than other components of the agency. That hardly means they're doing the job better than the others. And some people's concerns go beyond whether more or fewer claims are being approved. Some, for example, care whether the right decisions are being made, in light of the facts and law. Not saying AC hearing will fix this, of course.
Wonder if the revising evaluation of vocational factors proposed rule is the raising of the grid rule ages that NOSSCR says is supposed to come down this summer? I can't imagine that would go over very well in this current environment. Since it's already July, it doesn't appear likely that it could go through before the election if it does make it the final stage, so hopefully we'll be spared by the election if it ever sees the light of day.
ReplyDeleteI know it's trendy to have an anti-ALJ sentiment on this blog, but good luck if you think you'll get better outcomes from the appeals council. First, they're all in the DC area, so plan for all telephone and VTC hearings. What, you don't like the grant rates at the national hearing centers? Wait until the newly-minted AC hearing staff start issuing decisions.
ReplyDeleteSecond, no decisional independence coupled with more administrative oversight. That means the ability to discipline and fire employees whose grant rate is too high. Employees will be micromanaged until they become automatons. And lets not forget that the hiring process is easier than that for ALJs, so you'll get agency cronyism geared toward those who will issue 1000+ dispositions per year without regard for reading the entire record.
Third, do you really think the AC staff are brighter than your run-of-the-mill ALJ? If so, have you read their remand orders? I have, and the shortcuts in reasoning to reach the desired outcome is staggering at times. Good luck if you think the AC staff magically recruits directly from the Harvard Law Review.
Fourth, because of all the reasons above, the AC staff are more susceptible to political pressure. I hope your business model takes into consideration wild swings in grant rates every four years.
But instead of considering all the above, I guess for some it's just easier to call ALJs lazy (despite case dispositions being the highest in agency history).
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689209.pdf#:~:text=GAO-18-37%2C%20Accessible%20Version%2C%20SOCIAL%20SECURITY%20DISABILITY%3A%20Additional%20Measures,to%20Enhance%20Accuracy%20and%20Consistency%20of%20Hearings%20Decisions
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the GAO report on hearing decisions and tell me you think the current system is fair. When a system is so arbitrary and capricious it is unconstitutional. There is no doubt the current system is unconstitutional. It is far from fair. The previous posters comment about dispositions being the highest is a large part of the problem. I don't recall anyone calling ALJ's lazy. I don't think their lazy. I do think many of them are cranking out decisions so fast they aren't providing due process. I think many claimant's files get all the way through the process without anyone, including the ALJ, taking a good look at the records. I think many ALJs have unacceptable biases that they make no attempt to control. I think many deserving claimants are denied and others who should not get benefits do. I think everyone, accept maybe the ALJs themselves, see that. But neither the agency nor many ALJs care whether they are making the right decisions, only that they are cranking them out fast. Every ALJ that is failing to adequately review cases just to hit number should be ashamed of themselves. Every ALJ that is denying claimants based on anything other than a fair and unbiased review of the evidence should be ashamed. Any DDS doctor who is failing to adequately review the records should be ashamed. This isn't about whether the appeals council is better or worse. Its about a badly broken system and those who work in the system have the gall to come on here and claim it is in any fair. Why are you ALJs so offended by the AC holding hearings? The way I see it, if a case clearly should have been paid, instead of having to remand the case to an ALJ who may deny it again out of spite (yes, I've seen it happen). Why can't the AC hold a hearing and approve the claim. Of course, that might lessen the might ALJs power just a little and we can't have that, can we? Stop being so arrogant, look at the truth. The GAO report proves the system is not fair, that the results for a particular claimant depends more on which judge he or she gets than the strength of their case, and that may bad decisions are being made. Now, let's see how many of you, after looking at that report and those numbers, can defend this joke of a system.
Let me add a little more - some of you ALJs seem to have the deluded impression that you are some lofty independent and unbiased adjudicator - well, that's total B.S. Let's direct this at 10:57 - wouldn't an independent ALJ be more concerned with taking the time to get the cases right rather than hitting the numbers. The fact that you cited the case dispositions being the highest in agency history tells me you are not in the least bit independent. You are towing the agency line - crank the cases out as fast as you can and don't worry about getting it right. Sorry, but that ain't independence. If you guys were truly independent you would stand up to the agency and say we are taking the time to get these cases right. But, instead you hit their numbers, don't you? Independent, give me a break. Now, I never said ALJs were lazy and I don't think they are. I do think many are dishonest. Why do I say that? There are two reasons. One, I frequently see facts that are just plain wrong in these decisions. Most often the information from function reports is wrongly stated to make it appear that the claimant said he or she was capable of more than what they actually said. I know you guys don't draft the decisions but, when you sign them, you are taking responsibility for everything in them. If you sign it and it contains lies, you are a liar. The other dishonesty is in a lot of boilerplate that I see. For example, when relying on the DDS doctors opinion decisions will often say the opinion was supported by citations from the record, was well-supported, or consistent with the records. Often, this is obviously untrue. Those things may seem trivial but they are important and to misrepresent things in that matter is dishonest. Let's talk about bias for a minute We all know DDS doctors are not reviewing records. So, why is it that so many ALJs will rely on their opinion without questioning it while picking apart the treating physicians opinion. WOuldn't an independent and unbiased ALJ evaluate the evidence the same way? Yet, clearly deficient, inconsistent, and just plain sloppy DDS opinions are exalted without any scrutiny, whatsoever but a treating doctors opinion is ignored often on some nitpicky or trivial basis. So, if you think you guys are these lofty, independent, unbiased adjudicators, its time to come down from your lofty perches and take a good smell of reality. Many of you are nothing but agency shills. If you think I'm wrong, stand up to the agency and prove it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. I have been doing this for about twenty-three years and the vast majority of the ALJ's I've practiced in front of have been competent and professional. I have received just not very many AC remands. I am totally without confidence that the AC would do a better job for my clients. I am basing part of this on the the denials I get at the DDD level. If the evidence is overwhelming for my client usually they just totally ignore the evidence. AC has a similiar motive and mentality. The only place my clients get significant relief is from the ALJ's at the hearing level. I believe a vast majority of attorneys and reps with skin in the game would say the same. You keep trashing ALJ's, why don't you be honest about your position and motives here and cut out the BS about it being better for claimants because we don't believe that bull butter for a second. Are you tied in with the SSA suits, the Trump Administration or the Heritage Foundation? I totally don't believe you have a dedicated career helping claimants. Frankly, I think you are full of shit and have cream corn dripping out of the side of your mouth.
ReplyDeleteLet's talk about the DOT. Would an independent judge rely on evidence that is so outdated and unreliable? Hell no. Yet, you all rely on it because that is what the agency tells you to do. Would an independent adjudicator allow the agency to tell them what is or is not competent evidence. Stop lying to yourselves.
ReplyDeleteFeel like a lot of these comments are coming from Russia. Especially the ones who want to just blow up the entire system. Dasvidaniya. And say hello to Putin.
ReplyDelete