Today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA), Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John B. Larson (D-CT), and Worker and Family Support Subcommittee Chairman Danny K. Davis (D-IL) released the following statement after the Trump Administration announced it would finalize a rule on December 16, 2020 to change the Social Security Administration’s appeals process by replacing independent and impartial Administrative Law Judges with internal agency lawyers:
“For nearly two years, we’ve sounded the alarm that this change would erode due process for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income applicants and beneficiaries and threaten their access to their earned benefits. The rule puts unqualified agency staff in control of deciding appeals hearings and contradicts the congressional intent of the law governing such proceedings. We condemn this political decision that will go into effect just as the Trump Administration is on its way out the door. It is our hope that the Biden Administration rights this grievous wrong and ensures that all those who are eligible can access their disability, retirement, and survivors’ benefits.”
No mention of the Congressional Review Act.
It is long past time to end the tradition of treating AAJs as everyone’s favorite punching bag. AAJs get it from all around and no one cares a bit, which is something management has been more than happy to take advantage of lately.
ReplyDeleteWhether it’s a hearing or an appeal the AC handles claimant’s cases. So no matter if they keep the new AC hearing regulations or trash them, AAJs need better protections and actual support from people like these Congressmen and the new administration.
In fact, lord forbid the new administration take the time to canvass an AAJ or two. ALJs are given platforms to provide input, but I have yet heard ANYONE ask non-manager AAJs for input. I guess it’s easier to see AAJs as a punching bag and not part of the solution.
Morale at the AC is the lowest I have ever seen. I just hope this new administration doesn’t come in and cozy up with management, and then add its name to the long list of those who use the AC as a punching bag.
I don't think any component of SSA has high morale right now; OAO, or whatever the acronym for the new branch housing the AC, is. I have no quarrel with AAJs personally; they have a job to do with ridiculously tight deadlines that seem to preclude thorough review.
ReplyDeleteIt's the effort to make AAJs into something they're not -- judges who control live proceedings, when courtroom or judicial experience has nothing to do with the job as its been done for the last, what, 40 years -- seemingly driven by the idea that ALJs are the biggest problem within OHA/ODAR/OHO. That's what I have a problem with.
Now that Insight (the AI program that scans decision for reversible error) is for is available at the ALJ level, the need for AAJs seems even less urgent.
If OAO wants to put AAJs into the hearing scheme, a better plan would be to put them in as government representatives at the hearing level, opposing claimant reps before the ALJ, arguing the government position on non-disability cases, etc.
Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Many of the ALJs seem to do exactly what the agency wants and in many, I've seen little decisional independence. In fact, too often, I've seen the attitude that they are going to do what the agency wants even when it conflicts with the law. Apparently, they have some motivation to keep the agency happy. So, would there really be any difference?
ReplyDeleteHere's a good example of what I mean that ALJs just tow the agency line: Take the DOT. Even the agency has admitted it is outdated. They have said this type of info should be updated every 5 years. Yet, ALJs continue to rely on it without hesitation. Now, wouldn't an independent ALJ objectively evaluate the reliability of the evidence presented and reject the use of such outdated and unreliable information? How many ALJs have done so? The agency tells them to rely on outdated and unreliable evidence and that is what they do. Independence? Really? Where? I've seen very little of it.
ReplyDeleteWell I thought SSA was coming out with new VOC rules to move away from the DOT. I guess that isn't getting done with the current administration???
ReplyDeleteThe AAJ's do what is asked of them. Is it an ideal system? No.
ReplyDeleteA logical system would be for the AAJ position to be a promotion, a better paying position than ALJ, even if it is just $10 a week better. Staffed with the best applicants whether or not they had been ALJs.
The public ought to be concerned that their first shot at presenting themselves directly will be before a person who isn't protected by the APA and may be in the office next to the person who will review their case if they are denied.
ReplyDelete"ALJs and AAJs need sufficient protections to ensure the public's confidence in the fairness and integrity of the hearings and appeals process."
11:14 -- your last paragraph is dead on point. It's the same problem that recon has. I describe recon to my clients as "Your case goes to the person in the cubicle next to the person who turned you down the first time. Then we request a hearing before an ALJ and that's statistically your best bet of being listened to and believed". I may have to amend that speech to: "After having a 70% chance of being denied at DDS initial and a 95% chance of being denied at recon, now you can appeal to an Appeals Council staff attorney and have an 80% chance of being denied". Time to transition my career over to elder law.....
ReplyDelete