The report shown below was obtained from Social Security by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and published in its newsletter, which is not available online to non-members. It is basic operating statistics for Social Security's Office of Hearings Operations.
I know the backlog is down under a year. Big whoop. I was around when it was three months. Yes, it really was that low at one time and not just briefly. Take a look at Blankenship v. HEW, 587 F2d 329 (6th Cir. 1978). A District Court ordered that Social Security hearings be held in 90 days. The Court of Appeals found that to be unreasonable but also found that 220 days national average at that time was also unreasonable. Yes, I know the Supreme Court later said the courts can't put time limits on Social Security hearings but I'm talking here about an erosion of values. We've come to expect service that would have once seemed unimaginably poor. We need to get these backlogs down as low as we can. You have to give 75 days notice? So what? Claimants and their attorneys will generally waive that time frame. Besides, that 75 day time frame is an issue only in a few areas of the country. Get the backlog down now while you can. Everyone expects an avalanche of claims as the pandemic wanes.
 |
| Click on image to view full size |
8 comments:
That won't be easy when we have no contract court reporters and all VHR duties are being handled by existing staff. This leaves fewer people to pull cases, order medical records, communicate with rep offices, etc. And then there is centralized scheduling which has caused it's own problems. Many ALJ's I know are running out of cases to hear. We can't do paper cases because we can't get into the office. The admin has refused to allow hiring of new employees. People are retiring and not being replaced, putting more strain on the existing employees - encouraging more and more to ALSO retire. I would love for there to be no backlog - and there has been a big push in the last three years to reduce it - successfully. But the top-down support is not there and frankly I think the work that HAS been done has been amazing given the circumstances. I hope someone in a position of power reads your advice and does something practical to heed it. However....
The backlog would be much lower if (a) there wasn’t a significant number of individuals refusing a phone hearing and (b) unrepped claimants could be located or have their cases dismissed as they could with in-person or video hearings. No comment either way, just pointing out there is a large number of pending that simply can’t be dealt with by hearing offices until things are reopened.
Hearing offices would love to get it down to 90-120 days. Files would be far smaller than at 15-21 months. Fewer new or changed conditions to evaluate or have evaluated after the DDS assessment. Unfortunately, it would also mean much less development of conditions that began immediately before filing, fewer later onsets due to age changes, etc. If you thought ALJ favorable rates were low now...
Not just hearings either - how about when a court orders SSA to make a back-pay and SSA does nothing for over a year with no indication to when they will abide by the courts order. They have a sick culture that says they don't have to do anything promptly.
8:09 :: If you are referring to the Steigerwald Class Action Case , it is nearly complete , ahead of the January 2021 mandate. The class is 129,691 cases . As of December 2, 2020, SSA has completed4 124,764 recalculations.As mentioned in the prior status report, nearly all the remaining recalculations arise from SSA’s voluntary decision on November 18, 2020 to initiate a re-review of 8,723 cases where the windfall-offset recalculation had resulted in an overpayment.
But I thought work from home was the end all be all and much more productive?
How can this be?
If working from home is so much more productive, why am I still be asked for 60 day extensions for transcripts on all federal district court cases. I understand there may have been some initial delays in figuring out how to get this done but, if working from home is more productive, shouldn't they be getting caught up. At first, I was agreeing to these because I felt the court would give them anyway. One magistrate did start pushing back. On the second request for extension he only gave them 30 days instead of 60 and ordered them to file a status report. The agency ignored the order to file a status report and on the day the transcript was due filed a notice of intent to file transcript but didn't file it until a few days later. To ignore the orders of a federal court that way is pretty arrogant, isn't it? Anyway, from now on I'm only agreeing to 30 days. If working from home is so productive, they don't need 60, do they?
Where are all those that would come on here and spout about all the "evidence"showing how much more productive they are working at home? .......crickets......... Perhaps Saul's inclination to cut back on telework before the virus was correct.
Let me guess, you're neither OHO nor a rep. There is no more case backlog, I'm now hearing cases where the initial app was filed only 10 months ago.
The requested-to-scheduled ratio for ALJ hearings is down to about 80%, and because SCTs are now spending half their time recording hearings, they have little time left to do POST development for unprepared reps.
It's because ALJs and decision writing support are so efficient on WFH that there are now literally not enough hearings to go round, and not enough support staff available to move what cases have already been held.
Post a Comment