The Social Security Administration has lifted lifted the temporary suspension of issuing dismissals for untimely filed hearing requests and for failure to appear at a scheduled hearing.
That temporary suspension was implemented in October. Effective March 8, absent a showing of good cause, they will resume issuing dismissals in cases involving an untimely filed hearing request, or when neither the claimant nor the appointed representative, if any, appeared at a scheduled hearing.
Before issuing a dismissal, however, they will take additional steps to confirm that they are complying with established notice procedures including conducting quality reviews for these specific dismissals.
If they mail a notice of hearing at least 75 days before the date set for the hearing, but do not receive the acknowledgement form at least 30 days before the hearing, they will attempt to contact the claimant or appointed representative for an explanation.
Similarly, if they mail an amended notice of hearing or notice of supplemental hearing at least 20 days before the hearing date, but do not receive the acknowledgement form at least 10 days before the hearing, they will attempt to contact the claimant or appointed representative for an explanation. ...
For more information, contact Jack Burns, public affairs at Social Security Administration, 866-331-4359.
15 comments:
ALJ dismissals have to be approved by attorneys in the regional office first. Convoluted and backwards, this plan won't result in many dismissals at all.
So many hoops to jump through. Plus in office quality review. This "policy" amounts to nothing.
Since that is more than a couple of days in the past, it is old news, lol. Latest is no dismissals - of any kind - unless first reviewed by OQR. Not worth the trouble.
This dismissal procedure changes almost daily, they publish guidance and then they take it back or change it later in the day.
Now all dismissals have to be checked by HOCALJ before quality review
I have quite a few cases where rep agreed to phone hearing. When they cannot get a hold of the claimant they withdraw, OHO tries to contact claimant by phone and mail is returned including NTSC. These cases cannot be dismissed, we reschedule them, send out new notice to address we know is not good, schedule VE, interpreter in some cases and go back to square one on hearing day. It is stupid and wasteful.
@12:10 Seems odd and unnecessary to have attorneys in the regional office review the decision of an ALJ. If that's the case why even have an ALJ program. Just make the ALJ job a hearing officer job if there is such little faith in the ALJ's that they need their dismissals reviewed by folks in the regional office. Talk about a waste of time.
7:09: that's backwards though. The fault is with management, Gruber and Neagle. Don't punish the ALJs and claimants for management's Trump-adjacent "No independent judges" agenda.
well, considering somewhere around half of all dismissals (at least the ones the AC looked at) were clearly remandable due to huge failures to follow the normal contact procedures before dismissing, I can see how SSA mgmt might want to peek at the dismissals issued during COVID with its enhanced contact procedure requirements for dismissals but what do I know?
Love putting all my faith in an ALJ corps to complete a certain task--harder to perform now--that it has shown itself to be deficient in.
I support having career attorneys in regional offices review ALJ dismissals. Keep in mind that SSA's ALJ Corps is largely comprised of ALJs who have no prior experience in disability law. You can be a divorce attorney one day and a SSA ALJ the next. SSA is the only federal agency that I'm aware of where someone with no prior experience in the subject matter can be hired off the street as a subject matter expert (i.e., an ALJ). Moreover, the ALJs have little incentive to learn the law, as they have an entire corps of career decision writers to draft decisions for them. Given the unusual hiring method, this level of oversight is absolutely needed.
@6:28 And you think somehow the career attorneys in regional offices know any better? And if the ALJ's are so bad at following the procedures for dismissals then the ALJ program at SSA is even worse off than some have indicated and should be ended.
@6:04 AM
"And if the ALJ's are so bad at following the procedures for dismissals then the ALJ program at SSA is seen worse off than some have indicated and should be ended."
I think if you ask around at the agency, you'll find a lot of people who agree, for the very same reasons @6:28 PM identified. As for whether the career attorneys in the regional offices will do any better, I can't say. But as @6:28 PM noted, the ALJs have demonstrated they aren't up to doing an adequate job. So sure doing something to try and improve the situation is better than doing absolutely nothing, right?
Funny, a lot of those ALJs are former reps.
This is 6:28
Most of the attorneys in the regional offices and even the decision writers are more well versed in disability law than SSA ALJs, as these attorneys have spent their careers in the field.
In this regard, while some ALJs do have relevant experience as former reps for disability claimants, most SSA ALJs have no prior experience in SSA disability law. Keep in mind that most ALJs are former prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys, divorce attorneys, and personal injury attorneys. Despite their lack of experience, SSA (in the past) routinely hired these non-disability law attorneys off the street as disability subject matter experts (i.e., ALJs).
I'm not entirely sure why SSA ALJs are entitled to significantly higher salaries than administrative judges (AJs) at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Merit Systems Protection Board. For example, EEOC AJs handle adversarial class action cases that can result in multi-million dollar judgments against federal agencies. They also hold multi-day adversarial hearings that can involve dozens of witnesses, including Cabinet officials. Yet, EEOC AJs top out at GS-14 and are paid substantially less than SSA ALJs who handle non-adversarial cases (EEOC AJs also have to write their own decisions, unlike SSA ALJs).
I can think of no argument for paying SSA ALJs significantly more salaries than EEOC and MSPB AJs (who top out at GS-15). For that reason, I'm not opposed to getting rid of the SSA ALJs Corps and replacing them with GS-14 administrative judges.
12:19, 6:28, 9:50, could not agree less. Sounds like a concerted anti-ALJ agenda here. ALJs are the only adjudication level where a claimant has a better-than-even chance of winning a claim (excluding abandonment and withdrawal dismissals). To oppose ALJs is to oppose due process, and betrays a certain political or partisan agenda. Remove the ALJs and the denial rate goes across the board back up to 80%. That serves nobody.
12:19, ALJs have not been proven deficient at following dismissal rulesl the AC affirmation rate on dismissals is well above 50%. A larger problem is the AC making up their own rules on what's "good cause" for failing to appear, and finding ALJ error even when the only proof of "good cause" was new & material evidence that came in after the dismissal. Were the AC to follow the HALLEX on dismissals, the remand affirmation rate would be even higher than it is.
Moreover, SSA management has now spent 12+ months trying to figure out how to dismiss cases during the pandemic. The rules change daily if not weekly, and are no longer based on published regulatory process (CFR, SSR, HALLEX), but rather on management fiat. That's not ALJ fault that the goalposts keep shifting.
6:28, SSA attorneys also have no background in SSD law before getting hired. A "divorce attorney" could also become a decision writer (most ALJs historically are disabled vets, JAG officers or military judges, and more recently, former SSD reps, former OHO group supervisors/HODs, or trial lawyers). The ALJ training course is twice as long as the decision writer training course. DCDAR and OCALJ would love to promote a fiction that writers are experts and ALJs are dilettantes, but that is completely wrong and backwards.
9:50, completely not true, ALJs were not doing an inadequate job, check the #s again -- and the AC has its own problems with policy compliance / substitution of judgment, especially since the order came down 3 yrs ago to ramp up the AC remand rate.
@ 11:44
This is 6:28.
You misunderstand my comment. I'm not saying that a new decision writer is more qualified than a new ALJ. What I am saying is that a SSA decision writer with 10 or 20 years of experience drafting disability decision is more qualified to be a SSA ALJ than a divorce attorney (or JAG attorney, etc.). My view does not change even for decision writers who have no litigation experience. Remember, SSA ALJs handle non-adversarial cases that involve non-adversarial hearings lasting 15-30 minutes each. In my view, SSA should focus less on litigation experience, especially for ALJs who handle non-adversarial disability cases.
Moreover, you never addressed my comment about why SSA ALJs are paid significantly more than EEOC and MSPB AJs and have greater job protections. Am I the only person who thinks it is strange to give less pay and protections to EEOC AJs who handle adversarial multi-million dollar class action discrimination cases than SSA ALJs who handle non-adversarial disability cases?
@9:57
Not that I disagree with your conclusions, but why would non-adversarial cases be less complicated? Seems like in an adversarial environment, the decision-maker would have two people developing the arguments as opposed to just one. Non-adversarial leaves it to the SSA ALJ to justify a denial, whereas in an adversarial environment the winning party's counsel would have developed that justification already.
As to whether AJs handling significantly more $$$ cases than an average SSA ALJ, that seems irrelevant. It's matter of skill and knowledge required, not the results. I expect reading thousands of pages of medical records and determining by a preponderance of the evidence a particular outcome actually would be more skillful than a class action discrimination case. Even from the government's perspective, I suppose the most direct result of an ALJ failing is the resources and time spent on remand. SSA ALJ remand, you get a new hearing and ALJ has to review the evidence again; EEOC/MSPB AJ remand, you get a new hearing and AJ has to review the evidence again. Seems equivalent at least.
Also, not sure on the average hearing length, but if I were to guess it would be 30-45 minutes. Really just depends on the judge.
Again, I'm not really interested in defending SSA ALJs as I think a lot of them are hacks, but I don't think they are overpaid based on the job involved.
Post a Comment