From Process Needed to Review Productivity Expectations for Administrative Law Judges by the Government Accountability Office (GAO):
The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) administrative law judges review, process, and adjudicate requests for hearings on disability benefits. In 2007, the agency set an expectation—which SSA reported was based on trend data and some regional managers’ input—for judges to issue 500-700 dispositions(decisions and dismissals) each year, and the extent to which they have met this expectation has varied over time. SSA did not document the expectation-setting process in 2007, nor has it formally reviewed the expectation since. Judges in discussion groups held by GAO questioned the basis of the expectation and 87 percent of judges GAO surveyed (47 of 54) said the expectation was too high. ...
Judges in selected hearing offices cited a variety of factors affecting their ability to meet the annual expectation. The top factor cited by judges GAO surveyed was the size of case files, which have increased five-fold on average since the expectation was established, according to SSA data. ...
SSA monitors judges’ productivity and takes various actions when expectations are not met, ranging from informal conversations to formal discipline. In addition, judges in 11 of 13 discussion groups viewed telework restrictions as a consequence for not meeting expectations. Additionally, judges GAO surveyed reported feeling pressured to meet the expectations. For instance, 87 percent ofjudges surveyed (47 of 54) said that SSA placed too much emphasis on productivity, and some expressed concerns about their work quality and work-life balance. SSA officials said they do not formally seek feedback from judges onthe expectations. However, without feedback or other gauges of pressure, SSA lacks information that could help it appropriately balance timely case processing while maintaining high-quality work and employee morale. ...
Social Security cannot continue to ignore the dramatic changes in disability claim files nor can they continue to blindly pressure ALJs to do the impossible.
It's not just ALJs who are affected by the dramatic increase in the size of Social Security disability claim files. It's also the attorneys who represent the claimants. We not only have to read all those records but we have to obtain many of them. And we have to do this at a time when our fees have been effectively cut by the failure to increase the fee cap. If there is a dramatic increase in the number of Social Security disability claims filed next year, as seems likely, I'm not at all sure that there will be attorneys available to represent them. The pandemic plus the effective decrease in attorney fees have left Social Security attorneys in a seriously weakened financial position and unlikely to increase their staffing.
8 comments:
SSA OHO leadership, Terry Gruber and her “yes” man Nagle have the highest disdain for ALJs because they cannot control them. The hostility towards ALJs starts at the top and is present all the way down to the local management at each hearing office. Granted there are some ALJs who act like Divas but the overwhelming majority work hard to get the job done and give the claimants due process.
That report tells SSA they have no clue what they are doing with regard to managing the ALJ corps. No documentation on the 500-700 dispositions per year rationale. No clue how this number was developed and how it applies uniformly across the country. Management also blatantly lied, what a shocker, that they seek feedback from ALJs. If an ALJ tries to volunteer feedback or ask any questions so that they can better understand what they are being asked to perform the response from management is the usual hostile “shut up and color”. The Agency set the productivity goal and it is not interested in reviewing it or seeking ways to revise it to address any issues.
If there is a low performing or problem ALJ, instead of addressing the issue, they come up with across the board rules that apply to all just to address the one individual problem ALJ.
The ALJ is a great job, I enjoy it, many days it is greatly satisfying and rewarding. But there are many days where the unexplained policies such as routing ALL dismissals through HOCALJ (even written withdrawals and deceased claimants without a SOP) for review and reading affidavits submitted by the Chief ALJ that the ALJs actively seek “to undermine the agency” is demoralizing.
Do not really see the point of just counting up the pages in an Exhibit file.
Was wondering if they counted the entire file or just the F section. It is quality that matters in an exhibit file e.g. MRIs, Xrays, operative reports, etc. I have had case files with 1,000-2,000 pages of medical records that show little to nothing like in Kaiser or VA cases. I have had cases with 300 pages that show a lot with MRIs and operative reports.
Quality matters.
The only way you can truly know how much work is being done by someone is to view the files. The complexity of files can vary due to the issues in each file. The number of pages in a given file do not necessarily equate with the difficulty or lack thereof in a given file.
I know you won’t get any sympathy from the commenters but as an ALJ I think it’s time to raise the cap. It ought to be tied be raised annually based on the same formula used to determine the Social Security COLA.
The quicker turnaround eating into fees will likely sort out once field offices reopen unless there is a bigger hiring coming than the President has budgeted for.
SSA also needs some sort of “access to justice” fund to encourage representation for termination hearings, maybe a small flat fee win or lose.
The light blue part is likely increased by "quality" pushes by SSA... And lower pay rates. Takes more pages to deny than approve. The darker part is mostly due to increased computerization of medical records. In 2000, most records were still handwritten. Doctors put in only what they had to. Concise, and to the point. Now, have the record at each appointment is boilerpoint copy and paste from the previous appointments. Obamacare accelerated this. At the same time, doctors appointments have gotten less personal and more "drive-thru" "box checking." Also, with payrates down, you go to more appointments hoping to better document your disabilities. As for MRIs and X-rays... They don't show pain. What looks bad on an X-ray may have no affiliated pain. Likewise, you can have debilitating pain with X-rays that look "unremarkable." Relying solely on "objective medical evidence" can lead to denials of people who really are unable to work.
Most every ALJ realizes that scheduling 600 hearings a year does not provide enough time to review all the records, have a full hearing, issue adequate instructions, and edit 500+ decisions. Management knows this, as well, but ignores the obvious so that the senior execs can get fat bonuses for meeting numbers. In fact, instead of this being about people and the hearing process, it's all about numbers and whether each judge and each office is meeting some arbitrary goal. That may have been a necessary evil when the agency was flooded with disability claims after the great recession, but now it's just a sign of the disdain that management feels toward the public and SSA employees. Even when we don't have the appeals to justify the numbers or the staff in some offices to work up the cases, the arbitrary numbers are still the priority. This arrogance comes from the top and has worked its way down into every aspect of how the offices function. It won't change until the political appointees and execs get replaced. Until then, good luck.
6:12: You nailed it! Excellent and very well articulated. Now, if someone in the current Administration would hear this and take action. OHO careerist of a few decades here.
VA records contain about 10% useful info, but the problems is that one has to view each page to make sure one isn't missing something important.
Post a Comment