Where The New ALJs Are Going -- And Why 135 New ALJs Instead of 144?

The Social Security Administration has posted a spreadsheet showing where the 135 newly hired Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are going. You have to have a spreadsheet program to open it from Social Security's website, but I have reproduced it above. Click on each page to see it full size.

By the way, it was only a little over a month ago that it was supposed to be 144 new ALJs. Why the slippage? It looks like Social Security offered jobs to 144 people, but only hired as many as accepted. After nine applicants turned them down, why did they not offer jobs to nine more applicants so they could hire the 144 they were talking about earlier? Was the talk about 144 ALJs being hired a bit misleading?

Social Security Offering 144 ALJ Jobs

A news release from Social Security:

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, today announced that the agency has begun making offers to 144 of the 175 new Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) it will hire this fiscal year. Due to litigation and budget cuts, the agency has about ten percent fewer ALJs than it did a decade ago. During that same time, the number of cases waiting for a hearing decision has more than doubled.

“The hiring of these new ALJs is a critical step in our plan to reduce the backlog of disability cases,” Commissioner Astrue said. “They represent one of the largest investments in ALJs this agency has ever made. When these ALJs are fully-trained, and combined with the other steps we are taking, we will be able for the first time in this decade to reduce the number of cases waiting for a disability hearing. I can hardly wait for them to start.”

The new ALJs will be brought on board in phases with the first hires reporting for duty in April, when they will begin an intensive orientation and training program. While initially handling a reduced docket, newly hired ALJs should be scheduling a full docket of cases by the end of the year.

“I have been very impressed with the caliber of the candidates eager to take on the challenging role of a Social Security ALJ,” Commissioner Astrue noted. “These new ALJs are top-notch legally and comfortable working in an electronic environment, which is of utmost importance as we strive to increase the efficiency and productivity of our ALJ corps.”

Hiring of additional ALJs is only one component of the plan the agency has put in place to reduce the backlog of disability cases. The agency also continues to make progress in many other areas including opening the National Hearing Center, completing the nationwide roll-out of the Quick Disability Determination process, implementing compassionate allowances and eliminating aged cases. More information about Social Security’s plan is available at www.socialsecurity.gov/disability under the heading What’s New.

“In May of last year, I presented Congress with a detailed plan to reduce the backlog of disability cases,” Commissioner Astrue said. “I am pleased to report that, with the strong support of the President and Members of Congress from both parties, we have been able to move forward with that plan. I urge Congress to continue its support with timely action on the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for Social Security. A delay in fully funding the President’s request will undermine the many positive steps we have taken this year.”

Video Hearing Stats

      Social Security has posted numbers showing how many video hearings it has held recently. These are hearings where the claimant is at home connecting via a laptop, tablet computer or cell phone. The numbers are confusing since it includes a column purporting to show the number of in-person hearings being held but that's not the case. No in-person hearings have been held since March. Maybe that column is actually the number of telephone hearings? 

     Obviously, this is very uneven. I don't know what accounts for some offices holding no video hearings while others have held many video hearings.

     I wish that the agency would show totals per region and nationally.

 Hearing Office                                  In-person(?)   Video    Total

AKRON OH	385	0	385
ALBANY	252	88	340
ALBUQUERQUE	204	133	337
ALEXANDRIA	274	8	282
ATLANTA DOWNTOWN	432	35	467
ATLANTA NORTH	314	110	424
BALTIMORE	394	31	425
BILLINGS	114	79	193
BIRMINGHAM	583	2	585
BOSTON	315	0	315
BRONX	232	0	232
BUFFALO	140	17	157
CHARLESTON SC	310	0	310
CHARLESTON WV	264	0	264
CHARLOTTE	408	23	431
CHARLOTTESVILLE	67	70	137
CHATTANOOGA	261	145	406
CHICAGO	351	18	369
CINCINNATI	331	3	334
CLEVELAND	392	3	395
COLORADO SPRINGS	131	120	251
COLUMBIA MO	53	176	229
COLUMBIA SC	462	0	462
COLUMBUS	232	47	279
COVINGTON GA	251	7	258
CREVE COEUR	325	8	333
DALLAS DOWNTOWN	319	43	362
DALLAS NORTH	380	62	442
DAYTON	163	0	163
DENVER	156	199	355
DETROIT	248	76	324
DOVER	121	0	121
ELKINS PARK	266	76	342
EUGENE	95	159	254
EVANSTON	126	46	172
EVANSVILLE	175	51	226
FARGO	15	189	204
FAYETTEVILLE NC	295	7	302
FLINT	202	92	294
FLORENCE	95	137	232
FORT MYERS FL	250	0	250
FORT SMITH	175	66	241
FORT WAYNE	187	0	187
FORT WORTH	377	2	379
FRANKLIN TN	280	117	397
FRESNO	108	0	108
FT LAUDERDALE	483	15	498
GRAND RAPIDS	272	49	321
GREENSBORO	294	0	294
GREENVILLE	339	24	363
HARRISBURG	212	105	317
HARTFORD	231	1	232
HATTIESBURG	231	92	323
HONOLULU	80	0	80
HOUSTON NORTH	340	189	529
HOUSTON WEST	430	29	459
HUNTINGTON WV	177	0	177
INDIANAPOLIS	484	16	500
JACKSON MS	269	0	269
JACKSONVILLE	494	0	494
JERSEY CITY	271	0	271
JOHNSTOWN	87	0	87
KANSAS CITY	254	167	421
KINGSPORT	252	43	295
KNOXVILLE	202	193	395
LANSING	350	2	352
LAS VEGAS	245	12	257
LAWRENCE MA	81	85	166
LEXINGTON	312	0	312
LITTLE ROCK	350	0	350
LIVONIA MI	279	0	279
LONG BEACH	95	49	144
LONG ISLAND	235	0	235
LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN	223	0	223
LOS ANGELES WEST	158	111	269
LOUISVILLE	299	55	354
MACON	228	0	228
MADISON	34	117	151
MANCHESTER	53	173	226
MCALESTER	30	96	126
MEMPHIS	230	10	240
METAIRIE	182	1	183
MIAMI	293	24	317
MIDDLESBORO	104	0	104
MILWAUKEE	399	66	465
MINNEAPOLIS	306	0	306
MOBILE	477	0	477
MONTGOMERY	386	1	387
MORENO VALLEY	157	63	220
MORGANTOWN	178	12	190
MT PLEASANT MI	113	36	149
NASHVILLE	217	12	229
NEW HAVEN	178	10	188
NEW ORLEANS	231	63	294
NEW YORK	239	0	239
NEW YORK VARICK	119	1	120
NEWARK	359	1	360
NHC ALBUQUERQUE	0	280	280
NHC BALTIMORE	61	416	477
NHC CHICAGO	21	532	553
NHC FALLS CHURCH	0	474	474
NHC ST LOUIS	20	286	306
NORFOLK	161	78	239
NORWALK	292	0	292
OAK BROOK	333	1	334
OAK PARK	282	18	300
OAKLAND	271	0	271
OKLAHOMA CITY	319	152	471
OMAHA	95	129	224
ORANGE	270	0	270
ORLAND PARK	365	36	401
ORLANDO	512	7	519
PADUCAH	155	66	221
PASADENA	141	0	141
PEORIA	267	0	267
PHILADELPHIA	151	186	337
PHILADELPHIA EAST	122	142	264
PHOENIX	248	61	309
PHOENIX NORTH	141	103	244
PITTSBURGH	163	46	209
PONCE	64	39	103
PORTLAND ME	56	51	107
PORTLAND OR	372	68	440
PROVIDENCE	123	2	125
QUEENS	187	0	187
RALEIGH	421	0	421
RENO	66	0	66
RICHMOND	201	134	335
RIO GRANDE VALLEY TX	59	64	123
ROANOKE	109	87	196
ROCHESTER	125	0	125
SACRAMENTO	357	51	408
SALT LAKE CITY	226	0	226
SAN ANTONIO	323	384	707
SAN BERNARDINO	206	0	206
SAN DIEGO	401	4	405
SAN FRANCISCO	162	1	163
SAN JOSE	95	0	95
SAN JUAN	183	0	183
SAN RAFAEL	73	0	73
SANTA BARBARA	130	3	133
SAVANNAH	234	12	246
SEATTLE	262	92	354
SEVEN FIELDS	95	152	247
SHREVEPORT	110	125	235
SOUTH JERSEY	279	0	279
SPOKANE	249	28	277
SPRINGFIELD MA	87	0	87
SPRINGFIELD MO	133	121	254
ST LOUIS	126	80	206
ST PETERSBURG FL	261	0	261
STOCKTON	194	0	194
SYRACUSE	210	161	371
TACOMA	133	103	236
TALLAHASSEE FL	309	0	309
TAMPA	634	0	634
TOLEDO OH	223	65	288
TOPEKA KS	76	50	126
TUCSON	270	43	313
TULSA	267	2	269
TUPELO	238	0	238
VALPARAISO IN	332	0	332
WASHINGTON	268	0	268
WEST DES MOINES	131	110	241
WHITE PLAINS	224	1	225
WICHITA	49	126	175
WILKES BARRE	185	124	309

ALJ With Second Federal Job

At the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) conference a few months ago, Social Security Commissioner Astrue referred to a disciplinary action against an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who was holding down a second full time federal job. I had posted about this.

I have been contacted by the person whom Astrue must have been talking about, Kelly S. Jennings. Jennings has sent me the statement reproduced below. I have no personal knowledge of the situation. I think it is appropriate to post this statement here, since Astrue was publicly criticizing Jennings, even if Jennings' name was never mentioned.

In 1994 Kelly S. Jennings was appointed an Administrative Law Judge with the Social Security Administration and assigned to the Atlanta (GA) North ODAR.

From 2003 to 2005, official SSA statistics reveal ALJ Jennings was among the most productive ALJs in the Atlanta North ODAR with disability case dispositions of 249 in 2003, 395 in 2004, and 449 in 2005 for a 3 year disposition total of 1,093 cases. In addition, Judge Jennings heard 144 disability cases in 2003, 318 cases in 2004, and 309 cases in 2005 for a total of 771 disability cases heard from 2003 to 2005.

In 2003, Judge Jennings was also selected by SSA to serve as a Quality Assurance Review (“QAR”) ALJ. SSA placed Judge Jennings in a Flexi-place/Alternate Duty Station (“ADS”) status and sent him hundreds of disability cases and decisions issued by other SSA ALJs from SSA headquarters in Baltimore to review for legal sufficiency and quality purposes.

In January 2003 Judge Jennings, a Colonel in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps having served 25 years in the U.S. Army Reserve, was mobilized and deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (“OIF”). For his service in Iraq, Colonel Jennings was nominated for the Bronze Star Medal.

From 2003 to 2005 Judge Jennings provided military orders and leave requests on a continuing basis to the ATL North Hearing Office Chief ALJ (“HOCALJ”) who knew of his mobilization and deployment in support of OIF.

The Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge (“RCALJ”) (“GARMON”) and the Associate Commissioner of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (“THURMOND”) were also aware Judge Jennings had been mobilized and deployed to Iraq.

SSA continued to send disability cases to Judge Jennings by email for review and decisions for editing even while he was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait.

When he redeployed from Iraq to the United States in order to attend and eventually graduate from the prestigious U.S. Army War College, Judge Jennings would at periodic times use a combination of accrued/carryover annual/military/advanced leave and while in a Flexi-place/ADS work status conduct Social Security disability hearings and issue decisions.

Using accrued/carry over annual, military, and advanced leave, together with being placed in a Flexi-place/ADA work status by SSA, Judge Jennings continued to receive his salary from Social Security for the hearings conducted and disability case dispositions accomplished.

In 2007, nearly two years after having been released from active duty with the USAR and mobilized in support of OIF, an anonymous complaint was submitted to the SSA OIG, alleging Judge Jennings had received “dual income” from both Social Security and the USAR from 2003-2005.

In August 2007, Chief Judge Frank Cristaudo and Deputy Commissioner-ODAR Lisa DeSoto determined Judge Jennings was really not working for SSA as an ALJ from 2003-2005 due to his military status with the USAR as a mobilized reservist.

In August 2007, Cristaudo ordered the Time/Attendance (“T/A”) records of Judge Jennings retroactively amended for the years 2003-2005 in order to place him in a Leave Without Pay (“LWOP”) status and to revoke previously authorized and SSA management approved use of annual/military leave.

In November, 2007 SSA sent Judge Jennings a certified letter demanding repayment of SSA salary from 2003-2005 in the sum of $309,662.04 plus interest within 30 days.

Subsequently, in November and December 2007, SSA without notice to Judge Jennings invaded and confiscated $43,804.20 from his Thrift Savings Plan (“TSP”) account and $21,954.85 from his Federal Employee Retirement System (“FERS”) account despite the fact Judge Jennings had protested the $309,662.04 debt determination and had requested a hearing.

In August, 2007 Cristaudo and DeSoto suspended Judge Jennings from his duties as an ALJ and instituted an action with the MSPB to remove him from his position as an SSA ALJ.

The MSPB proceeding against Judge Jennings is pending and an MSPB Administrative Law Judge recently raised the question to SSA to the effect that if Judge Jennings was really not working for SSA as an ALJ from 2003-2005 as SSA contends, how he could legally hold 771 hearings and issue 1,093 disability decisions. This issue remains unresolved.

SSA has notified Judge Jennings his T/A and leave records for 2003 are lost and only partial T/A and leave records are available for 2004 and 2005. An SSA OIG audit confirmed the 2003 T/A records for Atlanta North ALJs were missing and cannot be located.

The SSA action before the MSPB has been set for hearing in March, 2008 on the question of whether the facts support removal of Judge Jennings from his position as an SSA ALJ. Judge Jennings has been forced to spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees, costs, and other expenses to defend himself against the MSPB action.

Mean while, the number of disability cases pending for hearing in the Atlanta North ODAR has climbed above 13,000 as one of the worst pending in the Nation.

Fraud In Oklahoma

From the Tulsa World:

In the Tulsa-based Northern District of Oklahoma, there have been 16 indictments handed up since 2006 that have alleged Social Security fraud such as using money meant for dead beneficiaries, disability fraud, claim-related false statements and even aggravated identity theft involving Social Security number misuse.

It's far from just a local problem. The agency's Office of Investigations conducts thousands of criminal probes every year. ...

Jonathan L. Lasher is Assistant Inspector General for the External Relations in the Office of the Inspector General [OIG]. He said investigations into suspected fraud start in a variety of ways, including from tips from the public and from OIG auditors who often come across potential crimes in their reviews of Social Security operations. ...

The agency reported to Congress earlier this year that from Oct. 1, 2009, through March 31, more than $15.5 million was recovered and that almost $144 million was saved as a result of investigations that led to improperly received benefits being shut off. ...

Lasher said the number of fraud allegations the Social Security Administration receives is relatively consistent from year to year.

But Lasher said he believes investigators' "vigilance has made it consistently more difficult to obtain and retain benefits to which an individual is not entitled."

Good Report On iClaims For Retirement Cases

From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (footnotes omitted):

At an April 15, 2010 hearing before the House of Representatives’ Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, Congressman Xavier Becerra asked the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to review the iClaim application to ensure individuals filing for benefits using the iClaim application were receiving an appropriate level of service from SSA.

To address Congressman Becerra’s request, we selected a random sample of 250 RIB [Retirement Insurance Benefits] iClaim applications filed in May 2010.

We surveyed the SSA [Social Security Administration] employees who processed the RIB iClaim applications to determine the number of times the Agency had to re-contact individuals for additional information or clarification and the reasons for the re-contacts. We also obtained the employees’ perceptions of the iClaim application process. Finally, we reviewed 50 of the RIB iClaim applications from our sample to determine whether the information provided by the individuals in their iClaim applications corresponded with the information recorded in SSA’s system that was used to determine individuals’ eligibility for benefits and their benefit amounts. ...

SSA employees were generally positive regarding the amount of time it took to process an iClaim application. However, employees expressed concerns about the difficulty in re-contacting individuals.

In addition, we found that the information provided by individuals in their iClaim applications corresponded with the information recorded in SSA’s system. ...

Re-contacts with individuals are a necessary and important part of processing some iClaim applications. In fact, of the 245 individuals in our review who filed a RIB iClaim application, SSA re-contacted 144 individuals (59 percent) to obtain additional information or clarification. ...

While SSA employees had both positive and negative comments about the iClaim application, employees were generally positive about the amount of time it took to process an iClaim application. ... In fact, most employees responded iClaim applications were faster to process than in-person or telephone applications. Specifically, 62 percent of employees in our review stated iClaim applications were typically the fastest application type to process. ...

Although iClaim applications generally take the least amount of time to process, employees were concerned about the difficulty with re-contacting individuals. To fully develop the claim, we found employees had to re-contact individuals in our sample up to five times, for an average of two times per individual. ...

During our review of RIB iClaim applications, there were no indications that individuals filing for RIB using the iClaim application did not receive an appropriate level of service from SSA. In fact, SSA employees re-contacted more than half the individuals in our sample to obtain additional information or clarification. While employees raised concerns regarding some difficulty in re-contacting individuals, they also recognized that iClaim applications were typically faster to process than in-person or telephone applications. In addition, we found that the information individuals provide on their iClaim applications corresponded with the information in SSA’s system used to determine benefit eligibility and amount.

Note carefully that this was a study of the retirement claims, which are, by far, the easiest claims to take. The report would be far more mixed if it were talking about survivor claims or disability claims. Supplemental Security Income claims cannot even be taken over the internet.