THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
FIVE HEARING OFFICES
IN REGION IV
By conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and investigations, we inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of SSA's programs and operations and protect them against fraud, waste and abuse. We provide timely, useful and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, Congress and the public.
The Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units, called the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled out in the Act, is to:
Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations
relating to agency programs and operations.
Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.
Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and operations.
Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.
Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems in agency programs and operations.
To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:
Independence to determine what reviews to perform.
Access to all information necessary for the reviews.
Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.
We strive for continual improvement in SSA's programs, operations and management
by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud, waste and abuse.
We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an environment that provides
a valuable public service while encouraging employee development and retention
and fostering diversity and innovation.
Date: September 10, 2007
To: The Commissioner
From: Inspector General
Subject: Workload Activity at Five Hearing Offices in Region IV (A-12-07-27091)
Our objective was to determine whether claims are assigned to Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) in accordance with the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) policy.
The Social Security Act requires the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide a claimant with reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing. The claimant may appoint an attorney or other qualified individual to obtain and present evidence on his or her behalf at the hearing. The Commissioner has delegated to ALJs the authority to hold hearings and issue decisions. Within each hearing office, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ), under the delegation of ODAR's Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ), has the authority to assign cases to ALJs on a rotational basis as stipulated by ODAR's Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law (HALLEX) manual.
We received information that not all of the hearing offices in Region IV were adhering to ODAR's rotational policy. To verify this information, we analyzed final disposition records over a 25-month period that contained ALJ, claimant representative and claim history information from five hearing offices in Region IV. We also interviewed ODAR's CALJ and ODAR's Region IV Management Team, as well as ALJs, managers and office support staff at the five hearing offices. See Appendix B for a further discussion of our scope and methodology.
RESULTS OF REVIEW
We found that over a 6-year period, the Fort Lauderdale HOCALJ did not follow ODAR's policy of assigning claims to ALJs on a rotational basis. Instead, the HOCALJ has operated a "pilot" program (Pilot) that has allowed him to hear claims from selected representatives. We found the Pilot had no documented goals, objectives or measures for success. In addition, the HOCALJ has operated the Pilot without approval or knowledge of its existence by ODAR's Headquarters and Region IV managers. Moreover, only a few representatives participate in the Pilot and the HOCALJ heard most of the Pilot claims. Consequently, four representatives had over 50 percent of their caseloads with the HOCALJ, far beyond the anticipated rate under a rotational policy. An independent assessment of the Pilot will be necessary to determine its role in the Fort Lauderdale Hearing Office's productivity and overall merit.
ODAR'S ROTATIONAL POLICY
Unlike the other four hearing offices we reviewed, the Fort Lauderdale Hearing Office was not following ODAR's rotational policy for assigning cases to ALJs. The HOCALJ created a pilot program where a limited number of selected representatives brought cases before him.
ODAR's CALJ and ODAR's Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge (RCALJ) for
Region IV confirmed that all hearing offices must follow the rotational policy
as stated in HALLEX. The CALJ said the HALLEX rotational policy is based on
the Administrative Procedures Act and that the rotational policy benefits the
claimants. The RCALJ stated that the rotational policy is necessary to:
ensure the appearance of fairness in that there is no pre-selection of ALJs by the claimant and/or his or her representative;
distribute the workload evenly, thereby improving hearing office efficiency;
adhere to the Agency's policy of public service; and
keep up office morale.
The 11 Judges (5 HOCALJs and 6 ALJs) we interviewed had similar understandings about the rotational policy. They stated that having a rotational policy:
creates a sense of fairness for the ALJs;
prevents claimants or representatives from shopping for a particular ALJ;
ensures that claimants are treated fairly; and
prevents ALJs from picking and choosing claims based on the representative.
The Fort Lauderdale HOCALJ suspended ODAR's policy of assigning cases to ALJs on a rotational basis as part of a Pilot that he created and has operated for the past 6 years without the knowledge or approval of the RCALJ. In our review of the other four hearing offices in Region IV, we found that all of these offices followed the HALLEX policy regarding case rotation.
To participate in the Pilot, the claimants and their representatives agreed to:
waive the 20-day Advanced Notice of Hearing;
present the case to the HOCALJ as unpulled; and
write and present the favorable decision to the hearing office.
The HOCALJ selected the representatives who could participate in the Pilot.
If the claim had a representative participating in the Pilot, it was assigned
from the Master
Docket to either the HOCALJ, or occasionally, to another ALJ in the hearing office. Claims not in the Pilot were assigned to the remaining ALJs in the hearing office on a rotational basis.
When we met with the HOCALJ to discuss the Pilot, he was unable to provide documentation regarding the objectives, goals, and initial approvals related to the Pilot. What we did learn about this Pilot came from our interviews with the HOCALJ and the Hearing Office Director (HOD), as well as an email from July 2001 listing some of the representatives chosen for the Pilot. We also learned that the Pilot is being conducted without approval or knowledge of its existence by ODAR's Headquarters or Region IV Managers. In addition, we found no evidence that an evaluation had been conducted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Pilot.
In terms of workload, we found that the HOCALJ and another ALJ held the vast majority of the Pilot hearings. While we were unable to calculate the precise number of dispositions that were decided under this Pilot, we found that the HOCALJ and one other ALJ decided a total of 2,722 cases of Fort Lauderdale's 10,474 dispositions during a 25-month period. Assuming not every case heard by the two individuals related to the Pilot, we estimate that the Pilot accounted for between 17 and 26 percent of Fort Lauderdale's total dispositions during this 25-month period.
HEARING OFFICE WORKLOADS
The Pilot program in Fort Lauderdale appears to have led to high production on the part of the HOCALJ. However, without an independent assessment of the Pilot it is difficult to determine its impact on the Fort Lauderdale Hearing Office workload and its overall merit. We also determined that some representatives appeared before the Fort Lauderdale HOCALJ for the majority of their cases, which could be perceived as an unfair advantage for these representatives.
Of the 53 HOCALJs and ALJs in our review, the Fort Lauderdale HOCALJ had the most dispositions (1,744) during the 25-month period. According to ODAR executives, dispositions per day per ALJ is a key criteria for analyzing hearing office productivity. The next highest number of dispositions was by an ALJ in the Orlando Hearing Office who had 1,638 dispositions. In terms of other HOCALJs, the next highest disposition total during this period was 1,335. The range for all 53 HOCALJs and ALJs was a low of 405 dispositions to a high of 1,744 dispositions. See Appendix C for productivity data on the five hearing offices.
Another key indicator of hearing office productivity is average processing time. The Fort Lauderdale HOCALJ had an average processing time of 450 days on his dispositions, or the 16th best rate among the HOCALJs and ALJs in our review. The range in average processing time for the 53 HOCALJs and ALJs was a low of 369 days to a high of 800 days. ODAR's national average processing time for FY 2005 was 442 days.
We were unable to determine if the Fort Lauderdale HOCALJ's productivity was directly related to the Pilot program. Only an independent assessment of the Pilot itself would provide the necessary information to make this determination.
Since so few representatives were participating in the Pilot, some representatives
appeared before the HOCALJ an inordinate amount of time. We found that four
representatives had more than 50 percent of their cases with the HOCALJ. The
rate related to Representative #1, with 85 percent (137 of 161 claims) of his cases before the HOCALJ (see the Figure below). We found no similar statistics among the other 4 HOCALJs in the same region or among the other 48 ALJs in the 5 hearing offices. If claims were assigned on a rotational basis, the percentage of any representative's caseload would be expected to be evenly distributed among the ALJs in the hearing office. In the case of Fort Lauderdale with 12 ALJs, this would mean that roughly 1 of every 12 cases, or about 8 percent, would be assigned to the HOCALJ.
Claimant Representative's Workload
Percent of Claims Heard before the HOCALJ
(June 2004 through July 2006)
In addition, we found the HOCALJ's approval rate was higher for these four representatives than his overall approval rate (see the Table below). While the average approval rate was 60 percent among all the HOCALJ's cases, we found his approval rate averaged about 76 percent for these four representatives. While this could be caused by a number of variables, it could also lead to concern about fairness among representatives not allowed to participate in the Pilot if it appears that more frequent participation before the HOCALJ increases the chances of an allowance.
HOCALJ's Approval Rate for Four Claimant Representatives in Pilot
(June 2004 through July 2006)
Representative Number of Approvals by HOCALJ Number of Disallowances by HOCALJ
HOCALJ's Approval Rate by Representative
Representative #1 95 42 69.3
Representative #2 219 62 77.9
Representative #3 79 17 82.3
Representative #4 79 30 72.5
Total 472 151 75.8%
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Over the past 6 years, the Fort Lauderdale HOCALJ has not followed ODAR's policy of assigning claims to ALJs on a rotational basis. Instead, the HOCALJ created a Pilot permitting him to hear claims from a select group of representatives. Furthermore, the Pilot has no oversight by ODAR's Headquarters or Region IV Managers and has not been independently assessed to determine its merits. Until the Pilot is independently assessed, we cannot determine its merits. It is possible that exceptions from the rotational policy should be approved under certain circumstances. However, without management buy-in and clear objectives and goals, we do have concerns about the overall perceptions of the operations in Fort Lauderdale since so few representatives participate in the Pilot. The HOCALJ is assigned most of the Pilot claims, and some representatives have a disproportionate share of hearings before the HOCALJ.
To improve management's oversight of hearing office workloads and increase the awareness of the Pilot program, we recommend SSA:
1. Provide increased oversight of the Fort Lauderdale Hearing Office and independently assess the office's Pilot operations and results to determine if it should continue.
2. Determine if any other hearing offices suspended the rotational policy without knowledge or oversight from ODAR Headquarters or Regional Office Managers and take appropriate action to officially authorize or deny any exceptions to this policy.
3. Remind HOCALJs about their duties of assigning claims on a rotational basis unless an exception from official policy is properly authorized.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE
SSA agreed with all three recommendations. (See Appendix D for SSA's comments.)
Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr.
APPENDIX A - Acronyms
APPENDIX B - Scope and Methodology
APPENDIX C - Workload Statistics at the Five Hearing Offices in Region IV
APPENDIX D - Agency Comments
APPENDIX E - OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
ALJ Administrative Law Judge
CALJ Chief Administrative Law Judge
HALLEX Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law manual
HOCALJ Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge
HOD Hearing Office Director
ODAR Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
RCALJ Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge
SSA Social Security Administration
Scope and Methodology
To accomplish our review, we:
Reviewed hearing office guiding principles and procedural guidance documented in Office of Disability Adjudication and Review's (ODAR) Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law manual.
Reviewed prior Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General reports.
Compiled and analyzed disposition data over a 25-month period (June 2004 through July 2006) at the Atlanta (downtown), Georgia; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Jacksonville, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; and Orlando, Florida Hearing Offices in Region IV. We reviewed relevant trends in the data, including Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) productivity and claimant representative ratios before the ALJs.
Interviewed ODAR's Chief ALJ, ODAR's Region IV Management Team, ALJs, managers, and staff at the Atlanta (downtown), Jacksonville, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, and Mobile Hearing Offices.
Based on prior audit work, we determined that the disability reports provided by ODAR were sufficiently reliable to meet our objectives. The entity audited was the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Disability Adjudication and Review. We conducted our audit from January 2007 through May 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Workload Statistics at the Five Hearing Offices in Region IV
We compiled and analyzed disposition data over a 25-month period (June 2004
through July 2006) at 5 hearing offices in Region IV (see the Table below).
Hearing Office Workloads at the Five Hearing Offices in our Review
Dispositions3 Average Processing Time - Days4 Median
Time - Days5
Atlanta (downtown), Georgia 11 7,167 652 725 716 720
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 12 10,474 873 902 485 501
Jacksonville, Florida 14 11,105 793 850 569 561
Mobile, Alabama 13 10,906 839 914 429 429
Orlando, Florida 17 14,445 850 958 471 517
Totals 67 54,097 807 902 518 517
Note 1: Includes Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) and Hearing Office Chief ALJs. Fifty-three of the 67 ALJs had more than 400 dispositions during the
25 month review period.
Note 2: Average dispositions represent total dispositions for the office during the 25-month period divided by the number of ALJs.
Note 3: Median dispositions is the point where half of the dispositions are below the median and half of the dispositions are above the median.
Note 4: Average processing time represents the average elapsed time, from the hearing request date until the date of the notice of the decision, of all
hearing- level cases processed.
Note 5: Median processing time is the point where half of the processing time is below the median and half of the processing time is above the median.
COMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT REPORT, "WORKLOAD ACTIVITY AT FIVE HEARING OFFICES IN REGION IV"
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on this draft report. Overall we agree with the report's findings and recommendations. Our responses to the specific recommendations below describe actions we plan to take to address the issues identified at the Fort Lauderdale Hearing Office.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) should provide increased oversight of the Fort Lauderdale Hearing Office and independently assess the office's Pilot operations and results to determine if it should continue.
We agree. We are developing an action plan that provides for increased oversight of the Fort Lauderdale Hearing Office. We will determine whether the Pilot operation should continue and evaluate whether it should be expanded to other offices. We expect to have the plan in place by September 30, 2007, with full implementation no later than March 31, 2008.
SSA should determine if any other hearing office suspended the rotational policy without knowledge or oversight from Office of Disability Adjudication and Review Headquarters or Regional Office Managers and take appropriate action to officially authorize or deny any exceptions to this policy.
We agree. This recommendation will be addressed as part of the action plan referenced in recommendation number 1.
SSA should remind Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judges (HOCALJs) about their duties of assigning claims on a rotational basis unless an exception from official policy is properly authorized.
We agree. We will remind HOCALJs about assigning claims on a rotational basis unless a policy exception is authorized. This recommendation also will be addressed as part of the action plan referenced in recommendation number 1; however, we anticipate that an appropriate reminder to the HOCALJs will occur sooner than the March 31, 2008 target date for full implementation of the action plan.
OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Walter Bayer, Director, Philadelphia Audit Division, (215) 597-4080
Michael Maloney, Audit Manager, Falls Church Office, (703) 578-8844
In addition to those named above:
Nicholas Milanek, Auditor-in-Charge
Shane Henley, Auditor
Annette DeRito, Writer/Editor
For additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at www.socialsecurity.gov/oig
or contact the Office of the Inspector General's Public Affairs Specialist at
(410) 965-3218. Refer to Common Identification Number A-12-07-27091.
Overview of the Office of the Inspector General
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of our Office of Investigations (OI), Office of Audit (OA), Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General (OCCIG), and Office of Resource Management (ORM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal controls, and professional standards, we also have a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality Assurance program.
Office of Audit
OA conducts and/or supervises financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) programs and operations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits assess whether SSA's financial statements fairly present SSA's financial position, results of operations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA's programs and operations. OA also conducts short-term management and program evaluations and projects on issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.
Office of Investigations
OI conducts and coordinates investigative activity related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing their official duties. This office serves as OIG liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the investigations of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General
OCCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and techniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material. Finally, OCCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.
Office of Resource Management
ORM supports OIG by providing information resource management and systems security. ORM also coordinates OIG's budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, ORM is the focal point for OIG's strategic planning function and the development and implementation of performance measures required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.