text: b" SOCIAL SECURITY\n Office of the Inspector General\n\n April 22, 2010\n\nThe Honorable Earl Pomeroy\nChairman, Subcommittee on\n Social Security\nCommittee on Ways and Means\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\n\nDear Mr. Pomeroy:\n\nOn April 5, 2010, we received a request from the House Committee on Ways and\nMeans, Subcommittee on Social Security, to issue an interim report on the first in/first\nout process in place at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) and\nconduct a preliminary examination of the extent to which ODAR is complying with this\npolicy. This report represents our response to this request.\n\nThe same letter also asked my office to conduct a more extensive review that examines\nlocal, regional, and national trends regarding first in/first out scheduling procedures. My\nauditors are conducting work in this area as well, and we will share this report with you\nonce completed.\n\nThank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with the requested information.\nTo ensure the Agency is aware of the information provided to your office, we are\nforwarding a copy of this report to the Agency. I have also sent a similar response to\nSam Johnson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Social Security.\n\nIf you have any additional questions, please call me, or have your staff contact Misha\nKelly, Congressional and Intra-governmental Liaison, at (202) 358-6319.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n Inspector General\nEnclosure\n\ncc:\nMichael J. Astrue\nSam Johnson\n\n\n SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BALTIMORE, MD 21235-0001\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\n Office of the Inspector General\n\n April 22, 2010\n\nThe Honorable Sam Johnson\nRanking Member, Subcommittee on\n Social Security\nCommittee on Ways and Means\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\n\nDear Mr. Johnson:\n\nOn April 5, 2010, we received a request from the House Committee on Ways and\nMeans, Subcommittee on Social Security, to issue an interim report on the first in/first\nout process in place at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) and\nconduct a preliminary examination of the extent to which ODAR is complying with this\npolicy. This letter represents our response to this request.\n\nThe same letter also asked my office to conduct a more extensive review that examines\nlocal, regional, and national trends regarding first in/first out scheduling procedures. My\nauditors are conducting work in this area as well, and we will share this report with you\nonce completed.\n\nThank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with the requested information.\nTo ensure the Agency is aware of the information provided to your office, we are\nforwarding a copy of this report to the Agency. I have also sent a similar response to\nEarl Pomeroy, Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security.\n\nIf you have any additional questions, please call me, or have your staff contact Misha\nKelly, Congressional and Intra-governmental Liaison, at (202) 358-6319.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n Inspector General\nEnclosure\n\ncc:\nMichael J. Astrue\nEarl Pomeroy\n\n SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BALTIMORE, MD 21235-0001\n\x0cCONGRESSIONAL RESPONSE\n REPORT\n\n Scheduled Hearings\n\n A-12-10-20154\n\n\n\n\n April 2010\n\n\n SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BALTIMORE, MD 21235-0001\n\x0c Mis s io n\nBy c o n d u c tin g in d e p e n d e n t a n d o b je c tive a u d its , e va lu a tio n s a n d in ve s tig a tio n s ,\nwe in s p ire p u b lic c o nfid e n c e in th e in te g rity a n d s e c u rity o f S S A\xe2\x80\x99s p ro g ra m s a n d\no p e ra tio n s a n d p ro te c t th e m a g a ins t fra u d, wa s te a n d a b us e . We p ro vid e tim e ly,\nu s e fu l a n d re lia b le info rm a tio n a n d a d vic e to Ad m in is tra tio n o ffic ia ls , Co n g re s s\na n d th e p u b lic .\n\n Au th o rity\nTh e In s p e c to r Ge n e ra l Ac t c re a te d in d e p e n d e n t a u d it a n d in ve s tig a tive u n its ,\nc a lle d th e Offic e o f Ins p e c to r Ge n e ra l (OIG). Th e m is s io n o f th e OIG, a s s p e lle d\no u t in th e Ac t, is to :\n\n \xef\x81\xad Co n d u c t a n d s u p e rvis e in d e pe n d e n t a n d o b je c tive a u d its a n d\n in ve s tig a tio n s re la ting to a g e n c y p ro g ra m s a n d o p e ra tio n s .\n \xef\x81\xad P ro m o te e c o n o m y, e ffe c tive n e s s , a n d e ffic ie n c y with in th e a ge nc y.\n \xef\x81\xad P re ve n t a n d d e te c t fra u d , wa s te , a n d a b u s e in a ge n c y p ro g ra m s a n d\n o p e ra tio n s .\n \xef\x81\xad Re vie w a n d m a ke re c o m m e n d a tio n s re ga rd in g e xis tin g a n d p rop o s e d\n le g is la tio n a n d re g u la tio n s re la tin g to a g e n c y p ro g ra m s a n d o p e ra tio n s .\n \xef\x81\xad Ke e p th e a ge n c y h e a d a n d th e Co n g re s s fu lly a n d c u rre n tly in fo rm e d o f\n p ro b le m s in a g e n c y p ro g ra m s a n d o pe ra tio n s .\n\n To e n s u re o b je c tivity, th e IG Ac t e m p owe rs th e IG with :\n\n \xef\x81\xad In d e p e n d e n c e to d e te rm in e wha t re vie ws to p e rfo rm .\n \xef\x81\xad Ac c e s s to a ll in fo rm a tio n n e c e s s a ry fo r th e re vie ws .\n \xef\x81\xad Au th o rity to p u b lis h fin d in g s a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n s b a s e d o n th e re vie ws .\n\n Vis io n\nWe s trive fo r c o n tin u a l im p ro ve m e n t in S S A\xe2\x80\x99s p ro g ra m s , o p e ra tio n s a n d\nm a n a g e m e n t b y p ro a c tive ly s e e kin g n e w wa ys to p re ve n t a n d d e te r fra u d , wa s te\na n d a b u s e . We c o m m it to in te g rity a n d e xc e lle n c e b y s u p p o rtin g a n e n viro n m e n t\nth a t p ro vid e s a va lu a b le p u b lic s e rvic e while e nc o u ra g in g e m p lo ye e d e ve lo p m e n t\na n d re te n tio n a n d fo s te rin g d ive rs ity a n d in n o va tio n .\n\x0c Background\nOBJECTIVE\nThe objectives of our review were to assess the first in/first out (FIFO) process in place\nat the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) and conduct a preliminary\nexamination of the extent to which the Social Security Administration (SSA) was\ncomplying with this policy.\n\nBACKGROUND\nODAR administers the hearings and appeals program for the SSA. Approximately\n1,300 administrative law judges (ALJ) working at ODAR conduct hearings and issue\ndecisions. ODAR supports 142 hearing offices and 4 National Hearing Centers (NHC) 1\nin 10 regions and maintains satellite and remote sites where ALJs also conduct\nhearings.\n\nThe hearing process begins after a benefit applicant has been denied at a State\nDisability Determination Services (DDS) office and files a request for a hearing before\nan ALJ. Once the request for hearing is received, the case is placed into a \xe2\x80\x9cmaster\ndocket\xe2\x80\x9d containing key information on all cases received by the hearing office and is\nthen assigned to an ALJ for processing and an eventual hearing, if appropriate. 2\nODAR\xe2\x80\x99s Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law (HALLEX) Manual states, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Hearing\nOffice Chief ALJ generally assigns cases to ALJs from the master docket on a rotational\nbasis, with the earliest (i.e., oldest) [requests for hearings] receiving priority, unless\nthere is a special situation which requires a change in the order in which a case is\nassigned.\xe2\x80\x9d 3\n\n\n\n\n1\n ODAR established NHCs to assist with processing cases in heavily impacted hearing offices. ODAR\nopened NHCs in Falls Church, Virginia; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Chicago, Illinois; and Baltimore,\nMaryland. The Agency also plans to open a fifth NHC in St Louis, Missouri.\n2\n Not every request for hearing leads to a hearing. For example, an ALJ or senior attorney may make an\non-the-record (OTR) allowance without the need of a hearing. In addition, some cases are dismissed\nbefore a hearing. According to ODAR, approximately 15 percent of the hearing cases in FY 2009 were\nOTRs, and another 16 percent were dismissed.\n3\n SSA, HALLEX I-2-1-55, A\xe2\x80\x94Assignment of Service Area Cases to Administrative Law Judges.\n\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 1\n\x0cEXCEPTIONS TO FIFO\n\nThe HALLEX Manual specifies situations where FIFO does not apply. 4 These include\n(1) critical cases; (2) Appeals Council and court remands; (3) dismissals; and (4) waived\noral or advance notice of a hearing. 5 The six situations that warrant the designation as\na critical case include the following. 6\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The claimant\xe2\x80\x99s illness is terminal. 7\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A disability case for any military personnel injured on active duty.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A case is identified as a Compassionate Allowance8 case.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The claimant may be suicidal or homicidal/potentially violent.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The claimant is without, and is unable to obtain, food, medicine, or shelter\xe2\x80\x94often\n termed \xe2\x80\x9cdire need.\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The case has been delayed an inordinate amount of time, and there is a public,\n congressional, or other high priority inquiry on the case.\n\n\n\n\n4\n See Appendix B for a full listing of exceptions to FIFO.\n5\n SSA, HALLEX I-2-1-55, A.\n6\n SSA, HALLEX I-2-1-40, B\xe2\x80\x94Critical Cases.\n7\n A terminal Illness is described as an untreatable impairment that cannot be reversed and is expected to\nend in death.\n8\n Compassionate Allowances are granted for diseases of the most obviously disabled individuals based\non readily available, objective medical information.\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 2\n\x0c Results of Review\nOur review of 55 cases received at 3 hearing offices with the same hearing request date\ndemonstrates wide variances in the processing of these cases. ODAR management\nstated that the hearing offices follow FIFO when they can, but various factors can alter\nthe scheduling of hearing cases, including critical cases, remote site hearings, and\nincomplete or lost case files. Moreover, various factors can complicate scheduling,\nincluding coordinating with multiple parties involved in the hearing as well as locating\nsufficient hearing space. ODAR is attempting to improve the timely processing of cases\nthrough various initiatives, including the Aged Case initiative, expanded electronic\nprocesses, and new hearing offices.\n\nHEARING REQUESTS AT THREE OFFICES\nTo determine whether hearing cases were moving through the system at the same rate\nand consistent with FIFO, we reviewed hearing requests dated October 13, 2009 at\nthree hearings offices\xe2\x80\x94McAlester, Oklahoma; Orland Park, Illinois; and Sacramento,\nCalifornia. We found that the 55 cases received on the same day were in varying\nstages in the 3 offices, with about 63 percent of the cases still awaiting a scheduled\nhearing date and 5 percent of the cases already receiving a decision (see Figure 1).\n\n Figure 1: Status of Hearing Requests from October 13, 2009\n (As of April 9, 2010)\n\n\n 5% 5%\n 11%\n Not Scheduled - Unworked\n Not Scheduled - In Process\n 43% Not Scheduled - Awaiting Rescheduling\n Scheduled - Awaiting Hearing\n 27% Scheduled - Hearing Held\n Scheduled - Decision Issued\n\n\n\n\n 9%\n\n\n\nWe found that a variety of factors contributed to the range of processing time on these\n55 cases. Factors delaying a hearing included unavailable staff, rescheduled hearings,\n\n\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 3\n\x0cand video teleconferencing (VTC) as well as hearing office capacity. 9 We also found\n2 critical cases among the 55 that already had a hearing and were being finalized, and\n1 other critical case was scheduled for a hearing. These 55 cases represent 1 day\namong three different-sized hearing offices in three Regions with different workloads\nand management, so extrapolating from these cases presents a number of risks.\nHowever, the 55 cases demonstrate that the receipt of a hearing request on the same\nday does not equate to a hearing before an ALJ on the same date.\n\nMCALESTER HEARING OFFICE\n\nOf the nine cases in the McAlester Hearing Office 10 with a hearing request date of\nOctober 13, 2009, one case (11 percent) was not scheduled for a hearing at the time of\nour review (see Figure 2). The other eight cases (89 percent) had scheduled hearings,\nand one had an issued decision.\n\n Figure 2: Status of Hearing Requests at the McAlester\n Hearing Office from October 13, 2009\n (As of April 9, 2010)\n\n\n\n\n 67% 11%\n Not Scheduled - Awaiting Rescheduling\n\n Scheduled - Awaiting Hearing\n\n Scheduled - Hearing Held\n\n 11% Scheduled - Decision Issued\n\n\n\n 11%\n\n\nConcerning the one unscheduled hearing, we found that the case had been previously\nscheduled for a February hearing, but the claimant did not appear so the hearing was\npostponed. Regarding the eight cases currently listing a scheduled hearing date, two\nwere dire need critical cases\xe2\x80\x93one case had a decision issued while the other had a\nhearing and was being finalized. The critical cases had hearings scheduled in March\nand April 2010, whereas the remaining six cases were scheduled for May and June\n2010.\n\n\n9\n Our full review of this area will include a statistical sample of cases and provide more in depth analysis\nof trends throughout the country.\n10\n The McAlester Hearing Office has three ALJs, making it a small-sized hearing office. See Appendix C\nfor our methodology.\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 4\n\x0cORLAND PARK HEARING OFFICE\n\nOf the 22 cases in the Orland Park Hearing Office 11 with a hearing request date of\nOctober 13, 2009, 16 cases (73 percent) were not scheduled for a hearing at the time of\nour review (see Figure 3). The remaining six cases (27 percent) had been scheduled\nand were awaiting a hearing.\n\n Figure 3: Status of Hearing Requests at the Orland Park\n Hearing Office from October 13, 2009\n (As of April 9, 2010)\n 9%\n 27%\n\n Not Scheduled - Unworked\n Not Scheduled - In Process\n Not Scheduled - Awaiting Rescheduling\n Scheduled - Awaiting Hearing\n\n 5% 59%\n\n\n\n\nWe found that 15 of those 16 cases had never been scheduled for a hearing, while 1\ncase was waiting to be scheduled for a supplemental12 hearing because the claimant\nwas seeking representation.\n\nOf the 15 still awaiting their first scheduled hearing date, 13 were being processed by\nthe office, including 3 awaiting review from a senior attorney adjudicator, 13 and the\nremaining 2 were not being worked. We asked staff at the Orland Park Hearing Office\nabout these five cases awaiting processing, and they stated that they often leave cases\nfor a senior attorney adjudicator to review when they are unable to start other\nprocessing. If further development comes in, then they can request an interrogatory 14\n\n11\n The Orland Park Hearing Office has eight ALJs, making it a medium-sized office. See Appendix C for\nour methodology.\n12\n Circumstances may require that an ALJ adjourn a hearing in progress and continue it at a later date,\nconduct a supplemental hearing, or reopen the record to receive additional evidence. See HALLEX I-2-6-\n80\xe2\x80\x94Continued or Supplemental Hearing.\n13\n ODAR\xe2\x80\x99s Senior Attorney Adjudicator initiative was implemented in November 2007. The initiative is\ndesigned to increase adjudicator capacity by allowing non-ALJs to issue fully favorable OTR decisions,\nthereby expediting the process and conserving ALJ resources for more complex cases that require a\nhearing.\n14\n In preparing for a hearing, the ALJ, the claimant, or the claimant's representative, with the ALJ\xe2\x80\x99s\napproval, may submit written interrogatories which require written answers to specific questions by a DDS\nphysician or other DDS personnel (including a consulting source).\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 5\n\x0cfrom a medical expert (ME). As for the two unworked cases, after we contacted the\nhearing office, the cases were moved to a pending category awaiting case pulling. 15\n\nConcerning the six cases currently listing a scheduled hearing date, one was a critical\ncase scheduled for April 2010, 16 three had hearings scheduled in May 2010, and two\nhad been part of a rocket docket 17 hearing and had been already scheduled for a\nsupplemental hearing in July 2010.\n\nSACRAMENTO HEARING OFFICE\n\nOf the 24 cases in the Sacramento Hearing Office 18 with a hearing request date of\nOctober 13, 2009, 17 cases (71 percent) were not scheduled for a hearing at the time of\nour review (see Figure 4). The remaining seven cases (29 percent) had been\nscheduled, with two having issued decisions.\n\n Figure 4: Status of Hearing Requests at the Sacramento\n Hearing Office from October 13, 2009\n (As of April 9, 2010)\n 8%\n 8% 17%\n\n\n Not Scheduled - Unworked\n\n 13% Not Scheduled - In Process\n Not Scheduled-Awaiting Resheduling\n Scheduled - Awaiting Hearing\n 41%\n Scheduled - Hearing Held\n Scheduled - Decision Issued\n 13%\n\n\n\n\n15\n Pulling involves organizing all of the medical documents chronologically, arranging documents in\nappropriate sections of the case file, numbering documents, identifying duplicate documents, and\nensuring all pertinent documents are appropriately labeled in a case folder prior to holding a hearing\nbefore an ALJ.\n16\n This was a potentially suicidal critical case.\n17\n The hearing was scheduled as a rocket docket case. A rocket docket refers to scheduling several\ncases of unrepresented claimants at the same date and time for the same ALJ since these cases are\nlikely to be dismissed or postponed.\n18\n The Sacramento Hearing Office has 14 ALJs, making it a large-sized office. See Appendix C for our\nmethodology.\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 6\n\x0cOf the 17 hearing cases, we found that 14 had never been scheduled for a hearing,\nwhereas the remaining 3 cases were waiting to be rescheduled because of issues with\nthe claimant or the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s representative. 19\n\nOf the 14 still awaiting their first scheduled hearing date, 10 were being processed by\nthe office, and 4 were still awaiting processing. When we questioned the Sacramento\nHearing Office about the four cases, a hearing office manager stated that three of the\ncases were set to be scheduled as unexhibited cases, which is sometimes necessary to\nkeep ALJs\xe2\x80\x99 dockets filled when there are staffing shortages. However, just before these\ncases were scheduled, the office obtained assistance from other hearing offices,\nallowing for these cases to be temporarily transferred outside of the office for work up.\nThe fourth case was improperly listed as unworked and has since been corrected.\n\nRegarding the seven cases currently listing a scheduled hearing date, three had\nhearings scheduled in June 2010 because it is the hearing office\xe2\x80\x99s practice to schedule\nhearings approximately 3 months in advance. The remaining four had completed\nhearings\xe2\x80\x94two cases were issued decisions and two cases were still being finalized.\nThe completed hearings occurred in March and April 2010.\n\nFIFO PRACTICES IN ODAR\nWe spoke to ODAR managers at the headquarters, regional, and hearing office level to\nbetter understand practices in place. 20 Managers at ODAR Headquarters in Falls\nChurch, Virginia, told us that the organization focuses on processing cases on a FIFO\nbasis, which begins when the claimant initially files a request for hearing. ODAR\nmanagers noted that the Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s Aged Case initiative is an example of the\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s commitment to FIFO. 21 In our September 2009 report on aged cases,22 we\nnoted that the Aged Case initiative helped hearing offices refocus their efforts by\nprocessing the oldest cases first, thereby returning to the FIFO process. 23 After\n\n19\n The three cases were rescheduled for three different reasons: (1) the claimant failed to appear at the\noriginal hearing; (2) the claimant was not available for the hearing; and (3) the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s representative\nrequested a new hearing date.\n20\n We interviewed ODAR Headquarters managers in Falls Church, Virginia, as well as regional managers\nin the Chicago, Dallas and San Francisco Regions. We also interviewed hearing office managers at the\nOrland Park, Illinois, Hearing Office in the Chicago Region; the McAlester, Oklahoma, Hearing Office in\nthe Dallas Region; and the Sacramento Hearing Office in the San Francisco Region.\n21\n In FY 2010, ODAR plans to process all hearing cases that would have been 825 days or older by the\nend of the FY. When the initiative started, the focus was hearing cases 1,000 days and older.\n22\n SSA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report, Aged Cases at the Hearing Level (A-12-08-18071),\nSeptember 2009.\n23\n We also noted in the report that ODAR\xe2\x80\x99s managers said that (1) a lack of resources, (2) conflicting\npriorities in the past, and (3) misplaced or time-consuming cases contributed to the backlog of aged\ncases.\n\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 7\n\x0creviewing the results of our 55 case sample, ODAR management stated that a variance\nin case processing time does not equate to a deviation from a FIFO policy.\n\nIn our discussions with ODAR regional and hearing office managers in three Regions,\nwe were told that some of the most common situations allowing hearing offices to\nbypass FIFO relate to critical cases and remote hearing site dockets. 24 Remote docket\nsituations relate to hearing offices attempting to gather enough cases to fill an ALJ\xe2\x80\x99s\ndocket for in-person hearings at remote sites, which may lead to cases being heard out\nof order. We were also told of other situations contributing to departures from FIFO,\nincluding incomplete or late case folders from the field offices as well as unique\nsituations, such as cases involving prisoners. 25\n\nRegional and hearing office managers stated that hearing cases already in process may\nbe delayed because of difficulties in scheduling the necessary parties, which relates to\ncoordinating with multiple parties involved in the hearing as well as locating sufficient\nhearing space. Locating hearing space is more complex when using VTC since two or\nmore locations may be required in different parts of the country. 26 Managers spoke of\nother factors that may delay scheduling, including (1) extensive medical documentation\nfrom a DDS office, (2) additional medical evidence on incoming cases, and (3) varying\nproductivity and scheduling styles among ALJs. 27\n\nPLANNED IMPROVEMENTS\nAs part of our work, we reviewed ODAR\xe2\x80\x99s initiatives aimed at improving operating\nefficiency and eliminating the hearings backlog. Since 2007, ODAR has been working\nto standardize and automate core operational activities through its electronic business\nprocess (eBP) initiative. 28 One important goal of eBP is to automate hearing\nscheduling, currently a manual process.\n\nOne noteworthy Agency improvement to the scheduling process was centralizing and\nconsolidating scheduling duties to as few people as possible at each hearing office.\nODAR is also developing a system, known as Judicial Automated Calendaring System\n(JACS), to electronically schedule hearings. A third-party software application\ndeveloper, InfoCom, is currently in Phase 2 testing of this product, which ODAR expects\nto pilot test in the near future. ODAR believes JACS has the potential to significantly\n\n24\n ODAR maintains temporary and permanent remote sites nationwide. According to ODAR information,\napproximately 40 percent of hearings involve remote sites and 20 percent of all hearings involve VTC.\n\n25\n We provide more details on these matters in Appendix D.\n26\n Id.\n27\n We discussed the ALJ-specific issues in our August 2008 report, Congressional Response Report:\nAdministrative Law Judge and Hearing Office Performance (A-07-08-28094).\n\n28\n Standardized Electronic Hearing Office Process, ODAR Website, updated April 2, 2010.\n\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 8\n\x0cimprove the ability to plan (and hold) more hearings by using an automated calendar\nfunction to schedule hearing sites, witnesses, hearing reporters, and ALJs. 29\n\nThe eBP initiative also supports the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s strategic use of VTC to schedule and hear\ncases more timely by enabling ALJs to hold hearings faster while minimizing the need\nfor ALJ travel. VTC is also assisting with rebalancing workloads among ODAR\xe2\x80\x99s\nhearing offices and the NHCs. 30 Using the combined tools from eBP and VTC, ALJs\nwith excess hearing capacity can assume caseloads electronically from heavily\nbacklogged locations nationwide. 31\n\nFinally, in November 2008, the Agency proposed policy changes for setting the time and\nplace for a hearing before an ALJ. 32 These changes were intended to increase ALJ\nproductivity by granting ODAR management direct scheduling authority in specific\nsituations where greater ALJ productivity is sought. ODAR informed us that the rule\nwas signed by SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Commissioner on February 24, 2010, and is currently with the\nOffice of Management and Budget.\n\n\n\n\n29\n SSA, OIG, ODAR Management Information (A-07-09-29162), August 2009.\n30\n We discussed this flexibility as it pertains to older hearing cases in our September 2009 audit, Aged\nCases at the Hearing Level (A-12-08-18071).\n31\n Update on Backlog Initiatives, http://www.ssa.gov/appeals/congressional-booklets.html (last visited\nFeb. 26, 2010).\n32\n Setting the Time and Place for a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, 73 Fed.Reg. 66564\n(Nov. 10, 2008) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 404, 406).\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 9\n\x0c Conclusions\nA variety of factors contribute to the range of scheduled hearing dates among requests\nfor hearing received on the same date. In addition to ODAR allowing exceptions to\nFIFO to address the most sensitive cases, the complex nature of the hearing process\nand the variety of parties and locations involved create additional delays and\nadjustments that can alter compliance with FIFO. Planned improvements and useful\nmanagement information, as well as expanded video and hearing office capacity in the\nmost hard-pressed regions, should contribute to a more predictable and efficient\nprocessing of hearing cases.\n\n\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) 10\n\x0c Appendices\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Exceptions to the First In/First Out Policy for Hearings\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 Factors That May Modify the First In/First Out Process\n\n\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154)\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nAcronyms\n ALJ Administrative Law Judge\n\n eBP Electronic Business Process\n\n DDS Disability Determination Services\n\n FIFO First in/First out\n\n FY Fiscal Year\n\n HALLEX Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law\n\n JACS Judicial Automated Calendaring System\n\n ME Medical Expert\n\n NHC National Hearing Center\n\n ODAR Office of Disability Adjudication and Review\n\n OIG Office of the Inspector General\n\n OTR On-The-Record\n\n SSA Social Security Administration\n\n VE Vocational Expert\n\n VTC Video Teleconferencing\n\n\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154)\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nExceptions to the First In/First Out Policy for\nHearings\nThe Agency\xe2\x80\x99s Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law (HALLEX) Manual provides a\nnumber of situations where the first in/first out (FIFO) method for processing hearing\ncases can be altered (see Table B-1). 1\n\n Table B-1: Exceptions to FIFO When Processing Hearing Cases\n Exception Explanation\n Critical Case Designation This is a case that involves a \xe2\x80\x9ccritical\xe2\x80\x9d\n issue, including Terminal Illness, Military\n Service Casualty Cases, Compassionate\n Allowance, Dire Need, and\n Suicidal/Homicidal situations.\n Time-Limited Court Remand Cases This is a case in which the court has\n ordered the Commissioner to complete a\n specific action(s) within a set period of\n time.\n Section 8001 Cases In these cases, the Appeals Council has\n assumed jurisdiction on its own motion of\n an administrative law judge\xe2\x80\x99s (ALJ)\n favorable disability decision and remanded\n the cases for further proceedings. If\n certain timeframes are not (or have not\n been) met, SSA must pay the claimant\n interim benefits until the proceedings on\n remand have been completed.\n Delayed Court Remand Cases This is a court remand case that is over\n 125 days old (counting from the date of the\n court's order) or that the Appeals Council\n has remanded to an ALJ a second time.\n Other Court Remand Cases This would be all other court remand\n cases not already cited above.\n Title XVI Non-Disability Claim Cases The hearing decision must be issued\n within 90 days from the date of the request\n for hearing.\n\n\n\n\n1\n SSA, HALLEX I-2-1-55\xe2\x80\x94Assignment of Service Area Cases to Administrative Law Judges.\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) B-1\n\x0c Exception Explanation\n Disability Cessation Cases The case is handled promptly to avoid or\n minimize overpayments.\n Cases That Appear to Meet the Criteria Based on hearing office staff review of the\n for Dismissal hearing request, the case appears to meet\n the Office of Disability Adjudication and\n Review\xe2\x80\x99s (ODAR) criteria for dismissal.\n Cases in Which the Claimant has The ALJ may determine, based on his or\n Waived the Right to an Oral Hearing her examination of the record, that a\n hearing should be held despite the waiver.\n Cases in Which a Claimant has Waived A claimant's waiver of the right to regular\n His or Her Right to Regular Advance advance notice indicates that he or she\n Notice of Hearing does not need advance notice to prepare\n for the hearing and desires a hearing as\n soon as possible. Therefore, if the hearing\n office staff can accommodate the claimant\n because of a cancellation by another\n claimant or any other reason, it should\n assign the case to an ALJ and schedule a\n hearing as soon as possible, without the\n usual advance notice.\n Appeals Council Remand Appeals Council remands, including those\n generated by the courts, are assigned to\n the same ALJ who issued the decision or\n dismissal unless\n a. the case was previously assigned to\n that ALJ on a prior remand from the\n Appeals Council and the ALJ's\n decision or dismissal after remand\n is the subject of the new Appeals\n Council remand or\n b. the Appeals Council or the court\n directs that the case be assigned to\n a different ALJ.\n\n\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) B-2\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nScope and Methodology\nTo achieve our objectives, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed applicable laws and Social Security Administration (SSA) policies and\n procedures.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed prior Office of the Inspector General reports.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Identified three Office of Disability and Adjudication Review (ODAR) regions to\n assess the scheduling process. We used three criteria to identify locations to\n visit: (1) regional distribution, (2) pending workloads, and (3) hearing office size.\n For example, we selected one small (less than seven administrative law judges\n [ALJ]), one medium (seven or eight ALJs), and one large hearing office (more\n than eight ALJs). We selected the following offices\n\n \xef\x83\xbc McAlester, Oklahoma, Hearing Office (small office with 3 ALJs) \xe2\x80\x93 Dallas\n Region;\n \xef\x83\xbc Orland Park, Illinois, Hearing Office (medium office with 8 ALJs) \xe2\x80\x93 Chicago\n Region; and\n \xef\x83\xbc Sacramento, California, Hearing Office (large office with 14 ALJs) \xe2\x80\x93 San\n Francisco Region.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Using a workload report from ODAR\xe2\x80\x99s Disability Adjudication Reporting Tool, we\n identified cases in each Region that had a request for hearing date during the first\n 2 weeks of October 2009 and identified the date during the 2-week period with\n the most requests for a hearing. We determined that October 13, 2009 met these\n criteria.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Analyzed the selected hearing cases using information in ODAR\xe2\x80\x99s Case\n Processing and Management System.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed managers in ODAR Headquarters, regional offices, and hearings\n office at the selected locations to discuss first in/first out, the scheduling process,\n and the status of selected hearing cases.\n\nWe conducted our review during April 2010 in Falls Church, Virginia. The principle\nentity audited was the Office of the Associate Commissioner of Disability Adjudication\nand Review. We conducted our review in accordance with the Council of the Inspectors\nGeneral on Integrity and Efficiency\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Standards for Inspections.\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154)\n\x0c Appendix D\n\nFactors That May Modify the First In/First Out\nProcess\nIn our discussions with Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) regional\nand hearing office managers in three Regions, 1 we learned of a number of factors that\nmay impact the first in/first out (FIFO) policy as well as the overall processing of hearing\ncases. Some of the scenarios we discussed with managers are provided below.\n\nRemote Hearing Site Dockets: Remote docket situations relate to hearing offices\nattempting to gather enough cases to fill an administrative law judge\xe2\x80\x99s (ALJ) docket at a\nremote hearing site. While the majority of cases are heard at a local hearing office,\nmany hearings are held at remote sites where the ALJ may need to travel for an in-\nperson hearing if video teleconferencing is not available. According to the San\nFrancisco regional management team, a hearing office may need to bypass the FIFO\nprocess and move newer cases ahead of those that were received earlier to fill an ALJ\xe2\x80\x99s\ndocket. 2 Conversely, a newer case may bypass an older case as claimants await an\nALJ visiting the remote site.\n\nIncomplete and Late Folders: Hearing offices continue to receive both incomplete\nand late cases from field offices. All three regional management teams we spoke to\nsaid they are working in their Regions to improve communications between the field\noffices and hearing offices to quickly identify these cases and minimize future\noccurrences. In our September 2009 audit, 3 we noted similar problems and were\nprovided with a list of 721 cases that were already old when they arrived at the hearing\noffice\xe2\x80\x94the average age of these cases was 833 days.\n\nPrison Cases: Hearing cases involving prisoners often create delays. For example,\ncases might be scheduled out of FIFO order for prisoners because (1) the prison may\nlack video technology, so in-person hearings may be delayed as with other remote\nsites, (2) claimants may protest prison policies requiring guards at telephone hearings;\nand (3) claimants may be transferred from one facility to another, leading to months of\ndelay before the hearing can be rescheduled.\n\n\n1\n We interviewed regional managers in the Chicago, Dallas, and San Francisco Regions. We also\ninterviewed hearing office managers at the Orland Park, Illinois, Hearing Office in the Chicago Region;\nthe McAlester, Oklahoma, Hearing Office in the Dallas Region; and the Sacramento Hearing Office in the\nSan Francisco Region.\n2\n To be cost-effective when sending an ALJ to a remote site, the hearing office must assemble a docket of\n30 to 40 cases.\n3\n Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General report, Aged Cases at the Hearing Level\n(A-12-08-18071), September 2009.\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) D-1\n\x0cScheduling Multiple Parties/Conflicting Schedules: Regional and hearing office\nmanagers stated that hearing cases already in process may be delayed due to\ndifficulties in scheduling the necessary parties. For example, hearing offices need to\nensure the availability of the ALJ, the claimant and the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s representative, the\nhearing reporter, and, if needed, a translator, a medical expert (ME), and a vocational\nexpert (VE). Any party may cancel at the last minute, creating a need to reschedule the\nhearing and potentially resulting in months of delay if the ALJ already has a full\nschedule. 4 According to the Dallas regional management team, the three hearing\noffices in the greater Dallas area sometimes find they are trying to schedule the same\nMEs and claimant representatives simultaneously, leading to scheduling conflicts and\ndelays. In other cases, MEs will request a delay until they can be assigned to more\nthan one case since it may not be cost effective to attend a single hearing. In such\nsituations, the Dallas area hearing offices may need to bypass FIFO and identify\nadditional cases that require a particular ME\xe2\x80\x99s expertise.\n\nTransferred Cases: Greater scheduling complexities can be introduced when cases\nare transferred from one Region to another. For example, the Dallas and San\nFrancisco Regions receive cases transferred from the Chicago Region, which has a\nlarge backlog of cases while new hearing offices are being built. 5 According to the\nRegional managers, the assisting hearing offices have to go through extra steps to\nschedule the video hearings since schedulers need to ensure that at least two hearing\nrooms are available, one at each site, often in different time zones.\n\n\n\n\n4\n Not only are the ALJ dockets filled months in advance, hearing offices must also comply with the\nrequired 20-day notice sent to the claimant and claimant representative.\n5\n In our December 2009 report, The Office of Disability Adjudication and Review's Staffing Plans Under\nthe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (A-12-09-29140), we noted that ODAR was establishing\n13 additional hearing offices in FY 2010, as well as satellite offices.\n\n\nCongressional Response Report: Scheduled Hearings (A-12-10-20154) D-2\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\nCommissioner of Social Security\nOffice of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch\nChairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security\nMajority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government\nReform\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nEducation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security Pensions\nand Family Policy\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging\nSocial Security Advisory Board\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\nThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit (OA), Office of Investigations (OI),\nOffice of the Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of\nTechnology and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal\ncontrols, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality\nAssurance program.\n Office of Audit\nOA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and\noperations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently.\nFinancial audits assess whether SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements fairly present SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial position, results of\noperations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprograms and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews and program evaluations on issues of\nconcern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.\n Office of Investigations\nOI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations.\nThis includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing\ntheir official duties. This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the\ninvestigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State, and\nlocal law enforcement agencies.\n Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General\nOCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes, regulations,\nlegislation, and policy directives. OCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and techniques, as well as\non legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material. Also, OCIG administers\nthe Civil Monetary Penalty program.\n Office of External Relations\nOER manages OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal advisor on news releases and\nin providing information to the various news reporting services. OER develops OIG\xe2\x80\x99s media and public\ninformation policies, directs OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact for those\nseeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches, and presentations to internal and\nexternal organizations, and responds to Congressional correspondence.\n Office of Technology and Resource Management\nOTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security. OTRM also coordinates OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nbudget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the focal point\nfor OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance measures. In addition,\nOTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and administrative violations of Social Security laws,\nidentifies fugitives receiving benefit payments from SSA, and provides technological assistance to investigations.\n\x0c"


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 15.2.2016
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 59/32
 Recurso interpuesto el 3 de diciembre de 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund/Consejo
 (Asunto T-709/15)
 (2016/C 059/35)
 Lengua de procedimiento: francés
 Partes
 Demandante: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damasco, Siria) (representante: E. Ruchat, abogado)
 Demandada: Consejo de la Unión Europea
 Pretensiones
 La parte demandante solicita al Tribunal General que:
 —
 Declare que el recurso de la demandante es admisible y está fundado.
 —
 Condene consecuentemente a la Unión Europea a indemnizar la totalidad del perjuicio sufrido por la demandante con el importe que el Tribunal determine en equidad.
 —
 Ordene el nombramiento de un perito con vistas a determinar el alcance total del perjuicio sufrido por la demandante.
 —
 Condene en costas al Consejo de la Unión Europea.
 Motivos y principales alegaciones
 En apoyo de su recurso, la parte demandante invoca un único motivo, basado en el daño moral que alega haber sufrido, a saber, el menoscabo a su reputación, en relación causal directa con las medidas adoptadas por el Consejo de la Unión Europea, cuya responsabilidad incumbe a éste.