Argument of Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
before the Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Social Security

June 27, 2012


Chairman Johnson, Ranking Fellow member Becerra, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thanks for this opportunity to discuss our appeals procedure, which is one of the largest administrative adjudicative systems in the world. We are committed to standing to improve this process for our disability claimants. Today, I volition provide an overview of the appeals process, update you on our efforts to eliminate the hearings backlog, and discuss the President'southward fiscal year (FY) 2013 funding request.

General Administrative Review Procedure

The Supreme Courtroom has accurately described our administrative process as "unusually protective" of the claimant. i Indeed, we strive to ensure that we make the correct determination as early in the procedure as possible, so that a person who truly needs disability benefits receives them in a timely fashion. In virtually cases, we determine claims for benefits using an administrative review procedure that consists of four levels: (1) initial decision; (two) reconsideration decision; (3) hearing; and (4) appeals. ii At each level, the conclusion-maker bases his or her decisions on provisions in the Social Security Act (the Act) and regulations.

In most States, a squad consisting of a State disability examiner and a State agency medical or psychological consultant makes an initial determination at the first level. The Act requires this initial determination. 3 A claimant who is dissatisfied with the initial decision may request reconsideration, which is performed by some other State bureau team.

A claimant who is dissatisfied with the reconsidered determination may asking a hearing. 4 The Deed requires us to give a claimant "reasonable find and opportunity for a hearing with respect to such decision." 5 Under our regulations, an authoritative law estimate (ALJ) conducts a de novo hearing unless the claimant waives the right to appear in person, or the ALJ can outcome a fully favorable decision without a hearing; in these cases, the ALJ bug a decision based solely on the written tape. 6 If the claimant is dissatisfied with the ALJ's determination, he or she may request Appeals Quango (AC) review. 7 The Deed does not crave authoritative review of an ALJ'due south decision. If the AC bug a determination, it becomes our final conclusion. If the Air conditioning decides non to review the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's decision becomes our final decision. A claimant may request judicial review of our final conclusion in Federal district court. 8


The Administrative Appeals Process

Our administrative appeals process consists of iii levels: afterthought, hearing, and entreatment. My testimony volition focus primarily on the hearings and appeals process; still, I will get-go briefly draw the afterthought level of review.

Reconsideration

The afterthought stage is the showtime level of appeal in our inability claims process. A team consisting of a State agency disability examiner and a medical or psychological consultant, neither of whom were involved in making the initial determination, reviews the claimant'southward case.ix If necessary, the squad will request additional evidence or a new consultative examination.

The afterthought determination is a thorough and independent examination of all testify on tape. The team is not spring by the decision fabricated at the initial level.

If the claimant is dissatisfied with the reconsidered decision, the claimant has 60 days afterward the date he or she receives notice of the decision to asking a hearing before an ALJ, unless nosotros extend the deadline for good cause. A claimant may request an extension of time to file an appeal at every level of agency review and may asking an extension of time to file a civil action in Federal court.

Hearings and Appeals Process

Nosotros have over 70 years of experience in administering the hearings and appeals procedure. Since the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1939 (1939 Amendments), the Act has required united states to concord hearings to make up one's mind the rights of individuals to onetime-age and survivors' insurance benefits.

To hold the hearings required past the 1939 Amendments, we established the Office of the Appeals Council (OAC) in 1940. The OAC consisted of 12 "referees" and a Central Office staff. 10 The referees, who heard cases and issued decisions, were located in each of the then-12 regional offices beyond the land. eleven The Central Office consisted of a three-member AC and a consulting referee (whose role eventually developed into the Function of Full general Counsel). The Chairman of the Ac also served as the caput of the OAC. To promote uniformity and ensure right decisions, the Air conditioning reviewed all referees' decisions. The 1939 Amendments allowed claimants to appeal our terminal decisions to Federal court.

Later on establishing the OAC, we changed the proper name of that component several times. Since 2006, we accept called information technology the Office of Disability Arbitrament and Review (ODAR). ODAR manages the hearings and Ac levels of the administrative review process.

Over the years, the numbers of ALJs and hearing offices rapidly grew every bit the Social Security program grew. Recently, we added staff to help us run into growing demand and allow us to focus our resources on those parts of the land that need our services most. In addition, we have expanded the use of video hearings, opened v national hearing centers, and realigned the service areas of some of our offices. All the same, the essential attributes of the hearings and appeals process have remained essentially the aforementioned since 1940. When it established the hearings and appeals process in 1940, the Social Security Board sought to balance the need for accuracy and fairness to the claimant with the need to handle a large book of claims in an expeditious manner. 12 Those twin goals still motivate us. As the Supreme Court has observed, the Social Security hearings system "must be fair – and it must work." 13

Hearing Level

When a hearing office receives a asking for a hearing from a claimant, the hearing office staff prepares a case file, assigns the instance to an ALJ and schedules a hearing. The ALJ decides the case de novo, significant that he or she is not bound by the determinations made at the initial and reconsideration levels. The ALJ reviews any new medical and other show that was not available to prior adjudicators. The ALJ will as well consider a claimant's testimony and the testimony of medical and vocational experts called for the hearing. If a review of all of the evidence suggests that we can upshot a decision that is fully favorable to the claimant without belongings a hearing, an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may issue an on-the-record, fully favorable determination. 14 If an on-the-tape decision is non possible, an ALJ holds a hearing.

As I accept testified before this subcommittee previously, the Authoritative Procedure Act (APA) contains provisions that ensure qualified decisional independence for our ALJs and places certain limits on the performance management of our ALJs. For example, by law ALJs are exempt from performance appraisals and cannot receive awards based on performance. fifteen Nosotros support Congress' intent to ensure the integrity of the hearings process. xvi A key component of the integrity of our hearings process is that ALJs act as independent adjudicators — who fairly apply the standards in the Act and our regulations. We respect the qualified decisional independence that is integral to the ALJ'southward function as an independent adjudicator. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress modeled the APA on our hearings process.

In dissimilarity to Federal court proceedings, our ALJ hearings are non-adversarial. Formal rules of evidence practice not apply, and the bureau is not represented. 17 At the hearing, the ALJ takes testimony under adjuration or affidavit. The claimant may elect to announced in-person at the hearing or consent to appear via video. The claimant may engage a representative (either an chaser or not-chaser) who may submit evidence and arguments on the claimant's behalf, make statements virtually facts and law, and telephone call witnesses to testify. The ALJ may call vocational and medical experts to offer stance bear witness, and the claimant or the claimant'south representative may question these witnesses.

If, following the hearing, the ALJ believes that additional evidence is necessary, the ALJ may leave the tape open and conduct additional post-hearing evolution; for example, the ALJ may order a consultative examination. In one case the record is complete, the ALJ considers all of the bear witness in the record and makes a decision. The ALJ decides the case based on a preponderance of the prove in the administrative tape. A claimant who is dissatisfied with the ALJ'due south determination generally has threescore days after he or she receives the decision to enquire the Ac to review the conclusion.

Appeals Council

Upon receiving a request for review, the AC evaluates the ALJ's conclusion, all of the evidence of record, including any new and material bear witness that relates to the period on or before the appointment of the ALJ'southward decision, and whatever arguments the claimant or his or her representative submits. The AC may grant review of the ALJ'southward conclusion, or it may deny or dismiss a claimant's request for review. The AC will grant review in a case if there appears to exist an abuse of discretion by the ALJ; in that location is an error of police force; the actions, findings, or conclusions of the ALJ are not supported by substantial evidence; or if there is a wide policy or procedural issue that may affect the full general public involvement.

If the AC grants a request for review, it may uphold function of the ALJ's conclusion, opposite all or part of the ALJ'due south decision, consequence its ain decision, remand the instance to an ALJ, or dismiss the original hearing request. When it reviews a case, the Air-conditioning considers all the show in the ALJ hearing tape (likewise as whatsoever new and fabric testify), and when information technology issues its ain decision, it bases the determination on a preponderance of the prove.

If the claimant completes our administrative review procedure and is dissatisfied with our final decision, he or she may seek review of that final decision by filing a complaint in Federal district courtroom. However, if the AC dismisses a claimant's request for review, he or she cannot entreatment that dismissal.

Nosotros also rely on the Ac to improve the quality of our hearing decisions. In September 2010, we established the Sectionalisation of Quality (DQ) within the AC, in social club to expand our quality assurance role and to help maintain appropriate stewardship of the Trust Fund. Currently, DQ reviews a statistically valid sample of un-appealed favorable ALJ hearing decisions before those decisions are effectuated (i.east., finalized). In FY 2011, DQ reviewed 3,692 partially and fully favorable decisions issued by ALJs and attorney adjudicators, and took action on about 22 pct, or 812, of those cases. 18

DQ besides conducts focused reviews on specific hearing offices, ALJs, representatives, doctors, etc. 19 ODAR identifies potential subjects for focused reviews from a variety of sources, including information collected through our systems, findings from pre-effectuation reviews, and internal and external referrals received from diverse sources regarding potential non-compliance with our regulations and policies. One mode nosotros employ these reviews is to place common errors in ALJ decisions. The results of these reviews show common errors to exist failure to adequately develop the record, lack of supporting rationale, and improper evaluation of opinion evidence. Furthermore, we use the comprehensive data and analysis provided by DQ to provide feedback to other components on policy guidance and litigation bug.

Federal Level

If the Air conditioning makes a determination, it is our final decision. If the Ac denies the claimant's request for review of the ALJ'south determination, the ALJ's decision becomes our final conclusion. A claimant who wishes to entreatment an AC decision or an Air-conditioning denial of a request for review has sixty days after receipt of notice of the Air-conditioning's action to file a complaint in Federal District Court.

In contrast to the ALJ hearing, Federal courts employ an adversarial process. In Commune Court, an chaser usually represents the claimant and attorneys from the United States Attorney's part or our Office of the General Counsel stand for the Regime. When we file our respond to that complaint, we also file with the courtroom a certified copy of the authoritative record developed during our arbitrament of the claim for benefits.

The Federal District Court considers two broad inquiries when reviewing one of our decisions:
whether nosotros correctly followed the Act and our regulations, and whether our decision is supported by substantial evidence of record. On the first inquiry – whether we have applied the right law – the court typically volition consider issues such as whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard for evaluating the bug in the claim, such every bit the credibility of the claimant's testimony or the treating md's opinion, and whether we followed the right procedures.

On the second inquiry, the court will consider whether the factual testify developed during the administrative proceedings supports our decision. The court does not review our findings of fact de novo, only rather, considers whether those findings are supported by substantial prove. The Act prescribes the "substantial evidence" standard, which provides that, on judicial review of our decisions, our findings "equally to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." The Supreme Courtroom has defined substantial evidence equally "such relevant testify as a reasonable heed might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."xx The reviewing court volition consider evidence that supports the ALJ'southward findings too equally evidence that detracts from the ALJ's decision. However, if the court finds there is conflicting evidence that could allow reasonable minds to differ as to the claimant'south disability, and the ALJ's findings are reasonable interpretations of the evidence, the courtroom must assert the ALJ'southward findings of fact.

If, after reviewing the record as a whole, the courtroom concludes that substantial bear witness supports the ALJ's findings of fact and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, the courtroom will affirm our concluding decision. If the court finds either that we failed to follow the correct legal standards or that our findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence, the courtroom typically remands the case to the states for further administrative proceedings, or in rare instances, reverses our final decision and finds the claimant eligible for benefits.

History of Hearing Workloads and Initiatives

We have fabricated great strides in reducing the hearings excess in recent years. To provide some context, I will sketch the history of our hearing workload and our prior attempts to manage its increases.

Hearing Workloads

When nosotros established the hearings process in 1940, we designed information technology to handle a larger number of cases, relative to other hearing processes.21 However, hearings originally constituted a small-scale workload compared to today'southward numbers. In FY 2007, we received nearly 580,000 hearing requests; terminal fiscal yr, nosotros received over 859,000 hearing requests, which was a record number.

Legislative action is i of the catalysts for this growth. Over time, Congress expanded the scope and attain of the Human action, and these legislative changes resulted in increasing dockets. For case, the Social Security Amendments of 1954 created the outset operational Social Security disability programme; it instituted the disability freeze for workers who met the law'south definition of disability. 22 Due to this legislation, hearing requests increased from approximately 3,800 in 1955 to 8,000 in 1956. After the implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1972, which created the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, and the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972, hearing requests more than than doubled from FY 1973 to 1975. 23

As our workloads collection pending levels and processing times up, the courts took notice. In the 1970s, several Federal District Courts entered judgments in statewide class actions requiring us to hear cases in their States within specific timeframes.

Previous Initiatives

Over the years, we tried to find means to meet the demand for hearings. For example, in 1975 we started our outset decision-writing program. Under this program, staff attorneys wrote the ALJ decisions based on instructions they received from the judges. 24 By lessening the decisionwriting burden for our ALJs, we enabled them to issue more decisions. While this alter took hold, other well-intentioned initiatives have fallen brusk.

Disability Process Reengineering

In 1993, the agency established a task force to reengineer the inability claims process. The chore force devised a plan "to dramatically ameliorate the inability claim procedure," and the agency released this plan in September 1994. 25 Every bit a office of this redesign, the plan contemplated ii changes to the hearings and appeals level. First, the plan created a new position, the adjudication officer (AO). The AO would explicate the hearings procedure to the claimant, comport personal conferences, prepare claims, and schedule hearings. Moreover, the AO could allow the claim at any point prior to the hearing if sufficient show supported a favorable decision. The plan would too allow claimants unsatisfied with their hearing decisions to appeal them direct to Federal district court, rather than requesting Air conditioning review.

The plan included 83 initiatives. Interested parties criticized the scope and complexity of these initiatives. For example, in September 1996 the Authorities Accountability Office testified before this subcommittee that the number of complex initiatives would likely delay the plan'south completion, and that the agency should focus its efforts on fewer initiatives. 26 Consequently, the agency never fully implemented this plan.

Hearings Process Improvement (HPI)

In March 1999, the bureau released a plan to improve the agency'south management of the inability program. As a part of this programme, in June 1999 the agency implemented HPI. This initiative sought to improve hearing procedure efficiency by addressing the following problems: one) the high number of hearing office staff involved in preparing a case for a hearing; 2) the "stove pipe" nature of employees' task duties; and 3) inadequate management information necessary to monitor and track each case through the process. HPI sought to create a procedure that fully prepared the cases for adjudication by first determining the necessary deportment early in the procedure and ensuring that case development or expedited review occurred. A few of the changes HPI made to hearing role arrangement, such as creating the position of hearing office director, are still in place today. However, Congress would not fund HPI as originally conceived, and in its truncated grade it failed to increase the efficiency of our hearing process to the extent envisioned.

Inability Service Improvement (DSI)

In August 2006, the agency began the ringlet out of DSI. This initiative sought to streamline the entire inability claims process and ensure that the agency made the right decision as early in the procedure as possible. At the hearing level, the record would close after an ALJ decision, and the Determination Review Board would gradually replace the Ac. DSI besides created a new position, the Federal Reviewing Official (FedRO), to review State bureau determinations upon the asking of the claimant; this level would replace the reconsideration level of review. The Quick Disability Conclusion initiative, which nosotros use today, originated under DSI. However, the administrative costs of other features of DSI, such as the FedRO, were more than expected. Moreover, the staffing requirements under DSI had very little connection to reducing the hearings backlog.

Hearings Excess Reduction Plan

Despite these well-intentioned efforts, the disability backlogs continued to rise. During my first week as Commissioner in February 2007, I testified before this Subcommittee about the hearings backlog. To put it mildly, y'all were extremely upset almost the hardships your constituents faced while waiting for a disability decision. The backlogs had steadily risen, and the plan I inherited to gear up those backlogs, DSI, was draining precious resources and making the problem worse. The numbers tell the story. At the time, over 63,000 people waited over 1,000 days for a hearing, and some people waited every bit long equally ane,400 days. We were failing the public. Rather than devise yet another signature initiative that would not stand up the test of time, we went dorsum to the basics.

We developed an operational plan that focused on the gritty work of truly managing the unprecedented hearings workload. We made dozens of incremental changes, including using video more than widely, improving IT, simplifying regulations, standardizing concern processes, and establishing ALJ productivity expectations, to proper name simply a few. Importantly, with your support, we also committed the resources employees needed to get this work done.

We accept hired additional ALJs for the offices with the heaviest workloads. We expanded the Senior Attorney Adjudicator program, which gives adjudicators the dominance to issue fully favorable on-the-tape decisions in society to conserve ALJ resources for the more complex cases and cases that require a hearing.

Nosotros opened five National Hearing Centers (NHCs) to farther reduce hearings backlogs by increasing adjudicatory capacity and efficiency with a focus on a streamlined electronic business organisation process. Transfer of workload from heavily backlogged hearing offices is possible with electronic files, thus assuasive the NHC to target aid to these areas of the land. We implemented the Representative Video Projection (RVP) to permit representatives to conduct hearings from their own function space with agency-approved video conferencing equipment. 27

In 2010 and 2011, we opened 24 new hearing offices and satellite offices. While a lack of funding forced us to abolish plans for additional offices, those we did open up are making a substantial departure in communities that were experiencing the longest waits for hearings.

Nosotros increased usage of the Findings Integrated Templates (FIT) that improves the legal sufficiency of hearing decisions, conserves resources, and reduces average processing time. Nosotros introduced a standard Electronic Hearing Role Process, also known as the Electronic Business organization Process, to promote consistency in case processing across all hearing offices. We also built the "How MI Doing" tool that allows ALJs and support staff to view a graphical presentation of their up-to-date individual productivity as compared to others in their part, their region, and the Nation.

We expanded automation tools to improve speed, efficiency, quality, and accountability. Nosotros initiated the Electronic Records Express project, which provides electronic options for submitting health and school records related to disability claims. This initiative saves critical administrative resource because our employees burn fewer CDs freeing them to do other work. In addition, appointed representatives with e-Folder access have cocky-service access to hearing scheduling data and the electric current Case Processing and Management System (CPMS) merits condition for their clients, reducing the demand for them to contact our offices. We accept registered over 9,000 representatives for directly access to the electronic folder. We likewise implemented Automated Noticing that allows CPMS to automatically produce appropriate notices based on stored data. We implemented centralized printing and mailing that provides high speed, loftier book printing for all ODAR offices. We implemented Electronic Signature that allows ALJs and Attorney Adjudicators to sign decisions electronically.

We accept Federal disability units that provide extra processing capacity throughout the country. In contempo years, these units accept been assisting stressed Land inability determination agencies. Subsequently evaluating our express resources, our success in property down the initial disability claims pending level, and a farther fasten in hearings requests, we redirected these units in February 2012 to assist in screening hearings requests. Our Federal inability units can make fully favorable allowances, if appropriate, without the need for a hearing earlier an ALJ.

We also listened to criticism from you lot and others. Nosotros take tried to make the right decision upfront as quickly every bit possible. For instance, we are successfully using our Empathetic Allowance and Quick Disability Conclusion initiatives to fast-track disability determinations at the initial claims level for over 150,000 disability claimants each year, while maintaining a very high accuracy charge per unit. Currently nigh six percent of initial inability claims qualify for our fasttrack processes, and we look to increase that number as we add new status to our Compassionate Assart plan. This helps keep these cases out of our appeals procedure birthday.

Results

This plan has worked. Average processing time, which stood at 532 days in Baronial 2008, steadily declined for more than three years, reaching its lowest signal of 340 days in October 2011.

I desire to talk about measuring the hearings backlog. In 2007, filing rates had been stable for some time, so looking at the number of awaiting cases was a reasonable, if imperfect method to measure progress.

As the recession hitting and the number of requests for a hearing dramatically increased, we steadily improved our performance when measured by boilerplate processing time, the best metric for tracking progress, peculiarly in times when filings are changing rapidly. When people request a hearing, they want to know how long it will take to go a conclusion. Much like a line in a store, the customer's experience depends not on how many other people are waiting, but on how quickly we aid them. Nobody wants to go bumped and jostled; nobody wants to stand in a line that does not move; and everyone becomes frustrated when there are not enough cashiers to handle the customers. With grocery stores, we tin can choose where nosotros get our groceries and make up one's mind if nosotros are willing to accept a detail shop's customer service, but Americans seeking Social Security benefits have only ane place to go. With your help, nosotros are working to make their experience fair, accurate, and timely.

The most important metric for claimants is how long they will have to wait for a hearing decision; consequently, our primary goal is now boilerplate processing time, which is the average number of days information technology takes to get a hearing decision (from the date of the hearing request). In Baronial 2008, people waited an boilerplate of 532 days. Today they are waiting only 350 days.

Average processing times also became more compatible across the country. The most dramatic improvements have occurred in the near backlogged offices. To provide physical examples, average processing time in Atlanta North dropped from 900 days to 351 days in May 2012. Oak Park, Michigan improved from 764 days to 254 days. Columbus, Ohio went from 881 days to 351 days. Currently, no role has an average processing time greater than 475 days. Fifteen offices take hit our goal of 270 days or less, and many others are getting shut. While our goal is to reach an average processing time of 270 days by the cease of side by side financial year, that number depends on our ability to timely hire judges and support staff.

These numbers are even more impressive considering we have given priority to the oldest cases, which are generally the nigh complex and time-consuming. Five years agone, nosotros defined an aged example as one waiting over 1,000 days for a decision. At that time, 63,000 people waited over 1,000 days for a hearing, and some people waited as long as 1,400 days, which is a moral outrage. Since 2007, nosotros have decided over 600,000 of the oldest cases. Each year we lower the threshold for aged cases to ensure that we go along to eliminate the oldest cases first. Nosotros ended FY 2011 with nearly no cases over 775 days old. Through the steady efforts of our employees, we at present ascertain an aged case equally one that is 725 days or older, and we have already completed over xc percentage of them. Adjacent year, our management goal is to raise the bar on ourselves again by focusing on completing all cases over 675 days quondam.

This emphasis on eliminating anile cases increases boilerplate processing times, so we besides await ahead to see how long people in the queue have been waiting for a hearing. At the commencement of FY 2007, the number was 324 days. That number today is just 208 days, a 36 per centum subtract, and we are hopeful that effigy will drop again next year. Besides, at the beginning of FY 2007, virtually 40 per centum of awaiting hearing requests were older than one yr. We reduced this figure to fourteen percent at the end of May 2012.

To reduce the hearings backlog, we set an expectation that our ALJs should decide betwixt 500 and 700 cases annually. 28 When we established that productivity expectation in tardily 2007, only 47 percent of the ALJs were achieving it. Past the stop of May 2012, 72 percent met the expectation, and we look that percentage to continue to rise throughout this fiscal twelvemonth. I give thanks them for their difficult work.

This comeback in productivity has helped united states of america make progress despite the significant increase in requests for hearings. In FY 2011, we received over 859,000 hearing requests, which is near a 19 percent increase from what we received in FY 2010.

Our ALJs are not meeting our productivity goals by "paying downwardly the backlog," as has sometimes been alleged. Instead, over this time menses, outcomes across ALJs accept go more than standardized, reflecting an emphasis on quality decision making. There are now significantly fewer judges who allow more than 85 pct of their cases than at that place were in FY 2007 (run across the chart at the end of my testimony).

We have created new tools to focus on quality. Each quarter we railroad train our adjudicators on the nigh complex, error-prone provisions of law and regulation. We provide feedback on decisional quality, giving adjudicators access to their remand information. Nosotros likewise make available specific grooming to accost individualized training needs.

Moreover, since nosotros are handling more hearings, the number of new Federal court cases filed challenging our denials has gone up. In FY 2007, dissatisfied claimants filed 11,951 new cases. That number rose to 14,236 in FY 2011, and we project that there will exist about 19,100 new cases filed in FY 2013. Although the actual number of civil actions increased, the ratio of civil actions filed versus our denials has declined. Our success in the courts has besides improved. In FY 2011, courts affirmed our decisions in 51 percent of the cases decided, upwards from 49 percent in FY 2007, and court reversals have decreased from v pct to under 3 percent of cases over this time.

President's FY 2013 Budget Request

I am concerned that despite our employees' hard work, nosotros will brainstorm to motion drastically backwards on most of our key service goals. In financial years 2011 and 2012, the deviation between the President'southward Budget and our appropriation was greater than in whatever other year of the previous two decades. Also, last yr Congress rescinded $275 million from our IT carryover funding, which volition impairment our efforts to maintain our productivity increases through It innovation.

We are starting to encounter the consequences of these decisions. Not letting you know the consequences of Congress' decision would be a disservice to y'all, the American people, and the agency. Despite our employees' hard work, the progress in addressing our hearings excess is happening more than slowly than the public deserves. Information technology has slowed in the concluding year, and nosotros lost our margin for error when, for monetary reasons, we cancelled our plans to open 8 new hearing offices in Alabama, California, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, and Texas. 29

We are doing what we can to compensate. We are hiring boosted ALJs, admitting fewer than nosotros had planned, and using our reemployed annuitant authority to bring dorsum experienced judges who have recently retired. Nosotros are maintaining a high support staff-to-ALJ ratio to ensure cases are ready to hear, and nosotros are allowing the hearing offices to work overtime to try to continue up with the surge in hearings.

Nosotros need your support and we need a timely and adequate supply of well-qualified judicial candidates from the Function of Personnel Management (OPM). If we are not appropriately funded and we cannot timely rent enough qualified ALJs and back up staff, our progress will erode. Nosotros also need our projections for the number of initial claims and hearing requests to be on target if we are to achieve our goal of an boilerplate processing time of 270 days past the finish of next yr.

I urge Congress to support the President's asking because we have proven that we deliver when nosotros are properly resourced. Through the difficult work of our employees and technological advancements, we accept increased employee productivity by an boilerplate of about four pct in each of the last five years, a remarkable achievement that very few organizations—public or private—can match.

Conclusion

Congress made eliminating the hearings excess our tiptop priority. If you told me in 2007 that we would accept to argue with budget cuts for two straight years and the nearly severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, I would have said that it would exist incommunicable to eliminate the backlog. The fact that nosotros are still in a position to realize this goal is a testament to our employees' dedication and skill. Amid huge economical and budgetary unpredictability, we accept stayed focused on eliminating the causes of your moral outrage in 2007. At present nosotros need Congress to enact the President's Budget request and then that we tin can meet our of import commitments to the American people.

________________________________________________

ane Heckler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104 (1984).

2 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900, 416.1400. My testimony focuses on disability determinations, just the review process
generally applies to whatever appealable consequence under the Social Security programs.

iii Sections 205(b) and 1631(c)(1)(A) of the Human action, 42 U.South.C. §§ 405(b), 1383(c)(one)(A).

4 For disability claims, 10 States participate in a "prototype" examination nether xx C.F.R. §§ 404.906, 416.1406. In these
States, we eliminated the reconsideration pace of the administrative review process. Claimants who are dissatisfied
with the initial determinations on their disability cases may request a hearing before an ALJ. The ten States
participating in the epitome test are Alabama, Alaska, California (Los Angeles North and West Branches),
Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania.

v Sections 205(b)(1), 1631(c)(1)(A) of the Act, 42 United states of americaC. §§ 405(b)(i), 1383(c)(1)(A). A claimant has 60 days afterward
the appointment he or she receives observe of the determination to request a hearing before an ALJ.

6 twenty C.F.R. §§ 404.929, 416.1429.

7 twenty C.F.R. §§ 404.967-404.968, 416.1467-416.1468.

8 Sections 205(g), 1631(c)(3) of the Act, 42 United states of americaC. §§ 405(thousand), 1383(c)(3).

ix A disability casher who is appealing an initial-level conclusion that his or her impairment has medically
ceased may request a inability hearing before a disability hearing officer at the afterthought level.

10 In August 1959, nosotros changed the title of referee to "hearing examiner." In 1972, the Ceremonious Service Commission
changed this title to "Administrative Police force Guess."

11 We have increased our adjudicatory chapters to address rise workloads. Past 1957, we had 75 referees. In 1973,
our ALJ corps exceeded 500 judges for the first time. Currently, there are ane,472 judges in our ALJ corps

12 Basic Provisions Adopted by the Social Security Board for the Hearing and Review of Sometime-Age and Survivors Insurance Claims, at 4-5 (January 1940).

13 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 399 (1971).

xiv Nether the Attorney Adjudicator program, our most experienced attorneys spend a portion of their fourth dimension making
on-the-record, inability decisions in cases where plenty evidence exists to issue a fully favorable decision without
waiting for a hearing. xx C.F.R. §§ 404.942, 416.1442.

15 v UsaC. §4301. Although the APA prevents united states of america from rating the functioning of our ALJs, it does not preclude us
from setting expectations for them. As the Court of Appeals for the Second Excursion has observed, "The setting of
reasonable product goals, every bit opposed to fixed quotas, is non in itself a violation of the APA….[I]n view of the
meaning backlog of cases, it was not unreasonable to expect ALJs to perform at minimally acceptable levels of
efficiency. Uncomplicated fairness to claimants pending benefits required no less." Nash v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 675, 680-681
(2d. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.South. 812 (1990). We currently set an expectation of 500 to 700 dispositions every year,
or 42 to 58 dispositions a month.

sixteen To ensure the integrity of the hearings process, we assign cases to ALJs in rotation. This procedure promotes
fairness and reduces manipulation of judicial consignment.

Along these lines, we at present withhold the name of the ALJ assigned to a hearing. We accept experienced some
opposition to this practice. In Lucero v. Astrue, No. 12-cv-274-JB-LFG (D. N.M.), plaintiffs sought mandamus and
injunctive relief that would have barred us from withholding the names of the ALJs assigned to the plaintiffs' cases.
On May iv, 2012, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. The district courtroom
entered a terminal judgment dismissing, without prejudice, all of plaintiffs' claims against us on May 18.
In its written report accompanying the FY 2013 Labor-HHS appropriation bill, the Senate Appropriations Commission
expressed its concern that our practise could take unintended consequences. The commission directed the agency to
submit a report by November 1, 2012 on this issue. Still, the committee also noted that attempts by claimant
representatives to dispense the hearing process to observe favorable judges challenge the integrity of our process, and
supported our goal of reducing this manipulation.

17 During the 1980s, we tried to airplane pilot an agency representative position at select hearing offices. However, a United
States Commune Court held that the pilot violated the Act, intruded on ALJ independence, was opposite to
congressional intent that the process be "fundamentally fair," and failed the ramble requirements of due
process. Salling v. Bowen, 641 F. Supp. 1046 (W.D. Va. 1986). We later discontinued the pilot due to the
testing interruptions caused past the Salling injunction and full general financial constraints.
Congress originally supported the project; nevertheless, nosotros experienced significant congressional opposition once the
pilot began. For example, members of Congress introduced legislation to prohibit the adversarial involvement of
any government representative in Social Security hearings, and 12 Members of Congress joined an amicus brief in
the Salling example opposing the project.

18 In those instances, the AC either remanded the case to the hearing office for farther evolution or issued a
conclusion that modified the hearing conclusion.

19 Since these focused reviews are postal service-effectuation reviews, they practise non modify case outcomes.

20 Consolidated Edison Co. of New York 5. Due north.Fifty.R.B., 305 U.S. 197 (1938).

21 Bones Provisions Adopted by the Social Security Board for the Hearing and Review of Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Claims, at 4 (January 1940).

22 We compute retirement benefits based on earnings; therefore, a disabled worker with a catamenia of inability could
have experienced reduced or no retirement benefits due to his or her lost earnings. The 1954 amendments
established the disability freeze, nether which we could exclude a disabled worker's periods of disability when
calculating his or her retirement benefits.

23 For a brief period in the 1970s, the SSI hearing examiners hired to handle SSI cases could hear only SSI cases; the
ALJs hired to handle Blackness Lung cases could hear only Blackness Lung cases; and the ALJs hired to hear disability
insurance (DI) cases could hear just DI cases. The lack of an integrated ALJ corps denied flexibility that could
have helped with the increasing workloads more efficiently.

24 Currently, both attorneys and non-attorney specialists may write these decisions.

25 59 Fed. Reg. 47887 (September xix, 1994).

26 Testimony before the Business firm Ways and Ways Subcommittee on Social Security, September 12, 1996.

27 Unfortunately, merely a small number of representatives have participated in the RVP. Increased participation,
which may be happening equally the cost of the equipment declines, would make our process much more than efficient and
allow us to save money on office space.

28 In addition, we limit the limit the number of cases assigned per twelvemonth to an ALJ.

29 We take too airtight about of our remote hearing sites.

Number & Percentage of ALJs with 100+ Dispositions Chart