This information comes from Key Workload Indicators, a monthly publication from OHA that provides other interesting data on the social security appeal system, e.g., hearings and Appeals Council review of negative benefit determinations in the social security, SSI, and Medicare programs.

As can be seen from the chart, hearing delays were at their worst in the mid-1970s, when it took around nine months from hearing request to disposition of a case. Following a great deal of litigation at that time, processing times improved; the lowest point was an average processing time of 151 days from request to disposition in FY 1979. Processing times began to increase somewhat in the early 1980s, but, following the moratorium on continuing disability reviews (CDRs) in spring 1984, which virtually eliminated disability terminations from the hearings caseload, there was improvement. Since the end of FY 1986, processing times have worsened.

It is important to emphasize, however, that the dismal figures from the first part of 1987 cannot be attributed to the startup of CDRs after several years of moratorium on such reviews, since very few CDRs have shown up in the hearing system to date. The May Key Workload Indicators shows only 117 CDR cases received nationwide, as opposed to 19,127 non-CDR cases. It is quite likely that more CDR appeals will increase the hearing caseload in the coming months. Yet the ALJ staffing levels are the lowest in years. It seems safe to say that, unless something is done by OHA, either in the form of increased staffing or increased ALJ "productivity," the hearing delays are likely to get much worse.

One reason delays are so unfair to claimants is that most claimants win their appeals. In May 1987, for example, 60.7 percent of appeals in all social security programs resulted in a reversal of the denial of benefits. The reversal rate for disability insurance benefits was 65.9 percent; for SSI cases, it was 56.8 percent; and for those appealing decisions on concurrent benefits (both social security and SSI), it was 60.2 percent.

It should be noted that, in addition to the problems that these figures reflect at the hearing level, delays at the Appeals Council level are also very serious and have been so throughout the 1980s. As mentioned above, in the mid-1970s when hearing delays were at their worst, many class actions were brought on behalf of delayed individuals. Most of the cases resulted in victories for the plaintiffs, and they received relief in the form of mandatory processing deadlines imposed on SSA. However, in Heckler v. Day,3 the Supreme Court ruled that courts could not impose mandatory processing deadlines on the Secretary.

2. The report is available from the Clearinghouse, No. 41,623. This file contains all Key Workload Indicators since 1985. When ordering from the report, please indicate the specific month and year desired.

3. Heckler v. Day, 104 S. Ct. 2249 (1984).

Despite the ruling in Day, there are strategies that advocates representing those suffering unreasonable delays under the social security appeals system may pursue. Day specifically upheld injunctive relief for individuals (as opposed to classes) who claimed unreasonable delays. In addition, there are non-litigation strategies for helping clients who do not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.4

Finally, there has been subsequent litigation in many of the cases brought as class actions prior to Day requesting alternate relief other than mandatory deadlines, such as notice to class members of their rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and reporting by the Secretary of the delay situation. Currently, there is a conflict in the circuits on whether class relief for delay is possible after Day.

In Barnett v. Bowen, the Second Circuit ruled that alternate class relief was appropriate in delay cases and endorsed notice relief letting class members know of their right to a reasonably prompt hearing. Such relief was also provided in Sharpe v. Harris and Martinez v. Heckler. Since these two decisions were rendered, the Barnett court, on remand, has

4. See Hasen, Delay in the Social Security Appeals Process: The Potential for Individual Litigation After Heckler v. Day, 20 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 523 (Aug./Sept. 1986).

5. Barnett v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1986).

6. Sharpe v. Harris, 79 Civ. 1977 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 1985). 7. Martinez v. Heckler, 73 Civ. 900 (E.D.N.Y. May 28, 1985).

ordered HHS to send two notices to class members; one notice is of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time at the time a claimant requests a hearing, and the other notice is an individualized notice, which is sent every 90 days to everyone on the caseload whose hearing request has been pending for 90 days without scheduling. This second notice must explain why no hearing has been scheduled.

On the other hand, in Crosby v. SSA, the First Circuit has ruled that alternate class relief is not proper after Day. The same issue is pending in the Sixth Circuit in Blankenship v. Secretary."

For further information regarding delays, contact the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law. [Editors' Note: Readers interested in this issue should also read Linden, Delays in Processing Benefits to Disability Claimants, 21 Clearinghouse Rev. 357 (Aug./Sept. 1987).]

Sherry Leiwant

Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law 95 Madison Ave., Room 701 New York, NY 10016-7842 (212) 679-3709

8. Crosby v. SSA, 796 F.2d 576 (1st Cir. 1986).

9. Blankenship v. Secretary, No. 86-6240 (6th Cir. filed 1987) (Clearinghouse No. 15,795).

California-Staff Attorney

Position: Fresno-Merced Counties Legal Services (FMCLS) invites applications for the position of Staff Attorney.

Responsibilities: FMCLS is organized into teams of legal workers; each team focuses upon a particular set of substantive issues. Litigation is emphasized, as well as collaborative lawyering and innovative problem solving.

Qualifications: Recent admittees and experienced attorneys are encouraged to apply; California admission is strongly preferred; bilingual in Spanish and Southeast Asian languages preferred.

Opening/Closing Date: Open until filled.

Salary: D.O.E.

Applications: Send resume to:

Marc Feldman, Executive Director Fresno-Merced Counties Legal Services 906 N St., Suite 125

Fresno, CA 93721, (209) 441-1611

Women, minorities, and the disabled are encouraged to apply.

California-Staff Attorney

Position: Staff Attorney, Monterey County Legal Services Corporation, a mixed-model program.

Responsibilities: Intake and co-counseling in Judicare component; some direct representation in domestic violence cases; back-up of Director in administration of program.

Qualifications: Minimum 2 years experience in family and landlord-tenant law practice in California; Spanish-speaking preferred; additional experience in public benefits cases desirable.

Opening/Closing Date: Open until filled.

Salary/Benefits: $24,000+ D.O.E.; excellent benefits.

Applications: Send resume and short writing sample to:

Diana Baker, Executive Director Monterey County Legal Services Corp. 1069 Broadway, Suite 104 Seaside, CA 93955, (408) 899-7433

Illinois-Experienced Attorneys,

Housing Attorney,

Staff Attorney, and Supervisory Attorneys

Program Description: Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (LAFC) is funded primarily by the Legal Services Corporation to provide high-quality legal services in the City of Chicago. LAFC has approximately 85 attorneys, 20 paralegals, and 50 other support personnel. LAFC has an experienced staff of talented attorneys and other staff, provides excellent training and litigation experience, and also opportunities for advancement. LAFC operates 6 neighborhood offices and 1 central office in downtown Chicago. Approximately 50 attorneys are located in neighborhood offices and 30 in the central office. There are specialist attorneys in all fields affecting the poor. The largest minority groups in the City of Chicago that are served by LAFC are black and Hispanic.

Positions: Experienced Attorneys.

Responsibilities: Will be responsible for general civil caseload, including service work, complex litigation, appellate work, and community legal education; experienced attorneys will be expected to co-counsel cases with younger attorneys.

Qualifications: Excellent writing, negotiating, and advocacy skills; general litigation skills, including federal litigation experience; excellent interpersonal skills; ability to manage a mixed caseload of individual matters and complex litigation; must be member of Illinois bar or member of another state bar and must take the next Illinois state bar exam given.

Opening/Closing Date: Please send applications by October 15, 1987; continuous recruitment until positions are filled.

Salary: $23,500-$39,250 through March 31, 1988; commensurate with experience.

Applications: Send resume, writing samples, and references with telephone numbers to:

James O. Latturner, Deputy Director
Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago
343 S. Dearborn, Suite 700
Chicago, IL 60604

Position: Experienced Housing Attorney.

Responsibilities: Maintain major litigation caseload; advise and assist attorneys in neighborhood offices; administrative and legislative advocacy.

Qualifications: A minimum of 2 years legal

experience required and expertise in housing litigation preferred.

Opening/Closing Date: Immediate opening; closed when filled.

Salary/Benefits: D.O.E.; excellent fringe benefits.

Applications: Send resume and writing sample

to:

William P. Wilen

Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago 343 S. Dearborn, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 341-1070

Position: Staff Attorney, Employment Unit— general office.

Responsibilities: To provide legal advice and representation for clients in accordance with LAFC priorities; to co-counsel cases with neighborhood attorneys; to be primarily responsible for major litigation; to engage in legislative and administrative advocacy; to engage in community legal education activities in the employment and unemployment fields.

Qualifications: Knowledge of unemployment insurance and employment discrimination law; excellent writing and advocacy skills; general litigation skills, including federal litigation experience; excellent interpersonal skills.

Opening/Closing Date: Continuous recruitment until the position is filled.

Salary: $23,500-$39,250 through March 31, 1988; commensurate with experience.

Applications: Send resume, writing samples, and references with telephone numbers to:

Jeffrey Gilbert, Supervisory Attorney Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago 343 S. Dearborn, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 341-1070

Position: Supervisory Attorney, 18th Street Neighborhood office.

Office Description: The 18th Street office serves a primarily Hispanic (Mexican-American) community. The office represents clients in all areas of civil representation except divorces, tort defense, and bankruptcy. The services provided include impact litigation, individual cases, and administrative representation.

Responsibilities: Will be responsible for the day-to-day operation and legal work of the neighborhood office, which now has a staff consisting of 6 attorneys, 2 paralegals, 2 secretaries, an intake specialist, and a receptionist. Will have no more than a minimum amount of intake responsibility; expected to be responsible