In this final rule, before we assign an ALJ to the case or before we schedule a hearing, we will notify a claimant that he or sh e has the right to object to appearing at the hearing by video teleconferencing. If the claimant objects to appearing at the hearing by video teleconferencing, the claimant must tell us in writing within 30 days after the date he or she receives the notice, unless he or she shows good cause for missing the deadline. If we receive a timely objection, or we find there was good cause for missing the deadline, we will schedule the claimant for an in person hearing, with one limited exception. If a claimant moves to a different residence while his or her request for a hearing is pending, we will determine whether the claimant will appear in person or by video teleconferencing, even if the claimant previously objected to appearing by video teleconferencing. In addition, in order for us to consider a change in residence when scheduling a hearing, the claimant must submit evidence verifying a new residence. After we receive evidence regarding the claimant’s new residence, we will decide how the claimant’s appearance will be made.
Jun 24, 2014
Forcing Video Hearings On Claimants
From a notice that Social Security will post in the Federal Register tomorrow:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Why is the Agency so hypersensitive about the possibility of "ALJ shopping"?
It's not the ALJ shopping that they are concerned with. It's the ridiculous increase of reps objecting to the video hearing within days of the hearing. At this point, many expenses for the hearing are already done and are now lost. VEs and MEs still get paid the full amount. Any work that's been done on the case by an attorney or ALJ is now wasted hours. Requiring notice of objection prior to assignment of the case will solve the majority of these issues.
@ 1:37...exactly. Contrary to popular myth, it's not about judge shopping, it's just about efficiency. Having to transfer the file and redo the analysis/file review is a productivity killer.
The rule is also another step in the direction of SSA's Vision 2025, in which community-based face-to-face service, and the offices and employees that support personalized service delivery, are phased out.
TO ANON 1:37 PM, June 24, 2014
Who says “ It's the ridiculous increase of reps objecting to the video hearing within days of the hearing.”
I doubt that. Where’s the documentation? I have been doing hearings for over 10 years and never objected to a Video within “days”. The ODARs have asked for objections at the earliest possible time. That would mean at least to most representatives, when we receive the notice of a hearing with a particular ALJ. While I am sure ODARs notify differently, I suspect most representatives have been advised of a hearing (with the specific ALJ’s name to it for the first time) within 60 days. That’s months, not days. You would not last long as a representative at an ODAR if you objected within “days”. And you bet I object at the first time I receive a notice for a Video hearing with an ALJ who is denying 90 percent. I would do anything to avoid my claimant going through a useless hearing, and an equally worthless Appeals Council review. Clients don’t have 2 years to wait for a fair hearing because some life appointed outlier has an overblown sense of self importance.
I would like a clarification as to the "change in residence." Is that only for a change in which the claimant moves into the area served by a different ODAR? Or, is that ANY change of residence? Many of my clients are so destitute that they "couch surf" between friends and relatives, hoping for the day when they will again be able to afford to rent regular lodging. The mailing address may often change as their wear out their welcome.
So, we'll have to object to a VTC before we even know the name of the ALJ assigned? This will just lead to widespread objections to all VTCs by competent attorneys. Now, when a VTC is scheduled, we do a "cost/benefit" analysis: looking at the VTC ALJ's pay rate, is it worth taking this hearing or should we roll the dice for a better draw at the local ODAR knowing that it will, however, further delay the hearing for the claimant. With this proposed rule, not knowing any other factors, it's always better for an in person hearing versus a VTC hearing, so there's no reason NOT to object to every VTC.
9:18 AM - Agency or other trying to support this position?
Justin
The rule was designed to make claimants "decide" whether to decline a video hearing so early in the process that most will not have the benefit of counsel/representation before waiving the right to an in person hearing.
@ 9:18 AM "With this proposed rule, not knowing any other factors, it's always better for an in person hearing versus a VTC hearing, so there's no reason NOT to object to every VTC." I agree with you 100%.
Any competent attorney should be objecting to VTCs unless there is a known benefit to the claimant such as saving on travel or the like.
As we all know, there are enough incompetent attorneys/firms out there so sadly it will probably keep the national hearing centers alive.
4:21: you're probably right that between the unrep'd claimants and lazy law firms, this proposed policy may have some of the desired effect. It creates more work for the attorney to opt out of a VTC hearing. It's easier to just sit on the files and wait for the hearings to just be scheduled.
The claimant should have the right to face the person making a decision in his/her case - in person. Too much valuable information can be missed if it is not a face-to-face hearing.
@ 12:45 PM. I couldn't agree with you more. But that would stand in the way of the efficiency that is mentioned so many times in this final rule. The Commissioner wants to run an efficient operation, not one that is fair to the claimants.
The Commissioner is interested in running a program that is fair to ALL claimants, not one weighted in favor of claimants lucky (?) enough to hire scheisters like the anonymous commenters at 2:59, 9:18, and 4:21. I think they've successfully shown that ALJ shopping is a valid concern.
Post a Comment