The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to publish final regulations that would:
... revise our rules to protect the integrity of our programs and to address public concerns regarding the removal of an administrative law judge's name from the Notice of Hearing and other prehearing notices. To accomplish both objectives, these proposed rules state that we will provide an individual with notice that his or her hearing may be held by video teleconferencing and that he or she has an opportunity to object to appearing by video teleconferencing within 30 days of the notice. We have also made changes that allow us to determine that claimant will appear via video teleconferencing if a claimant changes residences while his or her request for hearing is pending. We anticipate these changes will increase the integrity of our programs with minimal impact on the public and result in more efficient administration of our program.I'm telling you now, Social Security. This isn't going to work out the way you think. You're just going to dramatically increase the number of objections to video hearings because you won't be able to use the threat of delay to force claimants and their attorneys to accept video hearings. No, I don't think the agency can realistically tell claimants that it's going to take several months longer to get a hearing if they object to a video hearing if that objection is made early in the process. Social Security can get away with that sort of delay if a video hearing has already been scheduled before the claimant objects but it won't be be a credible threat if the hearing hasn't yet been scheduled.
This is unclear as to whether they propose again withholding ALJ names.
ReplyDeleteCry all you want to, Charles, but with increased telework, varied caseloads, increased numbers of centralized units doing case workup and writing, etc. (all to serve the goal of less footprint)--the writing is on the wall.
ReplyDeleteIt's only a matter of time before we are going to change the rules such that a claimant scheduled for a video hearing cannot object and demand an in-person one.
Ironically, ALJs' assistants at the Charlotte ODAR have been calling to schedule LIVE hearings for which my clients and I must travel 84 miles because the local field office's (25 miles away) video facility is so booked up that we'd have to wait 2-3 months for a video hearing. Now that field office is closed "until further notice."
ReplyDeleteReps who agree to video hearings either have a slam dunk case or a dog case they don't want to waste time on.
ReplyDeleteReps who think having an In person hearing makes it more likely to win their case are delusional
ReplyDelete@ 11:35 AM: Either you have never handled a case or you are an ALJ who just rubber stamps the DDS findings and collects a pay check.
ReplyDeleteI am still at a loss to understand why a claimant moving results in a forfeiture of the right to object to VTC. There does not appear to be anything in the regs that restricts this in anyway (ie moving from jurisdiction of one ODAR to another). Conceivably a claimant could move from one apartment to another in the same building and this would result in a forfeiture. I foresee litigation on this issue.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that this notice will be sent out right after the Request for Hearing is filed. That way, claimants who are not represented at that point will fail to object and lose their right to object. If they obtain representation after that, the representative will have no ability to object.
ReplyDelete@ 2:04 PM, April 14, 2014
ReplyDeleteVery astute, hadn't thought of someone moving within same ODAR jurisdiction.
@11:19 and 11:25: Although I don't particularly like video hearings, I did a statistical review of the results over a year from video vs. in-person hearings and found no difference in results--WHEN THE CASES WERE BEFORE ALJS FROM THE SAME ODAR. Because of the travel distance to the ODAR vs. to the local field office, I will gladly do video hearings before those ALJ with whom I am familiar in 80% of my cases.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will object to video hearings in about 20% of my cases because there is something about the claimants that an ALJ can better appreciate in person: (1) in Listing 12.00 cases, one can often pick up on the "weirdness" caused by the mental impairment (in some cases) which will affect employability and social interactions; (2) in some physical impairment cases, it seems to help that the ALJ witnesses the claimant struggling into the hearing room and getting seated--in video hearings as done locally, the reporter contacts the ALJ to sign in after the claimant is nicely seated.
I practice in a rural area. Despite very clearly written instructions, about every 6 months, a client and his/her family will get lost in "the big city" and will not get to ODAR, causing a rescheduling. I occasionally transport some destitute clients, but I don't think that I should have to run a bus service.
no, of course not. crow about every little thing we as an agency do not do to help these, the lowest among us, but don't give your broke, homeless, carless, and largely support system-less clients, who pay you 25% of back benefits up to $6000 for what is honestly (don't give me your spiel, I have practiced law in a variety of fields, including Legal Aid where we drove clients places regularly), a ride to the hearing they've waited years for.
ReplyDeleteAnd you wonder why we at the agency don't care for reps all that much...
*"very easy work" should have followed "honestly." i got wrapped up in the parenthetical. sorry.
ReplyDelete@12:48 PM. Would you expect your physician to give you a ride to the hospital for a colonoscopy? Does your banker pick you up to take you to the bank to make a loan application?
ReplyDeleteAnd you wonder why we reps don't care much for the agency people. (There are a few exceptions )