Since Social Security's changed its regulations to require claimants to make a decision on whether to accept a video hearing shortly after asking for a hearing -- and long before the hearing is actually scheduled -- I've heard from a number of attorneys in North Carolina who tell me that they are now routinely refusing video hearings. I've heard from many of my clients who have received these notices who tell me that they want to refuse a video hearing. If attorneys and claimants are behaving the same in other states as they appear to me to be doing in North Carolina this change will dramatically cut the number of video hearings. There is some evidence that this is going on nationally.
What are you seeing where you are? Are there any national numbers yet? Has Social Security management started coming to grips with the possibility that these new regulations will have the exact opposite effect of what was intended?
9 comments:
Our firm's policy is to tell the claimant that we don't have a position. If the claimant really wants an in person hearing, then we'll go with it. Truth be told, we've kept records of our in person vs. video hearings and don't see a difference in win rates. So, it's whatever the client wants.
Has anyone seen a time difference in video hearings vs. in person? Is there any evidence that video hearings get you to the hearing faster? We've definitely seen that in VA cases and are wondering if the same holds true in the SSA.
Our policy is that it is up to the claimant, but they always want our advice. While SSA's policy is that it should not matter which ALJ hears a case, the reality is that it makes a big difference. And I just don't mean the pay/denial rates. Most ALJs have pet peeves; ways they want the hearing conducted, etc.. Dealing with a "local" ALJ you know by VTC is significantly different from dealing with one you have never seen before.
This was all covered in the comments of a previous post, but our firm policy is to automatically request an in-person hearing for every claimant. Other firms I have talked to in our area are doing the same thing.
SSA is not going to dismantle their VTC apparatus, or reduce their goals for VTC hearings. They are going to have the same number or more VTC hearings, but select them from those claimants who did not object to VTC hearings.
So some lawyers and representatives are going to see a big increase in the percentage of their cases that have VTC hearings.
@ 9:52 AM. I guess SSA will have to schedule for VTC all the unrepresented claimants, or at least those who were unrepresented at the time they filed the Req for Hearing, who bought into SSA's lies about the "advantages" of a video hearing and did not object when they had the chance.
And when that's not enough to keep the NHCs at capacity, they will start to schedule all the claimant's who moved after they had objected. (And I predict all those will need to be redone at a later time after a class action decision establishes it is a violation of due process.)
Our firm now objects as a rule, unless the claimant wishes to elect a VTC (which has not happened yet).
We used to take the exact opposite approach and pretty rarely objected to VTCs, but this policy forces us to preserve our objections up front. It is certainly having the opposite of the intended effect, at least with us.
We used to never object to a VTC and have not had that many with the NHC
But the statistics are amazing so now we object as soon as we get the notice.
It's a simple case of unintended consequences.
The SSA was trying to be slick to require to object to VTCs at hearing level. Their goal was to get more VTCs to cut down on costs. What it does is makes attorneys always object so theoretically this could eliminate VTCs.
I agree w/ ANON 9:06. It is up to the claimant. Our firm does not object to VTCs unless the claimant does.
What is more troubling is the use of video CEs. Can we object to those when requesting a hearing?
I don't understand why anyone would ever consent to a video hearing. It's less personal for the claimant and the judge, and, everything being equal, I much prefer appearing before a judge I know. And, everything isn't equal, as I've found NHC judges, on the whole, don't seem as interested in the claimants. Of course, I've had problems with a few hearing office judges over the years, but the entire process is more fair, user friendly and thorough when it's done in person.
Post a Comment