Your source for news affecting the U.S. Social Security Administration/© Charles T. Hall
Does anyone advise their clients to object? We've been winning 100% of our video conference cases. Anecdotal evidence isn't data, but our experience with them has been very positive. Are there practitioners out there who have had problems?
National Hearing Centers that do only video consistently have lower pay rates than Hearing offices..
We routinely advise our clients to object. Our experiences with the NHCs as well as transfers to other ODARS have not been positive at all. Its not simply a matter of pay rates but a matter of how the claimant is treated by the ALJ as well as the lack of familiarity with the ALJs and experts. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
You must be a troll. Hilarious. The "100%" gives you away. Go back under your bridge.
Furthermore, many of the VEs at NHC video hearings are of the variety that NEVER believe that there are not 3 jobs that my quadriplegic, cognitively brain-damaged client could do (not by DOT, but "by my personal experience.")
Never had a huge problem w/ VTCs. Depends on the ALJ. I am sure it has hurt on some level where the ALJ could not actually observe the claimant e.g. claimant walking in slowly in the hearing due to a cane or walker. But if it is a reasonable ALJ, then VTCs do not matter.What is more troubling is the use of video CEs. Bad idea.
Or, now, telephone CE's.
3:28 and 3:55, I agree completely. I find that in about 20% of my cases, I want my client in the same room as the ALJ. In some cases, it's because of the physical impairments as 3:28 pointed out. After you've been in this business awhile, you can learn a lot by just observing the claimants. In many mental impairment cases, it's important for the ALJ to be seated in relatively close space to the claimant--you can gradually perceive some of the "weirdness" that these claimants have developed and make it impossible for them to successfully interact. I think much of this is lost by video.
Post a Comment