I'm seeing and hearing of instances where Social Security is trying to schedule video hearings or assigning cases to remote hearing offices which could only hear a case by video despite the claimant's previously expressed desire not to have a video hearing. Is this just happening around here or is it happening in other parts of the country as well? Is this just a series of mistakes or the result of deliberate decisions made at higher levels? I wonder if trying to ignore the claimant's wishes is the agency's way of dealing with the fact that its effort to discourage resistance to video hearings is actually encouraging resistance.
12 comments:
I haven't seen it around here. I think the NHC's are not getting enough cases (thank God).
In the past month, my clerk has scheduled three cases for video hearings after the claimant opted out. These were simply mistakes made at the lowest level, not a deliberate decision made at the highest level.
We are now routinely receiving calls from an ODAR asking if our client's want to rescind their opting out of video so they can schedule VTCs.
Charlotte is so far behind that it has cases over 1000 days old, so other hearing offices are being asked to help out. Claimant does not want a video hearing? Is he/she willing to wait another 500 days??
Please, give me a break here. Claimants do not have to wait another 500 days for in person. The under scheduled NHC judges can certainly go visit the localities and do hearings as done in the past. SSA has never dealt with the low quality issues of VTC and the high number of appeals that ALJs who will not face the claimant in person generate.
@8:53AM Amen! SSA has no problem requiring a claimant travel significant distances for hearings but God forbid we ever expect an ALJ to have to leave their ivory tower.
Most of the ALJs I know enjoyed travel in general (some specific locations were less pleasant). The opposition to ALJ travel comes from upper management, which does not want to pay the expenses associated with travel, much less give the ALJs the travel comp time that comes with traveling to remote hearing sites.
You're seriously advocating for many ALJs being paid to fly, stay in a hotel, get a per diem, etc. etc. so that they can hold all the in-person hearings folks are waiting for more quickly (remember, it would have to be multiple ALJs because we rotate everything--if we only sent one or two NHC ALJs to help out Charlotte, for example, people would cry foul that it was the same two judges doing all the Charlotte backlog cases)?
See, this is where reps are so client-focused and unwilling to appreciate the agency's right to efficiency that they look comical. Yes, let's never force anyone to do a video hearing but still keep the backlog short by flying ALJs from not busy offices all over the place to help out all the slammed offices at HUGE expense. That's a totally reasonable solution [tongue poking through cheek it is being pressed so firmly].
Well the feds dont seem to have a problem with paying for temporary housing for new (and perhaps transfer ALJs).
And at what point does the fundamental right to a fair hearing trump the agency's "right" to efficiency? I'd say when the attempt at efficiency adversely impacts the right to a face to face hearing as authorized under the regs.
How about just reassigning the those privileged NHC judges who never personally interact with claimants right back to hearing office which is far behind! More local "in person" judges is the answer. The higher denial rates at the NHCs (low quality hearings) are creating a higher number of appeals at the AC and the courts. "In person" hearings are MORE efficient for the entire system due to lower appeals, lower numbers of supplementals, etc. The agency needs to look at just how low quality the results from VTC is. But some judges don't want to be in the room with those icky claimants.... There should not be a special class of judges excused from real hearings. Don't just hide behind the screens.
I had occasion to look at a case. It appears that ODAR sends a form to for the client to complete and return IF the client declines to have a Video Hearing. If the form is not completed and returned, then ODAR assumes that Video Hearing is acceptable. I would expect that many folks just fail to complete and return the form....
I just did an analysis of the grant rate for NHC's, Fiscal Year 2015.
I get an overall grant rate of 45%, which is somewhat higher than I thought it would be. Just FYI.
Post a Comment