I'm wondering how widespread this is. A Social Security disability claimant who has requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge is asked whether he or she objects to a video hearing. The claimant objects. Later, the hearing office ignores the claimant's wishes and attempts to schedule a video hearing anyway -- unless the claimant objects a second time. Anybody else seeing this?
Yes. I had to refuse a video hearing twice. Orlando FL ODAR office. SS stats show a 14 month wait for a hearing at this office but I was told by my Rep the wait is actually more like 18 months.
ReplyDeleteWe will ask you until you give us the answer we want.
ReplyDeleteIf you refuse a video hearing, don't comeback and say you have a "dire need" to go to the front of the pack.
ReplyDeleteThis is the dumbest $### I've ever seen. There is no possible way that these pressure tactics are easing the administration's workload or expense. It COSTS MONEY and man hours to send these letter, receive the responses, log the responses and then ignore the responses and insist that a new response be submitted. What's more, when a claimant has waited two years to get a hearing, in practically every case, his need is most definitely dire - and the decision to insist on a fair, face to face hearing should never be considered on a dire need request.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you need to "strenuously object" (A Few Good Men).
ReplyDeleteDire need requests are generally ignored anyway unless you are near death. An acceptance of a Video Hearing does NOT mean your Hearing will be held sooner. There is no advantage to a Video Hearing and many disadvantages. A refusal to a Video Hearing request is totally unrelated to a dire need request. By law a Claimant has the right to an In-person hearing.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if the SSA Employees spent more time doing their job instead of commenting on sites like this one the backlog would be reduced.
ReplyDelete10:32
ReplyDeleteDid you ever think employees are posting when they are not on the clock? Did you ever think that a lot of SSA employees are so serious about their jobs that they check on what is going on even when they are not on the clock? Please check you small minededness at the door.
We are routinely being asked to withdraw our previously filed objections to VTC. When we say no, we are then told that the Judge isn't scheduled to travel so they have no hearing dates to provide to us. ???!!!! Must be nice to be an ALJ and decide you aren't going to do an essential part of your job description.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a ridiculous game that is being played.
It is Upper Management that is banning ALJ travel.
ReplyDeleteWould like to see it where it says a claimant BY LAW has a right to an in-person hearing; and where it is in the ALJ job sescription that the ALJ HAS to travel. If either of these claims were true, there would be no NHCs.
ReplyDeleteCode Of Federal Regulations
ReplyDelete§ 404.950. Presenting evidence at a hearing before an administrative law judge.
(a) The right to appear and present evidence. Any party to a hearing has a right to appear before the administrative law judge, either in person, or, when the conditions in § 404.936(c)(1) exist, by video teleconferencing or telephone, to present evidence and to state his or her position. A party may also make his or her appearance by means of a designated representative, who may make the appearance in person, or, when the conditions in § 404.936(c)(1) exist, by video teleconferencing or telephone.
Appearance in Person
ReplyDeleteAn ALJ will schedule a claimant to appear in person at the hearing when:
An in-person hearing will be more timely and efficient than a hearing by VTC; or
The claimant properly objected to a hearing by VTC, as described in HALLEX I-2-0-21, and the claimant has not changed his or her residence while the request for hearing is pending.
Sure seems like LAW to me. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations (sometimes called administrative law) published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. The CFR is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation.
ReplyDelete@ 1:00 PM. Care to respond?
ReplyDeleteYes, but in some cases it works to the client's advantage. The big firm I work with uses this to determine whether the hearing will be with a local judge or a NHC judge (or imported judge), how long an in person hearing might take, whether client travel costs might be paid, and then makes an educated decision whether to enforce the VTC objection or proceed by video.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in the LAW that requires an ALJ to travel. If the claimant wants a hearing it is up to them to travel. When is the last time some one from DDS drove out to the claimant's hometown to take an application? I have a hard time believing the excuses Reps come up with regarding why they can't pick up the claimant and bring them in...
ReplyDelete4:15, if you want us attorneys to pick up claimants for hearings, maybe ALJs should do the same for unrepped claimants.
ReplyDeleteMy experience is that objecting to VTC only prevents the case from being assigned to the NHC. Once the objection is filed, the case is then scheduled with a "local" ALJ in the same way it was back in the good old days--meaning the claimant can have the VTC hearing locally or travel at their own expense to the regional HO.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if an ALJ holds video hearings from ODAR, could schedule 6 - 8 per day, whereas if the ALJ has to drive 2 hours to the hearing site, the number s/he can hold in a travel day goes down.
ReplyDeleteBTW, HALLEX is not LAW.
Too many non-attorneys spoils the soup! And it was already nasty.
ReplyDeletehttp://ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/hallex.html
ReplyDeleteHALLEX
Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual.