This is from the press release that Social Security put out late yesterday afternoon:
... If you have a hearing scheduled, we will call you to discuss alternatives for continuing with your hearing, including offering a telephonic hearing. Our call may come from a PRIVATE number and not from a U.S. Government phone. Please remember that our employees will not threaten you or ask for any form of payment. ...How is this going to work? Will I and my client have to be at the same location? What about expert witnesses? What about cases that are already scheduled for video hearings? Will hearing reporters, the people who, among other things, operate the recording equipment, be allowed in the hearing offices? What is this "private number" business?
24 comments:
Add to your list of questions - how will a claimant know that a call from a "private" number really is from Social Security? Isn't this an invitation for scammers to steal identities?
We are being told that the claimant and the attorney will need to be together in order to do a phone hearing. Seems like SSA needs to pause, figure out its technology and what capabilities they truly have. It is unreasonable to expect representatives to invite clients into their offices, sit huddled over a speaker phone not exhibiting social distancing while at the same time SSA is keeping people out of its offices and instructing employees to "take measures to distance staff from each other while in the office."
VHR will not be allowed in HOs or satellite HOs. Staff will serve as such. Everyone will be by phone. Video equipment can be used for audio calls only, multiple participants (at different locations) at the same time. KIds' cases often have no experts and many adult ones only VEs. NO PUBLIC allowed in HOs means no one but employees of SSA and security guards. Reps and their clients will be in rep's offices and use the speakerphone. Finally, whoever doesn't like it has an option to take a continuance (postponement). Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. Or, call them crazy times if you prefer. No matter what, we ALL need to suck it up and do our best. This will pass too.
We were called yesterday to change a hearing this week to a telephone hearing. The claimant and representative were each able to give a telephone number where each can be reached. In other words, the claimant and attorney do not have to be in the same location. It seems like a reasonable work-around for now. If it doesn't work, one is free to request a postponement.
I don't believe there is any policy that requires the rep and claimant to call from the same location.
OHOs are requiring me and my clients to be in the same location. I am requesting postponements in all cases.
It would certainly be nice if we had some clear guidelines as to what each hearing office is doing and how.
I have a hearing in a few minutes and when I called this morning they took numbers for both me and my client, they did not indicate there will be an issue with us not being in the same location.
There is no requirement that the rep and the clt be together, literally, like Siamese twins LOL. Over the yrs, I had hearings w the rep in front of me and the clt in jail via phone - or the rep in his office in another state via video and the clt in front of me... Be creative and relaxed. Not a time to be uptight by anyone. Oh yeah, and if u hate appearing by phone - by all means, take a continuance.
I would love if someone can confirm for me that they have had a hearing TODAY where all three parties (claimant, atty, and VE) were all on the phone from different locations. My local OHO has told me repeatedly today that they cannot accommodate that. If they are incorrect, where do I direct them for better training?
Had two hearings this am from two different OHO's and my clients and I were in separate locations and they worked just fine. There was an issue where the expert dropped off at one point but they just called her back. This is not impossible.
I agree OHOs cannot expect reps to be with all of their clients for phone hearings. Not only is it contrary to the directives for social distancing, but for those like me, who already work remotely from my home (my firm's office is in another state), I have nowhere to meet with my client. It is not appropriate to meet in my home or theirs and public spaces are closed and not protective of PII anyways (clearly not if using speakerphone). I have one Thursday with an interpreter. I am thinking the best option there is going to be postponement.
I agree it would be prudent for OHOs to postpone hearings scheduled in the next week to evaluate what their capabilities are and re-set after that.
The problem is with technology in our office. Each hearing room has a phone with speakerphone capability. Each also has a video teleconferencing system that can also make phone calls. The problem is getting at least 3 separate entities (claimant, Rep, and VE) on a phone line at the same time, loud and clear enough for the DRAP recording equipment to pick everything up. I did some hearings this morning and we used the regular phone and a conference call. I was the host of the call and the VE, attorney, and claimants were called prior to the hearings and given the conference call phone number and a passcode to for them to call in and join the line. It worked, but I am concerned about PII. It was difficult to be entirely sure the claimants hung up after their hearing. I only had one attorney for all hearings, so no PII issue there. We put a DRAP microphone near the telephone speaker and the recording quality was decent, though not as good as through the video conferencing equipment. Does anyone know of a way to get more than 2 parties on the line using the video teleconferencing equipment? Also, I had no contract VHR - a SCT from the office recorded the hearings and took notes.
@ 11:59: Your management needs some serious training... and OSA too. Yes, it's easy, both VTC equipment and AVAYA phone allow conference call function. Call the agency's tech support for guidance/instructions.
Not requiring claimants and reps to be in the same place as much as I loath claimants not having chance to speak privately in any sort of easy manner.
Been explaining they have a right to appear and having that waiver on the record. Surprisingly so far none have objected.
California OHOs offering phone hearings while some are postponing entire weeks of hearings. We will see how it goes.
We postponed all of our hearings for the week as the client's all agreed that a telephonic hearing was not in their best interests based on the information OHO had provided to us.
I completed a hearing with Evanston OHO this morning, it started late but everything ran smoothly. ME, VE, myself, and client were all in separate places on separate lines. I could hear clearly and presume everyone else could as well, no one asked for anything to be repeated. The only time things became unclear was when the ME was talking over the ALJ. None of my clients for the next two weeks have opted for a postponement, even though I have clearly explained to them they are allowed.
The technology questions are not the issue. I held 5 telephonic hearings today and all but one had the VE, Rep and Claimant in different locations. We have the capacity in the hearing room to conference up to 6 separate lines with high quality directly into the DRAP unit. All went well and only one party sought a continuance, and that was due to the need to obtain representation. Although a number of ALJs are on WHBQ, we could have more ALJs holding hearings if they allowed the Judge to be on the phone as well. The purported reason for not doing it, is a PII issue, but no one IMHO has ever set forth any credible evidence to support this purported problem. The situation is evolving, so who can predict the next step. I see a tremendous team effort in trying to maintain service to the public by the vast majority of staff and judges, in spite of the many hurdles that we have to overcome. As a previous poster stated "this too shall pass".
About three years ago I had a client who was barred from all Social Security offices in the country. The hearing office set up a hearing with a Medical Advisor, and a VE, both on the telephone. The client and I were present in my office.
Shortly after the hearing time the ALJ called my office and stated that they were unable to accommodate three incoming calls (my office, the VE and the MA). I offered to have the client waive his personal appearance at the hearing and I would drive (10 minutes) to the hearing place. The ALJ refused and postponed the hearing that day. My client was not happy with that result.
About a month later I received an on the record decision signed by a different ALJ. I have only received two on the record decisions in the past six years. This was one of those.
It is possible that no all hearing offices are created equally when it comes to technology. I do not like video hearings so I would not like a telephone hearing. I will that decision to the clients. I am however, inclined to take the telephone hearing because I do not know how long this situation will last.
I really only want the ALJ to see my client on a few cases. This usually when they use a wheelchair or a walker. I presume ALJs are human and not robots so actually seeing someone struggle to get into the hearing room will have some effect. But in psychological cases, it does not matter. I just want the testimony.
I could not hear the vocational expert in the "cave". I, too, did not object to the ALJ NOT seeing my client as he "looks like he is well". AND I do think it is easier to deny people absentia, and this is just another step forward to hearing from processing centers (does that seem the right term)... just another 12.04 with DA@A or 1.04....to be denied by by 7-of-9 finding testimony not credible and following DDS. If that is all we need to do..it will be like the AC with similar approval rates.
So far OHO allowing us to conduct hearing from our office video conference room with client and attorney together in same room. Federal Courthouse called late today and will not allow us to be present in their video conference room. Client must come to our office. If they can get here we are going forward.
I have had an ALJ grant an OTR this week that usually would have a hearing. Maybe this will be a good thing to pay more strong cases.
Post a Comment