Social Security Administrative Law Judges are talking about holding hearings by telephone. I don't even like video hearings. I understand the logic behind telephone hearings in the strange times we're in but I still hate the idea.
In the past, Social Security was allowing attorneys to do video hearings from their offices but only if they installed expensive equipment. I don't want to go to that kind of effort and expense for something that's only going to last a few months. I'm wondering whether Social Security has the technical ability to allow attorneys to patch in using simple video technology such as Face Time. I could do that easily with no added expense -- myself and my client in my office with my iPad in front of us (no, that doesn't scare me) and the ALJ at OHO. Of course, that assumes the ALJ will go into his or her office to do the hearing.
8 comments:
Facetime, Skype and a number of other "video conferencing" technologies do not pass muster on protecting private info and can in some instances create recording or transcripts of data being shared or even discussed. Security of the sensitive info is suspect on many of these platforms. ZOOM has a version that is HIPAA compliant but it is a process to get implemented and not free. There are some other medical teleconferencing options out there but are designed for clinics and hospitals and are not inexpensive solutions.
In theory the agency OUGHT to be able to use Skype since all or nearly all employees have it.
I'm anti-telephone appearance. The only times I've permitted reps to appear by telephone has been special circumstances such aviation disruption from major storms or airline computer failures for reps flying in. Did permit a solo practitioner to do a telephone appearance while recovering from unplanned, non-elective surgery. Even then I ask the claimant if they have any issue and promise to reschedule within 30 days if they want to wait and will waive notice.
Claimants I've permitted to appear by telephone while hospitalized, while immuno-compromised, and of course incarcerated.
But I'm not a fan of VTC either.
Phone hearings are a better option than keeping going per normal or completely cancelling hearings. It's a good compromise that I, as an attorney rep, would support. While not ideal, I see no reason why we can't have phone hearings for the next 30-60 days to keep the system running.
Telephone hearings are useless. Claimants on cell phones aren't listening or following along. Too much over talking. Live or at least video hearings command some respect for the process.
Many of the cases scheduled for hearing could, and should, be paid OTR if they were seriously reviewed. Now might be a good time to do that. And they could be processed at home by ALJs and staff.
The remainder, unless the client really wanted a telephone hearing, which I would not want in nearly any case, just postpone for all hearings for the next 30 days and see where we go from there.
Maybe some ALJ could start consider granting some OTR for a change. It will save some of teh problems.
Viber, Skype, FaceTime... none of it satisfies security requirements whatsoever. Wishful thinking. Should we hold hearings in claimants' homes? We don't even have them in jails/prisons, not in years. The agency years back used to have them in hotels/motels - I knew an ALJ who was holding him I his room, believe it or not... Anyway, telephone (jail) hearings work (and surprise, surprise, some are actually found disabled despite being locked up and despite appearing by phone) and some claimants, for whatever reason (just as an example, agoraphobic ones), from time to time request to appear in that manner. IMHO (that many here will oppose), if the claimant is ok to appear by phone versus have the hearing continued 75+ days in the future who is a rep or an ALJ to say no? It's the claimant's case, it's not the rep's and not the judge's. On the other hand, if the claimant would rather keep waiting - fine. Wait.
I paid 10% of next week's docket OTR, but honestly, you reps over estimate how many cases are OTR ready. Pro se files are typically empty at the first hearing. Many reps don't submit the core evidence until 48 hours before the hearing. Those who hide behind 5-day letters need understand that OHO is on skeleton staff that can't develop every file, and we rely on reps to provide representation. This is why the lack of OTRs. Not malice or spite.
Post a Comment