From a letter from the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) to Social Security’s Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) and the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ):
Some of our members have been told that SSA [Social Security Administration] plans to change its policy of making telephone hearings voluntary, perhaps as soon as April 27. This is not acceptable to NOSSCR and we urge you to clarify as soon as possible that telephone hearings remain optional. Claimants who want to wait for in-person hearings (or video hearings, if they have not submitted an HA-55 opt-out form) should be permitted to do so.
In case it's not clear to you, let me spell out the subtext. NOSSCR is concerned that ALJ hearings will become mandatory not just for the current emergency but from now on; that the agency will use this emergency to achieve an unrelated goal.
“NOSSCR is concerned that ALJ hearings will become mandatory not just for the current emergency but from now on“
ReplyDeleteYou may want to edit that.
And many ALJs hate phone hearings as much as anyone else, but are doing what they can for people who want a decision in an extraordinary time.
While I think the regs would support them requiring phone hearings in the present extraordinary circumstances (see 404.936(C)(2)), continuing to require them by phone once we return to some normalcy would require notice and comment rule making in order to change the regs. I certainly would not put it past the administration to attempt it even if ALJs are against it.
ReplyDeleteThey certainly wouldn’t want the employees to be able to work from home, they just want the option to hold hearings from the location SSA sees fit. It’s going to be about agency control with no regard for employees or claimants.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThings can never go back the way they were, with face to face hearings the norm. Telework and phone hearings are here to stay and everyone should adjust to that fact. Claimants, attorneys, and Saul, everyone must adjust to the new reality.
Centerlized scheduling is at least 75 days off; [if you have a 'aged' case = rfh on or after 1/1/19] some may be 5 months out so you have to weigh the benefits/pitfalls; u wont get a new alj by delaying. Going forward may be the best option, but is in a case by case basis. Roll the dice the AC may look kindly on you for agreeing?
ReplyDeleteb est wishes all in a crisis
The realization that we are dealing with a new normal, is a fact that has been thrust upon us. From what I can glean, a significant portion of the additional 300 million will go to a substantial hardware and software upgrade and the use of PC video on the order of Skype or Zoom may be the next step. Thus any access to a PC or smartphone will give claimants and Reps the ability to have a video hearing without the necessity to secure a "bridge" from Baltimore. The band with and security issues are some of what has to be accomodated, but many other organizations and Agencies are going down that road. So it is probably going to happen sooner rather than later, especially now that there are additional funds available. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteIn an emergency, we all need to do what we can. And to that end, as much as I dislike video hearings, or even more telephone hearings, I am not objecting for now.
ReplyDeleteBut, there is something of fundamental importance in having a hearing in person with an ALJ that can see you in person, can smell you if need be, and can at least give the impression that they are personally engaged in deciding your case. Having that personal involvement is what allows even disappointed claimants to feel they had their say in many cases.
We do what we must do in an emergency, but emergencies do end and if this critical opportunity is lost, it will be terrible loss to the right to be heard.
@8:59, the 75-day window is not entirely relevant. Expect to see amended hearing notices changing the manner of appearance on scheduled hearings relying upon the 20-day notice requirement of the manner of appearance regulation. Whether accepting the change becomes mandatory is another matter.
ReplyDeleteHave to adjust to a new world. I have done many telephonic hearings the past few weeks and most have run smooth.
ReplyDeleteTypically, I want the claimants to testify in person if they use a cane, walker or wheelchair. In the absence, I have been submitting pictures of the claimant with the device. Other than that, the records and the testimony should be enough. In psych cases, I do not care if the claimant is in person. I just want the testimony.
@7:08
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but I see no reason not to fight placing claimants in an inferior hearing setting tooth and nail until the issue is settled by the Supreme Court. Until then, I don't plan to "adjust."
@4:25
Well that's disturbing, but you are probably right.
Use the found time to submit a brief addressing the file in terms of the sequential evaluation and request an OTR fully favorable. You might want to say you are not waiving the right to a hearing, just because there is no telling what will happen next. But there are ALJs who cannot hold hearings and who are searching the backlog for OTRs. If your case has been prepped for a hearing that is now to be postponed, the file is probably as ready as it is going to get. My two cents: ask for an OTR request.
ReplyDeleteNothing is going to change forever, did it change after the Spanish Flu, Ebola, SARS? Nope. Give it a year and everything will be as screwed up as before.
ReplyDeleteReceived updated hearing notices on claims scheduled for later in the month which state they will be held by phone even though we have not given any indication that we would agree to a phone hearing. Notice threatens dismissal if we do not attend. Is this OHO’s new way to scare claimants into phone hearings? Anyone else receiving these?
ReplyDelete