Dec 14, 2020

Video Hearing Stats

      Social Security has posted numbers showing how many video hearings it has held recently. These are hearings where the claimant is at home connecting via a laptop, tablet computer or cell phone. The numbers are confusing since it includes a column purporting to show the number of in-person hearings being held but that's not the case. No in-person hearings have been held since March. Maybe that column is actually the number of telephone hearings? 
     Obviously, this is very uneven. I don't know what accounts for some offices holding no video hearings while others have held many video hearings.
     I wish that the agency would show totals per region and nationally.

 Hearing Office                                  In-person(?)   Video    Total

Posted by Charles T. Hall at
Labels: , ,

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

No chance these numbers are anything but nonsensical. I work in an office on that list that purportedly has held over 100 video hearings, and through the end of October, that number was 0.

My guess is that the numbers are linked to how the hearing office normally conducts a hearing for that individual’s local office. NHCs only do video hearings, so they’re all video. A good chunk of my office’s hearing sites are video only or primarily video, so telephonic hearings for those individuals are listed as video while the main office’s hearings are in-person.

7:58 AM, December 14, 2020
Anonymous said...

video hearings are being rolled out slowly, first with the NHCs and then HOCALJs. Between that setup and resistant ALJs, that's why you're seeing what you're seeing between HOs.

8:35 AM, December 14, 2020
Anonymous said...

In order to do an online remote video hearing, the claimant will need:
1. Access to email
2. A device such as a computer, laptop or Smartphone that: Has a camera, microphone, and speakers, can download and install the MS Teams application and
is connected to a high speed internet connection or Wi-Fi data connection.


I am not sure how many of my client's actually have email, although setting up a gmail account shouldn't be too difficult for most. I am more concerned about access to a high-speed internet connection or Wi-Fi data connection for a majority of them. I doubt that SSA would find participation from a Starbucks to be acceptable.

11:11 AM, December 14, 2020
Anonymous said...

Best practice would be if the claimant went to the attorney's office and the video hearing was conducted from that location. I think for unrepresented claimants who are not tech savvy the video process will be difficult to say the least.

11:27 AM, December 14, 2020
Anonymous said...

11:27, best practice for who? If it's not safe for an ALJ or a hearing reporter to be in a room with a rep and claimant, why should the rep and claimant be in a room together? If that's what they want and local health rules don't forbid it I wouldn't stand in their way but it certainly doesn't seem like something SSA should encourage.

2:04 PM, December 14, 2020
Anonymous said...

Okay...that works out to about 1 hearing per week per ALJ in the "busy" OHOs. If that's the case, why so long for a decision?

Happy holidays. Thanks for the newsletter and camaraderie, all.

2:15 PM, December 14, 2020
Anonymous said...

So, Alaska had NO hearings at all? Something's off on this report. Maybe they count them as Seattle's hearings?

4:24 PM, December 14, 2020
Anonymous said...

I agree with @7:58. OHO scheduling system reflects the type of hearing (video or in-person) based on the scheduling site relative to the hearing office. The scheduling site, in turn, is based on proximity to the claimant's residence. Claimants near a PRS would be associated with that site for a video hearing. There is no option to code the hearing type as telephonic rather than video or in-person, because that is normally a rare occurrence. Instead, the HO codes the hearing type based on the location, and the schedulers check a box indicating the ALJ requests the claimant (and other participants) to appear by telephone. Outside of the pandemic, this would only be done in rare circumstances, such as prison hearing with no video capability or claimants alleging impairments that would preclude appearing at an OHO site (multiple, chemical sensitivity, severe anxiety, or whatever). This has nothing to do with the very slow roll-out of Teams video hearings.

5:38 PM, December 14, 2020
Anonymous said...

I am not aware of even one hearing been held so var via Microsoft Teams. As noted above, there was to be a slow roll out starting with HOCALG's and/or NHC offices only and that was to start this month. So, the numbers quoted seem to make no sense.

4:30 PM, December 15, 2020
Anonymous said...

These numbers appear to be bunkum. I've personally conducted twice as many hearings since April than my entire HO is credited for on this list?

8:35, you have no idea what you're talking about when you say "resistant ALJs". Line ALJs have not been offered or asked to hold VTC hearings yet. We only got Microsoft Teams this very week, and only today did OCALJ send internal guidance on how even to get attorney consent to video hearings.

Nothing to do with ALJ resistance.

9:00 PM, December 16, 2020
Anonymous said...

These numbers are 100% accurate, just labeled in a misleading way. I run one of the offices listed (HOD). The number listed is the total number of hearings we held during the time period listed (9/26-10/30/2020). This coincides with the first report month of FY2021.

As others have noted above, it appears to be based on CPMS coding, but in reality, all those hearings were held by telephone (even though my office shows them as in-person).

There have been a VERY FEW number of hearings held via MS teams (i.e. less than 250 nationally). The hearings listed as by video on this chart show that because they were scheduled by video originally, but definitely actually held by phone. The only column that matters on this chart is the total...that's how many each office held during the FY2021 October report month.

3:33 PM, December 17, 2020

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)