The hearing percentage is up. It used to be around 40-45 percent now 51 percent. Guess that is some kind of progress.
Thought the chances of an AC remand was more like 15-20 percent but it is extremely low at like 11 percent. Almost better to file a new app with those chances.
@ 10:36 Agreed about the recon level. It is a complete joke and time waster.
@11:50 With Federal Court remands at nearly 60%, the low AC remand rate is laughable. And filing a new app as opposed to pursuing an AC appeal then a USDC case in some cases is really bad advice.
The recon level has a purpose though. It lengthens the process and provides an additional level so that many will get discouraged and give up. Why else would the agency ignore the successes in the pilot states and force them to reimplement it?
And, the recon level gives the ALJ another opinion from another alleged doctor who allegedly reviewed the record to rely on so that he can ignore the opinions of treating physicians.
Practicing in a former prototype state, I agree that recon is completely unnecessary. The occasional recon approvals I see are usually 55+ slam dunk cases where I don't know how they weren't paid at the initial level. So I guess that small group of people are being helped with recon. But it's at the expense of a much larger group of people are now forced to go through another 6+ month wait and the aggravation of another denial to finally see a Judge and get a fair chance to be heard.
According to a NOSSCR webinar I listed to last week, ALJ pay rates are actually up 4% since the beginning of covid. Now there were the temporary regs not allowing ALJs to dismiss cases, so that did affect the numbers. But still, this shows that phone and video hearings are as likely, if not more, to yield a favorable decision as an in-person hearing. This is good to know as we will not be offered the option of in-person vs phone/video hearings moving forward.
4:13: “This is good to know as we will not be offered the option of in-person vs phone/video hearings moving forward.“
You just dropped an absolute bombshell on reps nationwide if what you said is true. There is literally no firm in this country that is not struggling due to the DDS killing caseloads and with the gas prices so high---if firms have to get back on the road that means more support staff will be shed and customer service will suffer from the attorney side more than it has.
You should absolutely share the details on what information you have as to no option of phone/video hearings being offered "moving forward"
4:13 here. The statement about phone/video hearings being a permanent option came from a NOSSCR Washington Happenings webinar I listened to last week. They stated that OHOs have been happy with the remote hearings and plan on keeping it a permanent option even once in-person hearings begin again. They stressed that it will be at the wish of the claimant. This was stated rather matter of factly and not as some big bombshell announcement.
Even once in-person hearings begin again, it will be quite some time until things are back to pre-covid normal. My office manager was told by one of the schedulers that to start, only a few ALJs will be holding in-person hearings. And these hearings will be spaced far apart to allow for screening people before the hearings and cleaning the rooms afterwards. It sounds like it will be a slow process. Gone, at least for now, are the days of ALJs holding 8 in-person hearings a day. Sounds like we need to get used to the phone/video hearings, which is certainly not a bad thing.
We've started skipping written exceptions and going straight to Court after a court-remanded, subsequent unfavorable decision. The only purpose of the AC appears to be to stall a claim until T16 claimants die.
Nothing was said on the NOSSCR webinar about eliminating the option of in-person vs. remote hearings...all the options will be available. OHO is planning more in-person hearings and also planning to keep video hearings (seems likely that unlike pre-pandemic, claimants and reps won't have to go to an SSA office or buy RVP equipment for video hearings--they'll just stay on Teams). Phone hearings were an option before the pandemic for people in jails and hospitals and they'll still be available for those, plus claimants who don't want Teams hearings and don't want in-person.
I don't think the ALJ union would want to give up in-person hearings either. Although they might not like coming into the office, if there were no in-person hearings they're not going to get locality pay in high cost of living areas; they'll all be relocated to some NHC-like unit in Tulsa or Fargo or wherever. Plus, NHC ALJs aren't in the union because they're management, so the AALJ wouldn't want more of those judges hired.
If the issue is that reps want to insert their preference over their clients' and reject all in-person hearings (or all remote hearings), that wasn't a good practice before the pandemic and it isn't good now. It's the claimant's choice--with counsel from their reps.
One of the results of these charts is that it hides the differences from one ALJ or Federal Judge to another and one group of ALJs or Circuit Court to another. I realize expecting 2 nearly identical cases to be decided exactly the same way 100% of the time isn't possible. However, SSA has chosen to apply Circuit Court decisions ONLY to that Circuit. Some Federal Judges..you know if you can/will win or not, based solely on the Judge.. same with ALJs. How is this not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? If the judge/ALJ is biased against claimants (shows in their low pay/remand rates), how can you claim they had "due process." Jesus was ordered to be executed by Pontius Pilate, who said,"I find no fault in this man." But, he executed him anyway. But, Jesus was "given his day in court." Did he have due process? If the judge doesn't Maka a FAIR decision, how can you claim due process. Being treated fairly, to me, means that if a "typical" judge would approve, but, you are denied...you weren't treated fairly. But, many decisions appear arbitrary... Others appear outright unfair. How is this permissible?
I was a rep who hated video hearings prior to Covid and now am a convert as long as my client and I can do from home/office. IF you are going to make us go to a hearing office for a video hearing then give us a live hearing instead! (I do think it should be up to the claimant whether live or video). I have a few who have been waiting for a live hearing for two years.
Can we get rid of recon, please? I'm in a former prototype state and that seemed to work just fine.
ReplyDeleteThe hearing percentage is up. It used to be around 40-45 percent now 51 percent. Guess that is some kind of progress.
ReplyDeleteThought the chances of an AC remand was more like 15-20 percent but it is extremely low at like 11 percent. Almost better to file a new app with those chances.
@ 10:36 Agreed about the recon level. It is a complete joke and time waster.
@11:50 With Federal Court remands at nearly 60%, the low AC remand rate is laughable. And filing a new app as opposed to pursuing an AC appeal then a USDC case in some cases is really bad advice.
ReplyDeleteThe recon level has a purpose though. It lengthens the process and provides an additional level so that many will get discouraged and give up. Why else would the agency ignore the successes in the pilot states and force them to reimplement it?
ReplyDeleteAnd, the recon level gives the ALJ another opinion from another alleged doctor who allegedly reviewed the record to rely on so that he can ignore the opinions of treating physicians.
ReplyDeletePracticing in a former prototype state, I agree that recon is completely unnecessary. The occasional recon approvals I see are usually 55+ slam dunk cases where I don't know how they weren't paid at the initial level. So I guess that small group of people are being helped with recon. But it's at the expense of a much larger group of people are now forced to go through another 6+ month wait and the aggravation of another denial to finally see a Judge and get a fair chance to be heard.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a NOSSCR webinar I listed to last week, ALJ pay rates are actually up 4% since the beginning of covid. Now there were the temporary regs not allowing ALJs to dismiss cases, so that did affect the numbers. But still, this shows that phone and video hearings are as likely, if not more, to yield a favorable decision as an in-person hearing. This is good to know as we will not be offered the option of in-person vs phone/video hearings moving forward.
4:13: “This is good to know as we will not be offered the option of in-person vs phone/video hearings moving forward.“
ReplyDeleteLink?
4:13: “This is good to know as we will not be offered the option of in-person vs phone/video hearings moving forward.“
ReplyDeleteYou just dropped an absolute bombshell on reps nationwide if what you said is true. There is literally no firm in this country that is not struggling due to the DDS killing caseloads and with the gas prices so high---if firms have to get back on the road that means more support staff will be shed and customer service will suffer from the attorney side more than it has.
You should absolutely share the details on what information you have as to no option of phone/video hearings being offered "moving forward"
4:13 here. The statement about phone/video hearings being a permanent option came from a NOSSCR Washington Happenings webinar I listened to last week. They stated that OHOs have been happy with the remote hearings and plan on keeping it a permanent option even once in-person hearings begin again. They stressed that it will be at the wish of the claimant. This was stated rather matter of factly and not as some big bombshell announcement.
ReplyDeleteEven once in-person hearings begin again, it will be quite some time until things are back to pre-covid normal. My office manager was told by one of the schedulers that to start, only a few ALJs will be holding in-person hearings. And these hearings will be spaced far apart to allow for screening people before the hearings and cleaning the rooms afterwards. It sounds like it will be a slow process. Gone, at least for now, are the days of ALJs holding 8 in-person hearings a day. Sounds like we need to get used to the phone/video hearings, which is certainly not a bad thing.
@12:55
ReplyDeleteWe've started skipping written exceptions and going straight to Court after a court-remanded, subsequent unfavorable decision. The only purpose of the AC appears to be to stall a claim until T16 claimants die.
Come on, we all know T16 claimants don’t die, that’s why the agency does so many redeterminations and medical reviews…to get them back off the system.
ReplyDeleteNothing was said on the NOSSCR webinar about eliminating the option of in-person vs. remote hearings...all the options will be available. OHO is planning more in-person hearings and also planning to keep video hearings (seems likely that unlike pre-pandemic, claimants and reps won't have to go to an SSA office or buy RVP equipment for video hearings--they'll just stay on Teams). Phone hearings were an option before the pandemic for people in jails and hospitals and they'll still be available for those, plus claimants who don't want Teams hearings and don't want in-person.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the ALJ union would want to give up in-person hearings either. Although they might not like coming into the office, if there were no in-person hearings they're not going to get locality pay in high cost of living areas; they'll all be relocated to some NHC-like unit in Tulsa or Fargo or wherever. Plus, NHC ALJs aren't in the union because they're management, so the AALJ wouldn't want more of those judges hired.
If the issue is that reps want to insert their preference over their clients' and reject all in-person hearings (or all remote hearings), that wasn't a good practice before the pandemic and it isn't good now. It's the claimant's choice--with counsel from their reps.
One of the results of these charts is that it hides the differences from one ALJ or Federal Judge to another and one group of ALJs or Circuit Court to another. I realize expecting 2 nearly identical cases to be decided exactly the same way 100% of the time isn't possible. However, SSA has chosen to apply Circuit Court decisions ONLY to that Circuit. Some Federal Judges..you know if you can/will win or not, based solely on the Judge.. same with ALJs. How is this not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? If the judge/ALJ is biased against claimants (shows in their low pay/remand rates), how can you claim they had "due process." Jesus was ordered to be executed by Pontius Pilate, who said,"I find no fault in this man." But, he executed him anyway. But, Jesus was "given his day in court." Did he have due process? If the judge doesn't Maka a FAIR decision, how can you claim due process. Being treated fairly, to me, means that if a "typical" judge would approve, but, you are denied...you weren't treated fairly. But, many decisions appear arbitrary... Others appear outright unfair. How is this permissible?
ReplyDeleteI was a rep who hated video hearings prior to Covid and now am a convert as long as my client and I can do from home/office. IF you are going to make us go to a hearing office for a video hearing then give us a live hearing instead! (I do think it should be up to the claimant whether live or video). I have a few who have been waiting for a live hearing for two years.
ReplyDelete