Not that there was any doubt, but Social Security has decided to make telephone and video hearings a permanent option.
This is extremely convenient for "national" firms representing disability claimants.
Not that there was any doubt, but Social Security has decided to make telephone and video hearings a permanent option.
This is extremely convenient for "national" firms representing disability claimants.
14 comments:
Hold on, were they not before? C'mon man!
It's also extremely convenient for claimants who have difficulty leaving their house or being in public.
@11:11
Those are the cases where in-person hearings are particularly informative.
There is an old quote probably from a lot of sources but most recently quoted as from Rahm Emanuel
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”.
The powers that be always wanted to control the ALJs both as to scheduling of hearings and the conduct pdf the hearing. Only doing video or telephone hearings was their pet dream they never were able to get away with. COVID blessed them with the opportunity.
I always believed that being in the room with the person making the decision in your Social Security case was the best thing about the hearing process. It still would be but the reality is those days are over. I have learned to accept video hearings as the next best thing, not as good but at least acceptable, and the fact is that as the technology has evolved and as people learned to function on Zoom and other video portals, most clients actually prefer it. Telephone is still not good enough but so long was we can use video, so be it.
Wonder why the word "national" is put in quotes?
Not one attorney I have spoken with, whether they work for local/regional firms or national firms, had their win rate go down as a result of having hearings by phone/MS Teams versus in person.
I am a retired SSA Judge. While there are special circumstances where phone or video hearings might be necessary, they should be the exception, not the rule. I found both to be technically burdensome and lacking in regards to determining credibility. In- person hearings allow for a more personal connection between the judge and the parties involved in the case. When lawyers and claimants are able to see and hear each other, they can build rapport with the judge and make a more persuasive case.
I checked, and when I was limited to only phone and video hearings, I issued more affirmations. Seeing the claimant and connecting to the claimant and the representative frequently made a difference for me in difficult cases where the evidence did not quite match up with what the degree of limitations alleged.
I also suspect that the master plan is for all Alj’s to be under one roof in Baltimore, holding video and phone hearings. This will make it very difficult for representatives to have any idea what is the best approach to present their case most favorably.
I welcome this change. The hearing office where most of my cases are handled had a satellite video site located at a run down field office prior to 2020. In other words, ALJs were not seeing my clients in person, and there were constant tech issues that drained my time. They also refused to allow our office to use our RVP remote video site that I had set up in our office (at great expense). The shift to TEAMS alone was a huge improvement, as the new system does not require expensive enterprise audio/video equipment
The administration should not only ease the burden on claimant/beneficiaries living far(rural)from hearing offices through video but include field offices,oig,dds and any other office requiring an interview when appropriate.
@ 1:19 You have not spoken with me. Our win rate with video/phone hearings is decidedly lower than our in person rate. Might have to do witht he fact that we have decent judges in our local OHO and our video/phone hearings get farmed out to other offices where the statistics are not so nice. I guess phone/video hearings could be a welcome chance to get away from some OHO offices, say if your local office is Cleveland or somewhere.
The profit margins in an SSD practice are so small that it is almost impossible for a solo or small firm to maintain a disability practice when we are limited to our local OHOs for live hearings. With remote hearings I can take enough cases to make this practice area financially viable. If SSA had gone back to in person hearings only I would have discontinued this area of practice.
My experience with local reps is that most are opting for phone/video hearings over in-person hearings. It’s not even a 50/50 split. Certainly there are some who request live hearings, but this isn’t just a national firm preference.
Unrepped claimants almost exclusively prefer phone or OVH. The sheer number of individuals that prefer phone/OVH is enough to justify making these types of hearings permanent.
I personally don’t understand the insistence on an in-person hearing. My favorable decision rate (meaning exclusive of dismissals) actually increased the last two years. But my feelings don’t matter, and I do t have a preference. It’s the claimant’s choice. The good news is that you can still have an in-person or VTC hearing if you want one.
I can imagine that one unnamed claims farm based in Waltham MA would love to staff their overseas call center in Hyderabad with the actual lawyers to conduct the hearings now.
The telephone hearings have done away with the ALJ sit and squirm tests, where ALJ's would make findings indicating that the claimant didn't seem as bad as their doctors claimed based upon what they "saw". That is a welcome improvement. For anybody who isn't happy with online or telephone hearing, they can opt out.
@1:19, I'm not sure what was happening in your area because my experience and understanding has been that if you agree to telephone or online hearings you are to be assigned to local judges.
The only downside I see is that national firms (who may not even be attorneys) can now take cases away from local firms in easier fashion. Of course only after their claimants are denied at hearing and AC do the claimants find out that although the firm was able to represent anyone anywhere in the USA in the administrative hearing and appeals council, they now have to find a local attorney (willing to take the case now) if they want their case appealed to Federal Court, where you now need to have to an attorney with either a license or pro hac vice authorization to appear in the local Federal Court.
I think that non-attorneys, and attorneys from outside the local area, should be required to disclose this information to their clients and to have them acknowledge it in writing, so clients know what lies down the road if they lose at hearing and AC.
Like other attorneys have said above, I welcome the phone/video hearings. We held our breath when everything switched to remote, wondering if the pay rates would plummet. However, like the published national rates, our pay rates have stayed the same (and even crept up a bit). That, ultimately, is the point, right? Most clients appreciate not having to drive or get a ride to the hearing office, deal with parking, and navigate federal buildings. Our practice is a regional one, meaning most of our hearings are over a 3 state area. Our hearing attorneys are so much more productive now. Even with careful scheduling, an attorney can handle 2-3 hearings in an hour and a half from the office or home as opposed to taking a full day driving to/from a hearing office 2 hours away. Our new client sign up rates have risen because we have more attorneys now available to take new client calls when they come in. Win-win all around.
Post a Comment