|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jan 7, 2014 11:47:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 7, 2014 12:07:25 GMT -5
It's interesting that they caught a lot of the violators using Facebook. I think if judges were inclined to look up claimants on Facebook, they would find interesting photos that are out there in the public domain.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 7, 2014 12:26:17 GMT -5
Unfortunately that is verboten by the powers that be..
|
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Jan 7, 2014 12:39:29 GMT -5
Care to elaborate on how "verboten"? Do you have a link? Thanks.
|
|
sxsw
Full Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by sxsw on Jan 7, 2014 12:45:36 GMT -5
Thanks, Sealaw - very interesting article. If judges were permitted to check Facebook, I think the findings in many cases would be different.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 7, 2014 12:51:00 GMT -5
Of course, even if judges could/would use FB photos, it would take all of a week before reps told their clients to shutdown their pages until after a decision was rendered. So it may not be an effective tool for very long.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 7, 2014 13:04:45 GMT -5
Unfortunately that is verboten by the powers that be.. We received specific guidance on this issue that social media was not to be utilized. In fact, these sites are blocked on all of our computers. The guidance was in the form of an email not accessible to the public. When I am back in the office I can look at it to see if there is a specific citation, but I am not sure there was a citation, just a directive. Someone on this forum may have access to it now. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 7, 2014 13:07:47 GMT -5
Of course, even if judges could/would use FB photos, it would take all of a week before reps told their clients to shutdown their pages until after a decision was rendered. So it may not be an effective tool for very long. Not that there are any issues regarding hearsay and proof in SSA hearings, but this is a can or worms that I am sure the powers that be do not want to address. Not to mention that ALJs should not be doing their own "investigation" of facts outside the hearing process.  |
|
|
|
Post by papresqr on Jan 7, 2014 13:20:03 GMT -5
Of course, even if judges could/would use FB photos, it would take all of a week before reps told their clients to shutdown their pages until after a decision was rendered. So it may not be an effective tool for very long. Not that there are any issues regarding hearsay and proof in SSA hearings, but this is a can or worms that I am sure the powers that be do not want to address. Not to mention that ALJs should not be doing their own "investigation" of facts outside the hearing process. Which may be a good argument in favor of having an SSA representative in a quasi-adversarial hearing process. |
|
davef
Full Member
Posts: 87 
|
Post by davef on Jan 7, 2014 13:44:01 GMT -5
Of course, even if judges could/would use FB photos, it would take all of a week before reps told their clients to shutdown their pages until after a decision was rendered. So it may not be an effective tool for very long. Not that there are any issues regarding hearsay and proof in SSA hearings, but this is a can or worms that I am sure the powers that be do not want to address. Not to mention that ALJs should not be doing their own "investigation" of facts outside the hearing process. As a prosecutor I loved Facebook. It was amazing what defendants would post, even after their attorneys had told them not to. Probation officers quickly caught on to the benefit and would regularly investigate violations stemming from FB posts. In my current job as a state review judge I often wish I could take a look at a claimant's FB. I don't, because it would be outside the scope of my record, violate our state's APA, and probably have some due process consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 7, 2014 13:46:49 GMT -5
Of course, even if judges could/would use FB photos, it would take all of a week before reps told their clients to shutdown their pages until after a decision was rendered. So it may not be an effective tool for very long. Not that there are any issues regarding hearsay and proof in SSA hearings, but this is a can or worms that I am sure the powers that be do not want to address. Not to mention that ALJs should not be doing their own "investigation" of facts outside the hearing process. I think you'd have to present any questionable photos at the hearing to allow the claimant to tell you why there are pics of them at a crowded bar with their friends a month earlier when they've alleged being unable to go out in public or be around crowds; how they're able to hold their adult boxer in their arms after their AOD when they've stated they can't lift more than 5 pounds; or why there's a pic of them sliding down a water slide at a water park with both arms over their heads when they supposedly spend the majority of their day lying down and can't lift their arms over shoulder level. Of course, these are purely hypothetical scenarios. |
|
|
|
Post by trekker on Jan 7, 2014 14:29:05 GMT -5
As a rep, I do try to look at a client's FB account or other social media. I want to know whether or not there is merit to the case and check the credibility of the client. I would not be doing my job if I didn't go beyond just what the client tells me. When I was doing family law or elder abuse cases as part of my work, it was essential to check FB and Craig's List as part of the work up. In addition, while the ALJ's may not be able to look or use FB, the OIG fraud unit does investigate social media sites and if they find damaging evidence, it is in the file. I would venture to say that my one piece of advise to all family law clients is to take down any social media links or do nothing more than share sweet pictures of their children so the extended family can see what a great parent they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on Jan 7, 2014 14:53:32 GMT -5
Unfortunately that is verboten by the powers that be.. We received specific guidance on this issue that social media was not to be utilized. In fact, these sites are blocked on all of our computers. The guidance was in the form of an email not accessible to the public. When I am back in the office I can look at it to see if there is a specific citation, but I am not sure there was a citation, just a directive. Someone on this forum may have access to it now. It's circumscribed in HALLEX I-2-5-69. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 7, 2014 16:42:28 GMT -5
Not that there are any issues regarding hearsay and proof in SSA hearings, but this is a can or worms that I am sure the powers that be do not want to address. Not to mention that ALJs should not be doing their own "investigation" of facts outside the hearing process. Which may be a good argument in favor of having an SSA representative in a quasi-adversarial hearing process. Yup. And the question I would ask of the Commissioner if I were a Congressperson. Do any of us not know of one person who has claimed some type of disability and insisted that the odd job be paid in cash (wink wink)--or that they only do this when the money runs out. If you look at SSDI, insurance disability and workers' compensation its a huge problem. SSDI must be grand daddy of them all as to fraud--and one that must be on the minds of all ODAR ALJs. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 7, 2014 17:02:26 GMT -5
It is on our minds, but our hands are essentially tied. We can request a CDI investigation, but don't always get them and they slow things way down and then we get hollered at about not moving the case. We see a lot of earned income credit tax fraud, but we hav ebeen told not to call the IRS, just let your GS know... And then nothing happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Jan 7, 2014 17:41:34 GMT -5
It's interesting that they caught a lot of the violators using Facebook. I think if judges were inclined to look up claimants on Facebook, they would find interesting photos that are out there in the public domain. When I was doing Employment Law for The Man, FB was very useful in discipllinary cases. Child Support Enforcement has used it very effectively -- deadbeat dad proudly posing next to his spiffy brand new boat, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jan 7, 2014 18:28:02 GMT -5
I used a Facebook entry once to refresh the memory of a Respondent in a proceeding after she denied ever drinking. I just showed her the picture of her #@#*faced with a bottle beside her and asked her to explain....... Our BARBRI course indicated that you could use fettuccini to refresh a memory.
|
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jan 7, 2014 18:28:19 GMT -5
I used a Facebook entry once to refresh the memory of a Respondent in a proceeding after she denied ever drinking. I just showed her the picture of her #@#*faced with a bottle beside her and asked her to explain....... Our BARBRI course indicated that you could use fettuccini to refresh a memory.
I hate double posting...
|
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jan 8, 2014 11:05:20 GMT -5
Apparently, the charges against the 102 have beenf filed in NY state court and not the US D Ct for Southern New York. There are links to 3 or 4 news articles at the Charles Hall Social Security News Blog, and Hall notes: "I keep wondering why the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York isn't bringing federal charges in these cases. All these charges have been brought in state court. That's very odd." socsecnews.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jan 8, 2014 11:13:26 GMT -5
yeah, that is odd. that thought crossed my mind yesterday too and i assumed I misunderstood where the charges were filed at.
|
|
