|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Aug 22, 2020 10:11:22 GMT -5
Multiple in person contacts, such as having a Rep go to various claimants' homes or having multiple claimants go to their Rep's office seems contrary to social distancing guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Aug 22, 2020 16:56:46 GMT -5
Setting aside the social distancing issues, since CSUs schedule three hearings in a row with the Reps, driving between clmts' homes between hearings is logistically impossible.
The other option, clmts going to their Rep's office, exposes the clmts (with underlying conditions) to each other, and the Rep, in an indoor space (the riskiest location). Which places the responsibility solely on the Reps' shoulders for keeping their clients, themselves, and their staff safe. Without considering the extra time between hearings for any attempts at disinfecting. Not sure many Reps would be willing to take on that kind of legal (or moral) liability.
So, while it CAN be done, with a plethora of ways to do so; that does not appear to be the appropriate question.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Aug 23, 2020 0:22:06 GMT -5
Oh, boy. I see why we have problems. Friends, criminal courts are requiring video hearings and telephonic hearings. Why do we allow an opt-out anyway? I would change the regs so repped claimants cannot be allowed to demand an in-person hearing. Their reps should figure out how to make it work. Unrepped claimants should be required to use telephone or video unless they can show cause why they have to appear in person. Then, when they do come in to a "clean" video room, the judge can be someplace else.
Discuss......
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Aug 23, 2020 8:38:18 GMT -5
Oh, boy. I see why we have problems. Friends, criminal courts are requiring video hearings and telephonic hearings. Why do we allow an opt-out anyway? I would change the regs so repped claimants cannot be allowed to demand an in-person hearing. Their reps should figure out how to make it work. Unrepped claimants should be required to use telephone or video unless they can show cause why they have to appear in person. Then, when they do come in to a "clean" video room, the judge can be someplace else. Discuss...... Criminal courts, like most, are public proceedings. So, someone hacking them isn't really an issue. I don't have any first hand knowledge of how video appearances are being handled for defendants who are in their homes, so I can't comment on how they handle the issues with lack of access to technology. |
|
|
|
Post by aljhopefully on Aug 24, 2020 2:06:05 GMT -5
Had a zoom hearing where I could see the defense attorney playing solitaire. It was a sentencing hearing, too...
|
|
|
|
Post by aljhopefully on Aug 24, 2020 2:12:31 GMT -5
Oh, boy. I see why we have problems. Friends, criminal courts are requiring video hearings and telephonic hearings. Why do we allow an opt-out anyway? FYI--depends on the jurisdiction. In federal court you have a due process right to be physically present. Most proceedings are only going forward because defendants are waiving their right to by physically present. At least for now. |
|
|
|
Post by unlisted on Aug 30, 2020 9:43:44 GMT -5
MSTeams uses less bandwidth than other video conferencing programs. And you don't have to download software - it works in a browser, even on a phone. So hopefully most claimants will be able to use it. Though the downside is that it doesn't have an audio-only dial-in option like Skype does - everyone has to connect by video.
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 31, 2020 21:30:42 GMT -5
MSTeams uses less bandwidth than other video conferencing programs. And you don't have to download software - it works in a browser, even on a phone. So hopefully most claimants will be able to use it. Though the downside is that it doesn't have an audio-only dial-in option like Skype does - everyone has to connect by video. That is good news about the software issue, but if you only wanted to dial in, wouldn't you just get a phone hearing from SSA??? 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 31, 2020 22:05:11 GMT -5
MSTeams uses less bandwidth than other video conferencing programs. And you don't have to download software - it works in a browser, even on a phone. So hopefully most claimants will be able to use it. Though the downside is that it doesn't have an audio-only dial-in option like Skype does - everyone has to connect by video. That is good news about the software issue, but if you only wanted to dial in, wouldn't you just get a phone hearing from SSA??? 😉 VEs and MEs would probably prefer to continue doing hearings in their pajamas.  |
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 31, 2020 22:07:10 GMT -5
Absolutely!!
|
|
ducky
Full Member
Blowing in the wind
Posts: 108 
|
Post by ducky on Sept 1, 2020 21:37:25 GMT -5
What’s this going to cost me? Is it going to exceed the data caps on my internet service at home? What if I have a spouse working at home and 2 children in virtual school also using the internet while I need to hold a hearing? What if I have a college kid gaming in between its classes that are online? How’s that gonna work? I watch the news and have seen the glitchy Congressional hearings and interviews. They can’t even guarantee a record done properly and intelligibly in a phone hearing. How are we going to accomplish that with something more intensive???
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Sept 2, 2020 7:25:25 GMT -5
I will do whatever I am told to do, but I just don't see how the video at home hearings will work. I had telephone hearings yesterday and apparently there was a region wide slow down. Between regional useage and local bad weather, I was unable to use my headset and had to be called on my cell. Then during the course of hearings, I was kicked out of VPN three times and had to restart. Then, with my last three hearings, I could not open the claimant's file and had to rely strictly on my notes. Most days, I don't have those problems, but when I do, it is just so sub optimal. If they cannot work out the tech issues for phone dockets to go smoothly, I don't see how we can transition effectively to video.
Further, if it is all parties have to be on video, there is no backup if things go wrong.
I wish SSA would take seriously the idea of how we can return to in person hearings. It would not be that hard. Have claimants wait in their car until they are called to come in. Remove or block off all the chairs in the waiting room. In the hearing room, put plexiglass up between all the participants, including one between the rep and claimant. Everyone wears masks until they are in place. If they have medical reasons for not wearing a mask (and we should know!), they get a phone hearing.
While we are talking about it, the ALJs should only come into the office on hearing days. We have shown there is no need otherwise. With a return to in person hearings, we can get the contract hearing monitors back and let the clerks go back to their primary duties.
Unless this is all part of a big conspiracy to centralize hearings and close down local offices, then carry on. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Sept 2, 2020 9:13:45 GMT -5
What’s this going to cost me? Is it going to exceed the data caps on my internet service at home? What if I have a spouse working at home and 2 children in virtual school also using the internet while I need to hold a hearing? What if I have a college kid gaming in between its classes that are online? How’s that gonna work? I watch the news and have seen the glitchy Congressional hearings and interviews. They can’t even guarantee a record done properly and intelligibly in a phone hearing. How are we going to accomplish that with something more intensive??? College kid gaming? Of what do u speak 😉? Very good points |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Sept 2, 2020 10:17:30 GMT -5
What’s this going to cost me? Is it going to exceed the data caps on my internet service at home? What if I have a spouse working at home and 2 children in virtual school also using the internet while I need to hold a hearing? What if I have a college kid gaming in between its classes that are online? How’s that gonna work? I watch the news and have seen the glitchy Congressional hearings and interviews. They can’t even guarantee a record done properly and intelligibly in a phone hearing. How are we going to accomplish that with something more intensive??? College kid gaming? Of what do u speak 😉? Very good points PS4 + XBox + PC multiplayer gaming. Usually a bandwith hog as the systems are optimized for high frame rate and low lag/latency. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Sept 2, 2020 13:58:38 GMT -5
I wish SSA would take seriously the idea of how we can return to in person hearings. It would not be that hard. Have claimants wait in their car until they are called to come in. Remove or block off all the chairs in the waiting room. In the hearing room, put plexiglass up between all the participants, including one between the rep and claimant. Everyone wears masks until they are in place. If they have medical reasons for not wearing a mask (and we should know!), they get a phone hearing. While we are talking about it, the ALJs should only come into the office on hearing days. We have shown there is no need otherwise. With a return to in person hearings, we can get the contract hearing monitors back and let the clerks go back to their primary duties. Unless this is all part of a big conspiracy to centralize hearings and close down local offices, then carry on. . . Sir Charles (barkley), I wish it were that easy. In urban areas, many claimants don't have cars. There are small waiting rooms which would become virtually useless if capacity is cut by 2/3. If we can require phone hearings for people who can't wear masks, then we can require them for those who can. After all, even masks are no guarantee against all infections.
The better solution is to allow VTC with only the ALJ in the hearing office, or an option of phone. There is simply no legal right to have an in-person hearing. Otherwise, why couldn't claimants demand to go to the Appeals Council or USDC in person? The regs need to abolish in-person rights and make telephone or video the only options. I know a lot of people would scream about it, but if you can't go to a bar in person, why do you have to be able to go to OHO and cough on everyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Sept 2, 2020 17:02:21 GMT -5
I wish SSA would take seriously the idea of how we can return to in person hearings. It would not be that hard. Have claimants wait in their car until they are called to come in. Remove or block off all the chairs in the waiting room. In the hearing room, put plexiglass up between all the participants, including one between the rep and claimant. Everyone wears masks until they are in place. If they have medical reasons for not wearing a mask (and we should know!), they get a phone hearing. While we are talking about it, the ALJs should only come into the office on hearing days. We have shown there is no need otherwise. With a return to in person hearings, we can get the contract hearing monitors back and let the clerks go back to their primary duties. Unless this is all part of a big conspiracy to centralize hearings and close down local offices, then carry on. . . Sir Charles (barkley), I wish it were that easy. In urban areas, many claimants don't have cars. There are small waiting rooms which would become virtually useless if capacity is cut by 2/3. If we can require phone hearings for people who can't wear masks, then we can require them for those who can. After all, even masks are no guarantee against all infections.
The better solution is to allow VTC with only the ALJ in the hearing office, or an option of phone. There is simply no legal right to have an in-person hearing. Otherwise, why couldn't claimants demand to go to the Appeals Council or USDC in person? The regs need to abolish in-person rights and make telephone or video the only options. I know a lot of people would scream about it, but if you can't go to a bar in person, why do you have to be able to go to OHO and cough on everyone?
Couple of things. First, your point about urban offices is dead on- virtually none of my claimants drive themselves to the hearing (if you believe them). But, I'd suggest that OHO could take an office by office approach to re-opening rather than one size fits all. So, OHO could task someone(s) at each office to make a plan within the restrictions of the physical space and unique challenges of the office (I'd imagine some offices are in leased space in buildings that may be completely closed down). Second- I'd agree that OHO can, and maybe should (if offices are not to reopen soon) start mandating video appearances on an emergency basis due to the pandemic. But I don't see live hearings permanently going away, the agency just recently and tried to eliminate the video opt out and failed. And, what to do with claimants who don't have internet access? They most certainly exist- in some NY area school districts the obstacle to online learning is too many students who wouldn't be able to attend. I'd also join with the concern of the agency's ability to handle the technology, I had a brutal morning- two hearings took 4 and a half hours because of soft phone and VPN issues. Thank goodness three other claimants didn't show up. That's using telephone conference call technology which has existed since the 1960s, and failing. Now we are going to make the leap to video conferencing? |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Sept 2, 2020 17:35:46 GMT -5
nylawyer is on to something here. Good ideas. I agree with everything except claimants with no computer. They can do telephone hearings. Also, I might think that a single video room at each OHO office might be used for that smaller number of cases. I'm nominating nylawyer for CALJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Sept 2, 2020 19:22:50 GMT -5
...
I'd also join with the concern of the agency's ability to handle the technology, I had a brutal morning- two hearings took 4 and a half hours because of soft phone and VPN issues. Thank goodness three other claimants didn't show up. That's using telephone conference call technology which has existed since the 1960s, and failing. Now we are going to make the leap to video conferencing?[/quote]
sorry, that was nylawyer I was quoting above
This, times 1,000.
If we do not have the technological bandwidth to consistently (successfully) hold telephone hearings, (and it is pretty obvious we don't), how in the world would video hearings be successful?
Another possibility is that the video hearings are what is causing the sudden lack of success with the telephone technology. Remember in March when we were specifically told not to watch video trainings as it was interfering with access?
Word of the day appears to be "Boondoggle", round two.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Sept 2, 2020 19:56:36 GMT -5
nylawyer is on to something here. Good ideas. I agree with everything except claimants with no computer. They can do telephone hearings. Also, I might think that a single video room at each OHO office might be used for that smaller number of cases. I'm nominating nylawyer for CALJ. Slow down. I still haven't even had my background check. Four years later. |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Sept 2, 2020 20:16:10 GMT -5
Part of the "slowdown" returning judges to the office is that it isn't just about us.
If we are in the office, so are at least some staff, a guard, management, and cleaning staff. Prolly missed some folks needed. Even if we are doing phone hearings, or video hearings while there, they are required to be there too.
May not be appropriate given social distancing.
Also, on an office-by-office basis would be constantly shifting, as COVID cases increase and decrease. Tough to guestimate 90 days (even 20) in advance.
|
|
