|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 29, 2021 21:04:39 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, there is absolutely nothing advantageous to a claimant by having an in person hearing with me over a telephone or video hearing. I have done them all over my short time and there is nothing I need evaluate or consider that I can not obtain by either video or telephone. I am not a physician, so I am not conducting a physical examination. What about observing a claimant using a SPC, a Rollator or a wheelchair? Not a factor. At all. That issue is resolved using the information in the record. Demeanor? Please. I can hear better than I can see!
IMHO, in person hearings are not in the foreseeable future. The Agency is feverishly working to position its ALJs now working from home with the necessary video and telephone equipment for hearings from home. Whatever technical and/or access issues [ e.g. hardware; internet; laptops; software-Microsoft Teams] may be at hand in this moment it will not be changing this direction. In my mind, a claimant who elects an in person hearing may be waiting a very, very long time. I think the same might be said for a significant portion of ALJs who are waiting to go back to the office, as well.
I'd agree with your first paragraph for the vast majority of cases. However, there are some exceptions- the biggest of which comes to mind is claimants with communication issues whether arising from impairments or language. Video and phone can never match the clarity of Live interaction. Also- there are a small minority of claimants who don't have reliable access to phones or the internet. And while I don't pretend to be a doctor, I can think of a couple of cases I've had where the claimant had a medical condition where it was helpful for me to see them to really get it, the medical records did not really adequately convey what was happening. I can also think of couple of other things I could do in live hearings that I might not be able to do effectively by video or telephone, but frankly those things don't usually end up benefitting the claimant. As for the second paragraph- I haven't the faintest idea when or how we will resume live hearings. With so many private companies returning, and local governments as well, I keep expecting some news (or substantiated rumor). Not really looking forward to it, while it would be nice to get out of the house more, one day of sitting in traffic will have me longing for COVID 21. (And I will just add here, not for the first time, that I really wish there was better communication from the agency- my home office set up is really not conducive to being there every day, it is not set up well for phone hearings, and is worse for video) I’m looking forward to a rep telling me when I’m headed back into the office. That’s basically how I learned video hearings were coming and how I learn of most things management should keep us informed of. I will go back in when I’m allowed back in. I’m vaccinated. I’ll wear a mask in the office if necessary. I’ll stay home until 2022. Whatevs. I’m flexible. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Apr 30, 2021 8:00:24 GMT -5
I am not so flexible. I lost my apartment in my hearing office city last spring. I am teleworking at my home one hour and 59 minutes away. I have been on the “transfer list” since I was eligible over three years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on May 3, 2021 16:24:12 GMT -5
In what I think is news that supports my humble opinion arrived this very day. A Memorandum of Understanding! It appears it is ONLY for ALJs with "privacy concerns" working from their home. And, no, there was no description or "understanding" of what qualifies as a privacy concern. Regardless of that description, I am not sure how much more unattractive they could have made these conditions.
Travel compensation excluded. If you took hardware (aka laptop; headsets; monitors) home from the shop when COVID started, you will need to cart all of the equipment yourself back to the office for your hearings (and set it up-see below. There was a discussion of a 'hybrid' day (working between home and the office). Again, no travel compensation, PLUS then you have to cart all of the equipment yourself back AND forth. No in office IT support, even if the IT tech is present in the office. No security working in the building.
FYI I am quite happy working from home and have the bandwidth and space in my home. I would think there are many ALJs who lack the bandwidth and space for whom going back to the office would be a great help. Doesn't look easy |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on May 3, 2021 18:40:18 GMT -5
In what I think is news that supports my humble opinion arrived this very day. A Memorandum of Understanding! It appears it is ONLY for ALJs with "privacy concerns" working from their home. And, no, there was no description or "understanding" of what qualifies as a privacy concern. Regardless of that description, I am not sure how much more unattractive they could have made these conditions.
Where are you seeing this info? |
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on May 4, 2021 6:49:33 GMT -5
Email from HOCALJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on May 4, 2021 10:48:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on May 4, 2021 10:51:15 GMT -5
Interesting that it hasn't been sent out widespread.
Without knowing more It, it kind of raises questions, though- if the ALJ's home situation prevents private hearings, what has been happening for the past year?
|
|
|
|
Post by prescient on May 5, 2021 7:30:05 GMT -5
In what I think is news that supports my humble opinion arrived this very day. A Memorandum of Understanding! It appears it is ONLY for ALJs with "privacy concerns" working from their home. And, no, there was no description or "understanding" of what qualifies as a privacy concern. Regardless of that description, I am not sure how much more unattractive they could have made these conditions.
Travel compensation excluded. If you took hardware (aka laptop; headsets; monitors) home from the shop when COVID started, you will need to cart all of the equipment yourself back to the office for your hearings (and set it up-see below. There was a discussion of a 'hybrid' day (working between home and the office). Again, no travel compensation, PLUS then you have to cart all of the equipment yourself back AND forth. No in office IT support, even if the IT tech is present in the office. No security working in the building.
FYI I am quite happy working from home and have the bandwidth and space in my home. I would think there are many ALJs who lack the bandwidth and space for whom going back to the office would be a great help. Doesn't look easy Why would anyone think they’d get travel compensation ? |
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on May 5, 2021 8:08:38 GMT -5
In what I think is news that supports my humble opinion arrived this very day. A Memorandum of Understanding! It appears it is ONLY for ALJs with "privacy concerns" working from their home. And, no, there was no description or "understanding" of what qualifies as a privacy concern. Regardless of that description, I am not sure how much more unattractive they could have made these conditions.
Travel compensation excluded. If you took hardware (aka laptop; headsets; monitors) home from the shop when COVID started, you will need to cart all of the equipment yourself back to the office for your hearings (and set it up-see below. There was a discussion of a 'hybrid' day (working between home and the office). Again, no travel compensation, PLUS then you have to cart all of the equipment yourself back AND forth. No in office IT support, even if the IT tech is present in the office. No security working in the building.
FYI I am quite happy working from home and have the bandwidth and space in my home. I would think there are many ALJs who lack the bandwidth and space for whom going back to the office would be a great help. Doesn't look easy Why would anyone think they’d get travel compensation ? Because those brave souls who go into the office now are on the clock while they commute. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on May 5, 2021 8:43:06 GMT -5
Hazard pay for going into the office?
|
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on May 5, 2021 18:58:17 GMT -5
Why would anyone think they’d get travel compensation ? Because those brave souls who go into the office now are on the clock while they commute. Does that apply to regularly scheduled work or just calls in to pickup equipment, etc.? |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on May 12, 2021 20:46:54 GMT -5
Once in a while you get something in person you’d miss.
Had a claimant back in the pre-Medicaid expansion days with a thin file claiming back problems. Swear the claimant in an the person’s hand is a gnarled up. I’m flipping out because there’s no mention of hand problems. I ask about the hand. Oh burned it in a house fire when I was 8. Guy was 50+ before he applied doing hard manual labor. Had worked with a messed up hand so far as the claimant was concerned the hand was irrelevant to being disabled.
Friend had a similar case where claimant was missing a few fingers from cutting pulpwood and had a missing eye from (yep) a BB gun injury as a kid.
It’s not often but it happens
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on May 25, 2021 7:34:18 GMT -5
Anyone else seeing cases currently scheduled for phone hearings where reps are withdrawing consent for a phone hearing and demanding in person?
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on May 25, 2021 10:33:22 GMT -5
I have only had 1 or 2. The Comish spoke at NOSSCR yesterday. FYI- they didn't record THIS meeting! Anyhoo, he was clearly supportive of raising the Fee cap. Next breath, he suggested the Reps should be taking the OVH option and there is no clear return to in-person hearings at this time. You know, some folks heard this as a bit of extortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercury on May 25, 2021 10:34:24 GMT -5
Once in a while you get something in person you’d miss. Had a claimant back in the pre-Medicaid expansion days with a thin file claiming back problems. Swear the claimant in an the person’s hand is a gnarled up. I’m flipping out because there’s no mention of hand problems. I ask about the hand. Oh burned it in a house fire when I was 8. Guy was 50+ before he applied doing hard manual labor. Had worked with a messed up hand so far as the claimant was concerned the hand was irrelevant to being disabled. Friend had a similar case where claimant was missing a few fingers from cutting pulpwood and had a missing eye from (yep) a BB gun injury as a kid. It’s not often but it happens A minimally competent rep should bring this up. That being said… |
|
|
|
Post by okthen on May 25, 2021 11:01:33 GMT -5
I have only had 1 or 2. The Comish spoke at NOSSCR yesterday. FYI- they didn't record THIS meeting! Anyhoo, he was clearly supportive of raising the Fee cap. Next breath, he suggested the Reps should be taking the OVH option and there is no clear return to in-person hearings at this time. You know, some folks heard this as a bit of extortion. This is really interesting news. Thank you for sharing. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on May 25, 2021 13:13:16 GMT -5
Once in a while you get something in person you’d miss. Had a claimant back in the pre-Medicaid expansion days with a thin file claiming back problems. Swear the claimant in an the person’s hand is a gnarled up. I’m flipping out because there’s no mention of hand problems. I ask about the hand. Oh burned it in a house fire when I was 8. Guy was 50+ before he applied doing hard manual labor. Had worked with a messed up hand so far as the claimant was concerned the hand was irrelevant to being disabled. Friend had a similar case where claimant was missing a few fingers from cutting pulpwood and had a missing eye from (yep) a BB gun injury as a kid. It’s not often but it happens A minimally competent rep should bring this up. That being said… That assumes a couple of facts not in evidence. EDIT- In retrospect this comment is a little too blithe. I can very much see a scenario where a very competent rep, who has only met the claimant on the phone, could end up totally unaware of this impairment. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on May 31, 2021 11:23:59 GMT -5
Once in a while you get something in person you’d miss. Had a claimant back in the pre-Medicaid expansion days with a thin file claiming back problems. Swear the claimant in an the person’s hand is a gnarled up. I’m flipping out because there’s no mention of hand problems. I ask about the hand. Oh burned it in a house fire when I was 8. Guy was 50+ before he applied doing hard manual labor. Had worked with a messed up hand so far as the claimant was concerned the hand was irrelevant to being disabled. Friend had a similar case where claimant was missing a few fingers from cutting pulpwood and had a missing eye from (yep) a BB gun injury as a kid. It’s not often but it happens A minimally competent rep should bring this up. That being said… Unfortunately many unrepresented aren’t minimally competent at representing themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by marathon on Jun 1, 2021 12:17:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jun 3, 2021 12:33:13 GMT -5
I my perfect world, full time telework would continue, with my going into work only on hearing days.
Without question, video hearings are adequate for most cases. But in some cases, being in person makes a difference. I have had several cases with claimants who had RA with hands so deformed there was no way they could do more than occasional grasping and fine manipulation, with medical records that showed a diagnosis and treatment but did not describe the extent of the hand deformity.
And kid's cases are miserable over the phone. Live, I can usually establish a good rapport and get the kid to talk, but over the phone, I am much less successful.
It makes a difference.
|
|
