|
|
Post by jagvet on Jun 15, 2021 19:29:50 GMT -5
How about a remand where the hearing recording was corrupted and a second hearing was conducted a few days later? ALJ summarizes all the testimony from the bad hearing, rep consents, and full second hearing has ME and VE. Unfavorable gets appealed and AC remands mechanically because there is no recording of the first hearing. It says it can't (or won't) consider substantive appeal issue. Two hearings and a year later....now a third hearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 16, 2021 9:37:49 GMT -5
How about a remand where the hearing recording was corrupted and a second hearing was conducted a few days later? ALJ summarizes all the testimony from the bad hearing, rep consents, and full second hearing has ME and VE. Unfavorable gets appealed and AC remands mechanically because there is no recording of the first hearing. It says it can't (or won't) consider substantive appeal issue. Two hearings and a year later....now a third hearing. Ugh esp given the second hearing being held |
|
RFSee
New Member
Posts: 2 
|
Post by RFSee on Jun 17, 2021 15:22:31 GMT -5
The AC historically increases their remand rate at the beginning of a new POTUS administration to justify their existence so expect more bush league remands for the next year. The trend is real, but this is not the cause of what ALJs are noticing. Something more significant rolled out last October and officially went into effect at the Appeals Council in January 2021 by order of DCARO. The guardrails against so-called head-scratcher remands are basically gone for good. Prepare for a world in which the AC will no longer be fixing the ticky-tacky problems it loves to find. Ask around about it, and buckle up for a long, bumpy ride… |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jun 18, 2021 8:10:32 GMT -5
How about a remand where the hearing recording was corrupted and a second hearing was conducted a few days later? ALJ summarizes all the testimony from the bad hearing, rep consents, and full second hearing has ME and VE. Unfavorable gets appealed and AC remands mechanically because there is no recording of the first hearing. It says it can't (or won't) consider substantive appeal issue. Two hearings and a year later....now a third hearing. Ugh esp given the second hearing being held I had one for not holding a supplementary hearing when, in fact, I did just that. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jun 18, 2021 23:13:49 GMT -5
I started this beef session and going to just say that after a number of you gotta be kidding remands got one where I had typed into the hypo section “no exposure to respiratory irritants such as” instead of “no concentrated exposure” and checked the audio and I had read it as I wrote it instead of what I meant.
I’ll own that screwup even though absent new evidence the outcome probably won’t change, it was a bad RFC
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Jun 24, 2021 18:45:28 GMT -5
Still my favorite is the AC remand for not proffering evidence received post hearing to the rep. I sent it back for "clarification" because said evidence was submitted BY THE REP. They then asked, "how do you know that?" My response was, "Well, the fax artifact at the top of each page is the rep's fax number."
How much taxpayer money was wasted on that one!
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 20, 2021 10:43:01 GMT -5
Adding to the list- remand because ALJ found no severe impairments, but subsequent to decision a TSS was submitted that opined that claimant could not lift carry push or pull 10 lbs, could not stand/walk/sit, etc. Pretty much only thing claimant could do would be manage benefits.
Here's the kicker- guess who filled out and signed the TSS? (If you guessed "her doctor"- you lost!)
|
|
