|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 24, 2021 16:50:54 GMT -5
I could see a scenario where we are told we are returning to the offices (however that looks) in a month, and basically the claimants reps get told, you have been noticed for a phone hearing, you can keep it if you want, or you can come to the hearing office at that same day/time. I know you later go on to say you don't think this is likely but I think this part is worth discussing to explain my thoughts on April. I'm not saying why won't the agency think of it's poor employees. The thing is a rapid untelegraphed return to in person hearings would be chaos and there is no reason to do it that way. If we send Carl Claimant a Notice of Hearing for a telephone hearing and then tell his rep a month later that the hearing can be in person. The Rep has to locate Carl, communicate to Carl his options, then contact the office and say yes or no on an in person hearing. If the rep says "yes" and Carl doesn't show up in person we can't dismiss the case or do anything except start the scheduling process over. Add in that there is a population of ALJs who are extremely hesitant to return to the office and will need some time to get used to it and..... Better to decide on a date when maximum telework ends, communicate what the new situation is in writing, and then start scheduling for after that date. This isn't for the employees' benefit but to minimize chaos and allow the scheduling to be consistent with policy. The decision to go to maximum telework was emergent the decision to return to in person hearings is not. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 24, 2021 17:10:20 GMT -5
I agree that the best course of action would be a return to the office with at least 3 months notice.
I was speculating on what will/may happen, not what ought happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Oct 24, 2021 17:11:32 GMT -5
I’m not expecting a return to the office anytime soon. SSA is one big ship to turn around!
|
|
|
|
Post by quesera on Oct 25, 2021 9:24:54 GMT -5
The question of when ALJs resume in-person hearings is an important one, but I'm thinking about the issues raised by Barkley. If these CDR claimant's are vulnerable to overpayment, that is a huge concern. Does there need to be a rulemaking change that waives OP if the agency perpetuates the OP? Not allowing dismissals in these cases and knowingly worsening the position of the beneficiary is just wrong.
And unneeded VE fees, and ALJ/staff time, what an example of waste!
Has anyone complained to the OIG about this?
Also, I wonder how many of these missing claimants will turn out to be dead from COVID.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 25, 2021 10:02:30 GMT -5
I agree that the best course of action would be a return to the office with at least 3 months notice. I was speculating on what will/may happen, not what ought happen. I understood that and tried to be clear that I understood your point. Sorry if that wasn't as clear as I hoped. |
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Oct 25, 2021 14:32:14 GMT -5
I wish TPTB would consider a graduated reopening. It does not have to be all or nothing.
I personally would volunteer to go in for two or three days and hold in person rocket dockets for all the unrepresented 2 or 3 timer failed to show. Have a big sign on the door to call when they arrive and escort any cl who shows up in, one by one. No VE because all the cases will need updates anyway. Just me, an HR, and a security guard.
Overpayments stop. I get to sign a bunch of case. Number of AGED cases falls like a rock. Interested claimants get case movement by showing up. Win-win-win-win.
I don't think we necessarily have to open in person to all cases, but these cases that cannot be managed any other way should be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Oct 25, 2021 20:18:05 GMT -5
I wish TPTB would consider a graduated reopening. It does not have to be all or nothing. I personally would volunteer to go in for two or three days and hold in person rocket dockets for all the unrepresented 2 or 3 timer failed to show. Have a big sign on the door to call when they arrive and escort any cl who shows up in, one by one. No VE because all the cases will need updates anyway. Just me, an HR, and a security guard. Overpayments stop. I get to sign a bunch of case. Number of AGED cases falls like a rock. Interested claimants get case movement by showing up. Win-win-win-win. I don't think we necessarily have to open in person to all cases, but these cases that cannot be managed any other way should be addressed. I think that actually may happen, as many of the hearing rooms are not safe under the present in person protocols, if for no other reason than size alone. We may see a pretty regimented schedule for when an office has in person hearings for each ALJ goes in for live hearings. But who knows if and when something like that will occur. As far as HOCALJs picking up unassigned dismissals, if the agency doesn’t and can’t care about the disposition numbers, who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 26, 2021 5:40:10 GMT -5
I wish TPTB would consider a graduated reopening. It does not have to be all or nothing. I personally would volunteer to go in for two or three days and hold in person rocket dockets for all the unrepresented 2 or 3 timer failed to show. Have a big sign on the door to call when they arrive and escort any cl who shows up in, one by one. No VE because all the cases will need updates anyway. Just me, an HR, and a security guard. Overpayments stop. I get to sign a bunch of case. Number of AGED cases falls like a rock. Interested claimants get case movement by showing up. Win-win-win-win. I don't think we necessarily have to open in person to all cases, but these cases that cannot be managed any other way should be addressed. I think that actually may happen, as many of the hearing rooms are not safe under the present in person protocols, if for no other reason than size alone. We may see a pretty regimented schedule for when an office has in person hearings for each ALJ goes in for live hearings. But who knows if and when something like that will occur. As far as HOCALJs picking up unassigned dismissals, if the agency doesn’t and can’t care about the disposition numbers, who cares? I’m not sure anyone cares about unassigned cases being assigned to a HOCALJ, but I believe the concern was reassigning aged cases to HOCALJs from line judges for those claimants that have never consented to phone or OVH. As I’ve at least partially reviewed a number of those cases back when we were scheduling anyone for a phone hearing that didn’t opt out but then not dismissing the cases when we never reached them, I’d like to get some credit for that work. I agree that it will likely be a slow rollout for in-person hearings, but it won’t start until everything is negotiated. I don’t get union emails so I’m not sure where things are with that, but to address (sorry, Pixie) the question barkley asked, they’re not going to let some of us volunteer to go in while others refuse. It’ll be all or nothing there. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 26, 2021 8:08:35 GMT -5
Received from a board member:
"Please feel free to share this with the Board but I would like to remain anonymous.
What I have heard is that when in person hearings begin again they will start with HOCALJs during a test period. Then with line judges. Only 3 in person hearings a day with an hour between each hearing for cleaning.
My source didn't know whether the judge would hold telephone hearings between in person hearings or not.
They didn't know who would clean the hearing rooms.
It appears the HRs would be contract HRs."
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 26, 2021 8:14:08 GMT -5
I think that actually may happen, as many of the hearing rooms are not safe under the present in person protocols, if for no other reason than size alone. We may see a pretty regimented schedule for when an office has in person hearings for each ALJ goes in for live hearings. But who knows if and when something like that will occur. As far as HOCALJs picking up unassigned dismissals, if the agency doesn’t and can’t care about the disposition numbers, who cares? I’m not sure anyone cares about unassigned cases being assigned to a HOCALJ, but I believe the concern was reassigning aged cases to HOCALJs from line judges for those claimants that have never consented to phone or OVH. As I’ve at least partially reviewed a number of those cases back when we were scheduling anyone for a phone hearing that didn’t opt out but then not dismissing the cases when we never reached them, I’d like to get some credit for that work. I agree that it will likely be a slow rollout for in-person hearings, but it won’t start until everything is negotiated. I don’t get union emails so I’m not sure where things are with that, but to address (sorry, Pixie) the question barkley asked, they’re not going to let some of us volunteer to go in while others refuse. It’ll be all or nothing there. Uh, like, have you learned nothing from this board? And I had such high hopes for you. Questions are answered, not addressed. Specificity of speech leads to clarity of thought. It's a long uphill battle. I feel like the guy who is constantly pushing that stone up the hill. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 26, 2021 10:55:56 GMT -5
I have to quibble on this. A question can be addressed without being answered.
So, for example, if a hypothetical worker at a hypothetical workplace was to be working from home due to a hypothetical pandemic, and said worker was to inquire as to when they might be returning to the work place, or under what conditions-
If said employer provided any information, they would be both ANSWERING and ADDRESSING the questions
If said employer were to respond by saying, in effect, we will tell you when we tell you, they would be ADDRESSING the questions but not ANSWERING
And if said employer responded with nothing but silence they would be neither ADDRESSING nor ANSWERING the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit Bat Reindeer on Oct 26, 2021 11:03:38 GMT -5
Received from a board member: It appears the HRs would be contract HRs." I'm guessing it's going to be a combination of contract HRs and our current staff. I know our office has been working with our previous HR contractor but only a handful of the usual pool of reporters are actually coming back. |
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit Bat Reindeer on Oct 26, 2021 11:12:31 GMT -5
They damn well better require the claimants and attorneys to be vaccinated. Don't like it, take a video or phone hearing. But then we're going to end up with "who is going to handle that workload?" issues at every office.
|
|
|
|
Post by marathon on Oct 26, 2021 13:07:57 GMT -5
Questions: Will SSA require hearing offices to obtain the claimants' consent to an in-person hearing like it has for every other type of hearing in the past year and a half? With everyone being so concerned about everyone else getting the vaccine, will SSA require claimants and their representatives to be "fully vaccinated" before allowing them to come into the hearing office and infecting the vaccinated hearing office staff and ALJs? FWIW, a couple of reps that were VERY ADAMANTLY opposed to phone and/video hearings have told me off the record they have no intention of ever going back to in person. They are very happy with the current options. I was shocked, Naturally, mileage may vary. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 26, 2021 20:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 26, 2021 20:27:37 GMT -5
Questions: Will SSA require hearing offices to obtain the claimants' consent to an in-person hearing like it has for every other type of hearing in the past year and a half? With everyone being so concerned about everyone else getting the vaccine, will SSA require claimants and their representatives to be "fully vaccinated" before allowing them to come into the hearing office and infecting the vaccinated hearing office staff and ALJs? FWIW, a couple of reps that were VERY ADAMANTLY opposed to phone and/video hearings have told me off the record they have no intention of ever going back to in person. They are very happy with the current options. I was shocked, Naturally, mileage may vary. I’m guessing once reps realized that favorable rates didn’t plummet and judges were fully capable of evaluating supportability and consistency without staring into a claimant’s eyes or watching a one-time presentation, they quickly appreciated not having to put on pants, drive in to the hearing office, pay for parking, and wait in a crowded lobby while fighting for prehearing conference rooms. |
|
|
|
Post by okthen on Oct 26, 2021 22:00:05 GMT -5
Questions: Will SSA require hearing offices to obtain the claimants' consent to an in-person hearing like it has for every other type of hearing in the past year and a half? With everyone being so concerned about everyone else getting the vaccine, will SSA require claimants and their representatives to be "fully vaccinated" before allowing them to come into the hearing office and infecting the vaccinated hearing office staff and ALJs? FWIW, a couple of reps that were VERY ADAMANTLY opposed to phone and/video hearings have told me off the record they have no intention of ever going back to in person. They are very happy with the current options. I was shocked, Naturally, mileage may vary. This has been my experience as well. The claimant’s love the phone hearings. Less stress/travel, and comfort of their home (for the most part). Reps enjoy not traveling. I bet if SSA put an anonymous poll out to the claimant’s bar, and even the claimant’s themselves, 65-70% of the individuals would prefer to continue with the phone or OVH option going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 26, 2021 22:03:50 GMT -5
I have to quibble on this. A question can be addressed without being answered. So, for example, if a hypothetical worker at a hypothetical workplace was to be working from home due to a hypothetical pandemic, and said worker was to inquire as to when they might be returning to the work place, or under what conditions- If said employer provided any information, they would be both ANSWERING and ADDRESSING the questions If said employer were to respond by saying, in effect, we will tell you when we tell you, they would be ADDRESSING the questions but not ANSWERING And if said employer responded with nothing but silence they would be neither ADDRESSING nor ANSWERING the question. Sorry but the word address has no standing when questions are involved. In your hypothetical, the question was simply not answered. He didn't address the question; he didn't answer the question. Questions are either answered or they aren't answered. There isn't any intermediate ground. How do I know this? Because I moonlight as The Grammar Queen. * Pixie ________ * twitter.com/thegrammarqueen?lang=en |
|
Happy_GS
Full Member
I can do this all day
Posts: 34
|
Post by Happy_GS on Oct 27, 2021 3:49:47 GMT -5
I have to quibble on this. A question can be addressed without being answered. So, for example, if a hypothetical worker at a hypothetical workplace was to be working from home due to a hypothetical pandemic, and said worker was to inquire as to when they might be returning to the work place, or under what conditions- If said employer provided any information, they would be both ANSWERING and ADDRESSING the questions If said employer were to respond by saying, in effect, we will tell you when we tell you, they would be ADDRESSING the questions but not ANSWERING And if said employer responded with nothing but silence they would be neither ADDRESSING nor ANSWERING the question. Sorry but the word address has no standing when questions are involved. In your hypothetical, the question was simply not answered. He didn't address the question; he didn't answer the question. Questions are either answered or they aren't answered. There isn't any intermediate ground. How do I know this? Because I moonlight as The Grammar Queen. * Pixie ________ * twitter.com/thegrammarqueen?lang=enTo quibble further, it really depends on how one defines question. One definition is “something that someone asks you when they want information.” Another definition is “ an issue that needs to be discussed and dealt with.” See countable 2 of the Macmillan English Dictionary: www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/question_1Which provides, “address/tackle/resolve a question (=deal with a question): His report did not address the question of air warfare.” It doesn’t strike me as improper English, in my humble opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 27, 2021 7:51:19 GMT -5
Sorry but the word address has no standing when questions are involved. In your hypothetical, the question was simply not answered. He didn't address the question; he didn't answer the question. Questions are either answered or they aren't answered. There isn't any intermediate ground. How do I know this? Because I moonlight as The Grammar Queen. * Pixie ________ * twitter.com/thegrammarqueen?lang=enTo quibble further, it really depends on how one defines question. One definition is “something that someone asks you when they want information.” Another definition is “ an issue that needs to be discussed and dealt with.” See countable 2 of the Macmillan English Dictionary: www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/question_1Which provides, “address/tackle/resolve a question (=deal with a question): His report did not address the question of air warfare.” It doesn’t strike me as improper English, in my humble opinion.Unfortunately, over the last 50 years or so, the word address is being used in ways not originally deemed standard. It happens to be one of my pet peeves, right up there with App____tion Man__er. I realize there are windmills in my path, but I shall continue to be as specific in my speech and writing as I am able. This does not include using "address" in place of "answer." Pixie |
|
