|
|
Post by christina on Oct 26, 2022 19:00:58 GMT -5
I'm reading it as we chose our hearing DAYS but we do not chose HOW (in person, remote, mixed) it will be conducted So, technically every day could be scheduled in person That is what it looked like to me as an outside observer of hearings |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 26, 2022 21:59:47 GMT -5
I'm reading it as we chose our hearing DAYS but we do not chose HOW (in person, remote, mixed) it will be conducted So, technically every day could be scheduled in person That is what it looked like to me as an outside observer of hearings I believe the MOU allows opt out for mixed dockets and nothing in this memo would change that. |
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Oct 27, 2022 4:45:45 GMT -5
Currently at the AALJ conference. This subject came up tonight. Right now we cannot pick our in-person days but we can opt out of mixed dockets. The issue of choosing our in-person days is one that is left to be bargained between the union and the agency. I’ll say nothing more so that I don’t cross any union talk lines. I presently and will continue to ask for no scheduled mixed dockets until this issue gets worked out. I will, however, allow claimants and representatives to change an in-person scheduled day to a phone or video hearing and I will handle those from the office. That minimizes the number of days I need to go in and still allows me to service the claimants in the manner that they wish. Don't agree to mixed dockets or you will be in the office for every hearing date. Another big issue to me is that if a lawyer/claimant agrees to both Teams video and telephone, the schedulers can determine that telephone is the most efficient. In the past, the default was to Teams not telephone. I don't know of many judges who believe that telephone is better than video. The lawyers will need to be sure they request only Teams. |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Oct 27, 2022 10:22:47 GMT -5
I don't know of many judges who believe that telephone is better than video. The lawyers will need to be sure they request only Teams. I do not know how it is in other regions, but for us the schedulers stopped sending out the forms for the telephone option. We just get the "object to a video hearing" form, with no place to indicate the claimant would prefer a telephone hearing. To request a telephone hearing I have had to send a letter explicitly requesting one. Based on that development I thought the default was moving toward video hearings, this is a surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Nov 5, 2022 6:54:04 GMT -5
And just like that, with an OCALJ memo, the you “ can live anywhere in the USA” provision, and to a smaller extent your control the days when you telework is nullified. Very short sided by the union not to specify that ALJs would pick their in person hearing days after management states how many days need to be in person.
If it is not in writing then it is not going to be a right.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Nov 5, 2022 17:25:56 GMT -5
I’m confident union will sort this out. They got us an amazing contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 5, 2022 21:50:09 GMT -5
Maybe the union will sort it out, but why was this a unilateral order to begin with? Why was the union not consulted? Tone deaf administration has no knowledge of how hearings get scheduled and effect on employees. The lesson learned is that it is the career swamp, not the appointees who run federal agencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 6, 2022 4:51:25 GMT -5
The thing is, I can see why it can't be left to the ALJs to choose which days are remote and which are in person. At least not initially.
Every office will have a different mix of remote versus in person. Imagine an office where that mix is predominantly remote- say 85%.
Assume an ALJ in that office would typically have 8 hearing dates a month. Given that mix, they would need to be having just one or two of them as in person.
But- they have to be the exact right one or two dates because they have to match up with the availability of the reps. Otherwise, you could go months on end without ever being able to schedule a case.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. Some offices may find themselves rarely having in person hearings while others may be returning to doing it the majority of the time, and so any one size fits all rule nation wide is going to be a little problematic.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Nov 6, 2022 19:47:34 GMT -5
What says conventional wisdom relative to the future demand for in-person hearings in represented cases?
There will always be a subset of unrepresented claimants we cannot reach and must schedule for in-person appearances.
However, in my little corner of the OHO world, we are finding reps who held out for in-person hearings over the past two years are now routinely requesting a change in the manner of appearance to phone or online video.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Nov 6, 2022 22:29:22 GMT -5
What says conventional wisdom relative to the future demand for in-person hearings in represented cases? There will always be a subset of unrepresented claimants we cannot reach and must schedule for in-person appearances. However, in my little corner of the OHO world, we are finding reps who held out for in-person hearings over the past two years are now routinely requesting a change in the manner of appearance to phone or online video. My experience is largely the same. I doubt we ever get back to majority in-person hearings. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 7, 2022 14:14:46 GMT -5
I'd say too soon to say. In November and December I am scheduled for a disburbingly high number of in person days (and not because of a high percentage unrepped or older cases), but then January is almost entirely remote- so who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by bagelone on Nov 22, 2022 10:31:08 GMT -5
Gotta think most claimants would prefer virtual to shlepping into a hearing office. Just a matter of reps being comfortable in encouraging that option.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 22, 2022 18:35:02 GMT -5
I think it's the opposite. At least, long term.
The claimant gets one hearing. It's extremely meaningful to them, and if they think being in person gives them even the slightest increase in chance that they will be approved then they will want to come in.
For the reps, virtual hearings changes their business models for the better. The only downside is the sunk costs of having leased or purchased offices based on the old in-person model.
Well, that and the need to now shift in how they compete for claimants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Nov 23, 2022 9:49:14 GMT -5
A lot of the difference I see in preferences is between local reps versus national reps. National reps are happy to do it from their office in another state (or their spare bedroom) but local reps seem more interested in getting back to face to face hearings.
I think for claimants it boils down to the difficult in getting to the office. Local claimants seem happy to come in. Folks that have to travel a ways are a lot more likely to call the day before and ask for a telephone hearing due to transportation issues. Obviously, these are generalities and they're specific to my office. I see a lot of comments here where people seem to be making pretty broad claims without recognizing that other offices have radically different experiences. Even two offices in the same state may be having very different experiences. Heck it wouldn't surprise me if two offices in LA, Chicago, or NY have very different experiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 28, 2022 13:58:41 GMT -5
I sent up a proposed solution once to TPTB, but no one answered.
Here's my proposal: With the hearing acknowledgement, send out a checklist response: Do you want in-person, telephone or video? If you do not make a choice, your hearing will be heard by telephone. If you choose in-person, you may change to video or telephone up to 10 days before the hearing for any reason without the need for a new notice. It will still be held on the same day and time. Within 10 days of your hearing, you must show good cause for a change and the judge will decide. If you fail to attend your hearing of any kind, you will receive a show-cause notice. If you fail to respond or if you fail to show the judge good cause, your request for hearing will be dismissed, no matter what kind it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 29, 2022 8:17:10 GMT -5
I sent up a proposed solution once to TPTB, but no one answered. Here's my proposal: With the hearing acknowledgement, send out a checklist response: Do you want in-person, telephone or video? If you do not make a choice, your hearing will be heard by telephone. If you choose in-person, you may change to video or telephone up to 10 days before the hearing for any reason without the need for a new notice. It will still be held on the same day and time. Within 10 days of your hearing, you must show good cause for a change and the judge will decide. If you fail to attend your hearing of any kind, you will receive a show-cause notice. If you fail to respond or if you fail to show the judge good cause, your request for hearing will be dismissed, no matter what kind it was. I would not be at all happy if the Union agreed to that. Reps would routinely request in person hearings knowing they could always change it later. This would lead to dockets where the ALJ is coming into the office for the vast majority of their hearing days, even if almost all of their hearings were ultimately remote (since it only takes one in person hearing on the schedule to force the ALJ to come in). |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Dec 1, 2022 8:56:47 GMT -5
Reps would routinely request in person hearings knowing they could always change it later. This would lead to dockets where the ALJ is coming into the office for the vast majority of their hearing days, even if almost all of their hearings were ultimately remote (since it only takes one in person hearing on the schedule to force the ALJ to come in). I already have plenty of days like this. It’s not fun. |
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Dec 1, 2022 15:54:04 GMT -5
Reps would routinely request in person hearings knowing they could always change it later. This would lead to dockets where the ALJ is coming into the office for the vast majority of their hearing days, even if almost all of their hearings were ultimately remote (since it only takes one in person hearing on the schedule to force the ALJ to come in). I already have plenty of days like this. It’s not fun. This why I have declined mixed dockets and don’t allow reps to change to phone after the hearing notice goes out unless there is a real reason. I’ve granted a request for a claimant with no transportation to change to phone while requiring the rep to appear in person. When a rep has complained I have suggested that returning the phone/video would solve the issue. Hardcore but effective. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Dec 1, 2022 20:40:57 GMT -5
I already have plenty of days like this. It’s not fun. This why I have declined mixed dockets and don’t allow reps to change to phone after the hearing notice goes out unless there is a real reason. I’ve granted a request for a claimant with no transportation to change to phone while requiring the rep to appear in person. When a rep has complained I have suggested that returning the phone/video would solve the issue. Hardcore but effective. Of course, all of the patronizing rules designed to give claimants an infinite amount of choice and changes would have to be modified or tossed out. In my more detailed proposal, in-person days would be chosen by the judges and fixed. Given all the no-shows on in-person days, it would certainly work out. Look, TPTB don't want to make changes or they would have, so don't sweat the details. |
|
