|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 19, 2022 12:07:45 GMT -5
Why do SSA claimants get a right that no other litigant gets - the right to show up face-to-face? Long before COVID, many courts denied in-person hearings over phone and video, and now all deny in-person except OHO. Criminal defendants have no right to cough on judges, bailiffs and others. Try telling Chief Justice Roberts, "I'll be at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Make sure you have cleaned the seats." No. If you want due process, you'll get a video or telephone hearing. Same for immigration hearings.
I don't mind having in-person hearings, but some judges in my OHO office are already freaking out over it.
Most in-person demands will disappear once they are permitted. Reps used it to cover for missing claimants and CDRs and other termination claimants used it to delay. I can't imagine that 1 in 100 really want to brave parking, transit, security and possible COVID just to see an ALJ's smiling face in person.
|
|
|
|
Post by okthen on Jan 19, 2022 12:19:44 GMT -5
Why do SSA claimants get a right that no other litigant gets - the right to show up face-to-face? Long before COVID, many courts denied in-person hearings over phone and video, and now all deny in-person except OHO. Criminal defendants have no right to cough on judges, bailiffs and others. Try telling Chief Justice Roberts, "I'll be at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Make sure you have cleaned the seats." No. If you want due process, you'll get a video or telephone hearing. Same for immigration hearings. I don't mind having in-person hearings, but some judges in my OHO office are already freaking out over it. Most in-person demands will disappear once they are permitted. Reps used it to cover for missing claimants and CDRs and other termination claimants used it to delay. I can't imagine that 1 in 100 really want to brave parking, transit, security and possible COVID just to see an ALJ's smiling face in person. I am thinking more in line with long term strategic planning in meeting people where they want; not simply pandemic planning. From a financial and security/safety standpoint, I feel that the chips stack strongly in favor of moving away from in-person hearings and shrinking the local office footprint (not doing away with entirely, but significant space reductions). But I think progress takes time, and letting reps and claimants come to these conclusions (that in person is not providing the perceived benefit many of them think it is) on their own over time is reasonable. Regardless, with regard to COVID-19, there are supposed safeguards in place for pandemic in-person hearings. And I hope that the Agency will be liberal in accommodating those ALJs that have legitimate medical concerns with in-person hearings (their track record in this regard is spotty). Given what we foresee as a small amount of actual requests for in-person hearings, I would imagine (and hope) that they can accommodate those judges. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 19, 2022 13:00:29 GMT -5
I’d be surprised if ALJ are going into the office more than once a week in most offices.
What’s happening with the NHCs? They were all video so is there any need to return to the office?
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 19, 2022 15:39:39 GMT -5
I suspect claimants by and large want live hearings.
Assuming this is true- whether reps really want them or not, eventually some enterprising rep (or reps) will begin marketing themselves as the rep who DEMANDS a live hearing; DON'T LET YOURSELF GET FOOLED INTO AGREEING TO SURRENDERING YOUR RIGHTS INTO A PHONE CALL!!!
This in turn will bring pressure onto other reps to start demanding live hearings.
And thus, we are back.
I will be curious as to how this plays out in different regions. The pandemic had been viewed so differently in different parts of the country (for example, my kids basically only went back to school this past fall; in my town you still cannot enter any building other than a private home without a mask).
But I have traveled to other places and it's like the pandemic never happened. I have to think in some cities/towns the federal offices may be the only thing that haven't fully reopened.
|
|
|
|
Post by someconcerns on Jan 20, 2022 12:31:59 GMT -5
. . . just to see an ALJ's smiling face in person. Since we will all be masked, they won't even see that.  |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 20, 2022 13:03:10 GMT -5
. . . just to see an ALJ's smiling face in person. Since we will all be masked, they won't even see that. You know, I don't actually recall see anything mentioning the ALJ being masked in the MOU? Is it just assumed? |
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 20, 2022 13:13:55 GMT -5
Since we will all be masked, they won't even see that. You know, I don't actually recall see anything mentioning the ALJ being masked in the MOU? Is it just assumed? I think it’ll get ugly trying to enforce the requirement that all visitors to the hearing office must wear a mask, if the ALJ isn’t wearing one, no? |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jan 20, 2022 14:55:25 GMT -5
Since we will all be masked, they won't even see that. You know, I don't actually recall see anything mentioning the ALJ being masked in the MOU? Is it just assumed? Justice Gorsuch doesn’t have to wear a mask! |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 20, 2022 15:45:06 GMT -5
You know, I don't actually recall see anything mentioning the ALJ being masked in the MOU? Is it just assumed? I think it’ll get ugly trying to enforce the requirement that all visitors to the hearing office must wear a mask, if the ALJ isn’t wearing one, no? Interesting point. The MOU says at B.10 that ALJs will be given optional face shields (How close do most ALJs get to people to be within spitting distance?), and must wear masks if unvaccinated or unless CDC requires otherwise. I would assume that daredevil judges who are vaccinated can come in without masks if they like and kick out vaccinated claimants who are not wearing masks? Anyway, I think these rules are pretty good, and may need additional fine-tuning, but I am actually hoping that by May/June, they will be unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jan 20, 2022 18:45:56 GMT -5
I think it’ll get ugly trying to enforce the requirement that all visitors to the hearing office must wear a mask, if the ALJ isn’t wearing one, no? Interesting point. The MOU says at B.10 that ALJs will be given optional face shields (How close do most ALJs get to people to be within spitting distance?), and must wear masks if unvaccinated or unless CDC requires otherwise. I would assume that daredevil judges who are vaccinated can come in without masks if they like and kick out vaccinated claimants who are not wearing masks? Anyway, I think these rules are pretty good, and may need additional fine-tuning, but I am actually hoping that by May/June, they will be unnecessary. Me too. At the risk of being of being a Debbie Downer, there is also the risk of a diabolical variant more virulent and unresponsive to the vaccine that becomes an existential threat to humanity. I think I’ve been watching too much Netflix-Don’t Look Up and HBO Max-Station Eleven. |
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jan 20, 2022 19:49:50 GMT -5
Don't look up is a gem
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Jan 20, 2022 20:35:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 20, 2022 21:39:16 GMT -5
. . . just to see an ALJ's smiling face in person. Since we will all be masked, they won't even see that. I smile with my eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 21, 2022 10:43:57 GMT -5
Agency-wide reentry March 30. Seems this has the greatest effect on the field offices and minimal effect of OHO with some support staff returning in April consistent with the AFGE MOU and temp telework provisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jan 22, 2022 6:37:50 GMT -5
You know, I don't actually recall see anything mentioning the ALJ being masked in the MOU? Is it just assumed? Justice Gorsuch doesn’t have to wear a mask! And look how well that’s been going. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 24, 2022 10:30:06 GMT -5
Maybe where you guys live the Reps won't be asking for in person hearings but I'm pretty sure most of our local reps can't wait. They don't like having their hearings with judges from all over the country.
They may not like our pay rates but at least they know what they're getting when they go to a hearing.
I suspect a lot of claimants are dissatisfied with telephone hearings. Whether they will enjoy being on the other side of plexiglass and wearing a mask more I don't know.
|
|
