|
|
Post by arkstfan on Mar 7, 2023 19:42:45 GMT -5
Regarding steps 4 and 5 analysis and improving due process at this point, tho Claimants do not have the burden at step 5, how can reps help their clients AND collaborate with ALJs to get to the right decision at the hearing and/or post-hearing brief? How should reps handle the VE? What works and what does not work? NO venting allowed - just solutions and productive feedback. Thanks. Former insider, now outsider, always learning...hoping I don't regret posting this question later! lol Some quick thoughts- It is effective to engage the VE regarding the testimony they have actually given. Ask about specific jobs cited, and why the hypo doesn't preclude them. Some don'ts- don't just ask the exact same questions of every VE in every single case. Don't just read medical reports into the record under the guise of questioning the VE (that makes me in particular really crazy, since I allow reps to make opening and closing arguments, where they are free to properly cite those same records to bolster their argument). Don't ask the same questions (or variations of the same question) that I just asked. If the VE just testified a person can only be off task 10-15% of the day, then don't ask whether a person who must take a 15 minute break every hour is employable. Same thing with absences. Also, if I asked a hypo that the VE testified yields no jobs- don't ask a question that just adds additional restrictions to that same hypo- we already know the answer. Similarly, don't pose hypotheticals that as a matter of law would be work preclusive- such as "can only stand and sit for an hour each total in an eight hour day". (I'll make one exception- for the rep who just has nothing to ask but feels they need to show their client they did something, I am not without sympathy). As for post hearing briefs- I'm personally fine with them, particularly as to VE testimony (which can't be anticipated and can be difficult to respond to on the fly), but I may be in the minority on that. What??? Never heard of anyone reading medical reports into the record. If it exists, why isn't it just marked and exhibited and made part of the record? I get enough gruff from AC declaring I didn't consider an exhibit simply because it isn't cited in the record. I've had to jump in and stop reps from asking "Could the individual do the work from Hypo 1 if they were taking Oxycodone." We've got a VE who was a pharmacy tech long ago and would answer that if not stopped. Now what I will do is if say the clmt is advanced age and my first hypo is medium with unskilled limits and past work is precluded but other jobs found, I will announce that I won't ask a light hypothetical because the GRID rules would direct a finding of disabled. I will give a no jobs hypothetical if no rule applies simply because I feel the rep and clmt need to know I've considered the possibility of the impairments being disabling. In general saves me listening to rep posing various disabling hypotheticals. Your mileage will vary based on the reps you work with. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 7, 2023 20:49:40 GMT -5
Some quick thoughts- It is effective to engage the VE regarding the testimony they have actually given. Ask about specific jobs cited, and why the hypo doesn't preclude them. Some don'ts- don't just ask the exact same questions of every VE in every single case. Don't just read medical reports into the record under the guise of questioning the VE (that makes me in particular really crazy, since I allow reps to make opening and closing arguments, where they are free to properly cite those same records to bolster their argument). Don't ask the same questions (or variations of the same question) that I just asked. If the VE just testified a person can only be off task 10-15% of the day, then don't ask whether a person who must take a 15 minute break every hour is employable. Same thing with absences. Also, if I asked a hypo that the VE testified yields no jobs- don't ask a question that just adds additional restrictions to that same hypo- we already know the answer. Similarly, don't pose hypotheticals that as a matter of law would be work preclusive- such as "can only stand and sit for an hour each total in an eight hour day". (I'll make one exception- for the rep who just has nothing to ask but feels they need to show their client they did something, I am not without sympathy). As for post hearing briefs- I'm personally fine with them, particularly as to VE testimony (which can't be anticipated and can be difficult to respond to on the fly), but I may be in the minority on that. What??? Never heard of anyone reading medical reports into the record. If it exists, why isn't it just marked and exhibited and made part of the record? I get enough gruff from AC declaring I didn't consider an exhibit simply because it isn't cited in the record. The records are exhibited and in evidence. It's the rep just trying to stress what he considers to be favorable evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Mar 8, 2023 22:22:31 GMT -5
What??? Never heard of anyone reading medical reports into the record. If it exists, why isn't it just marked and exhibited and made part of the record? I get enough gruff from AC declaring I didn't consider an exhibit simply because it isn't cited in the record. The records are exhibited and in evidence. It's the rep just trying to stress what he considers to be favorable evidence. Oh lawd no! |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Mar 9, 2023 13:20:32 GMT -5
What??? Never heard of anyone reading medical reports into the record. If it exists, why isn't it just marked and exhibited and made part of the record? I get enough gruff from AC declaring I didn't consider an exhibit simply because it isn't cited in the record. The records are exhibited and in evidence. It's the rep just trying to stress what he considers to be favorable evidence. I certainly expect the rep to point out what they think is important in the record. However, they can do that by giving me the exhibit and page number. Respectfully - there is no way am I letting them read whole records into the record. You know why? Because I already read them in advance and I know how to go back and review and read them again. That’s part of my job. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Mar 9, 2023 23:42:54 GMT -5
The records are exhibited and in evidence. It's the rep just trying to stress what he considers to be favorable evidence. I certainly expect the rep to point out what they think is important in the record. However, they can do that by giving me the exhibit and page number. Respectfully - there is no way am I letting them read whole records into the record. You know why? Because I already read them in advance and I know how to go back and review and read them again. That’s part of my job. 😉 Years ago I was asking a claimant about a very bizarre incident that resulted in a state hospital stay of four months. Claimant denies incident happened. Rep looks puzzled says doesn’t remember seeing it in the file. I’m panicked thinking I’ve muddled up my notes and have wrong claimant. Dig around find it. Rep is Oh well that just shows strength of claim (duh) If anyone in the room has read the file, it’s the ALJ. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Mar 15, 2023 19:08:33 GMT -5
The records are exhibited and in evidence. It's the rep just trying to stress what he considers to be favorable evidence. Oh lawd no! Ain’t no one got time for that nonsense. |
|
