The Social Security Administration over the past couple years has given notice to more and more claimants that their hearing is being held via video teleconference. A claimant would go to the office where the hearing is being held and instead of the judge being in person, he/she would be on a video screen. The claimant and the judge can see each other and can have a real-time conversation. The claimant’s representative can be with the claimant, and the expert(s) may be with the claimant, phoning in, or with the judge at a remote location. While this can add convenience and possibly expediency to the adjudication of a claim, it may not be in the best interest of every claimant.
First, let’s explore the advantages to a Video Teleconference hearing. Many states, such as Iowa and Minnesota, only have one Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR), which are Social Security’s formal hearing offices. This requires great expense and effort on the part of many claimants to have to travel several hours, and often have to stay overnight, in order to get to their hearing. Many claimants are homeless or otherwise of limited means, so transportation and such travel may be impossible. As more and more District Offices get outfitted with the technology, these Offices are now able to be a hearing site for many claimants, allowing for greater ease of travel. A claimant in Duluth, MN would have a much easier time getting to the Duluth, MN District Office then the Minneapolis ODAR.
The other advantage to a Video Teleconference hearing is that it allows judges from other ODARs to handle claimants from other states. This has allowed judges from the National Hearing Center in St. Louis, MO to perform hearings for claimants all around the country. This allows more claimants to be heard, diminishing the wait time for claimants across the board.
For many claimants who have the means to make it to their respective ODAR, and are able to deal with the wait time, a Video Teleconference hearing has several disadvantages. Claimants, experts and the Administrative Law Judge are able to hear one another is through a microphone system or telephone system. If either of these systems breaks down neither the Judge, experts, or claimant will be able to hear one another clearly. Furthermore, the record of the hearing is kept via audio recording, thus, if any audio technology for Video Teleconferencing fails, it will hinder the accurate recording needed for future reference by the claimant, the judge, the representative and, if necessary, the Appeals Council. Furthermore, if the technology breaks completely, the claimant will not be able to have his/her hearing as scheduled, and could cause further delay to a hearing that the claimant waited many months for.
In addition, a Video Teleconference deprives claimants of the reassurance of a live, in person conversation. Many claimants may not be able to fully handle, or grasp a live conversation through a video monitor. This could mean that many claimants may not be fully aware that this is the hearing that they have been waiting for, because they are not looking at an in person judge.
Finally, several claimants having a Video Teleconference hearing are often times getting a judge from a different Federal Circuit. Social Security is governed by Federal Law, and different regions of the county are parts of different. For instance, St. Louis, MO is in the 8th Circuit, but Eau Claire, WI is in the 7th Circuit. These circuits can have two different standards on several aspects of Social Security Law. Thus, a judge in St. Louis, MO, hearing a case taking place at the Eau Claire, WI District Office may not know or be able to apply to the correct federal standard for the Wisconsin claimant, hindering the claimant’s ability to have a fair hearing.
Procedural Due Process, under our Constitution, requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. If the technology and circumstances of a Video Teleconference hearing prevent a claimant from being heard, then the method hinders the government’s obligation under the Constitution, despite its benefits.
For many claimants, a Video Teleconference hearing may be ideal to ease the travel burden, and possible ease on wait time for the hearing itself. For other claimants, it can harm their ability to be heard. For the claimants who feel that they are disadvantaged by a Video Teleconference hearing, they can object to the hearing in writing to the ODAR and request a hearing with an in person judge. If ODAR grants the request, the claimant gains all the advantages of an in person hearing, but, in many cases, have a longer wait time for the hearing, and possible longer travel.
