When awaiting a hearing, all claimants are offered a choice of which hearing type they would prefer: (1) in person or (2) videoconference. The videoconference hearing will typically occur with a judge located some distance away at a national hearing center (Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, etc.). The judge will see you live on a tv screen, and this is how you will see the judge.
The vast majority of SSDI attorneys advise their clients to proceed with an in person hearing. We find that it is much easier for a claimant to 'connect' with a judge in person, especially for an MS patient who may not have a visually obvious disability. Small issues, such as a client's issues walking into the hearing office, tremors, or the subtle signs of fatigue may be lost via video. Soft spoken claimants or individuals with speech impediments may have difficulty fully conveying their case. Further, experienced attorneys will often have a rapport with the local SSDI judges, allowing counsel to both prepare the claimant for the judge, and more accurately respond to the judge as the hearing proceeds.
It is worth noting that in many areas the local judges have a higher approval rate than the video hearing offices (e.g. 71% approval rate in southern New Jersey vs. 43% approval rate at the Chicago video hearing office). In a small minority of regions, the local judges have a lower approval rate (e.g. 25% approval rate in Alaska).
One of the few benefits offered by a video hearing is that the hearing may occur somewhat faster. There is no guarantee of faster scheduling, however.
Importantly, if you do not object to the video hearing, you are extremely likely to be given a video hearing. This objection notice is mailed out by the SSA approximately one month after the hearing is requested, and there are only 30 days permitted to return the SSA's letter objecting to the video hearing.
As exceptions to the above, I've seen claimants have bad experiences with local judges, and good experiences with video judges. You should be educated, however, on the general pros and cons before making this important decision.
Good luck!
The vast majority of SSDI attorneys advise their clients to proceed with an in person hearing. We find that it is much easier for a claimant to 'connect' with a judge in person, especially for an MS patient who may not have a visually obvious disability. Small issues, such as a client's issues walking into the hearing office, tremors, or the subtle signs of fatigue may be lost via video. Soft spoken claimants or individuals with speech impediments may have difficulty fully conveying their case. Further, experienced attorneys will often have a rapport with the local SSDI judges, allowing counsel to both prepare the claimant for the judge, and more accurately respond to the judge as the hearing proceeds.
It is worth noting that in many areas the local judges have a higher approval rate than the video hearing offices (e.g. 71% approval rate in southern New Jersey vs. 43% approval rate at the Chicago video hearing office). In a small minority of regions, the local judges have a lower approval rate (e.g. 25% approval rate in Alaska).
One of the few benefits offered by a video hearing is that the hearing may occur somewhat faster. There is no guarantee of faster scheduling, however.
Importantly, if you do not object to the video hearing, you are extremely likely to be given a video hearing. This objection notice is mailed out by the SSA approximately one month after the hearing is requested, and there are only 30 days permitted to return the SSA's letter objecting to the video hearing.
As exceptions to the above, I've seen claimants have bad experiences with local judges, and good experiences with video judges. You should be educated, however, on the general pros and cons before making this important decision.
Good luck!