|
|
|
|
 |
|
CAP
Publications
|
Interesting Cases
Case One
This CAP client was advised
by her OVR counselor that she would not be a particularly good
candidate for the post-secondary training she wished to pursue.
At one point, the VR counselor verbally approved the client’s
plan, and then denied it.
The client was confused and
contacted CAP for help. Upon receiving her Release, the CAP
advocate telephoned the OVR counselor for general information
and requested copies of her OVR case file including the
counselor’s notes, her IPE, and other information and
requirements needed to proceed. The case was thoroughly reviewed
and a strategy was developed to prove, in fact, that this young
woman was indeed capable of pursuing her employment goal.
Over time the CAP advocate
noticed a surprising change in the clients understanding of the
VR process and her own self-advocacy skills. With each passing
conversation we had, the advocate could feel her self-esteem
slowly return. The VR counselor was totally shocked by this
development. She had steadily continued to pursue her dream.
Because not only was she dealing with undertaking the challenge
of school, she also faced other challenges, i.e., finding an
apartment and arranging transportation to and from school and
additional services and accommodations needed to make this a
successful journey. With help from an advocate from the Center
for Independent Living, she managed to accomplish these
roadblocks.
After a several weeks of
negotiation with her OVR counselor, approval for training was
granted, and a new IPE was developed to reflect her employment
goal.
Case Two
This case is
interesting in because it shows the success of self‑advocacy.
This client is pursuing training in Human Development and Family
Studies at Penn State. She is in her last year. She has a mental
illness and a neurological disorder. OVR has provided funding
for her schooling thus far. However, this semester they decided
not to provide her the previous amount of funding. CAP explained
to the client the process of making a written request for a
waiver. CAP spent some time detailing to her some of the
specific facts she should include in her waiver request based on
her specific situation.
She seemed to understand the process of requesting a waiver and
the information she needed to provide to her counselor. CAP
encouraged her to work together with the counselor on this
request to help the counselor justify the waiver request so she
can complete the waiver request form and provide a brief
supportive narrative to the District Administrator.
The client contacted CAP and was happy to inform her advocate
that her good self-advocacy efforts combined with the support of
the counselor helped in getting approval of her waiver.
Once again, it is clear how essential self-advocacy is in
pursuing OVR services. Cases like this have an added layer of
success for the client. Case Three
This individual contacted
CAP with an OVR concern. She is a double amputee (right foot and
left arm to shoulder). She lost both appendages in a farming
accident when she was three (3) years old. Her main concern,
however, was for a new restorative foot only. The prosthesis she
used was about five years old and badly worn out making it
nearly impossible to maintain her two part-time jobs. She is an
assistant at a Dollar Saver Store and waitresses on weekends at
a restaurant.
She was currently using a
"traditional" prosthesis that is fabricated to restore function
with little emphasis on aesthetic appearance…in other words,
the robotic or mannequin look. The other restoration is
"silicone", and she chose it because of the more natural look
and functionality. In other words it would improve her gait and
posture, ease her lower back pain, relieve pressure on bone
spurs and other sensitive areas, and help protect the tissue
from further damage. The only draw back, this prosthesis was
twice the cost of the traditional one causing OVR to deny it.
CAP contacted the OVR
counselor and requested copies of her file. After receiving the
copies, the file was reviewed and recommendations were made. To
our client we suggested she file an appeal for an Informal
Administrative Review (IAR) and sent her the appropriate
paperwork to work with her to understand the appeal process. The
appeal was filed and CAP recommended she get a well-written
letter from her doctor specifying how the silicone prosthetic is
medically necessary. She did. Since she did not have any medical
insurance either, CAP sent her information about Medical
Assistance for Workers with Disabilities (MAWD) and encouraged
her to sign-up for the plan. She did.
After several weeks of
advocacy and additional information that CAP provided to the OVR
counselor, the decision was reversed by the District
Administrator and our client not only won the award for the
silicone foot, but in addition, OVR was going to have her
assessed for a left arm prosthesis as well.
This case definitely
exemplifies the value of compromise and creative thinking in
coming to a resolution.
The client is a young lady
who is blind and working part-time training blind individuals on
computer systems for various companies, such as Verizon, AT&T,
etc. Depending on where these offices are located, traveling is
sometimes involved. My client requested the Trekker, a GPS
system, so she can safely and confidentially travel, especially
out of state. The BVS agency and the employer were going back
and forth as to whom should pay for this device. In the
meantime, my client was not able to work as much as she was
needed because her traveling was limited. While the employer was
discussing how they could not afford to purchase this device,
and BVS was discussing how they wanted to provide further
orientation and mobility training, my client came up with the
idea of everyone helping to pay for this device since it would
be a "win, win, win" if she was able to safely maintain her job.
So, BVS agreed to pay 50%, her employer agreed to pay 25% and
she agreed to pay 25%.
Although more mobility is
not a bad idea, my client has had a lot of mobility training.
When you are in an unfamiliar state, by yourself, going from the
airport to your hotel, etc., the GPS system is definitely
invaluable in helping my client travel safely.
This individual contacted
CAP for a second time because OVR denied him financial support
necessary for him to complete a PhD in Psychology. His
vocational goal is "Licensed Clinical Psychologist". In
Pennsylvania, a PhD is part of the licensure requirements for
practicing clinical psychologists. This individual also
requested financial support for several student organization
memberships and supplemental courses to help him become employed
upon completion of his degree. OVR agreed to provide financial
support for the basic degree, but denied funding for the
memberships and additional courses. The customer appealed. After
failed attempts to resolve this matter informally, an Impartial
Hearing was held. The customer was successful on all aspects of
his appeal at the hearing. OVR then appealed to the reviewing
official where a decision has yet to be made. This case is
interested because it illustrates how CAP can assist a customer
in navigating the administrative appeal process.
This individual contacted
CAP when OVR refused to provide financial support for learning
disability supplemental support classes at his college. The
customer has multiple learning disabilities and chose this
particular college because of the specialized support services
it offers to students with learning disabilities. Initially, OVR
denied support for the classes on the basis that the customer's
expected family contribution toward school had not yet been met.
However, upon review, OVR was willing to view this expense as
"exceptional" and directly related to the customer's disability.
As a result, OVR granted a waiver of its general "college
policy" so that these classes could be funded by OVR. All of
this was accomplished through a series of informal phone
discussions, which were then documented with a confirming
letter. This case is interesting because it illustrates how
customer concerns can often be resolved at the lowest level
possible, if the parties think creatively. This individual contacted CAP when BBVS chose not to support his request to attend a summer program for blind students. This individual appealed the decision, and an IAR was held promptly. In preparation for the IAR, it was discovered that this individual and his family were not familiar with the BBVS process. The individual's case had just recently been transferred from the social services program to the vocational rehabilitation program. Unfortunately, the individual had not been found eligible for VR services at the time he requested support for the summer program. Although VR could not support the summer program for an applicant for VR services, the agency agreed to expedite the eligibility determination. This case is interesting because it illustrates the importance of effective communication in the vocational rehabilitation process, and the important role that CAP can play in facilitating this kind of communication. |
