Vermont advocates push for plain-language guides, clearer notices in Human Services Board fair hearings

Vermont Legal Aid's Disability Law Project told a legislative committee on H.92 that people with disabilities, and their families, face practical and procedural barriers when appealing state benefit denials or reductions to the Human Services Board (HSB) and urged the panel to require plain-language instructions, clearer hearing notices, and better pre-hearing exchanges.

The testimony, delivered by Kelly Kasmarski, director of the Disability Law Project at Vermont Legal Aid, and staff attorney Cammie Naylor, urged changes designed to make the HSB fair-hearing process usable by people who represent themselves and by parents and guardians who lack legal training.

The recommendations from Vermont Legal Aid center on three areas: revised plain-language materials for pro se appellants; clearer hearing notices that state the legal issue to be decided and list available accommodations; and earlier, more complete sharing of the administrative record and proposed exhibits so objections can be raised before a contested hearing.

"Appealing to the HSB is the only option available for someone who disagrees with a denial or reduction of services," Cammie Naylor said, describing why making the process accessible matters to clients who are often defending life-changing benefits such as developmental services, Katie Beckett Medicaid, or Choices for Care hours.

Naylor and Kasmarski detailed common obstacles. Naylor said many clients "don't know anything about the HSB" and, when they discover it, are often "confused about its purpose and how to access it, or they're too fearful or intimidated by the process to access it." Kasmarski urged a short, plain-language overview at the beginning of existing guidance, with the formal rules separated, a plain-language glossary, and a step-by-step primer sent with the appeal acknowledgment or first hearing notice.

Witnesses also recommended clearer notices to explain whether an initial event is a status conference or a fair hearing, to describe the specific issue to be decided, and to include explicit language about free interpreters and accommodations. "Notices should be improved to include plain language descriptions of the issues to be determined at hearing, information about interpreters, accommodations, and other resources available to appellants," Kasmarski said.

Committee members discussed a proposal to allow appellants to present their story largely uninterrupted, with department witnesses given the same opportunity afterward. Naylor cautioned that relaxing controls on evidence could allow irrelevant or inadmissible testimony into the record and make it harder for hearing officers to exclude material that should not inform the legal decision. She suggested stronger pre-hearing exchanges and earlier handling of objections so appellants can tell their story in the hearing without being surprised by excluded evidence.

On discovery and records, Naylor said Disability Law Project lawyers routinely request the department's administrative record and commonly exchange proposed exhibits in advance; she recommended formalizing that exchange and explaining in the initial materials "these are the records we used to make the decision." Committee member Representative Doug Bishop cited a rules provision (Fair Hearings 1000.3) that requires the department to make relevant records available but observed the language can be confusing in practice.

The committee also heard practical numbers and resource constraints. Naylor said a DLP advocate "estimated that for every one person we represent at their hearing, there are about seven others who contact VLA for whom we can only provide advice." A staff member who provided HSB statistics told the committee that about "90 percent of people who have a favorable outcome are unrepresented," a fact committee members said both highlights appellants' success and underscores the need for accessible procedural materials.

Witnesses asked the committee to consult Vermont Legal Aid counsel as bills are drafted; Chair Teresa Wood said the committee might adopt only a short bill now and would welcome further input. No formal action was taken during the hearing; committee members signaled they will consider statutory language changes and additional outreach to the HSB and departments about pre-hearing procedures and plain-language materials.

The committee scheduled further business and follow-ups; H.92 remains under consideration as members and staff weigh how to balance accessibility for pro se appellants with the need to preserve orderly adjudication and evidentiary rules for hearings that can be appealed to the courts.