Case 1: Client, male, 36 years old with ADHD, scoliosis with bulging discs, and plantar fasciitis, was denied assistance with a modification that would raise and lower his computer on a desk, a standing desk monitor rise, allowing him to change positions every 30 minutes to accommodate his back and feet issues while he searched for employment. The client could not apply for jobs as he experienced pain, and his pain was increasing because he didn’t have this device to accommodate his needs. He was seeking an office job and would need the same equipment for employment. The TWS-VRS counselor denied the request stating that the client was not employed and the service could only be provided for an employment. CAP investigated his case and found out that his TWS-VRS counselor had medical information informing her of his back issues, but she claimed she did not have records to support his request. In addition, she had not taken any action to communicate with the doctor regarding the client’s request. CAP asked the TWS-VRS counselor to communicate with his doctor to obtain additional information needed to proceed in considering the request. A Functional Capacity Assessment (FCA) was conducted as well as an assistive technology evaluation with recommendations for a desk, the desk monitor riser, as well as a cushioned floor mat. TWS-VRS agreed to pay for the desk and additional recommended accommodations. TWS-VRS also provided special shoes to address the issues he had with Plantar Fasciitis. Communication between the client and the TWS-VRS counselor improved. All the client’s issues were resolved.
Case 2: Client, male, age 55 who is a recipient of Social Security (SS), with disabilities of mental illness, ADHD, chronic pain syndrome, and arthritis, contacted CAP a year after TWS-VRS closed his case without reaching an agreement for a plan for self-employment. CAP investigated his complaint and it appeared TWS-VRS had supported the client in college to become a photographer but they could not agree on what equipment was needed and where he would live to begin his employment. TWS-VR would not approve the plan he submitted. His case had been closed, but TWS-VR continued communication with the client if he were to provide an updated business plan. CAP requested a new application for services, and attempts were made to work with the same office/counselor but this proved to be problematic. A request was made to move to the case to a new office and management. This was approved. A different counselor began working with the client and he was referred to work with a Certified Business Technical Assistance Consultant (CBTAC) to help him write his business plan. Client is receiving support, advice, assistance and help writing his business plan and his TWS-VRS counselor is working closely with him to help him submit a complete self-employment plan the agency can review.
Case 3: Client, female, in her 20’swith a disability of cerebral palsy, utilizes a power wheelchair, contacted CAP after she was informed the modifications on her vehicle would not pass state inspection. Before a vehicle can be released to a client, it has to pass national safety standards for vehicle modifications. Based on the weight of her vehicle, it would not pass the inspection. CAP investigated her case and the problem. CAP requested communication and collaboration with TWS-VRS, the vehicle modification provider, the vehicle lift provider, and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, (TTI) inspectors to work together to see what, if any, solutions could be adapted on the vehicle. After exhausting all other possibilities, the end result was for TWS-VRS to remove the modifications to her vehicle that would have allowed her to drive. The client purchased a vehicle that was recommended and agreed upon by all parties as to what would accommodate the equipment she would need. The modifications were made to her new vehicle and the client is now driving safely in her modified van.
Case 4: Client, male, in his 40’s who is a Social Security recipient with a disability of Autism had attempted education in college and needed further counseling and guidance on his vocational goal and how to achieve the goal. He had a counselor who was not willing to provide this guidance. Client contacted CAP. Client had just finished a semester of college when he contacted CAP, and in investigating his case, CAP discovered the client had paid for the previous semester of college instead of TWS-VRS. The service was listed on his Individualized Plan for Employment, (IPE) and he had provided the TWS-VRS counselor the information in advance so VR could have issued the service authorization prior to the semester starting. The client had reported to the TWS-VRS counselor that he had put the semester tuition (a month early) on a credit card to hold his registration at the college so his classes would not be dropped. The TWS-VRS counselor interpreted that to mean he had paid his tuition and she could not reimburse him. CAP brought this issue with up the counselor, supervisor, and manager and the Regional office that the service should have been paid by TWS-VRS because it was listed on the IPE as a service TWS-VRS would provide, and he was a Social Security recipient and should not be required to participate in the cost of services. The agency had plenty of time to issue the service authorization and the client would have been reimbursed by the school, not TWS-VRS. All levels in the informal process did not agree to go back and issue the service authorization to the school. CAP filed an appeal. The Legal department looked at the appeal, and agreed to pay for the semester in question. The Service Authorization was issued and the client’s account credited. Additionally, CAP requested a change in counselor and a successful relationship was established with a new TWS-VRS counselor who was willing to provide counseling and guidance to the client to explore vocational goals and a direction better suited for him.
Case 5: Client, female, in her 60’s, with orthopedic problems, chronic pain and Migraines, contacted CAP because she had applied for services requesting help with payment and resources to help pay some of her utility bills at her local Independent Living Center. Initially they told her funds were available. She did not hear back from them for over a month so she called again. She was told at that time funds were no longer available. She called CAP. CAP investigated the issue and discovered that through support from the CARES Act the ILC could assist the client, and the ILC was not out of funds. It appeared the process at the ILC was to provide this assistance twice a month. CAP encouraged communication with the ILC and the client to clarify the needs the client had, and the ILC stepped up to develop an Independent Living Plan (ILP) with the client to provide the supports she needed timely. The client’s issues were resolved.