RSA-227 for FY-2025: Submission #17

Provide some examples of some interesting cases during the past fiscal year. In re TP

TP is a recipient of Social Security benefits and eligible for VR services as a person with a significant disability. TP has numerous disabilities that result in fatigue, including Myalgic encephalomyelitis/Chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), Postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), Gastroparesis, Attention Deficit Disorder, and Major Depression. TP is eligible for services and asked VR to approve an employment goal of becoming a Certified Lab Technician and Consultant through a regenerative agriculture program through the Soil Food Web (SFW) School. SFW Certified Lab Technicians and Consultants were able to test soil and manage regenerative soil projects with clients primarily from home. TP sought education services at the SFW School for an occupational skills upgrade from horticulturist so that she can become employed through short term contracts and freelance work working primarily from home so that she could perform the work and manage fatigue and other symptoms. VR argued that TP had not provided sufficient labor market information supporting the need for education.

Despite providing extensive labor market information, including a report and supplemental report from a labor market expert, VR did not approve the goal or training at the Soil Food Web School on the grounds that: (1) she had not established that she could not find employment with her bachelor’s degree in environmental studies, (2) if she did need more education, she could go to a community college or university, and (3) the SFW School did not satisfy the education policy because it was not approved by the U.S. Department of Education or Arizona Post-Secondary Commission.

DRAZ represented TP through the informal review and mediation. DRAZ represented TP at the hearing. Prior to the Pre-Hearing conference, DRAZ arranged for TP to receive an independent vocational evaluation. The labor market expert concluded that TP needed an occupational skills upgrade and that the Soil Food Web School would provide the necessary upgrade. VR did not relent and continued to deny the tuition at the SFW School.

DRAZ represented at the fair hearing before the DES Office of Appeals. DRAZ prepared a set of proposed stipulations for efficiency during the hearing that VR agreed to. DRAZ and VR jointly filed the proposed stipulations that the Tribunal approved. DRAZ prepared a pre- hearing legal memo and filed with the Tribunal to present the federal statutes and regulations as well as VR regulations and policy at issue in this matter. DRAZ also sought a reasonable accommodation from the Tribunal for the hearing to be set for afternoons because the nature of TP’s chronic fatigue is worse in the morning. The Tribunal approved the reasonable accommodation request. The administrative hearing was held over a series of five days in December 2023 and January 2024. During the hearing, the parties’ counsel made opening statements and called multiple witnesses - VR called two witnesses, the VR Supervisor and VR Assistant Program Manager, and DRAZ called TP, the forensic labor market expert, an individual who completed the Soil Food Web School and set up his own successful business in which he worked primarily remotely, and the Soil Food Web’s Quality Assurance Manager.

The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on March 4, 2024, affirming VR’s decision declining TP’s employment goal and her request to attend the Soil Food Web School stating she has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that VR erred in these decisions. On March 22, 2024, DRAZ filed a request for a Department of Economic Security (DES) Director’s Review of the Tribunal’s Decision. The DES Director issued its decision on May 15, 2024, affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in favor of VR. The DES Director’s Review found that the record did not show TP’s employment goal demonstrated strong local growth supported by labor market information, her employment goal was achievable, her requested training complies with VR policies, or that a policy exception was proper for allowing her to attend the SFW School.

On June 19, 2024, DRAZ filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court appealing the DES Director’s decision based on the strength of the factual record and legal errors made by the DES Director. The parties filed a joint stipulated motion seeking a continuance on the date by which VR must respond to the lawsuit to permit settlement negotiations to proceed.

On January 31, 2025, the parties settled the matter. VR agreed to approve TP’s employment goal to become a Plant and Soil Scientist and to pay for TP to attend the Soil Food Web School for the Foundation Courses, Certified Soil Lab Technician, and Soil Consultant. VR also included the following goods and services on the Individualized Employment (IEP): an assistive technology evaluation, the required microscope and camera necessary for completing the school requirements and for her career objectives, and the supplies to do her own final regenerative agriculture product. Since the settlement, VR arranged for the assistive technology assessment. The AT evaluator completed the assessment and made recommendations for a laptop and accessories. VR has approved all the recommended AT equipment and approved a workstation evaluation as TP will be using a home workstation to complete school and launch her career. TP has enrolled in the Soil Food Web School and successfully completed 4 modules of the training program.

In re BR

BR is a 40-year-old woman living with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, PTSD, depression, and anxiety. BR came to VR for assistance to become a paralegal. She required tuition assistance to obtain a post-bachelor paralegal certificate. She was no longer able to continue working in her first career because of her disability. Initially, BR applied for services in February 2024. Despite providing all the necessary documentation for eligibility, VR requested that BR sign an extension to the eligibility determination period. BR did not sign the extension, however, and was soon found eligible. Once eligibility was determined, no further action has been taken to develop BR’s Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), apart from the completion of the functional capacity evaluation in October 2024. Eight months later, BR had not received any actual services to assist in obtaining the training and services she needs to become a paralegal. Then, VR further delayed approval of BBR’s IPE until a psychological-educational evaluation is completed.

The VR Counselor and Supervisor told BR that per VR policy, all clients seeking education must complete a functional capacity evaluation and a psychological-educational evaluation. DRAZ wrote a letter to the VR Supervisor and the Assistant Program Manager, explaining that the applicable VR Policy does not have a blanket requirement that both assessments must be done in every case and instead states that assessment activities are to be conducted only as needed to support the addition of education or training to the plan. Because BR earned a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, completed coursework at the master’s level, and possesses professional-level work experience, DRAZ asked that she not be required to undergo a psycho-educational evaluation because it was unnecessary. As a result of DRAZ advocacy, VR rescinded the requirement and approved BR’s IPE.


In re SC

SC is a 64-year-old man who is blind and is self-employed in a business in which he trains other people with disabilities about how to use specific assistive technology. SC and SC’s wife are the only two employees in the business. When SC opened his service request with DRAZ, he wanted assistance addressing two conflicts: (1) the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency’s decision to deny a new MacPro computer to replace his existing MacPro that was now obsolete and necessary for expansion of his business, and (2) the significant delay in VR approving his Business Plan for submission to VR’s internal Self-Employment Review Committee (SERC). VR denied the new MacPro computer because it was a replacement from one he had received 10 years ago from VR. VR cited policy that the new business was responsible for paying for his reasonable accommodation under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and therefore, VR would not pay for additional assistive technology.

DRAZ wrote an advocacy letter to VR explaining the policy did not apply in this case because Title I of the ADA did not apply to SC’s business because his company is an employer with 15 or less employees and small employers are not covered.

When VR did not rescind its decision before a scheduled mediation, DRAZ represented SC at mediation in which a Program Manager who had not made the previous decision attended. mediation. Mediation was successful and under the terms of the Mediation Agreement, VR agreed to purchase the MacPro Computer with all features and components that SC had requested. SC has now received the equipment. VR also agreed to submit SC’s business plan for presentation to the SERC in October 2024. At the October 2024 meeting, the SERC asked SC to provide some additional details in his Business Plan and resubmit the Plan. VR authorized additional hours with a business consultant for SC to make those additional changes. Resubmission of the plan is pending.


In re JT

JT is client of the state vocational rehabilitation (VR) and is approved with the employment goal of lawyer. JT has low vision of a recent onset. JT came to DRAZ because he had a conflict with VR about (1) his Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) only lists education at community college which does not match his goal, (2) he became unhoused when a VR vendor providing low vision training terminated him from the program because he was attending school and could not attend their program full time, (3) he required part-time low vision services so he could attend school, and (4) his VR counselor is openly hostile towards him.

DRAZ addressed the issue of maintenance payment for rent to avoid JT becoming unhoused if VR withdrew support to pay for housing. After the VR vendor abruptly terminated services because JT asked to attend part-time, VR provided emergency maintenance (rent) for the summer. However, VR threatened to terminate housing assistance after the summer. DRAZ staff attended meetings with VR to determine what information VR wanted before they continued providing maintenance. DRAZ worked with the client to obtain the information and submit it to VR. Once the information was completed, DRAZ attended meetings and requested that maintenance be added to his IPE for the semester as he was enrolled full- time in school and needed housing to succeed in his studies. In December 2024, after providing maintenance for 12 months, VR sent JT a decision letter that they would be ending rental assistance in 6 months. JT timely appealed the decision and requested mediation. DRAZ agreed to represent him in the mediation to attempt to preserve continued maintenance to pay for rental housing so he can have stable housing.

In February 2025, DRAZ represented JT at mediation and the parties successfully reached an agreement. The terms of the agreement included extending maintenance for housing for an additional 6 months and an additional year of payment for internet service. Within 6 months, JT will receive his SSDI monthly benefits and back award in which he can use to pay for his rent going forward.

In re CD

CD is a 38-year-old man living with ADHD, dyslexia, depression and anxiety and a client of the state VR program. CD had a disagreement with VR because the agreed-upon job development services were not helping him maintain a job. Although CD applied for and obtained jobs, he was unable to keep his job due to his migraines, limited ability to read, and difficulty with having a good relationship with supervisors. DRAZ reviewed his Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) and VR records and held a consultation with CD. During the consultation, DRAZ explored various types of employment goals that VR could support, including self-employment, customized employment and supported employment. CD explained that he has been more successful when working in self-employment. DRAZ discussed that pursuing an employment outcome of self-employment may be a better way to manage his work and migraines and avoid conflicts with management.

After reviewing three initial business concepts prepared by CD using AI technology, DRAZ scheduled a second consultation with CD to explain the self-employment process and VR’s policies, including allowable and non-allowable expenses, types of businesses VR will not support and the steps in the process. During the consultation, DRAZ also explained which of CD’s proposed business ventures that VR would be more likely to approve than others based on their written policy and labor market trends.

Following DRAZ’s consultations, DRAZ asked VR for a meeting to present the request for a change in placement. DRAZ notified VR that CD wished to convert his regular IPE to a self-employment IPE with a self-employment goal that included event photography. CD’s Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor agreed to amend his IPE and approved the proposed employment outcome and refer CD for work with one of VR’s vendors that provides business consulting to develop the plan.