Index to Rulings

• Author: David Traver
• Pages: 404-482

Index to Rulings

Index to Rulings A

Abilities or aptitudes (worker traits), distinguished from acquired work skills, SSR 82-41

Acceptable medical sources:

• Considering opinions and other evidence from sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” in disabil-

ity claims; considering decisions on disability by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies, SSR

06-03p

Acquiescence, agency statement of general policy, SSR 96-1p

Acquiescence Rulings, applicability of:

• Acquiescence Rulings apply to all levels of agency adjudication, SSR 96-1p

• As explained in SSA’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.985(b), 410.670c(b), and 416.1485(b), if SSA makes

an administrative determination or decision on a claim between the date of a circuit court decision and the

date of issuance of an AR for that decision, the claimant, upon request, is permitted to have the claim read-

judicated by demonstrating that application of the AR could change the result, SSR 96-1p

• SSA acquiesces only in decisions of the federal circuit courts—not in decisions of federal district courts

within a circuit, SSR 96-1p

• Unless and until an AR for a circuit court holding has been issued, SSA adjudicates other claims within that

circuit by applying its nationwide policy, SSR 96-1p

Acquiescence Rulings:

• AR 86-5(9), Leschniok v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1983) Necessity of a Determination under Sec-

tions 225(b) and/or 1631(a)(6) of the Social Security Act for a Disability Benefits Recipient Engaged in

an Approved Vocational Rehabilitation Program Prior to Cessation of His/Her Benefits Based on Medical

Recovery—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

• AR 90-7(9), Ruff v. Sullivan, Dkt. No. 89-35402 (9th Cir. 1990)—Assessment of Residual Functional Ca-

pacity in Disabled Widow’s Cases—Title II of the Social Security Act (Rescinded)

• AR 91-1(5), Lidy v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1990)—Right to Subpoena an Examining Physician

for Cross-examination Purposes—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

• AR 92-2(6), Difford v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 910 F.2d 1316 (6th Cir. 1990), reh’g de-

nied February 7, 1991—Scope of Review on Appeal in a Medical Cessation of Disability Case—Titles II

and XVI of the Social Security Act

• AR 92-7(9), Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.1990) Effect of Initial Determination Notice

Language on the Application of Administrative Finality—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

• AR 97-4(9), Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1988)—Effect of a Prior Final Decision That a Claimant

is Not Disabled, And of Findings Contained Therein, On Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim Arising

Under the Same Title of the Social Security Act—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

• AR 98-3(6), Dennard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 907 F.2d 598 (6th Cir. 1990)—Effect

of a Prior Finding of the Demands of Past Work on Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim Arising

Under the Same Title of the Social Security Act—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

• AR 98-4(6), Drummond v. Commissioner of Social Security, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997)—Effect of Prior

Findings on Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim Arising Under the Same Title of the Social

Security Act—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

H-405 Index to Rulings

• AR 99-4(11), Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983)—Judicial Review of an Appeals

Council Dismissal of a Request for Review of an Administrative Law Judge Decision —Titles II and XVI

of the Social Security Act

• AR 00-1(4), Albright v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999)

(Interpreting Lively v. Secretary of Health and Human Services); Effect of Prior Disability Findings on Ad-

judication of a Subsequent Disability Claim—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

• AR 01-1(3), Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000)—Using the Grid Rules as a Framework for Deci-

sionmaking When an Individual’s Occupational Base Is Eroded by a Nonexertional Limitation—Titles II

and XVI of the Social Security Act.

• AR 03-1(7), Blakes v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2003)—Cases Involving Sections 12.05 and 112.05

of the Listing of Impairments That Are Remanded By a Court for Further Proceedings Under Titles II and

XVI of the Social Security Act.

• AR 04-1(9), Howard on behalf of Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) — Applicability of the

Statutory Requirement for Pediatrician Review in Childhood Disability Cases to the Hearings and Appeals

Levels of the Administrative Review Process — Title XVI of the Social Security Act.

• AR 05-1(9), Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2004), reh’g denied (9th Cir. Dec. 14,

2004)—Applicability of State Law and the Social Security Act in Determining Whether a Child Conceived

By Artificial Means after an Insured Person’s Death is Eligible for Child’s Insurance Benefits—Title II of

the Social Security Act. Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005): Determining Whether an Individual

is a Fugitive Felon Under the Social Security Act (Act) — Titles II and XVI of the Act.

ADA, see, Americans With Disabilities Act

Additional and significant work-related limitation of function:

• Childhood disability claims—A speech impairment may satisfy the criterion for a physical or other men-

tal impairment imposing “additional and significant limitation of function” under Listings 112.05D and

112.05F when it causes more than minimal limitation of function. To satisfy this criterion, a child’s problems

in speech must be separate from his/her mild mental retardation, SSR 98-1p

Administrative finality:

• Inapplicable if good cause for missing the deadline to request administrative review is established based on

mental incapacity, SSR 91-5p

• Inapplicable if good cause is found for missing the deadline to request administrative review due to state-

ments in the notice of initial or reconsideration determination concerning the right to request administrative

review and the option to file a new application, SSR 95-1p

• Waiver of the time limits for reopening and revising final agency determinations when the notice of the

initial determination did not explicitly state that the failure to seek reconsideration results in a final determi-

nation, and the claimant did not pursue a timely appeal, AR 92-7(9)

• See also, Res judicata

Administrative law judge:

• Acquiescence Rulings apply to administrative law judges, SSR 96-1p

“Administrative notice” of the existence of other work, the medical-vocational guidelines, SSR 83-46c

• By “administrative notice” we mean our recognition that various authoritative publications identify occupa-

tions which exist in the national economy; these sources are listed in sections 404.1566 and 416.966 of the

regulations, SSR 83-10

• See also, Capability to do other work

• See also, Medical-vocational guidelines and rules (the Grids)

Adverse medical-vocational profiles presumptive of an inability to make a vocational adjustment to other work (or

any work):

Social Security Disability Advocate’s Handbook H-406

• Adverse medical-vocational profiles must be considered before a disability decisionmaker refers to Ap-

pendix 2 of Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 to determine whether a claimant can do work which exists in

significant numbers in the national economy, considering the interaction of the claimant’s residual functional

capacity (RFC), age, education, and work experience, SSR 82-63

• First adverse profile (the “worn-out worker”)—The claimant must have a marginal education (6th grade

or less) and long work experience (i.e., 35 years or more) limited to the performance of arduous, unskilled

physical labor which can no longer be performed because of a severe impairment(s), SSR 82-63

» NOTE: Isolated, brief, or remote periods of experience in semiskilled or skilled work, however, would not

preclude the applicability of these regulations when such experience did not result in skills which enhance

the person’s present ability to do lighter work. Also, periods of semiskilled or skilled work may come within

the provisions of these regulations if it is clear that the skill acquired is not readily transferable to lighter

work and makes no meaningful contribution to the person’s ability to do any work within his or her present

functional capacity. (See examples in sections 404.1562/416.962.), SSR 82-63

• Second adverse profile (the worker of advanced age with no relevant work experience)—Generally,

where an individual of advanced age with no relevant work experience has a limited education or less, a

finding of an inability to make a vocational adjustment to substantial work will be made, provided his or

her impairment(s) is severe, i.e., significantly limits his or her physical or mental capacity to perform basic

work-related functions, SSR 82-63

• See also, SSR 03-3p

Age:

• Advancing age decreases the possibility of making a successful vocational adjustment to other work, SSR

82-41; SSR 03-3p

• Age and body habitus (i.e., natural body build, physique, constitution, size, and weight, insofar as they are

unrelated to the individual’s medically determinable impairment(s) and related symptoms) are not factors in

assessing RFC in initial claims, SSR 96-8p

• As a vocational factor in the medical-vocational rules, SSR 83-10; SSR 83-11

• As a vocational factor in the sequential evaluation, SSR 86-8

• “Borderline situation,” defined, SSR 82-46c

• Evaluation of disability and blindness in initial claims for individuals age 65 or older, SSR 03-3p

• Mechanical application of age categories of medical-vocational rules is precluded in “borderline situations,”

SSR 82-46c; SSR 83-46c

• Use of chronological age, constitutionality, SSR 82-46c

Agency medical and psychological consultants:

• State agency medical and psychological consultants are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who

are experts in the evaluation of the medical issues in disability claims under the Act, SSR 96-6p

• See also, Findings of state agency medical and psychological consultants

AIDS:

• Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); duration requirement presumptively met if individual has an impair-

ment that meets or equals one of the listed criteria required in Listings 14.08 or 114.08 (the HIV Listings),

SSR 93-2p

Alcoholism and drug addiction, evaluation of, SSR 82-60

Aliens, determining disability onset for purposes of applying income deeming provision, SSR 83-20

• See also, “Qualified” aliens

Alternate sitting and standing, need for:

• An individual may need to alternate the required sitting of sedentary work by standing (and, possibly, walk-

ing) periodically. Where this need cannot be accommodated by scheduled breaks and a lunch period, the

occupational base for a full range of unskilled sedentary work will be eroded. The extent of the erosion will