Introduction

• Author: David Traver
• Pages: 29-55

1-1

Chapter One

Introduction

§100 Format and Purpose of This Handbook

§101 History of Process Unification

§101.1 Something That Worked

§102 The Rulings Set Forth Broad Areas of Policy

§103 Social Security Rulings Are Binding

§103.1 Regulations Enforce the Rulings

§103.2 Case Law: The Supreme Court Enforces the Rulings

§103.3 Case Law: Are the Rulings Really Binding? The Skidmore/Chevron Conundrum

§104 Process Unification Rulings Commandments

§104.1 Practice Tip: How to Cite a Hyperlink

§104.2 Process Unification Ruling Hyperlinks

§104.3 Commandments in SSR 96-2p

§104.4 Commandments in SSR 96-3p

§104.5 Commandments in SSR 96-4p

§104.6 Commandments in SSR 96-5p

§104.7 Commandments in SSR 96-6p

§104.8 Commandments in SSR 96-7p

§104.9 Commandments in SSR 96-8p

§104.10 Commandments in SSR 96-9p

§105 Duty to Research

§100 Social Security Disability Advocate’s Handbook 1-28

§100 Format and Purpose of This

Handbook

This handbook gives Social Security disabil-

ity claimants’ representatives, attorneys and non-

attorneys practical ideas for applying the Process

Unification Rulings and other Social Security Rul-

ings in day-to-day representation of Social Security

disability claimants. Claimants’ representatives at all

levels of representation should use all of these tools,

including the Process Unification Rulings, in vigor-

ous pursuit of the rights of Social Security disability

claimants and beneficiaries.

Traver’s Social Security Disability Advocate’s

Handbook is intended to be used in conjunction with

the Internet. The Internet is an absolutely essential

tool in the advocate’s tool chest. As a result, hy-

perlinks are given to as many resources as possible.

Where there is a reference to a Social Security Rul-

ing or an Acquiescence Ruling, it is given with a hy-

perlink to the SSA website, or some other stable and

reliable Internet resource. Hyperlinks are not given

to the Code of Federal Regulations at the Social

Security Administration site because they are not

reliably updated there. Advocates should subscribe

to a reliable legal reference service such as Westlaw

or Lexis for such authorities. In addition, Google

Scholar is a free service that allows searching of case

law by Circuits or District Courts. It is available at

http://scholar.google.com/.

The appendices to this handbook contain sample

letters, forms, regulations, POMS and HALLEX sec-

tions, and vocational and other information supple-

menting the text of each of the following chapters.

§101 History of Process Unification

Perhaps because SSA is forever locked to an adju-

dication framework for disability determination, it has

been burdened with all of the inevitable limitations of

that framework. In 1994, SSA admitted the limitations

of its disability adjudication scheme included:

•The time it takes for us to adjudicate some

disability claims,

•The number of SSA and State agency em-

ployees who may be involved in processing

a claim initially and throughout the appeals

process,

•The lack of interaction between the claimant

and the decision maker, and

•The lack of thorough explanations, in many

cases, of the basis for the disability determi-

nations.

Notice of proposed rulemaking, New Disability

Claims Process, 66 Fed. Reg. 5494-5507 (January

19, 2001).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-01-19/

pdf/01-1442.pdf

In 1994, the methods to reach these goals would

include:

•Process Streamlining.

•New position added to the initial level to act

as the claimant’s single point of contact.

•Claimants better understand the program

and are more involved in the process.

•Process Unification. Adjudicators at all

levels of the process would use the same

standards for decision-making to make cor-

rect decisions in an easier, faster, and more

cost-efficient manner.

•Better use of the experience and expertise

of staff. New position added to support the

hearing process.

SSA History, “From program challenge to program

change.”

www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/ssa2000chapter4.html

Half a decade later, SSA hoped someday:

•To ensure that claims that should be allowed

are allowed at the earliest point in the process;

•To provide more opportunity for claimant

interaction with the decision maker; and

•To reduce the amount of time required pro-

cessing a claim to a final disability determi-

nation or decision.

Evaluation Report, Status of SSA’s Disability

Process Improvement Initiatives, Office of Inspector