Preliminary Sections

• Author: David Traver/David Ferrari
• Pages: 1-30

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY

ADVOCATE’S HANDBOOK

BY DAVID TRAVER, ESQ. & DAVID FERRARI, ESQ.

HIGHLIGHTS

This 16th revision of Social Security Disability Advocate’s Handbook introduces co-author David Ferrari—who

has represented more than 1,141 claimants at Social Security Administration disability hearings in 46 states and D.C.

during his career—joining long-time author David Traver in updating the work to ref‌lect the extensive changes made to

streamline the Process Unif‌ication Rulings, and to Social Security disability rules and case law.

NEW AND UPDATED FORMS

• §104.1a Form for Notice of 404.1512(a) Medical Records not Submitted Five Business Days Before the Hearing

• §1510.2.3 Sample Vocational Report Regarding U.S. Publishing Data

NEW AND UPDATED TEXT

CHAPTER 1

• §101.1 Changes Keep Coming. Discussion regarding updates to and applicability of the Process

Unif‌ication Rulings in light of rescinded SSRs. [NEW]

• §104.1 Practice Tip. Discussion on regulations concerning submission of all evidence and time to submit

evidence in support of claims.

• §104.11 Commandments in SSR 16-3p [NEW]

• §104.12 Commandments in SSR 17-2p [NEW]

CHAPTER 2

• §206.3 Kisor v. Wilkie. Discussion of the possible impact of the Supreme Court’s decision concerning

Federal Circuit interpretations of ambiguous language in regulations and the limitations the Kisor decision

imposes on the Auer v. Robbins deference doctrine. [NEW]

• §208.7 Smith v. Berryhill and f‌ilings to the Appeals Council. Discussion on the impact of the Supreme

Court’s decision concerning the timeliness of appeals. [NEW]

• §208.8 Lucia v. SEC and obtaining remands from the Appeals Council or Federal District Court.

Discussion of the Lucia decision and resulting SSR 19-1p in which the SSA acquiesced that all cases

decided by ALJs before July 16, 2018 and are pending before the Appeals Council are subject to a new

hearing with a new ALJ. [NEW]

• §210.8 National or Regional Cost of Living. Discussion on cost of living calculations in applications for the

EAJA fee. [NEW]

• §212.2 Culbertson v. Berryhill. Discussion of the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision concerning

reasonable fees for representing SSA disability cases. [NEW]

CHAPTER 3

• Recent SSRs [NEW]. Discussion on new SSRs of note.

• §303.1 SSR 16-1p Titles II and XVI: Fraud and Similar Fault Redeterminations Under Sections 205(u)

and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act

• §303.2 SSR 16-4p Titles II and XVI: Using Genetic Tests to Evaluate Disabilit y

• §303.3 SSR 17-1p Titles II and XVI: Reopening Based on Error on the Face of the Evidence — Effect of a

Decision By the Supreme Court of the United States Finding a Law That We Applied to Be Unconstitutional

• §303.4 SSR 17-3p Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Sickle Cell Disease (SCD)

• §303.5 SSR 19-3p Titles II and XVI: Requesting Reconsideration or Hearing by an Administrative Law Judge

• §303.6 SSR 19-4p Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Primary Headache Disorders

CHAPTER 5

• §500.2 Who is a Medical Source? Discussion on acceptable medical sources (AMS).

• §514 The Agency’s Duty to Develop the Record, Per SSR 17-4p. Discussion on regulation changes

effective March 27, 2017 that reduced the Agency’s obligation to develop the record.

• §515 82 FR 15263, New Regulations. Exploration of the impact of 82 FR 15263 (which went into effect

March 27, 2017) and its effect on SSRs. [NEW]

CHAPTER 6

• §§607-608.1. Discussion on rescinded SSR 96-4p.

CHAPTER 9

• §908.1 Few Cases Address SSR 17-2p. Exploration of cases that apply SSR 17-2p. [NEW]

CHAPTER 10

• §1000 Purpose of SSR 16-3p Versus Rescinded SSR 96-7p. [NEW]

• §Obesity. Discussion of rescinded SSR 02-1p and its replacement SSR 19-2p. [NEW]

CHAPTER 13

• §1302.1 Chavez v. Berryhill. Exploration of circuit court decision and interesting discussion on the unreliability

of vocational expert testimony concerning analysis of job numbers using the equal distribution method. [NEW]

CHAPTER 14

• §1911 Biestek v. Berryhill. Discussion on Supreme Court decision that no categorical rule requires a

vocational expert to provide copies of her paperwork used to present job numbers in order for her opinion

to be substantial evidence that supports an unfavorable decision. [NEW]

AND MORE!

We Welcome Your Feedback

Our most useful source of improvements is feedback from our subscribers, so if you have any comments, we would

be delighted to hear from you.

Revision Editor

James Publishing, Inc.

3505 Cadillac Ave., Suite P-101

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Visit us on the Internet at www.jamespublishing.com.