(603) 647-2600

Free Case Evaluation

Use this form to request a complimentary case evaluation or call (603) 647-2600.

Social Security Rulings: Most Frequently Used

Published February 3rd, 2014 in Patch & FitzGerald News

SSR 06-03p:


Titles II and XVI: Considering Opinions and Other Evidence from Sources Who Are Not “Acceptable Medical Sources” in Disability Claims; Considering Decisions on Disability by Other Governmental and Nongovernmental Agencies.

PURPOSE To clarify how we consider opinions from sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” and how we consider decisions by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies on the issue of disability or blindness.


SSR 82-46c:


SECTIONS 223(d) and 1614(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 423(d) and 1382c(a)(3))
DISABILITY — AGE CRITERION OF THE VOCATIONAL FACTORS REGULATIONS — USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL AGE — CONSTITUTIONALITY


SSR 82-63:


TITLES II AND XVI – MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL PROFILES SHOWING AN INABILITY TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO OTHER WORK

PURPOSE: To clarify that there are two “medical-vocational profiles” which show an inability to make a vocational adjustment to other work (or any work) and which must be considered before a disability decision-maker refers to Appendix 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. The characteristics of these two profiles are: (1) marginal education and long work experience limited to arduous unskilled physical labor and (2) advanced age, limited education and no work experience.


SSR 83-10:


TITLES II AND XVI: DETERMINING CAPABILITY TO DO OTHER WORK — THE MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL RULES OF APPENDIX 2

PURPOSE: To clarify the manner in which the medical-vocational rules in Appendix 2 of Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, address the issue of capability to do other work, and to provide definitions of terms and concepts frequently used in evaluating disability under the medical-vocational rules.


SSR 83-14:


TITLES II AND XVI: CAPABILITY TO DO OTHER WORK — THE MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL RULES AS A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING A COMBINATION OF EXERTIONAL AND NONEXERTIONAL IMPAIRMENTS

PURPOSE: To clarify how the table rules in Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, provide a framework for decisions concerning persons who have both a severe exertional impairment and a nonexertional limitation or restriction.


SSR 85-15:


TITLES II AND XVI: CAPABILITY TO DO OTHER WORK — THE MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL RULES AS A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING SOLELY NONEXERTIONAL IMPAIRMENTS

This supersedes Program Policy Statement No. 116 (SSR 85-7) with the same title (which superseded Program Policy Statement No. 104 (SSR 83-13) and is in accord with an order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

PURPOSE: The original purpose of SSR 83-13 was to clarify how the regulations and the exertionally based numbered decisional rules in Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, provide a framework for decisions concerning persons who have only a nonexertional limitation(s) of function or an environmental restriction(s). The purpose of this revision to SSR 83-13 and SSR 85-7 is to emphasize, in the sections relating to mental impairments: (1) that the potential job base for mentally ill claimants without adverse vocational factors is not necessarily large even for individuals who have no other impairments, unless their remaining mental capacities are sufficient to meet the intellectual and emotional demands of at least unskilled, competitive, remunerative work on a sustained basis; and (2) that a finding of disability can be appropriate for an individual who has a severe mental impairment which does not meet or equal the Listing of Impairments, even where he or she does not have adversities in age, education, or work experience.


SSR 96-9p:


POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING 
TITLES II AND XVI: DETERMINING CAPABILITY TO DO OTHER WORK–IMPLICATIONS OF A RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY FOR LESS THAN A FULL RANGE OF SEDENTARY WORK

PURPOSE: To explain the Social Security Administration’s policies regarding the impact of a residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment for less than a full range of sedentary work on an individual’s ability to do other work. In particular, to emphasize that:

1. An RFC for less than a full range of sedentary work reflects very serious limitations resulting from an individual’s medical impairment(s) and is expected to be relatively rare.

However, a finding that an individual has the ability to do less than a full range of sedentary work does not necessarily equate with a decision of “disabled.” If the performance of past relevant work is precluded by an RFC for less than the full range of sedentary work, consideration must still be given to whether there is other work in the national economy that the individual is able to do, considering age, education, and work experience.

Effective 10/30/13 Policy Ruling regarding Evaluating Cases Involving RSD and CRPS
Future release, Police Ruling regarding evaluating cases involving Drug Addiction and Alcoholism
SOCIAL SECURITY RULINGS Chart (most frequently used)

Comments are closed.