80 FR 57418 - Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 15-1(4), Radford v. Colvin: Standard for Meeting the Listing for Disorders of the Spine With Evidence of Nerve Root Compression
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 184 (September 23, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 184 (September 23, 2015)
| Page Range | 57418-57420 | |
| FR Document | 2015-24204 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 184 (Wednesday, September 23, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 57418-57420] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-24204] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2014-0080] Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 15-1(4), Radford v. Colvin: Standard for Meeting the Listing for Disorders of the Spine With Evidence of Nerve Root Compression AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This Social Security AR explains how we will apply a holding in a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that we determined conflicts with our interpretation of the section in the Listing of Impairments (the Listings) that addresses disorders of the spine with evidence of nerve root compression. DATES: Effective: September 23, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Deadwyler, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-8775, or TTY 410-966-5609, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing this Social Security AR in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2), 404.985(a), (b), and 416.1485(a), (b) to explain how we will apply a holding in Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013), regarding the standard for meeting section 1.04A of the Listings, which addresses disorders of the spine with evidence of nerve root compression. An AR explains how we will apply a holding in a decision of a United States Court of Appeals that we determine conflicts with our interpretation of a provision of the Social Security Act (Act) or regulations when the Government has decided not to seek further review of that decision or is unsuccessful on further review. We will apply the holding of the court of appeals' decision as explained in this AR to claims at all levels of administrative review within the Fourth Circuit. We will apply this AR to all determinations or decisions made on or after September 23, 2015. If we made a determination or decision on an application for benefits between October 29, 2013, the date of the court of appeals' decision, and September 23, [[Page 57419]] 2015, the effective date of this AR, the claimant may request that we apply the AR to the prior determination or decision. The claimant must show, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) or 416.1485(b)(2), that applying the AR could change our prior determination or decision in his or her case. When we received this precedential court of appeals' decision and determined that an AR might be required, we began to identify those claims that were pending before the agency within the circuit that might be subject to readjudication if we subsequently issued an AR. Because we have determined that an AR is required and are publishing this AR, we will send a notice to those individuals whose claims we have identified. In the notice, we will provide information about the AR and the right to request readjudication under the AR. However, a claimant does not need to receive a notice in order to request that we apply this AR to our prior determination or decision on his or her claim, as provided in 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) and 416.1485(b)(2). If we later rescind this AR as obsolete, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that effect, as provided in 20 CFR 404.985(e) and 416.1485(e). If we decide to relitigate the issue covered by this AR, as provided by 20 CFR 404.985(c)and 416.1485(c), we will publish a notice in the Federal Register stating that we will apply our interpretation of the Act or regulations involved and explaining why we have decided to relitigate the issue. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security--Retirement Insurance; 96.004 Social Security--Survivors Insurance) Dated: April 9, 2015. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. ACQUIESCENCE RULING 15-1(4) Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013): Standard for Meeting Section 1.04A of the Listing of Impairments--Disorders of the Spine with Evidence of Nerve Root Compression--Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. ISSUE: Must all of the medical criteria in section 1.04A of the Listing of Impairments be simultaneously present on examination and continue, or be expected to continue, to be simultaneously present for at least 12 months for a disorder of the spine to meet the listing? STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION: Sections 205(b), 223(d)(1)(A); 223(d)(2)(A); 223(d)(5)(A); 1614(a)(3)(A); 1614(a)(3)(B); 1614(a)(3)(H)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 423(d)(2)(A); 423(d)(5)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(B); 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i)); 20 CFR 404.1509, 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d); 416.925; 20 CFR part 404, subpart P, Appendix 1, 1.04A. CIRCUIT: Fourth (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia). APPLICABILITY OF RULING: This ruling applies to determinations or decisions made in the Fourth Circuit at all levels of administrative review. DESCRIPTION OF CASE: Jimmy Radford injured his back at work in December 2002 and underwent decompression and fusion surgery in August 2007. The administrative record included reports of examinations by various physicians and other medical sources. These reports over a five-year period showed the presence of all the medical criteria listed in listing 1.04A (20 CFR part 404, subpart P, Appendix 1, 1.04A), but did not show them simultaneously for a 12-month period. Mr. Radford applied for disability insurance benefits in June 2007. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Radford's impairments did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment, including listing 1.04. The ALJ noted that the State agency physicians who evaluated Mr. Radford's claim initially and on reconsideration had also concluded that Mr. Radford's impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of a listing. The ALJ found that Mr. Radford was not disabled at the fifth step of our sequential evaluation process at any time from his alleged onset date in December 2002 through his date last insured of December 31, 2007. Mr. Radford sought judicial review in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court found that listing 1.04A required only that his spinal stenosis be ``characterized by'' certain clinical signs and symptoms and held that the listing did not require that all of the clinical signs or symptoms be documented as present simultaneously. The district court found that Mr. Radford had shown evidence of each of the required criteria and that the ALJ did not correctly apply the regulations. The district court further held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Mr. Radford's impairment met listing 1.04A and ordered an award of benefits. The Commissioner appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court of appeals held that the district court did not err in interpreting listing 1.04A, but it vacated the district court's judgment because the decision to direct an award of benefits was an abuse of discretion. The court found that the text of listing 1.04A required evidence of nerve root compression ``characterized by'' the listed medical criteria and that the use of the word ``and'' to connect them meant that they all must be present in the claimant. The court stated that the text of the regulation did not specify when the medical criteria must be present and did not say that they must be present at the same time or that they must be present within a certain proximity of one another. Thus, the court held that the regulatory structure did not require the simultaneous presence of all of the listed criteria over a 12-month period. Rather, the listing required a ``more free-form, contextual inquiry that makes 12 months the relevant metric for assessment of the claimant's duration of disability.'' 734 F.3d at 293. Accordingly, the court of appeals held that ``Listing 1.04A requires a claimant to show only . . . that each of the symptoms are present, and that the claimant has suffered or can be expected to suffer from nerve root compression continuously for at least 12 months.'' Id. at 294. The court further held that a ``claimant need not show that each symptom was present at precisely the same time--i.e., simultaneously--in order to establish the chronic nature of his condition. Nor need a claimant show that the symptoms were present in the claimant in particularly close proximity.'' Id. Although the court of appeals held that the Commissioner's interpretation of listing 1.04A was not correct, the court nevertheless vacated the district court's judgment because the court should have remanded the case with instructions for the ALJ to clarify why Mr. Radford's impairment did not satisfy listing 1.04A. STATEMENT AS TO HOW RADFORD DIFFERS FROM THE AGENCY'S POLICY: At step three of the sequential evaluation process, we will find a claimant disabled if the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals one of the listed impairments and meets the duration requirement. 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1525(c)(3), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.925(c)(3). Thus, in considering whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, we consider both the severity of the impairment, in light of the set of medical criteria in the listing, and the duration requirement. [[Page 57420]] Claimants found disabled under the listings at step three of the sequential evaluation process have impairments that we consider severe enough to prevent any gainful activity, regardless of the claimant's age, education, or work experience. Our policy is that listing 1.04A specifies a level of severity that is only met when all of the medical criteria listed in paragraph A are simultaneously present: (1) Neuro- anatomic distribution of pain, (2) limitation of motion of the spine, (3) motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss, and, (4) if there is involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine). Listing 1.04A uses the conjunction ``and'' when enumerating the medical criteria in order to establish that the entire set of criteria must be present at the same time on examination. When this set of criteria is present on examination, the individual has the clinical presentation we expect from a person who suffers from nerve root compression that is so severe that it would preclude any gainful activity. 20 CFR 404.1525(a), 416.925(a). On the other hand, when the listing criteria are scattered over time, wax and wane, or are present on one examination but absent on another, the individual's nerve root compression would not rise to the level of severity required by listing 1.04A. An individual who shows only some of the criteria on examination presents a different, less severe clinical picture than someone with the full set of criteria present simultaneously. To meet the severity required by the listing, our policy requires the simultaneous presence of all of the medical criteria in listing 1.04A. In addition to meeting the severity requirement, in order to meet the duration requirement, the simultaneous presence of all of the medical criteria in paragraph A must continue, or be expected to continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 CFR 404.1525(c)(4), 416.925(c)(4). The ``duration'' requirement follows from two provisions in the Social Security Act. First, sections 223(d)(1)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act define ``disability'' as an inability ``to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.'' Second, sections 223(d)(2)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(B) of the Act state that ``[a]n individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. . . .'' Thus, an impairment that lasts or is expected to last 12 months is not sufficient to establish disability. The impairment must also be severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful work. As the Supreme Court of the United States explained in Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 218 (2002): ``In other words, the statute, in the two provisions, specifies that the `impairment' must last 12 months and also be severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in any `substantial gainful work.' '' Accordingly, our policy requires that for a disorder of the spine to meet listing 1.04A at step three in the sequential evaluation process, the claimant must establish the simultaneous presence of all the medical criteria in paragraph A. Once this level of severity is established, the claimant must also show that this level of severity continued, or is expected to continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. The court of appeals' decision differs from our policy because it held that listing 1.04A required a claimant to show only ``that each of the symptoms are present, and that the claimant has suffered or can be expected to suffer from nerve root compression continuously for at least 12 months.'' 734 F.3d at 294. Contrary to our policy that the requisite level of severity requires the simultaneous presence of all the medical criteria in paragraph A, the court of appeals held that a claimant need not show that each criterion was present simultaneously or in particularly close proximity. Accordingly, this holding is inconsistent with our interpretation of listing 1.04A and of the severity and durational requirements at step three of the sequential evaluation process. EXPLANATION OF HOW WE WILL APPLY RADFORD WITHIN THE CIRCUIT: This Ruling applies only to claims in which the claimant resides in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia at the time of the determination or decision at any level of administrative review. In these States, in deciding whether a claimant's severe medically determinable disorder of the spine meets listing 1.04A, adjudicators will not require that all of the medical criteria in paragraph A appear simultaneously or in particularly close proximity. Rather, adjudicators will engage in what the court of appeals described as ``a more free- form, contextual inquiry that makes 12 months the relevant metric for the assessment of the claimant's duration of disability.'' Adjudicators will decide whether the evidence shows that all of the medical criteria in paragraph A are present within a continuous 12- month period (or, if there is less than 12 months of evidence in the record, that all the medical criteria are present and are expected to continue to be present). If all of the medical criteria are not present within a continuous 12-month period, adjudicators will determine that the disorder of the spine did not meet the listing. If all of the medical criteria in paragraph A are present within a continuous 12-month period (or are expected to be present), adjudicators will then determine whether the evidence shows--as a whole--that the claimant's disorder of the spine caused, or is expected to cause, nerve root compression continuously for at least 12 months. In considering the severity of the nerve root compression, the medical criteria in paragraph A need not all be present simultaneously, nor in particularly close proximity. The nerve root compression must be severe enough, however, that the adjudicator can fairly conclude that it is still characterized by all of the medical criteria in paragraph A. [FR Doc. 2015-24204 Filed 9-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
![57418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 184 / Wednesday, September 23, 2015 / Notices
Sessions when an updated Intraday (12) A minimum of 100,000 Shares SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Indicative Value will not be calculated will be outstanding at the
[Docket No. SSA–2014–0080]
or publicly disseminated; (v) the commencement of trading on the
requirement that members purchasing Exchange. Social Security Acquiescence Ruling
Shares from the Fund for resale to (AR) 15–1(4), Radford v. Colvin:
investors deliver a prospectus to This approval order is based on all of
the Exchange’s representations, Standard for Meeting the Listing for
investors purchasing newly issued Disorders of the Spine With Evidence
Shares prior to or concurrently with the including those set forth above and in
the Notice, and the Exchange’s of Nerve Root Compression
confirmation of a transaction; and (vi)
trading information. In addition, the description of the Fund. AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
Information Circular will advise For the foregoing reasons, the ACTION:Notice of Social Security
members, prior to the commencement of Commission finds that the proposed Acquiescence Ruling (AR).
trading, of the prospectus delivery rule change is consistent with Section
requirements applicable to the Fund. SUMMARY: This Social Security AR
6(b)(5) of the Act 24 and the rules and explains how we will apply a holding
Members purchasing Shares from the regulations thereunder applicable to a
Fund for resale to investors will deliver in a decision of the United States Court
national securities exchange. of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that
a prospectus to those investors. The
Information Circular will also discuss IV. Conclusion we determined conflicts with our
any exemptive, no-action, or interpretation of the section in the
interpretive relief granted by the It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Listing of Impairments (the Listings)
Commission from any rules under the Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,25 that addresses disorders of the spine
Exchange Act; will reference that the that the proposed rule change (SR– with evidence of nerve root
Fund is subject to various fees and NASDAQ–2015–085), be, and it hereby compression.
expenses; and will disclose the trading is, approved. DATES: Effective: September 23, 2015.
hours of the Shares of the Fund and the For the Commission, by the Division of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
applicable NAV calculation time for the Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Gabriel Deadwyler, Office of the General
Shares. authority.26 Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social
(6) For initial and continued listing, Brent J. Fields, Security Administration, 6401 Security
the Fund will be in compliance with Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401,
Secretary.
Rule 10A–3 23 under the Exchange Act. (410) 965–8775, or TTY 410–966–5609,
[FR Doc. 2015–24060 Filed 9–22–15; 8:45 am]
(7) The Fund may not concentrate its for information about this notice. For
investments (i.e., invest more than 25% BILLING CODE 8011–01–P information on eligibility or filing for
of the value of its net assets) in benefits, call our national toll-free
securities of issuers in any one industry number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1–
or group of industries. This restriction 800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site,
will not apply to obligations issued or SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Social Security Online, at http://
guaranteed by the U.S. government or www.socialsecurity.gov.
its agencies or instrumentalities. Revocation of License of Small
Business Investment Company SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are
(8) The Fund may hold up to an publishing this Social Security AR in
aggregate amount of 15% of its net accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2),
Pursuant to the authority granted to
assets in illiquid securities or other 404.985(a), (b), and 416.1485(a), (b) to
illiquid assets (calculated at the time of the United States Small Business
Administration by the Final Order of the explain how we will apply a holding in
investment), including Rule 144A Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir.
securities. The Fund will not use futures United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, entered 2013), regarding the standard for
for speculative purposes, nor will the meeting section 1.04A of the Listings,
Fund invest in OTC equities or enter February 2, 2015, the United States
which addresses disorders of the spine
into futures contracts that are not traded Small Business Administration hereby
with evidence of nerve root
on a U.S. exchange. revokes the license of WAV, L.P., a
compression.
(9) The Fund’s investments will be Delaware Limited Partnership, to An AR explains how we will apply a
consistent with the Fund’s investment function as a small business investment holding in a decision of a United States
objective. company under the Small Business Court of Appeals that we determine
(10) The Fund may utilize Investment Company License No. conflicts with our interpretation of a
instruments or investment techniques 02720569 issued to WAV, L.P., on provision of the Social Security Act
that have a leveraging effect on the November 1, 1996, and said license is (Act) or regulations when the
Fund. Any instance of effective leverage hereby declared null and void as of Government has decided not to seek
will be covered in accordance with February 2, 2015. further review of that decision or is
guidance promulgated by the United States Small Business unsuccessful on further review.
Commission and its staff. Administration. We will apply the holding of the court
(11) The Fund does not presently of appeals’ decision as explained in this
Dated: September 17, 2015.
intend to engage in any form of AR to claims at all levels of
borrowing for investment purposes, and Javier E. Saade,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
administrative review within the Fourth
it will not be operated as a ‘‘leveraged Associate Administrator for Investment. Circuit. We will apply this AR to all
ETF’’—i.e., it will not be operated in a [FR Doc. 2015–24112 Filed 9–22–15; 8:45 am] determinations or decisions made on or
manner designed to seek a multiple of BILLING CODE 8025–01–P after September 23, 2015. If we made a
the performance of an underlying determination or decision on an
reference index. 24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). application for benefits between October
25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 29, 2013, the date of the court of
23 See 17 CFR 240.10A–3. 26 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). appeals’ decision, and September 23,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 Sep 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_57602/page/1.svg)
![57420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 184 / Wednesday, September 23, 2015 / Notices
Claimants found disabled under the if his physical or mental impairment or criteria in paragraph A appear
listings at step three of the sequential impairments are of such severity that he simultaneously or in particularly close
evaluation process have impairments is not only unable to do his previous proximity. Rather, adjudicators will
that we consider severe enough to work but cannot, considering his age, engage in what the court of appeals
prevent any gainful activity, regardless education, and work experience, engage described as ‘‘a more free-form,
of the claimant’s age, education, or work in any other kind of substantial gainful contextual inquiry that makes 12
experience. Our policy is that listing work which exists in the national months the relevant metric for the
1.04A specifies a level of severity that economy. . . .’’ Thus, an impairment assessment of the claimant’s duration of
is only met when all of the medical that lasts or is expected to last 12 disability.’’
criteria listed in paragraph A are months is not sufficient to establish Adjudicators will decide whether the
simultaneously present: (1) Neuro- disability. The impairment must also be evidence shows that all of the medical
anatomic distribution of pain, (2) severe enough to prevent the claimant criteria in paragraph A are present
limitation of motion of the spine, (3) from engaging in substantial gainful within a continuous 12-month period
motor loss (atrophy with associated work. As the Supreme Court of the (or, if there is less than 12 months of
muscle weakness or muscle weakness) United States explained in Barnhart v. evidence in the record, that all the
accompanied by sensory or reflex loss, Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 218 (2002): ‘‘In medical criteria are present and are
and, (4) if there is involvement of the other words, the statute, in the two expected to continue to be present). If
lower back, positive straight-leg raising provisions, specifies that the all of the medical criteria are not present
test (sitting and supine). Listing 1.04A ‘impairment’ must last 12 months and within a continuous 12-month period,
uses the conjunction ‘‘and’’ when also be severe enough to prevent the adjudicators will determine that the
enumerating the medical criteria in claimant from engaging in any disorder of the spine did not meet the
order to establish that the entire set of ‘substantial gainful work.’ ’’ listing.
criteria must be present at the same time Accordingly, our policy requires that If all of the medical criteria in
on examination. When this set of for a disorder of the spine to meet listing paragraph A are present within a
criteria is present on examination, the 1.04A at step three in the sequential continuous 12-month period (or are
individual has the clinical presentation evaluation process, the claimant must expected to be present), adjudicators
we expect from a person who suffers establish the simultaneous presence of will then determine whether the
from nerve root compression that is so all the medical criteria in paragraph A. evidence shows—as a whole—that the
severe that it would preclude any Once this level of severity is claimant’s disorder of the spine caused,
gainful activity. 20 CFR 404.1525(a), established, the claimant must also or is expected to cause, nerve root
416.925(a). show that this level of severity compression continuously for at least 12
On the other hand, when the listing continued, or is expected to continue, months. In considering the severity of
criteria are scattered over time, wax and for a continuous period of at least 12 the nerve root compression, the medical
wane, or are present on one examination months. criteria in paragraph A need not all be
but absent on another, the individual’s The court of appeals’ decision differs
present simultaneously, nor in
nerve root compression would not rise from our policy because it held that
particularly close proximity. The nerve
to the level of severity required by listing 1.04A required a claimant to
root compression must be severe
listing 1.04A. An individual who shows show only ‘‘that each of the symptoms
enough, however, that the adjudicator
only some of the criteria on examination are present, and that the claimant has
can fairly conclude that it is still
presents a different, less severe clinical suffered or can be expected to suffer
characterized by all of the medical
picture than someone with the full set from nerve root compression
criteria in paragraph A.
of criteria present simultaneously. To continuously for at least 12 months.’’
meet the severity required by the listing, 734 F.3d at 294. Contrary to our policy [FR Doc. 2015–24204 Filed 9–22–15; 8:45 am]
our policy requires the simultaneous that the requisite level of severity BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
presence of all of the medical criteria in requires the simultaneous presence of
listing 1.04A. all the medical criteria in paragraph A,
In addition to meeting the severity the court of appeals held that a claimant
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
requirement, in order to meet the need not show that each criterion was
duration requirement, the simultaneous present simultaneously or in [Public Notice: 9281]
presence of all of the medical criteria in particularly close proximity.
paragraph A must continue, or be Accordingly, this holding is Defense Trade Advisory Group; Notice
expected to continue, for a continuous inconsistent with our interpretation of of Open Meeting
period of at least 12 months. 20 CFR listing 1.04A and of the severity and
404.1525(c)(4), 416.925(c)(4). The durational requirements at step three of SUMMARY: The Defense Trade Advisory
‘‘duration’’ requirement follows from the sequential evaluation process. Group (DTAG) will meet in open
two provisions in the Social Security EXPLANATION OF HOW WE WILL session from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on
Act. First, sections 223(d)(1)(A) and APPLY RADFORD WITHIN THE Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 1777 F
1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act define CIRCUIT: This Ruling applies only to Street, NW., Washington, DC Entry and
‘‘disability’’ as an inability ‘‘to engage in claims in which the claimant resides in registration will begin at 12:30 p.m. The
any substantial gainful activity by Maryland, North Carolina, South membership of this advisory committee
reason of any medically determinable Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia at consists of private sector defense trade
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
physical or mental impairment which the time of the determination or representatives, appointed by the
can be expected to result in death or decision at any level of administrative Assistant Secretary of State for Political-
which has lasted or can be expected to review. Military Affairs, who advise the
last for a continuous period of not less In these States, in deciding whether a Department on policies, regulations, and
than 12 months.’’ Second, sections claimant’s severe medically technical issues affecting defense trade.
223(d)(2)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(B) of the Act determinable disorder of the spine The purpose of the meeting will be to
state that ‘‘[a]n individual shall be meets listing 1.04A, adjudicators will discuss current defense trade issues and
determined to be under a disability only not require that all of the medical topics for further study.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 Sep 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_57602/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 09:45:05
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 09:45:05
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR). | |
| Dates | Effective: September 23, 2015. | |
| Contact | Gabriel Deadwyler, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-8775, or TTY 410-966-5609, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 57418 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR