81 FR 14166 - Social Security Ruling 16-3p; Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 51 (March 16, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 51 (March 16, 2016)
| Page Range | 14166-14172 | |
| FR Document | 2016-05916 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 14166-14172] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-05916] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2015-0055] Social Security Ruling 16-3p; Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling (SSR). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We are providing notice of SSR 16-3p. This Ruling supersedes SSR 96-7p. This Ruling provides guidance about how we evaluate statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms in disability claims under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act) and blindness claims under Title XVI of the Act. DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Tocco, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-6356. 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: Although 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not require us to publish this SSR, we are doing so in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). Through SSRs, we convey to the public SSA precedential decisions relating to the Federal old age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs [[Page 14167]] on determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations. Although SSRs do not have the same force and effect as statutes or regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). This SSR will remain in effect until we publish a notice in the Federal Register that rescinds it, or we publish a new SSR that replaces or modifies it. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-- Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security--Survivors Insurance; 96.006--Supplemental Security Income.) Dated: March 9, 2016. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims This SSR supersedes SSR 96-7p: Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements. Purpose: We are rescinding SSR 96-7p: Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements and replacing it with this Ruling. We solicited a study and recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) on the topic of symptom evaluation. Based on ACUS's recommendations \1\ and our adjudicative experience, we are eliminating the use of the term ``credibility'' from our sub-regulatory policy, as our regulations do not use this term. In doing so, we clarify that subjective symptom evaluation is not an examination of an individual's character. Instead, we will more closely follow our regulatory language regarding symptom evaluation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ ACUS made several recommendations in its March 12, 2015 final report, ``Evaluating Subjective Symptoms in Disability Claims.'' Among other things, ACUS recommended we consider amending SSR 96-7p to clarify that subjective symptom evaluation is not an examination of an individual's character, but rather is an evidence- based analysis of the administrative record to determine whether the nature, intensity, frequency, or severity of an individual's symptoms impact his or her ability to work. In any revised SSR, ACUS also recommended we more closely follow our regulatory language about symptom evaluation, which does not use the term ``credibility'' and instead directs adjudicators to consider medical and other evidence to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms to determine how the individual's symptoms limit capacity for work if he or she is an adult, or for a child with a title XVI disability claim, how symptoms limit ability to function. ACUS further recommended when revising SSR 96-7p, we offer additional guidance to adjudicators on regulatory implementation problems that have been identified since we published SSR 96-7p. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consistent with our regulations, we instruct our adjudicators to consider all of the evidence in an individual's record when they evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms after they find that the individual has a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce those symptoms. We evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual's symptoms so we can determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related activities for an adult and how symptoms limit ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim. Citations (Authority): Sections 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act as amended; Regulations no. 4, sections 404.1508, 404.1512(d), 404.1513, 404.1520, 404.1526, 404.1527, 404.1528, 404.1529, 404.1545 and 404.1594; and Regulations No. 16 sections 416.908, 416.912(d), 416.913, 416.920, 416.924(c), 416.924a(b)(9)(ii-iii), 416.926a, 416.927, 416.928, 416.929, 416.930(c), 416.945, 416.994, and 416.994a. Background: In determining whether an individual is disabled, we consider all of the individual's symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence in the individual's record. We define a symptom as the individual's own description or statement of his or her physical or mental impairment(s).\2\ Under our regulations, an individual's statements of symptoms alone are not enough to establish the existence of a physical or mental impairment or disability. However, if an individual alleges impairment-related symptoms, we must evaluate those symptoms using a two-step process set forth in our regulations.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See 20 CFR 404.1528(a) and 416.928(a) for how our regulations define symptoms. \3\ See 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 for how we evaluate statements of symptoms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, we must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual's symptoms, such as pain. Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual's symptoms is established, we evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual's ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age- appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim. This ruling clarifies how we consider:The intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of symptoms, Objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, Other evidence when evaluating symptoms, The factors set forth in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), The extent to which an individual's symptoms affect his or her ability to perform work-related activities or function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim, and Adjudication standards for evaluating symptoms in the sequential evaluation process. Policy Interpretation: We use a two-step process for evaluating an individual's symptoms. The two-step process: Step 1: We Determine Whether the Individual Has a Medically Determinable Impairment (MDI) That Could Reasonably be Expected To Produce the Individual's Alleged Symptoms An individual's symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness, nervousness, or periods of poor concentration will not be found to affect the ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim unless medical signs or laboratory findings show a medically determinable impairment is present. Signs are anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities established by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques that can be observed apart from an individual's symptoms.\4\ Laboratory findings are anatomical, physiological, or psychological phenomena, which can be shown by the use of medically [[Page 14168]] acceptable laboratory diagnostic techniques.\5\ We call the medical evidence that provides signs or laboratory findings objective medical evidence. We must have objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source \6\ to establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual's alleged symptoms.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See 20 CFR 404.1528(b) and 416.928(b) for how our regulations define signs. \5\ See 20 CFR 404.1528(c) and 416.928(c) for how our regulations define laboratory findings. \6\ See 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a) for a list of acceptable medical sources. \7\ See 20 CFR 404.1508 and 416.908 for what is needed to show a medically determinable impairment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In determining whether there is an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual's symptoms, we do not consider whether the severity of an individual's alleged symptoms is supported by the objective medical evidence. For example, if an individual has a medically determinable impairment established by a knee x-ray showing mild degenerative changes and he or she alleges extreme pain that limits his or her ability to stand and walk, we will find that individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptom of pain. We will proceed to step two of the two-step process, even though the level of pain an individual alleges may seem out of proportion with the objective medical evidence. In some instances, the objective medical evidence clearly establishes that an individual's symptoms are due to a medically determinable impairment. At other times, we may have insufficient evidence to determine whether an individual has a medically determinable impairment that could potentially account for his or her alleged symptoms. In those instances, we develop evidence regarding a potential medically determinable impairment using a variety of means set forth in our regulations. For example, we may obtain additional information from the individual about the nature of his or her symptoms and their effect on functioning. We may request additional information from the individual about other testing or treatment he or she may have undergone for the symptoms. We may request clarifying information from an individual's medical sources, or we may send an individual to a consultative examination that may include diagnostic testing. We may use our agency experts to help us determine whether an individual's medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce his or her symptoms. At the administrative law judge hearing level or the Appeals Council level of the administrative review process, we may ask for and consider evidence from a medical or psychological expert to help us determine whether an individual's medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce his or her symptoms. If an individual alleges symptoms, but the medical signs and laboratory findings do not substantiate any medically determinable impairment capable of producing the individual's alleged symptoms, we will not evaluate the individual's symptoms at step two of our two-step evaluation process. We will not find an individual disabled based on alleged symptoms alone. If there is no medically determinable impairment, or if there is a medically determinable impairment, but the impairment(s) could not reasonably be expected to produce the individual's symptoms, we will not find those symptoms affect the ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim. Step 2: We Evaluate the Intensity and Persistence of an Individual's Symptoms Such as Pain and Determine the Extent to Which an Individual's Symptoms Limit His or Her Ability To Perform Work-Related Activities for an Adult or To Function Independently, Appropriately, and Effectively in an Age-Appropriate Manner for a Child With a Title XVI Disability Claim Once the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce pain or other symptoms is established, we recognize that some individuals may experience symptoms differently and may be limited by symptoms to a greater or lesser extent than other individuals with the same medical impairments, the same objective medical evidence, and the same non-medical evidence. In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, we examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record. We will not evaluate an individual's symptoms without making every reasonable effort to obtain a complete medical history \8\ unless the evidence supports a finding that the individual is disabled. We will not evaluate an individual's symptoms based solely on objective medical evidence unless that objective medical evidence supports a finding that the individual is disabled. We will evaluate an individual's symptoms based on the evidence in an individual's record as described below; however, not all of the types of evidence described below will be available or relevant in every case. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ By ``complete medical history,'' we mean the individual's complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the month in which he or she filed an application, unless there is a reason to believe that development of an earlier period is necessary or the individual says that his or her alleged disability began less than 12 months before he or she filed an application. 20 CFR 404.1512(d) and 416.912(d). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Consideration of Objective Medical Evidence Symptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques. However, objective medical evidence is a useful indicator to help make reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of symptoms, including the effects those symptoms may have on the ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI claim.\9\ We must consider whether an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her symptoms are consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings of record. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(2) and 416.929(c)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of many symptoms can be clinically observed and recorded in the medical evidence. Examples such as reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, and motor disruption illustrate findings that may result from, or be associated with, the symptom of pain.\10\ These findings may be consistent with an individual's statements about symptoms and their functional effects. However, when the results of tests are not consistent with other evidence in the record, they may be less supportive of an individual's statements about pain or other symptoms than test results and statements that are consistent with other evidence in the record. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(2) and 416.929(c)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For example, an individual with reduced muscle strength testing who indicates that for the last year pain has limited his or her standing and walking [[Page 14169]] to no more than a few minutes a day would be expected to have some signs of muscle wasting as a result. If no muscle wasting were present, we might not, depending on the other evidence in the record, find the individual's reduced muscle strength on clinical testing to be consistent with the individual's alleged impairment-related symptoms. However, we will not disregard an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.\11\ A report of minimal or negative findings or inconsistencies in the objective medical evidence is one of the many factors we must consider in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Consideration of Other Evidence If we cannot make a disability determination or decision that is fully favorable based solely on objective medical evidence, then we carefully consider other evidence in the record in reaching a conclusion about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms. Other evidence that we will consider includes statements from the individual, medical sources, and any other sources that might have information about the individual's symptoms, including agency personnel, as well as the factors set forth in our regulations.\12\ For example, for a child with a title XVI disability claim, we will consider evidence submitted from educational agencies and personnel, statements from parents and other relatives, and evidence submitted by social welfare agencies, therapists, and other practitioners.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ See 20 CFR 404.1513 and 416.913. \13\ See 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a. The Individual An individual may make statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her symptoms. If a child with a title XVI disability claim is unable to describe his or her symptoms adequately, we will accept a description of his or her symptoms from the person most familiar with the child, such as a parent, another relative, or a guardian.\14\ For an adult whose impairment prevents him or her from describing symptoms adequately, we may also consider a description of his or her symptoms from a person who is familiar with the individual. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See 20 CFR 416.928(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- An individual may make statements about symptoms directly to medical sources, other sources, or he or she may make them directly to us. An individual may have made statements about symptoms in connection with claims for other types of disability benefits such as workers' compensation, benefits under programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, or private insurance benefits. An individual's statements may address the frequency and duration of the symptoms, the location of the symptoms, and the impact of the symptoms on the ability to perform daily living activities. An individual's statements may also include activities that precipitate or aggravate the symptoms, medications and treatments used, and other methods used to alleviate the symptoms. We will consider an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, and we will evaluate whether the statements are consistent with objective medical evidence and the other evidence. b. Medical Sources Medical sources may offer diagnoses, prognoses, and opinions as well as statements and medical reports about an individual's history, treatment, responses to treatment, prior work record, efforts to work, daily activities, and other information concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms. Important information about symptoms recorded by medical sources and reported in the medical evidence may include, but is not limited to, the following: Onset, description of the character and location of the symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, frequency and duration, change over a period of time (e.g., whether worsening, improving, or static), and daily activities. Very often, the individual has provided this information to the medical source, and the information may be compared with the individual's other statements in the case record. In addition, the evidence provided by a medical source may contain medical opinions about the individual's symptoms and their effects. Our adjudicators will weigh such opinions by applying the factors in 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927. A longitudinal record of any treatment and its success or failure, including any side effects of medication. Indications of other impairments, such as potential mental impairments, that could account for an individual's allegations. Medical evidence from medical sources that have not treated or examined the individual is also important in the adjudicator's evaluation of an individual's statements about pain or other symptoms. For example, State agency medical and psychological consultants and other program physicians and psychologists may offer findings about the existence and severity of an individual's symptoms. We will consider these findings in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual's symptoms. Adjudicators at the hearing level or at the Appeals Council level must consider the findings from these medical sources even though they are not bound by them.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. Non-Medical Sources Other sources may provide information from which we may draw inferences and conclusions about an individual's statements that would be helpful to us in assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms. Examples of such sources include public and private agencies, other practitioners, educational personnel, non- medical sources such as family and friends, and agency personnel. We will consider any statements in the record noted by agency personnel who previously interviewed the individual, whether in person or by telephone. The adjudicator will consider any personal observations of the individual in terms of how consistent those observations are with the individual's statements about his or her symptoms as well as with all of the evidence in the file. d. Factors To Consider In Evaluating the Intensity, Persistence and Limiting Effects of an Individual's Symptoms In addition to using all of the evidence to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, we will also use the factors set forth in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). These factors include: 1. Daily activities; 2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; [[Page 14170]] 5. Treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6. Any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and 7. Any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. We will consider other evidence to evaluate only the factors that are relevant to assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual's symptoms. If there is no information in the evidence of record regarding one of the factors, we will not discuss that specific factor in the determination or decision because it is not relevant to the case. We will discuss the factors pertinent to the evidence of record. How We Will Determine if an Individual's Symptoms Affect the Ability To Perform Work-Related Activities for an Adult, or Age-Appropriate Activities for a Child With a Title XVI Disability Claim If an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and the other evidence of record, we will determine that the individual's symptoms are more likely to reduce his or her capacities to perform work-related activities for an adult or reduce a child's ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim.\16\ In contrast, if an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and the other evidence, we will determine that the individual's symptoms are less likely to reduce his or her capacities to perform work-related activities or abilities to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We may or may not find an individual's symptoms and related limitations consistent with the evidence in his or her record. We will explain which of an individual's symptoms we found consistent or inconsistent with the evidence in his or her record and how our evaluation of the individual's symptoms led to our conclusions. We will evaluate an individual's symptoms considering all the evidence in his or her record. In determining whether an individual's symptoms will reduce his or her corresponding capacities to perform work-related activities or abilities to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner, we will consider the consistency of the individual's own statements. To do so, we will compare statements an individual makes in connection with the individual's claim for disability benefits with any existing statements the individual made under other circumstances. We will consider statements an individual made to us at each prior step of the administrative review process, as well as statements the individual made in any subsequent or prior disability claims under titles II and XVI. If an individual's various statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with one another and consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record, we will determine that an individual's symptoms are more likely to reduce his or her capacities for work- related activities or reduce the abilities to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner. However, inconsistencies in an individual's statements made at varying times does not necessarily mean they are inaccurate. Symptoms may vary in their intensity, persistence, and functional effects, or may worsen or improve with time. This may explain why an individual's statements vary when describing the intensity, persistence, or functional effects of symptoms. We will consider an individual's attempts to seek medical treatment for symptoms and to follow treatment once it is prescribed when evaluating whether symptom intensity and persistence affect the ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or the ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age- appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim. Persistent attempts to obtain relief of symptoms, such as increasing dosages and changing medications, trying a variety of treatments, referrals to specialists, or changing treatment sources may be an indication that an individual's symptoms are a source of distress and may show that they are intense and persistent.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See 20 CFR 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In contrast, if the frequency or extent of the treatment sought by an individual is not comparable with the degree of the individual's subjective complaints, or if the individual fails to follow prescribed treatment that might improve symptoms, we may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual's symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record. We will not find an individual's symptoms inconsistent with the evidence in the record on this basis without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints. We may need to contact the individual regarding the lack of treatment or, at an administrative proceeding, ask why he or she has not complied with or sought treatment in a manner consistent with his or her complaints. When we consider the individual's treatment history, we may consider (but are not limited to) one or more of the following: An individual may have structured his or her activities to minimize symptoms to a tolerable level by avoiding physical activities or mental stressors that aggravate his or her symptoms. An individual may receive periodic treatment or evaluation for refills of medications because his or her symptoms have reached a plateau. An individual may not agree to take prescription medications because the side effects are less tolerable than the symptoms. An individual may not be able to afford treatment and may not have access to free or low-cost medical services. A medical source may have advised the individual that there is no further effective treatment to prescribe or recommend that would benefit the individual. An individual's symptoms may not be severe enough to prompt him or her to seek treatment, or the symptoms may be relieved with over the counter medications. An individual's religious beliefs may prohibit prescribed treatment. Due to various limitations (such as language or mental limitations), an individual may not understand the appropriate treatment for or the need for consistent treatment of his or her impairment. Due to a mental impairment (for example, individuals with mental impairments that affect judgment, reality testing, or orientation), an individual may not be aware that he or she has a disorder that requires treatment. A child may disregard the level and frequency of treatment needed to [[Page 14171]] maintain or improve functioning because it interferes with his or her participation in activities typical of other children his or her age without impairments. The above examples illustrate possible reasons an individual may not have pursued treatment. However, we will consider and address reasons for not pursuing treatment that are pertinent to an individual's case. We will review the case record to determine whether there are explanations for inconsistencies in the individual's statements about symptoms and their effects, and whether the evidence of record supports any of the individual's statements at the time he or she made them. We will explain how we considered the individual's reasons in our evaluation of the individual's symptoms. Adjudication--How We Will Use Our Evaluation of Symptoms in Our Five- Step Sequential Evaluation Process To Determine Whether an Individual Is Disabled In evaluating an individual's symptoms, it is not sufficient for our adjudicators to make a single, conclusory statement that ``the individual's statements about his or her symptoms have been considered'' or that ``the statements about the individual's symptoms are (or are not) supported or consistent.'' It is also not enough for our adjudicators simply to recite the factors described in the regulations for evaluating symptoms. The determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual's symptoms. Our adjudicators must base their findings solely on the evidence in the case record, including any testimony from the individual or other witnesses at a hearing before an administrative law judge or hearing officer. The subjective statements of the individual and witnesses obtained at a hearing should directly relate to symptoms the individual alleged. Our adjudicators are prohibited from soliciting additional non-medical evidence outside of the record on their own, except as set forth in our regulations and policies. Adjudicators must limit their evaluation to the individual's statements about his or her symptoms and the evidence in the record that is relevant to the individual's impairments. In evaluating an individual's symptoms, our adjudicators will not assess an individual's overall character or truthfulness in the manner typically used during an adversarial court litigation. The focus of the evaluation of an individual's symptoms should not be to determine whether he or she is a truthful person. Rather, our adjudicators will focus on whether the evidence establishes a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual's symptoms and given the adjudicator's evaluation of the individual's symptoms, whether the intensity and persistence of the symptoms limit the individual's ability to perform work-related activities or, for a child with a title XVI disability claim, limit the child's ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner. In determining whether an individual is disabled or continues to be disabled, our adjudicators follow a sequential evaluation process.\18\ The first step of our five-step sequential evaluation process considers whether an individual is performing substantial gainful activity. If the individual is performing substantial gainful activity, we find him or her not disabled. If the individual is not performing substantial gainful activity, we proceed to step 2. We do not consider symptoms at the first step of the sequential evaluation process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920. For continuing disability, see 404.1594, 416.994 and 416.994a. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At step 2 of the sequential evaluation process, we determine whether an individual has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months or end in death.\19\ A severe impairment is one that affects an individual's ability to perform basic work-related activities for an adult or that causes more than minimal functional limitations for a child with a title XVI disability claim.\20\ At this step, we will consider an individual's symptoms and functional limitations to determine whether his or her impairment(s) is severe unless the objective medical evidence alone establishes a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that meets our duration requirement.\21\ If an individual does not have a severe medically determinable impairment that meets our duration requirement, we will find the individual not disabled at step 2. If the individual has a severe medically determinable impairment that has met or is expected to meet our duration requirement, we proceed to the next step. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and 416.920(a)(4)(ii). \20\ See 20 CFR 416.924(c). \21\ See 20 CFR 416.920(c) for adults and 416.924(c) for children. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At step 3 of the sequential evaluation process, we determine whether an individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals the severity requirements of a listed impairment. To decide whether the impairment meets the level of severity described in a listed impairment, we will consider an individual's symptoms when a symptom(s) is one of the criteria in a listing to ensure the symptom is present in combination with the other criteria. If the symptom is not one of the criteria in a listing, we will not evaluate an individual's symptoms at this step as long as all other findings required by the specific listing are present. Unless the listing states otherwise, it is not necessary to provide information about the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of a symptom as long as all other findings required by the specific listing are present.\22\ In considering whether an individual's symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are medically equal to the symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings of a listed impairment, we will look to see whether the symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least equal in severity to the listed criteria. However, we will not substitute the individual's allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of the impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment.\23\ If an individual's impairment meets or medically equals the severity requirements of a listing, we find him or her disabled. If an individual's impairment does not meet or medically equal a listing, we proceed to assess the individual's residual functional capacity at step 4 of the sequential evaluation process unless the individual is a child with a title XVI disability claim. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See 20 CFR 404.1529(d)(2) and 416.929(d)(2). \23\ See 20 CFR 404.1529(d)(3) and 416.929(d)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a child with a title XVI disability claim whose impairment does not meet or medically equal the severity requirements of a listing, we consider whether his or her impairment functionally equals the listings. This means that the impairment results in ``marked'' limitations in two out of six domains of functioning or an ``extreme'' limitation in one of the six domains.\24\ We will evaluate an individual's symptoms at this step when we rate [[Page 14172]] how a child's impairment-related symptoms affect his or her ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age- appropriate manner in each functional domain. If a child's impairment functionally equals a listing, we find him or her disabled. If a child's impairment does not functionally equal the listings, we find him or her not disabled. For a child with a title XVI disability claim, the sequential evaluation process ends at this step. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See 20 CFR 416.926a. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the individual's impairment does not meet or equal a listing, we will assess and make a finding about an individual's residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in the individual's case record. An individual's residual functional capacity is the most the individual can still do despite his or her impairment-related limitations. We consider the individual's symptoms when determining his or her residual functional capacity and the extent to which the individual's impairment-related symptoms are consistent with the evidence in the record.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After establishing the residual functional capacity, we determine whether an individual is able to do any past relevant work. At step 4, we compare the individual's residual functional capacity with the requirements of his or her past relevant work. If the individual's residual functional capacity is consistent with the demands of any of his or her past relevant work, either as the individual performed it or as the occupation is generally performed in the national economy, then we will find the individual not disabled. If none of the individual's past relevant work is within his or her residual functional capacity, we proceed to step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, we determine whether the individual is able to adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. We consider the same residual functional capacity, together with the individual's age, education, and past work experience. If the individual is able to adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, we will find him or her not disabled. If the individual cannot adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, we find him or her disabled. At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, we will not consider an individual's symptoms any further because we considered the individual's symptoms when we determined the individual's residual functional capacity. Effective Date: This SSR is effective on March 16, 2016. Cross-References: SSR 96-3p, ``Titles II and XVI: Considering Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in Determining Whether a Medically Determinable Impairment is Severe,'' SSR 96-8p, ``Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims,'' SSR 96-6p, ``Titles II and XVI: Consideration of Administrative Findings of Fact by State Agency Medical and Psychological Consultants and Other Program Physicians and Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council Levels of Administrative Review; Medical Equivalence;'' and Program Operations Manual System, sections DI 24515.061 and DI 24515. 064. [FR Doc. 2016-05916 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
![14166 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Notices
manipulative acts and practices, to Bond held by the Fund will exceed 30% office of the Exchange. All comments
promote just and equitable principles of of the Fund’s net assets, and the five received will be posted without change;
trade,’’ and ‘‘to protect investors and the most heavily weighted Municipal Bonds the Commission does not edit personal
public interest.’’ 23 held by the Fund will not in the identifying information from
aggregate account for more than 50% of submissions. You should submit only
III. Procedure: Request for Written
the Fund’s assets; and (iii) the Fund will information that you wish to make
Comments
hold Municipal Bonds of a minimum of available publicly. All submissions
The Commission requests that 13 non-affiliated issuers. Apart from should refer to File Number SR–
interested persons provide written these broad representations, the NYSEArca–2015–93 and should be
submissions of their views, data, and Exchange provides no other information submitted on or before April 6, 2016.
arguments with respect to the issues about the kinds of municipal bonds in Rebuttal comments should be submitted
identified above, as well as any other which the Fund may invest. by April 20,2016.
concerns they may have with the Accordingly, the Commission seeks For the Commission, by the Division of
proposal. In particular, the Commission comment on whether the Exchange’s Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
invites the written views of interested representations relating to the authority.27
persons concerning whether the Municipal Bonds to be held by the Fund Robert W. Errett,
proposal is consistent with Section are sufficiently clear in their application
Deputy Secretary.
6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, to municipal bonds, specifically, and
or the rules and regulations thereunder. [FR Doc. 2016–05855 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am]
are consistent with the requirements of
Although there do not appear to be any Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which, among BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
issues relevant to approval or other things, requires that the rules of an
disapproval that would be facilitated by exchange be designed to prevent
an oral presentation of views, data, and fraudulent and manipulative acts and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
arguments, the Commission will practices. [Docket No. SSA–2015–0055]
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any Comments may be submitted by any
request for an opportunity to make an of the following methods: Social Security Ruling 16–3p; Titles II
oral presentation.24 Electronic Comments and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in
Interested persons are invited to Disability Claims
submit written data, views, and • Use the Commission’s Internet
arguments regarding whether the comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
proposal should be approved or rules/sro.shtml); or ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling
disapproved by April 6, 2016. Any • Send an email to rule-comments@ (SSR).
person who wishes to file a rebuttal to sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
any other person’s submission must file NYSEArca–2015–93 on the subject line. SUMMARY: We are providing notice of
that rebuttal by April 20, 2016. The Paper Comments SSR 16–3p. This Ruling supersedes SSR
Commission asks that commenters 96–7p. This Ruling provides guidance
• Send paper comments in triplicate about how we evaluate statements
address the sufficiency of the
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange regarding the intensity, persistence, and
Exchange’s statements in support of the
Commission, 100 F Street NE., limiting effects of symptoms in
proposal, which are set forth in the
Washington, DC 20549–1090. disability claims under Titles II and XVI
Notice 25 and in Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change,26 in addition All submissions should refer to File of the Social Security Act (Act) and
to any other comments they may wish Numbers SR–NYSEArca–2015–93. This blindness claims under Title XVI of the
to submit about the proposed rule file number should be included on the Act.
change. subject line if email is used. To help the DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2016.
The Exchange provides that the Fund Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
may invest in one or more of the Elaine Tocco, Office of Disability Policy,
following broad categories of Municipal only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s Social Security Administration, 6401
Bonds: (a) General obligation bonds; (b) Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
revenue bonds; (c) discount bonds; (d) Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 21235–6401, (410) 966–6356. For
premium bonds; (e) zero coupon bonds; information on eligibility or filing for
and (f) private activity bonds. Moreover, submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements benefits, call our national toll-free
the Exchange represents that: (i) Each number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1–
Municipal Bond held by the Fund must with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the 800–325–0778, or visit our internet site,
be a constituent of a deal where the Social Security Online, at http://
deal’s original offering amount was at Commission, and all written
communications relating to the www.socialsecurity.gov.
least $100 million; (ii) no Municipal
proposed rule change between the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although
23 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Commission and any person, other than 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not
24 Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the those that may be withheld from the require us to publish this SSR, we are
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law public in accordance with the doing so in accordance with 20 CFR
94–29 (June 4, 1975), grants the Commission provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 402.35(b)(1).
flexibility to determine what type of proceeding—
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
either oral or notice and opportunity for written
available for Web site viewing and Through SSRs, we convey to the
comments—is appropriate for consideration of a printing in the Commission’s Public public SSA precedential decisions
particular proposal by a self-regulatory Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., relating to the Federal old age,
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of Washington, DC 20549, on official survivors, disability, supplemental
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban
Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30
business days between the hours of security income, and special veterans
(1975). 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of these benefits programs. We may base SSRs
25 See supra note 3. filings also will be available for
26 See supra note 4. inspection and copying at the principal 27 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Mar 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_14217/page/1.svg)
![14172 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Notices
how a child’s impairment-related symptoms when we determined the State, Washington, DC 20520,
symptoms affect his or her ability to individual’s residual functional telephone: (202) 647–9683.
function independently, appropriately, capacity. Dated: February 22, 2016.
and effectively in an age-appropriate Effective Date: This SSR is effective Christopher Herrick,
manner in each functional domain. If a on March 16, 2016. Acting Executive Director, International
child’s impairment functionally equals a Cross-References: SSR 96–3p, ‘‘Titles Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department of
listing, we find him or her disabled. If II and XVI: Considering Allegations of State.
a child’s impairment does not Pain and Other Symptoms in [FR Doc. 2016–05927 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am]
functionally equal the listings, we find Determining Whether a Medically BILLING CODE 4710–35–P
him or her not disabled. For a child Determinable Impairment is Severe,’’
with a title XVI disability claim, the SSR 96–8p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:
sequential evaluation process ends at Assessing Residual Functional Capacity
this step. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
in Initial Claims,’’ SSR 96–6p, ‘‘Titles II
If the individual’s impairment does and XVI: Consideration of [Docket No. FD 36004]
not meet or equal a listing, we will Administrative Findings of Fact by State
assess and make a finding about an Agency Medical and Psychological Canadian Pacific Railway Limited—
individual’s residual functional capacity Consultants and Other Program Petition for Expedited Declaratory
based on all the relevant medical and Physicians and Psychologists at the Order
other evidence in the individual’s case Administrative Law Judge and Appeals
record. An individual’s residual On March 2, 2016, Canadian Pacific
Council Levels of Administrative Railway Limited (CPRL) 1 filed a
functional capacity is the most the Review; Medical Equivalence;’’ and
individual can still do despite his or her petition requesting that the Board issue
Program Operations Manual System, a declaratory order on two issues
impairment-related limitations. We sections DI 24515.061 and DI 24515.
consider the individual’s symptoms pertaining to CPRL’s pursuit of a
064. possible merger with Norfolk Southern
when determining his or her residual [FR Doc. 2016–05916 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am]
functional capacity and the extent to Railway Company (NSR) whether: (1)
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
which the individual’s impairment- ‘‘A structure in which CPRL holds its
related symptoms are consistent with current rail carrier subsidiaries in an
the evidence in the record.25 independent, irrevocable voting trust
After establishing the residual DEPARTMENT OF STATE while it acquires control of [NSR] and
functional capacity, we determine [Public Notice: 9483] seeks STB merger authority potentially
whether an individual is able to do any could be used to avoid the exercise of
past relevant work. At step 4, we International Security Advisory Board unlawful premature common control’’;
compare the individual’s residual (ISAB) Meeting; Notice Closed Meeting and (2) ‘‘it would be potentially
functional capacity with the permissible for the chief executive
requirements of his or her past relevant In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of officer of [CPRC] to terminate his
work. If the individual’s residual the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 position at [CPRC] entities in trust and
functional capacity is consistent with U.S.C. App 10(a)(2), the Department of then to take the comparable position at
the demands of any of his or her past State announces a meeting of the [NSR] pending merger approval.’’ (Pet.
relevant work, either as the individual International Security Advisory Board 2.) CPRL has requested that the Board
performed it or as the occupation is (ISAB) to take place on April 27, 2016 issue an expedited declaratory order by
generally performed in the national at the Department of State, Washington, May 6, 2016.
economy, then we will find the DC. On March 7, 2016, the Transportation
individual not disabled. If none of the Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Communications Union/IAM (TCU/
individual’s past relevant work is Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 IAM) requested that the Board provide
within his or her residual functional U.S.C. App 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. interested parties 45 days to reply to the
capacity, we proceed to step 5 of the 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that March 2 petition.2 Also on March 7,
sequential evaluation process. this Board meeting will be closed to the 2016, CSX Corporation requested that
At step 5 of the sequential evaluation public because the Board will be the Board deny the March 2 petition, or,
process, we determine whether the reviewing and discussing matters should the Board proceed, issue a
individual is able to adjust to other properly classified in accordance with procedural schedule that would allow
work that exists in significant numbers Executive Order 13526. The purpose of parties 30 days from publication to
in the national economy. We consider the ISAB is to provide the Department submit comments and 15 days for the
the same residual functional capacity, with a continuing source of simultaneous submission of reply
together with the individual’s age, independent advice on all aspects of comments. On March 9, 2016, the
education, and past work experience. If arms control, disarmament, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
the individual is able to adjust to other nonproliferation, political-military Employes Division/IBT, Brotherhood of
work that exists in significant numbers affairs, international security, and Railroad Signalmen, and International
in the national economy, we will find related aspects of public diplomacy. The
him or her not disabled. If the agenda for this meeting will include 1 CPRL is a noncarrier, publicly traded holding
individual cannot adjust to other work classified discussions related to the company that wholly owns directly or indirectly
rail carriers in Canada and the United States that
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
that exists in significant numbers in the Board’s studies on current U.S. policy
do business as ‘‘CP’’ or ‘‘Canadian Pacific.’’ ‘‘CP’’
national economy, we find him or her and issues regarding arms control, or ‘‘Canadian Pacific’’ refers to the Canadian Pacific
disabled. At step 5 of the sequential international security, nuclear Railway Company (CPRC), the Canadian operating
evaluation process, we will not consider proliferation, and diplomacy. company and parent of the U.S. railroad operating
For more information, contact subsidiaries Soo Line Railroad Company, Delaware
an individual’s symptoms any further and Hudson Railroad Company, and Dakota,
because we considered the individual’s Christopher Herrick, Acting Executive Minnesota and Eastern Railroad Corporation.
Director of the International Security 2 On March 7, 2016, CPRL filed a reply requesting
25 See 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. Advisory Board, U.S. Department of that the Board deny TCU/IAM’s extension request.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Mar 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_14217/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2016-03-15 23:44:36
Document Modified: 2016-03-15 23:44:36
| 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 Ruling (SSR). | |
| Contact | Elaine Tocco, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-6356. 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 | 81 FR 14166 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR