82 FR 15263 - Social Security Ruling (SSR) 17-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evidence Needed by Adjudicators at the Hearings and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process To Make Findings About Medical Equivalence
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 57 (March 27, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 57 (March 27, 2017)
| Page Range | 15263-15265 | |
| FR Document | 2017-05959 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 57 (Monday, March 27, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 15263-15265] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-05959] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2012-0035] Social Security Ruling (SSR) 17-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evidence Needed by Adjudicators at the Hearings and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process To Make Findings About Medical Equivalence AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling (SSR). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We are providing notice of SSR 17-2p. This SSR provides guidance about how adjudicators at the hearings and Appeals Council (AC) levels of the administrative review process make findings about medical equivalence in disability claims under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Silverman, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 594-2128. 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 make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made at [[Page 15264]] 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.) Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING Social Security Ruling, SSR 17-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evidence Needed by Adjudicators at the Hearings and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process to Make Findings about Medical Equivalence. This Social Security Ruling (SSR) rescinds and replaces 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.'' PURPOSE: This SSR provides guidance on how adjudicators at the hearings and Appeals Council (AC) levels of our administrative review process make findings about medical equivalence in disability claims under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). CITATIONS: Sections 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a) of the Act, as amended; 20 CFR 404.1526 and 416.926. BACKGROUND: The Sequential Evaluation Process We use a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an adult is disabled under titles II or XVI of the Act.\1\ We use a different process to decide whether a child is disabled under title XVI of the Act.\2\ In both situations, if we can find an individual is disabled at a step, we make a determination or decision at that step and do not go on to the next step.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920. \2\ See 20 CFR 416.924. \3\ See 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At step 3 of the sequential evaluation process for determining disability in adult and child claims, we make a medical assessment to determine whether an individual's impairment(s) meets a listing in the Listing of Impairments (listings).\4\ If an individual's impairment(s) meets all the criteria of any listed impairment in the listings, we will find that the individual is disabled. If an individual has an impairment(s) that does not meet all of the requirements of a listing, we then determine whether the individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listed impairment. An impairment is medically equivalent to a listed impairment if it is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment. We can find medical equivalence in three ways: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 20 CFR part 404, subpart P, Appendix 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. If an individual has an impairment that is described in the listings, but either: a. the individual does not exhibit one or more of the findings specified in the particular listing, or b. the individual exhibits all of the findings, but one or more of the findings is not as severe as specified in the particular listing, then we will find that his or her impairment is medically equivalent to that listing if there are other findings related to the impairment that are at least of equal medical significance to the required criteria. 2. If an individual has an impairment(s) that is not described in the listings, we will compare the findings with those for closely analogous listed impairments. If the findings related to the impairment(s) are at least of equal medical significance to those of a listed impairment, we will find that the impairment(s) is medically equivalent to the analogous listing. 3. If an individual has a combination of impairments, no one of which meets a listing, we will compare the findings with those for closely analogous listed impairments. If the findings related to the impairments are at least of equal medical significance to those of a listed impairment, we will find that the combination of impairments is medically equivalent to that listing.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See 20 CFR 404.1526 and 416.926. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we determine an individual's impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a listed impairment, we continue evaluating the claim using the sequential evaluation process.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ In adult claims, we will determine the individual's residual functional capacity and then go to step 4 of the sequential evaluation process. See 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920. In a child's claim under Title XVI, we will determine whether the child's impairment(s) functionally equals the Listings at step 3. See 20 CFR 416.926a. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who decides whether an individual's impairment medically equals a listing? At the initial and reconsideration levels of the administrative review process, Federal or State agency Medical Consultants (MC) or Psychological Consultants (PC) consider the evidence and make administrative medical findings about medical issues, including whether an individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals a listing.\7\ MCs and PCs are highly qualified medical sources who are also experts in the evaluation of medical issues in disability claims under the Act. In most situations,\8\ we require adjudicators at the initial and reconsideration levels to obtain MC or PC administrative medical findings about medical equivalence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ In some States, we are testing modifications to the disability determination procedures that allow disability examiners to decide whether an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listing without requiring consultation with an MC or PC, although such consultation is permissible. One modification authorizes specialized State agency disability examiners called ``single decisionmakers'' (SDM) to make initial and reconsideration determinations without consulting an MC or PC in some types of claims. See 20 CFR 404.906(b)(2) and 416.1406(b)(2). The other modification being tested allows disability examiners to make fully favorable determinations in quick disability determinations (QDD) and compassionate allowance (CAL) claims without requiring consultation with an MC or PC because those types of claims involve the most obviously disabling impairments. See 20 CFR 404.1615(c)(3) and 416.1015(c)(3). In those States using the testing modifications, there may not be an MC or PC medical assessment in the file. Both of these testing modifications are scheduled to end by the end of calendar year 2018. See 81 FR 73027 (2016) and 81 FR 58544 (2016). \8\ As stated in the prior footnote, disability examiners are not required to obtain MC or PC input about medical equivalence in certain SDM claims and in QDD and CAL claims. In those States using the testing modifications, there may not be a MC or PC medical assessment in the file. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the hearings level of the administrative review process, administrative law judges (ALJ) and some attorney advisors \9\ determine whether an individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals a listing at step 3 of the sequential evaluation process. To assist in evaluating this issue, adjudicators at the hearings level may ask for and consider evidence from medical experts (ME) about the individual's impairment(s), such as the nature and severity of the impairment(s). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See 20 CFR 404.942 and 416.1442. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the AC level of the administrative review process, when the AC exercises its authority to issue a decision,\10\ it [[Page 15265]] determines whether an individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals a listing. The AC may ask its medical support staff to help decide whether an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The Appeals Council issues decisions in cases after it grants a request for review or takes own motion review of a hearing decision. See 20 CFR 404.969-970 and 416.1469-1470. The Appeals Council may also make a decision after a Federal court remands a case. See 20 CFR 404.983 and 416.1483. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLICY INTERPRETATION Evidentiary requirements At the hearings level or at the AC level when the AC issues its own decision, the adjudicator is responsible for the finding of medical equivalence. The adjudicator must base his or her decision about whether the individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listing on the preponderance of the evidence in the record. To demonstrate the required support of a finding that an individual is disabled based on medical equivalence at step 3, the record must contain one of the following: 1. A prior administrative medical finding from an MC or PC from the initial or reconsideration adjudication levels supporting the medical equivalence finding, or 2. ME evidence, which may include testimony or written responses to interrogatories, obtained at the hearings level supporting the medical equivalence finding, or 3. A report from the AC's medical support staff supporting the medical equivalence finding. When an MC or PC makes administrative medical findings at the initial or reconsideration levels, the findings are part of the Commissioner's determination; therefore, they are not evidence at that level of adjudication.\11\ At subsequent levels of the administrative review process, the MCs' or PCs' administrative medical findings made at the initial or reconsideration levels are prior administrative medical findings, which are evidence.\12\ Although adjudicators at the hearings and AC levels are not required to adopt prior administrative medical findings when issuing decisions, adjudicators must consider them and articulate how they considered them in the decision.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See 20 CFR 404.1513a(a)(1) and 416.913a(a)(1). \12\ See 20 CFR 404.1513a(b)-(c) and 416.913a(b)-(c). It is possible for an MC or PC to have found that an individual's impairment(s) medically equal(s) the requirements of a listed impairment(s), but we would still not make a favorable determination. For example, we could find that the individual does not meet nonmedical requirements for eligibility. \13\ See 20 CFR 404.1513a(b)-(c), 404.1520c, 416.913a(b)-(c), and 416.920c. In States using the two testing modifications discussed in footnote 7, the record may not contain any MC or PC prior administrative medical finding about medical equivalence that an adjudicator is able to consider. In these situations, the adjudicator may find that an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listed impairment using the second or third method, but not the first method. In these situations, the adjudicator is not required to obtain ME evidence or medical support staff input before making a finding that the claimant's impairment(s) do not medically equal a listing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When an adjudicator at the hearings level obtains ME testimony or written responses to interrogatories about whether an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listing, the adjudicator cannot rely on an ME's conclusory statement that an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listed impairment(s). Whether an impairment(s) medically equals the requirements of a listed impairment is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. If the ME states that the individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listed impairment, the adjudicator must ask the ME to identify medical evidence in the record that supports the ME's statements. Adjudicators will consider ME testimony and interrogatories using our rules for considering evidence. The adjudicator will then consider whether an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listing using one of the three methods specified in 20 CFR 404.1526 and 416.926. Similarly, when the AC obtains a report from its medical support staff to evaluate medical equivalence, the AC retains final responsibility for determining whether an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listed impairment. The AC will consider the medical support staff's report and all other supporting medical evidence using our rules for considering evidence. The AC will then consider whether an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listing using one of the three methods specified in 20 CFR 404.1526 and 416.926. If an adjudicator at the hearings or AC level believes that the evidence does not reasonably support a finding that the individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listed impairment, we do not require the adjudicator to obtain ME evidence or medical support staff input prior to making a step 3 finding that the individual's impairment(s) does not medically equal a listed impairment. Articulation requirements An adjudicator at the hearings or AC level must consider all evidence in making a finding that an individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listing. To make a finding of medical equivalence, the adjudicator must articulate how the record establishes medical equivalency using one of the three methods specified in 20 CFR 404.1526 and 416.926. An adjudicator must provide a rationale for a finding of medical equivalence in a decision that is sufficient for a subsequent reviewer or court to understand the decision. Generally, this will entail the adjudicator identifying the specific listing section involved, articulating how the record does not meet the requirements of the listed impairment(s), and how the record, including ME or medical support staff evidence, establishes an impairment of equivalent severity. Similarly, an adjudicator at the hearings or AC level must consider all evidence in making a finding that an individual's impairment(s) does not medically equal a listing. If an adjudicator at the hearings or AC level believes that the evidence already received in the record does not reasonably support a finding that the individual's impairment(s) medically equals a listed impairment, the adjudicator is not required to articulate specific evidence supporting his or her finding that the individual's impairment(s) does not medically equal a listed impairment. Generally, a statement that the individual's impairment(s) does not medically equal a listed impairment constitutes sufficient articulation for this finding. An adjudicator's articulation of the reason(s) why the individual is or is not disabled at a later step in the sequential evaluation process will provide rationale that is sufficient for a subsequent reviewer or court to determine the basis for the finding about medical equivalence at step 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This SSR is effective on March 27, 2017. CROSS-REFERENCES: 20 CFR 404.1526 and 416.926. [FR Doc. 2017-05959 Filed 3-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 57 / Monday, March 27, 2017 / Notices 15263
inspection and copying at the principal interpretations of the law and claims filed on or after March 27, 2017,
office of the Exchange. All comments regulations. the final rules state that adjudicators
received will be posted without change; We are rescinding the following SSRs: will not provide any articulation about
the Commission does not edit personal • SSR 96–2p: Titles II and XVI: their consideration of decisions from
identifying information from Giving Controlling Weight to Treating other governmental agencies and
submissions. You should submit only Source Medical Opinions. nongovernmental entities because this
information that you wish to make • SSR 96–5p: Titles II and XVI: evidence is inherently neither valuable
available publicly. All submissions Medical Source Opinions on Issues nor persuasive to us. Therefore, this SSR
should refer to File Number SR–BX– Reserved to the Commissioner. is inconsistent with the final rules.
2017–013, and should be submitted on • SSR 06–03p: Titles II and XVI:
Considering Opinions and Other (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
or before April 17, 2017. Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security—
Evidence from Sources Who Are Not Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social
For the Commission, by the Division of ‘‘Acceptable Medical Sources’’ in
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004,
Disability Claims; Considering Social Security—Survivors Insurance;
authority.34
Decisions on Disability by Other 96.006—Supplemental Security Income.)
Eduardo A. Aleman, Governmental and Nongovernmental
Assistant Secretary. Agencies. Nancy A. Berryhill,
[FR Doc. 2017–05919 Filed 3–24–17; 8:45 am] These three SSRs are inconsistent or Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P unnecessarily duplicative with our [FR Doc. 2017–05958 Filed 3–24–17; 8:45 am]
recent final rules, Revisions to Rules BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
Regarding the Evaluation of Medical
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Evidence, published in the Federal
Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Docket No. SSA–2012–0035] 5844). [Docket No. SSA–2012–0035]
SSR 96–2p explained how
Rescission of Social Security Rulings adjudicators should evaluate medical Social Security Ruling (SSR) 17–2p:
96–2p, 96–5p, and 06–3p opinions from treating sources, Titles II and XVI: Evidence Needed by
AGENCY: Social Security Administration. including when it is appropriate to give Adjudicators at the Hearings and
ACTION: Notice of rescission of Social controlling weight to medical opinions Appeals Council Levels of the
Security Rulings. from treating sources. The final rules Administrative Review Process To
revised these policies for claims filed on Make Findings About Medical
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR or after March 27, 2017, in several ways. Equivalence
402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner For example, adjudicators will not
assign a weight, including controlling AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
of Social Security gives notice of the
rescission of Social Security Rulings weight, to any medical opinion for ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling
(SSR) 96–2p, 96–5p, and 06–03p. claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. (SSR).
DATES: Effective Date: This rescission Therefore, this SSR is inconsistent with SUMMARY: We are providing notice of
will be effective for claims filed on or the final rules. SSR 17–2p. This SSR provides guidance
after March 27, 2017. SSR 96–5p explained how about how adjudicators at the hearings
adjudicators should consider and and Appeals Council (AC) levels of the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
articulate their consideration of medical administrative review process make
Joshua Silverman, Office of Disability source opinions on issues reserved to
Policy, Social Security Administration, findings about medical equivalence in
the Commissioner in the notice of the disability claims under titles II and XVI
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD determination or decision. The final
21235–6401, (410) 594–2128. For of the Social Security Act.
rules revised these policies for claims
information on eligibility or filing for DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2017.
filed on or after March 27, 2017, in
benefits, call our national toll-free several ways. For example, in claims FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
number 1–800–772, 1213, or TTY 1– filed on or after March 27, 2017, Joshua Silverman, Office of Disability
800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, adjudicators will not provide any Policy, Social Security Administration,
Social Security Online, at http:// articulation about their consideration of 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
www.socialsecurity.gov. this evidence because it is inherently 21235–6401, (410) 594–2128. For
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although neither valuable nor persuasive to us. information on eligibility or filing for
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not Therefore, this SSR is inconsistent with benefits, call our national toll-free
require us to publish this notice, we are the final rules. number 1–800–772, 1213, or TTY 1–
doing so in accordance with 20 CFR SSR 06–03p explained how we 800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site,
402.35(b)(1). consider opinions and other evidence Social Security Online, at http://
Through SSRs, we make available to from sources who are not acceptable www.socialsecurity.gov.
the public precedential decisions medical sources and how we consider SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although
relating to the Federal old-age, decisions by other governmental and 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not
survivors, disability, supplemental nongovernmental agencies on the issue require us to publish this SSR, we are
security income, and special veterans of disability or blindness. The final doing so in accordance with 20 CFR
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
benefits programs. We may base SSRs rules revised these policies for claims 402.35(b)(1).
on determinations or decisions made at filed on or after March 27, 2017, in Through SSRs, we make available to
all levels of administrative adjudication, several ways. For example, in claims the public precedential decisions
Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s filed on or after March 27, 2017, the relating to the Federal old-age,
decisions, opinions of the Office of the final rules state that all medical sources, survivors, disability, supplemental
General Counsel, or other not just acceptable medical sources, can security income, and special veterans
make evidence that we categorize and benefits programs. We may base SSRs
34 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). consider as medical opinions. Also, in on determinations or decisions made at
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:02 Mar 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_15320/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 57 / Monday, March 27, 2017 / Notices 15265
determines whether an individual’s When an adjudicator at the hearings three methods specified in 20 CFR
impairment(s) meets or medically level obtains ME testimony or written 404.1526 and 416.926. An adjudicator
equals a listing. The AC may ask its responses to interrogatories about must provide a rationale for a finding of
medical support staff to help decide whether an individual’s impairment(s) medical equivalence in a decision that
whether an individual’s impairment(s) medically equals a listing, the is sufficient for a subsequent reviewer or
medically equals a listing. adjudicator cannot rely on an ME’s court to understand the decision.
conclusory statement that an Generally, this will entail the
POLICY INTERPRETATION
individual’s impairment(s) medically adjudicator identifying the specific
Evidentiary requirements equals a listed impairment(s). Whether listing section involved, articulating
At the hearings level or at the AC an impairment(s) medically equals the how the record does not meet the
level when the AC issues its own requirements of a listed impairment is requirements of the listed
decision, the adjudicator is responsible an issue reserved to the Commissioner. impairment(s), and how the record,
for the finding of medical equivalence. If the ME states that the individual’s including ME or medical support staff
The adjudicator must base his or her impairment(s) medically equals a listed evidence, establishes an impairment of
decision about whether the individual’s impairment, the adjudicator must ask equivalent severity.
impairment(s) medically equals a listing the ME to identify medical evidence in Similarly, an adjudicator at the
on the preponderance of the evidence in the record that supports the ME’s hearings or AC level must consider all
the record. To demonstrate the required statements. Adjudicators will consider evidence in making a finding that an
support of a finding that an individual ME testimony and interrogatories using individual’s impairment(s) does not
is disabled based on medical our rules for considering evidence. The medically equal a listing. If an
equivalence at step 3, the record must adjudicator will then consider whether adjudicator at the hearings or AC level
contain one of the following: an individual’s impairment(s) medically believes that the evidence already
1. A prior administrative medical equals a listing using one of the three received in the record does not
finding from an MC or PC from the methods specified in 20 CFR 404.1526 reasonably support a finding that the
initial or reconsideration adjudication and 416.926. individual’s impairment(s) medically
levels supporting the medical Similarly, when the AC obtains a equals a listed impairment, the
equivalence finding, or report from its medical support staff to adjudicator is not required to articulate
2. ME evidence, which may include evaluate medical equivalence, the AC specific evidence supporting his or her
testimony or written responses to retains final responsibility for finding that the individual’s
interrogatories, obtained at the hearings determining whether an individual’s impairment(s) does not medically equal
level supporting the medical impairment(s) medically equals a listed a listed impairment. Generally, a
equivalence finding, or impairment. The AC will consider the statement that the individual’s
3. A report from the AC’s medical medical support staff’s report and all impairment(s) does not medically equal
support staff supporting the medical other supporting medical evidence a listed impairment constitutes
equivalence finding. using our rules for considering sufficient articulation for this finding.
When an MC or PC makes evidence. The AC will then consider An adjudicator’s articulation of the
administrative medical findings at the whether an individual’s impairment(s) reason(s) why the individual is or is not
initial or reconsideration levels, the medically equals a listing using one of disabled at a later step in the sequential
findings are part of the Commissioner’s the three methods specified in 20 CFR evaluation process will provide
determination; therefore, they are not 404.1526 and 416.926. rationale that is sufficient for a
evidence at that level of adjudication.11 If an adjudicator at the hearings or AC subsequent reviewer or court to
At subsequent levels of the level believes that the evidence does not determine the basis for the finding about
administrative review process, the MCs’ reasonably support a finding that the medical equivalence at step 3.
or PCs’ administrative medical findings individual’s impairment(s) medically EFFECTIVE DATE: This SSR is
made at the initial or reconsideration equals a listed impairment, we do not effective on March 27, 2017.
levels are prior administrative medical require the adjudicator to obtain ME CROSS-REFERENCES: 20 CFR
findings, which are evidence.12 evidence or medical support staff input 404.1526 and 416.926.
Although adjudicators at the hearings prior to making a step 3 finding that the [FR Doc. 2017–05959 Filed 3–24–17; 8:45 am]
and AC levels are not required to adopt individual’s impairment(s) does not BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
prior administrative medical findings medically equal a listed impairment.
when issuing decisions, adjudicators Articulation requirements
must consider them and articulate how DEPARTMENT OF STATE
they considered them in the decision.13 An adjudicator at the hearings or AC
level must consider all evidence in [Public Notice: 9929]
Council may also make a decision after a Federal making a finding that an individual’s
court remands a case. See 20 CFR 404.983 and impairment(s) medically equals a Notice of Stakeholder Consultations
416.1483. listing. To make a finding of medical on Responsible Conflict Mineral
11 See 20 CFR 404.1513a(a)(1) and 416.913a(a)(1).
equivalence, the adjudicator must Sourcing
12 See 20 CFR 404.1513a(b)–(c) and 416.913a(b)–
(c). It is possible for an MC or PC to have found
articulate how the record establishes Department of State.
AGENCY:
that an individual’s impairment(s) medically medical equivalency using one of the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
equal(s) the requirements of a listed impairment(s),
Notice; solicitation of
ACTION:
but we would still not make a favorable equivalence that an adjudicator is able to consider. comments.
determination. For example, we could find that the In these situations, the adjudicator may find that an
individual does not meet nonmedical requirements individual’s impairment(s) medically equals a listed SUMMARY: The United States announces
for eligibility. impairment using the second or third method, but that the United States remains
13 See 20 CFR 404.1513a(b)–(c), 404.1520c, not the first method. In these situations, the committed to working with our partners
416.913a(b)–(c), and 416.920c. In States using the adjudicator is not required to obtain ME evidence
two testing modifications discussed in footnote 7, or medical support staff input before making a
to break the links between armed groups
the record may not contain any MC or PC prior finding that the claimant’s impairment(s) do not and the minerals trade in the
administrative medical finding about medical medically equal a listing. Democratic Republic of Congo and other
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:02 Mar 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_15320/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-03-25 00:22:08
Document Modified: 2017-03-25 00:22:08
| 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). | |
| Dates | Effective Date: March 27, 2017. | |
| Contact | Joshua Silverman, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 594-2128. 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 | 82 FR 15263 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR