I do not recall ever seeing that in print before as an official Social Security position.Policy for Residual Functional Capacity [RFC]RFC represents the most a claimant can do despite his or her limitations or restrictions. Ordinarily, RFC is the individual's maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities:
In an ordinary work setting,
On a regular and continuing basis, and
For 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.
However, if a claimant is unable to sustain a 40-hour workweek because of a severe medically determinable impairment (MDI), the adjudicator or medical consultant must discuss sustainability in the RFC.
Feb 25, 2010
Gotta Be Able To Do It 40 Hours A Week
From a recently issued section of Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
That's a statement been on my mind a while. Considering $1,000 sga.
I've been explaining this to my clients for a long time, it's nice to finally see it in writing on POMS.
this has been set out for almost 15 years in Social Security Ruling 96-8p
True, but I doubt that State Agency decisionmakers are as cognizant of SSRs as they are of POMS. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I have, at least in my state.
This really isn't a very interesting point.
SSR 96-8p is old news, and the regs have always had the "regular and continuing basis" language.
Anyway, citing to the definition of RFC won't be a home run at the hearing level. In fact, it would probably just insult the ALJ's intelligence --> Bad tactic.
You wrote a book on Social Security law and you were unaware of this? As stated above, it goes back to at least 1996. WHoever bought that book should get their money back.
Let's not forget that when an examiner tries to grant a claim because the claimant cannot "sustain," DQB will simply substitute their judgement and say "Oh yes the claimant can- deny the claim."
DQB is NOT always right. That's why SSA came up with the RPC which allows the DDS to rebut DQB's almighty attitute.
The more I read this blog, the more I realize that someone else has been editing the Hall hornbook for a long time.
The questions in these posts are things my paralegals have known for years.
(If not, they know how to find the answer in a Google search or less.)
I think this is a major issue. The fact that it has been on the books (read burried)but not really acknowledged in decisions, unless used to support a fully-favorable (as it is an east way to pay).
However, (in the cases I have seen and brother I have seen a lot) in denials it is never even mentioned because most often that claimant capable of sedentary or light work with a non-exertional component (say low stress tolerance, fatigue, chronic pain -- you get the idea)can't work 40 hours a week. But who want's to spoil a denial party?
Whoever says this 40 hour work week requirement has been "buried" is clueless. It is in the SSRa, it is in the POMS, and its in the regs. It is a basic, basic concept. Hall should have none it, if he is the expert he claims to be.
I said it is burried. And i stand by my statement. It may be written here and written there but it is heralded no where but in favorables. And that is only because it was pointed out to a particular class of ALJs as an easy way to pay and word spread. I have never seen it discussed in any unfavorables unless that rare attorney rep makes it an issue. If I was representing claimants I would make it an issue in every case in which it was relevant and that is the majority of cases because most sick people might be capable of working part time but full time is an whole other story.
Post a Comment