Social Security has a new Ruling coming out on Monday concerning disability determination in younger adults. It's very long.
Here are a couple of excerpts (footnote omitted):
Here are a couple of excerpts (footnote omitted):
If a young adult has a substantial loss of one or more of the basic mental demands of competitive, remunerative, unskilled work, the occupational base will be significantly eroded, despite vocational factors that we would ordinarily consider favorable (for example, young age, college education, and skilled work experience).The basic mental demands of competitive, remunerative, unskilled work include the
abilities to:
- Understand, remember, and carry out instructions;
- Make simple work-related judgments typically required for unskilled work;
- Respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work situations; and
- Deal with changes in a routine work setting. ...
[A] child’s impairment(s) that met or medically equaled a part B listing [as a child] will often meet or medically equal a part A listing at age 18 unless the impairment(s) has medically improved.
I'm a younger individual under the regulations,correct me if i'm wrong but this new ruling is more favorable or considerate of younger claimants/and beneficiaries.
ReplyDeleteMr hall,thank you for this blog and or updates on social security.
Based on the excerpts, nothing significant is changing. There is already an SSR that indicates a substantial loss of one or more basic mental demands of competitive remunerative unskilled work significantly erodes the occupational base, even if a person possesses favorable vocational factors.
ReplyDeleteAnd is not exactly news that a person who meets a child listing at age 17 will likely meet the adult equivalent at age 18 or 19.
Except,if not mistaken,this ruling specifically mention young adults.
ReplyDeleteSigned,
2:06 PM, September 09, 2011
very similar to SSR 96-9p...but as noted, includes a specific reference to young adults.
ReplyDeleteWon't technically change anything, but might make a few ALJ's look more closely and issue a few more favorable decisions.
It changes basically nothing, but I suppose Central Office has nothing better to do than to issue a redundant 36-page ruling.
ReplyDelete