Feb 20, 2013

Astrue Was Busy On February 12

     The Ruling that Michael Astrue signed on February 12 wasn't the only one he signed that day. Tomorrow's Federal Register will have another Ruling he signed that day, although this one isn't that important. Social Security Ruling 13-3p says that:
In this SSR [Social Security Ruling], we are adopting as our nationwide policy the holding in Difford v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 910 F.2d 1316 (6th Cir. 1990). We have applied the holding in that decision under Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 92-2(6) to cases involving beneficiaries residing in States within the Sixth Circuit ... Because this SSR addresses the issue decided by the Difford court, in this issue of the Federal Register, we are also publishing a notice rescinding AR 92-2(6) as obsolete ...
In Difford, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit interpreted the references to “now” and “current” in section 223(f) of the Act to require that when we review a medical disability cessation determination or decision, we must consider whether the beneficiary was disabled at any time through the date of the adjudicator(s)’s final determination or decision.


Anonymous said...

Actually, Charles, it is incredibly important. Outside the 6th Circuit, the analysis of a Title II Cessation stopped as of the date of cessation, so in a T2 only case, the current medical condition was irrelevant. Now a person who was properly ceased, but had a later worsening of his condition (either due to worsening of pre-existing conditions or development of new conditions) can be found to be disabled again without having to file a new application.

Anonymous said...

This SSR overturns a very recent Third Circuit decision to the contrary. While this ruling will affect very few folks in the big picture, it is a common sense response to a position that even apart from creating a split in circuits ( 6th vs 3d for example), would lead to ridiculous contortions and inefficiencies. e.g. trying to file a new T. II claim while the CDR is pending at Recon or at the hearing level -- what silliness. Congratulations to the Commissioner for taking a common sense approach to this issue (albiet a tad late in the game)