... to require claimants to inform us about or submit all evidence known to them that relates to their disability claim, subject generally to two exceptions for privileged communications and work product. This requirement would include the duty to submit all relevant evidence obtained from any source in its entirety, unless subject to an exception. We also propose to require a representative to help the claimant obtain the information or evidence that the claimant must submit under our regulations.Some unspecified "change" was made while this was at OMB.
Expect to see this in the Federal Register in the near future. It went through OMB on a fast track.
Social Security must first publish this proposal in the Federal Register, allow comments, consider those comments and then publish final regulations, a process likely to take at least a year.
Kiss the 500-700 goal goodbye.
ReplyDeleteIt's about time. Looks like my earlier prediction that the opinion of an outgoing commissioner stated in some hearing before Congress wouldn't end up becoming the actual agency policy was correct.
ReplyDeleteNote "all relevant evidence", this doesn't mean hundreds of pages of well-woman gyno visits and routine childhood checkups. It only means you can't withhold the worker's comp exam report that found the clmt can return to work after medical improvement after noticing that the ALJ didn't request it. Reps still have the responsibility to curate the record, not just dump a couple thousand pages of irrelevant medical records on ALJs without any review. All "relevant evidence" that "relates to their disability claim" shouldn't result in vastly increased record sizes if the rep is doing their job, as most of the records targeted here should already have been included anyway.
ReplyDeleteit should also help to eliminate the magical piece of evidence that is found one day after receiving an UF decision...fortuitous timing that allows for better chance of AC remand.
ReplyDeleteThis requirement would include the duty to submit all relevant evidence obtained from any source in its entirety
ReplyDeleteSo if I don't have the evidence - that is, the treater's office responds to my request at glacial speed or the claimant forgot about some doctor he went to once - I'm not in violation of the proposed rule?
And we get to send interrogatories to or cross examine the state agency reviewing physicians as well as the CEs, right? I mean we want a very thorough evaluation, right?
ReplyDelete@ 1:51...you can bring whatever evidence you want. However, the things you are talking about won't help your case.
ReplyDeleteIt would not not help his case in one of two situations:
ReplyDelete1. You believe that state agency physicians follow the rules, that CE's follow the rules, that DDS and ODAR sends all needed records to the CE, or
2. You know this isn't the case, but don't care.
@2:01 PM. You sound like you are part of the new breed of ALJs who have been indoctrinated into thinking DDS docs are all knowing and every claimant is a fraud. There is no help for your kind. I pity you and your miserable life.
ReplyDelete@ 11:00.
ReplyDeleteI am well aware that DDS and CE records are less than ideal. However, interrogating them about their examination is not going to help a claimant. What will you show? That they quickly examined the claimant, performed a few basic tests and then drafted an RFC. Of course I know that. That's reflected in the weight afforded to their opinions.
As a rep who is a lawyer and not a doctor, with this new rule, I am not going to take responsibility for determining what is "relevant" evidence. I will submit all evidence which I can obtain, and let the ALJ decide (that's the ALJ's job, anyway). The evidence is supposed to be obtained for 1 year prior to AOD, and earlier evidence that relates to severe impairments may also be needed. The 500-700 quota is absurdly unrealistic anyway.
ReplyDelete@ 11:49...haven't you been doing this already? Seriously, this rule is much ado about nothing. Just submit all the evidence.
ReplyDeleteMost of us attorneys are appalled by the news that one of the large national "mills" was discovered to have edited medical records which they submitted. However, I can't help but chuckle at some ALJs that I've known. Be careful of what you ask for. At one ODAR during the days of paper files, there were a few ALJs who were very suspicious and distrustful--it seemed to be the culture within that ODAR. Appearing before them, one felt almost accused of malfeasance as they roughly interrogated every rep, almost implying fraud. Sooo, many of us began submitting every piece of garbage that the copy services send to increase their copy fees. In addition to the ER records, consultation notes, History and physical, lab tests, and discharge summaries, many of us sent along the nurses' notes, physician orders, patients' property inventories, and all the other assorted garbage we often have to sort through. The paper files for those ALJs were usually twice the size of those of other ALJs who often asked counsel to discard the "chaff."
ReplyDeleteand the SCTs will weed out the chaff before the ALJ has to ever look at the file. whoopdeedoo
ReplyDelete