On March 5th, I posted this:
An example added recently to Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS):Guess what, that example has now disappeared from POMS. As best I can tell, they did this without listing the change on the page where they announce changes in POMS.
A 50-year-old claimant with a high school education and unskilled past relevant work has an RFC [Residual Functional Capacity] for standing/walking 2 hours of an 8-hour day and sitting approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour day. He is able to lift/carry/push/pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. This RFC falls between rule 201.12, which has a decision of disabled, and 202.13, which has a decision of not disabled. In this case, use rule 201.12 as a framework for a decision of disabled because the definitions in DI 25001.001 (Medical-Vocational Quick Reference Guide) indicate light work usually requires walking or standing for approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour day. Since the claimant can only walk or stand for 2 hours, he has a significantly reduced capacity to perform light work and a sedentary medical-vocational rule applies as a framework for a determination.
Oh no, we accidentally made a rule where people can get benefits approved. And we hid a little gem in an SSR saying POMS applies to all decision makers. Quick, delete the internets! We cannot have the people getting their money back.
ReplyDeleteYeah, so many of the SSI people are getting someone's money back, only not theirs... Knowing the intent of the Agency, I never follow Hallex or POMS as controlling. unless it is beneficial. Question is, beneficial to who??
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis is unusual. SSA would never have attempted this in past years. Changes are not made to POMS without several write offs. Suspect someone in policy is making a power move and assuming Colvin’ star-chamber will not notice. Doubt it can be legally done this way, but such is the lawless SSA climate we live in.
The POMS example (before its disappearance) is exactly the sort of thing SSA should do more of. There are still plenty of types of limitations (and combos of limitations) which, while not meeting listing requirements, should uniformly result in a finding of disability. The more obvious of those should be explicitly set out in guidance.
ReplyDeleteSSA should do what it can to reduce the inconsistency in adjudication results for cases with very similar profiles. More such guidance would help that cause.
Interestingly, the original transmittal is still published online at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/reference.nsf/links/02132015015918PM.
ReplyDeleteThe 'example' language still appears there.
It really is the Wild West. Judges and the agency just do whatever they want without concern for consequences because there are none.
ReplyDeleteThere is a mindset in some corners of Social Security, such as the quality branch at the Appeals Council, that looks on as illegitimate allowances based on the inability to perform a significant range of sedentary unskilled work or work on a sustained routine basis. Policy through "quality" has blown up in the Agency's face before and will probably blow up in its face again. In the end, the warped interpretation of well established case law and regulations eventually gets shot down by the courts.
ReplyDeleteThis is unbelievable!
ReplyDelete