Unless something happens in the meantime to delay or prevent it, Social Security's new musculoskeletal Listings go into effect a week from today. If you haven't read them, they're more extreme than you can probably imagine. I've reproduced the Listings changes below -- just the Listings without the lengthy preambles. Judge for yourself. My opinion is that the public isn't going to be happy with these and that the current Presidential Administration will be blamed, which is exactly what was planned, I imagine. These certainly weren't rushed out while there was a Republican President. Click on each thumbnail to view full size.
The new listing 1.15 seems absurd. For cervical radiculopathy, it can be read to exclude people who can initiate virtually any fine or gross movement with their arms, even if they could never sustain it and complete any work-related task (Listing 1.15 d.2., "An inability to use one upper extremity to independently initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving fine and gross movements"). The limb would practically have to be paralyzed to meet that standard, as it requires proof of ability to do all 3 (initiate, sustain and complete). It should have read "or", because who could possibly keep a job if they could not sustain or complete work tasks? If SSA cares about simplifying the disability program and making it run more smoothly and efficiently, then it should write realistic listings that don't exclude large numbers of obviously disabled people.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent there was any possibility that you could meet the Listings on a musculoskeletal claim without being almost immobile without the use of either hand, those days are gone. Going forward, any case will depend on developing evidence that results in an RFC that is not consistent with any real world work. Of course, that puts us at the mercy of ALJ's who make RFC conclusions ignoring treating docs and VE's who testify to non-existent jobs consistent with nonsense RFC's. Oh well, that is what makes it fun.
ReplyDeleteI am doing a training on these listings for some of my attorneys. Change is not always good. Here is an excerpt:
ReplyDelete"Change is not always good
The SSA has a fairly strong history of making changes to the listings. Generally, the changes do not help claimants.
The SSA changed the treating physician rule around March 2017. On paper, it basically eliminated the need for ALJs to be tied to the treating physician. However, it also maybe helped claimants somewhat in opening evaluation of other medical providers. The SSA also eliminated the diabetes listing around 2014. In the 1990s, a claimant could be disabled for obesity or just drugs or alcohol abuse. This was abolished maybe for the right reasons.
The SSA history shows major changes do not typically help claimants. These changes to the 1.00 listings probably will not help claimants."
It seems as if the administration is asleep at the wheel on this one. I thought there was a congress review act that allowed for placing late regulation changes like this on the backburner pending further review.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone awake or even watching ssa at the whitehouse on things like this?
Congressman Larson, if your staffets are reading this site, and they should be... Please get to work! Every rule passed under the last 6 months of Trump needs to be undone. Clock is ticking.
ReplyDelete