The Social Security Administration will publish final rules to revise its digestive and skin disorders Listings in the Federal Register tomorrow. It runs to 159 pages in the PDF version! (It will be fewer pages in the actual Federal Register since that's three columns of small print.)
One noticeable part is that they've changed the formula for determining SSA CLD, which has been used to determine whether claimants meet the Listing for chronic liver disease (CLD). It used to be exactly the same as the MELD formula used to determine whether individuals with chronic liver disease can get a liver transplant. Now it's just mathematically the same. I've speculated that the agency used the name "SSA CLD" to obscure the fact that it's literally easier to get a liver transplant than it is to meet the Listing for chronic liver disease. I'll speculate that they're going a step further to further obscure just how impossible it is to meet the Listing. They do note in the materials that a MELD or SSA CLD score that meets the Listing means that the patient has a 19.6% chance of dying in the next three months. They think that's a justification for their standard. I was not under the impression that the definition of disability required a person's condition to be quickly fatal.
I also note that the new Listings make it impossible for claimants to meet the Listings for hidradenitis suppurtiva. Never heard of hidradenitis suppurtiva? Trust me, you don't want it. It's one of the most commonly disabling skin conditions. For that matter, it appears that it will now be impossible to meet the Listings for psoriasis. For most people with psoriasis, the disease is annoying and unpleasant but manageable but that's not the case for a small percentage of people with psoriasis.
Imagine that, SSA making it even more difficult to be found disabled.
ReplyDeleteNo kidding the liver listing is tough! My client met the listing requirements the day before her transplant! Good grief! This change in the listing doesn't sound much better. smdh
ReplyDeleteSSA never makes changes to the listings that are beneficial to claimants. I've found they mostly change listings when they get remanded/reversed frequently by courts (the musculoskeletal listings and the old listing 12.05 come to mind).
ReplyDeleteYou may be right but I recall checking POMS for several disabilities that could not be denied res judicata because of changes in listings.
DeleteThank goodness for clarity. Chronic liver disease is slapped on people by a medical provider erroneously all the time and people live the rest of the life avoiding tylenol.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to meet a Listing to be found disabled. Listings tighten up as there are advances in medicine (HIV being the most obvious example) but RFC hasn't changed.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is, too many think the listings are a "standard" of when one becomes disabled. They refuse to believe otherwise. If listings aren't WHEN you become disabled, but are something far beyond that... they are essentialLt meaninless.
DeleteA few ALJ's don't seem to approve unless the claimant meets the listings.
ReplyDelete