The Social Security Administration has sent a set of proposed regulations to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Here's the description, limited as it may be:
We propose to develop intermediate improvements to reduce the burden in our current disability adjudication process as a step towards longer-term reforms to ensure our disability program remains current and supports equitable outcomes. Actions could include decreasing the years of past work we consider when making a disability determination, as well as other potential regulatory changes.
Hope they change to form that trells claimant NOT to describe whatever past work that now counts. Some claimants age in to categories where their past work is important, but since it was not at con and recon someone created a form to skip that - and the filling out was done by the claimant, not the agency, so it did not save the agency one second. That makes it harder down the road.
ReplyDeleteThey need to change the application that says if you have more than one job don’t bother completing the 3469
ReplyDeleteSo they're trying to erase a disabled persons past?! With mental illness its imperative to go back to the beginning to see quantity of work, quality of work, and total income earned. Streamline, maybe.... lack of a personal history and detail seems like it would bring more denials.
ReplyDeleteLooking back 15 years at Step 4 seems a bit excessive. Hopefully they shorten it to something more reasonable like 10 years.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I hate the difference between 15 and 10. The past relevant work cover just the type of work done.
DeleteMost people I talk to know what kind of work they’ve done even if they don’t remember where they worked.
Do some claimants have difficulty remembering some of the work…sure. But it’s really not that difficult a task.
@1:35
ReplyDeleteIn the current system, the existence of past work objectively is only a harmful fact, so reducing the number of years that is reviewed to determine if there was past work can only benefit claimants.
And this proposal does nothing to modify how the claimant's past earnings are considered, it's just regarding how "past relevant work" is determined, which if found again only can be used to harm the claimant.
@12:40. I somewhat disagree. Looking back 20 years at very low incomes per year, and shuffling though jobs they couldn't hold, wouldn't be all that harmful to the client. Say in 2003, a client only made $5000 because they were unhirable or just couldn't hold a job due to mental disabilities. That says a LOT in the clients favor. If their max earnings in 2000 even is $10,000 for their ENTIRE working "career", that points to some kind of disability in most cases, especially if they can't hold a job more than a couple months.
ReplyDeleteIncarceration explains a lot of gaps in my area.
DeleteSo does having a kid on SSI and not working.
There are many reasons people don’t work and looking at a smaller sample doesn’t always tell the whole story.
3:14, the first prong of "past relevant work" is whether it was substantial gainful activity, so someone who only earned $5000 at a job is unlikely to meet that test anyway and the job shouldn't be developed under current policy.
ReplyDeleteThe issue being considered here is whether the person can return to their past relevant work (if so, they'll be denied) so counting jobs done a long time ago as PRW can only be harmful to claimants.
And I disagree that ability to hold a job in 2000 or 2003 will be useful in a case today. First of all, that's probably so far before the alleged onset date. Maybe it matters for a childhood disability benefit case (though if someone has done any past relevant work they're not eligible for CDB), or if you're trying to establish an intellectual disability meets the listing so it has to have been diagnosed before a certain age. But those are rare cases. In any event, DDS or an ALJ will still want to see medical documentation.
Agree with @1:35
ReplyDeleteI don't see how any of this makes any difference. DDS has lately gone nit picking about how long you stand vs. how long you walk, etc. when all they have to do is determine what level the work was and whether it was skilled or unskilled.
@3:14
ReplyDelete12:40 here. Again, nothing would prevent an ALJ or DDS looking at past "earnings" for that purpose. This is just about "past relevant work." Past earnings could in theory be used like you are talking about, past relevant work in only a harmful fact. They are two totally separate concepts.
Past relevant work is only used for 3 things: 1, a determination that the claimant can return to that work; 2, skills could transfer from past relevant work to alternative work; or 3, the medical-vocational guidelines direct a finding of disability/non-disability based in part on whether the claimant has past relevant work.
I guess that third point can sortof cut both ways, as a claimant with past relevant work which is skilled/semiskilled could direct a finding a disability if they are incapable of such skills transferring, regardless of if they can do unskilled work, but that's an exceptionally rare scenario, and reducing the consideration from 15 to 10 years is still going to allow for that. Also, the lack of past relevant work would be the same result as that rare scenario.