The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) -- the most important government agency you've never heard of -- has approved proposed Social Security regulation changes with the title, Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process: Including how we Consider Past Work. There's no way to know for sure at this point since we have no more than vague descriptions of what's included but the proposed regulations will likely reduce the number of years of past work considered in determining disability.
The proposal will now be published in the Federal Register and the public will be able to comment. Social Security must consider the comments before publishing the regulations in final form so they go into effect. This process will take months at the least.
When I posted about this proposal going to OIRA there were several comments posted here by those who felt this proposal would hurt Social Security disability claimants. If you think this is the case, don't make comments here on Social Security disability issues. You don't have enough knowledge to offer meaningful comments. If this proposal reduces the time frame considered from 15 years to, let's say, 5 years, that's a modest improvement from the point of view of disability claimants. And, no, this isn't some controversial loosening of standards. I don't think that 15 years ever made sense. It certainly doesn't make sense now. With a nomination for Social Security Commissioner pending, the agency and OIRA are being extremely careful to avoid doing anything the least bit controversial. That's probably an important reason why I've had so little Social Security news to post lately. This proposal wouldn't be going forward now if it were controversial.
10 comments:
Hope they will change the form that prohibits claimants from filling in their past work. That saved no time for the FOd and added time to OHO as the claimants age. It is stupid.
That would be very helpful in streamlining the process. How much time is wasted trying to figure out how a claimant earned $2,000 13 years ago?
Also, the quality of vocational expert testimony at hearings is in steady decline. The less reliance we have on vocational expert testimony the better. We see things like, "The claimant has the transferable skills of counting and filing from the jobs worked at 14 years ago for 5 months."
"If you think this is the case, don't make comments here on Social Security disability issues. You don't have enough knowledge to offer meaningful comments."
You really think highly of your readers, don't you?
Honestly, 5 years would streamline the application process a fair amount. I don’t know when the 15 year rule was established, but as years go by, less and less claimants have “careers/long term employment” and more and more job hopping happens. It isn’t uncommon to take a claim and have a claimant have 6-8 jobs per year, over the past 5-10 years. Sometimes it’s incredibly frustrating to try to get job information from claimants going back 15 years, when they could have worked easily 50 different jobs in that period. And, that’s not the fault of the claimant that makes it frustrating, who the hell would remember all those details? It’s frustrating that policy hasn’t changed with the times/social changes that have happened since the policy was enacted.
Another poster here. If someone does not understand how reducing the PRW look back period HELPS claimants, they should not be posting here and they certainly should not be doing rep work. Charles simply stated the truth of the matter.
In my near decade of doing this work, I’ve never seen a claim denied solely at step 4 for work that legitimately met the requirements to be past relevant work. So this might make things move marginally faster, but probably isn’t going to do much to solve any of the copious very real problems afoot.
There's bigger problems than this to address first at SSA. However, I suppose anything that streamlines the process faster is a good start.
@12:27
Ever had a former office worker client? Cause that's a huge population that is often denied at step 4.
That brings up an interesting thought. DLI is still based on 20/40 quarters. That means DLI is often approximately 5 years after last date worked. Aligning PRW and DLI has a bit of symmetry to it.
@1:21
Agreed. I have had plenty of stage 4 denials a the app and recon stage. Less common at the hearing level, but I probably have a few per year. Last year the NY State Agency was fixated on denying anyone with sedentary PRW, even my clients over age 60 (with multiple joint replacement surgeries and spine surgeries).
This change would be huge deal. I have have handled cases where remote sedentary PRW killed an otherwise strong claim. This is especially problematic for Workers Compensation claims where the client had multiple IME assigning a sedentary RFC (they almost never assign less than sedentary RFCs).
"The NY was fixated on denying anyone" is all you need to say. At least 75% of their unfavorable determinations are Insufficient Evidence or Non-Severe. Of no value at the hearing level.
Post a Comment