From a notice that Social Security will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow:
We are finalizing our proposed regulation to revise the time period that we consider when determining whether an individual’s past work is relevant for the purposes of making disability determinations and decisions. We are revising the definition of past relevant work (PRW) by reducing the relevant work period from 15 to 5 years. Additionally, we will not consider past work that started and stopped in fewer than 30 calendar days to be PRW. ...
DATES: This final rule will be effective on June 8, 2024.
22 comments:
Should be just implement this rule now for our NEW clients since there is no way a decision would be made until after this rule is in effect?
This will make completing an SSDI application much easier since they have all these silly questions about how much time you spend squatting, reaching, bending, etc. on each job. Silly questions anyway when all you need to do is determine if it's light or medium. But I'm glad for this change.
is this for cases adjudicated after June 8, or filed after June 8?
@11:18
Oddly, unlike the medical opinion rule changes, by its terms it doesn't appear to say one way or the other (i.e. it doesn't say anything like "for claims decided on or after June 8, 2024, _____")
We have a few cases where the change would be outcome determinative pending at the AC and fully intend to argue the issue.
It would be nice if the DDS would revise its form that DISCOURAGES claimants from filling pout their PRW if they had more than obe job. It costs DDS nothing to allow this and they are not the end all be all of the process. People age and turning 50 AFTER recon does happen so prw can be important. Quit screwing up the process!
This is interesting because given that so many claimant's last worked more than 5 years before their case is actually finally adjudicated, many will have no past-relevant work at all, which is much more realistic because how much helpful are the employment prospects of a schizophrenic with herniated disks because he worked for a few months 7 years ago? If no one hired him during he past 7 years, he's definitely not going to get hired now that his conditions have gotten worse and he's gotten older.
It is not DDS that says not to describe the work if there is more than one job. It is the application form. DDS people have complained about it for years
This is a good change that improves administrative efficiency and recognizes the rapidly changing workplace. If you look at research on the "half-life of skills" then in some fields skills can become obsolete even before 5 years.
20 CFR 404.1565 (a) states that the five year period is before the date that we are deciding if you are disabled (the date of adjudication of the claim), except for a date last insured or the seven year period on a widow's or widower's claim. See, also, Social Security Ruling 82-62 (1982) on this. Thus, the five year period should be measured from the date of the adjudication, the decision date.
Considering the pandemic, a whole lot of people will have no PRW - which will lead to many more favorables vs unfavorables, of course, for people in their 50s... Nice. Why don't we just hand out cash to whoever asks? It will be more honest than pretending we have a "legal" rule for it. What a joke.
This is just a little theatrical, but okay.
If anything, there will be more medium RFCs to avoid allowances under the grid rules.
According to the announcement, part of the motivation for the new rules will be to decrease processing time
Wait until claimants and representives start stalling to make sure the past work is more than 5 years in the past.
They should have made the rule five years (or even three) prior to the date of filing.
at 7:05 - there it is...was wondering how long it would take for a anti-rep to post some nonsense.
First, ANY time frame that is set - one could "stall" -15 yr PRW, just "stall" to make sure that job 14.5 yrs ago is in the past. 3 yr PRW, just "stall" to make sure that job 2.5 yrs ago is in the past. I didn't see anyone complain about the 15 yr, so why now?
Second, you obv do not understand how the process works. How exactly is a rep going to stall a case? Get a denial - have 60 days to file appeal, get recon denial - have 60 days to request a HRG, which hearing is then scheduled by OHO, not us. So what, we can "stall" a few months if we really wanted to? Yeah, that's gonna make a world of difference.
It’s five years prior to the date of onset.
at 4:04 - I do not see anywhere in the regs where it says the 5 yr period begins from the onset date.
No it is not years before the onset date. It is five years before the decision
@7:05
SSA delays matters enough on their own that I doubt unscrupulous reps are going to try and delay things just to potentially score a win. If that is a serious concern you have, the duties of representatives specifically identify as a violation any intentional delay by the rep.
@4:04
That would be a total departure from the current structure. Currently it is 15 years from the date of adjudication, which is either the ALJ's decision, or 15 years prior to DLI assuming insured status has lapsed by the time of the ALJ's decision. Any basis for thinking it's 5 years prior to onset?
11:24 AM
Have you ever had an ALJ look at anything other than the 15 years prior to the alleged onset date?
at 2:58 - I've been a rep for over 10 years and have NEVER had an ALJ look at 15 years prior to the alleged onset...it is from the date of adjudication or DLI, whichever comes first.
@2:58
As to work history? Rarely, when I am able to argue for special vocational profiles. Also, I recall a case where the claimant's work ended 15 years and a few months prior to a supplemental hearing, and successfully argued to the ALJ the work history discussed at the prior hearing was no longer relevant.
Onset has never been a relevant date for establishing past relevant work or work history on, so I'm not sure why it would be now.
The 3369 Work history form asks for work the last 15 years before onset. That should be corrected.
Anonymous 11:24 AM: You asked "Have you ever had an ALJ look at anything other than the 15 years prior to the alleged onset date?"
As a rep of over 20 years and having done thousands of hearings all over the U.S., I can say that I've never had an ALJ look at anything other than 15 years prior to the date of adjudication OR 15 years prior to the date last insured. That's it. You don't understand the rule.
Post a Comment