tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post4468911075693674274..comments2024-03-27T20:39:24.337-04:00Comments on Social Security News: New Regs On Recontacting Medical Sources And Dangerous ClaimantsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-58887728784935033882012-02-23T21:19:16.809-05:002012-02-23T21:19:16.809-05:00I have never seen a remand due to failure to recon...I have never seen a remand due to failure to recontact, given that the requirement is for the evidence to be ambiguous or insufficient to render a decision. All you have to say is the evidence was not ambiguous or insufficient. Then move on. So this reg was pointless to begin with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-14823355570798839952012-02-23T09:06:28.044-05:002012-02-23T09:06:28.044-05:00they are not all liars. I reviwed a file earlir t...they are not all liars. I reviwed a file earlir this week that said "none of xxx's impairments prevent him from working."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-10460714735967721242012-02-23T09:02:55.952-05:002012-02-23T09:02:55.952-05:00This is clearly SSA's first step towards compl...This is clearly SSA's first step towards completely removing the recontact regs, since no ALJ I have ever dealt with has EVER recontacted the treating source, and those errors almost always result (at least partially) in a remand. I bet SSA is sick and tired of those remands since they know the ALJs will never actually follow through on the recontacting duty anyway, so why not just eliminate the rule? Or, as in this case, sweeten the pot by saying they can just get a CE in lieu of recontacting the treating source?<br /><br />Cue the "treating physicians are all liars" hatespeak in 3, 2, 1....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com