It's hard to evaluate the new Social Security Ruling on the evaluation of obesity on its face. It's only precise when it sets forth what Social Security won't do -- find any particular level of obesity to even be a severe impairment much less an impairment that significantly affects function or exacerbates the effects of other impairments such as osteoarthritis. This is the sort of thing that's standard in these Rulings. The agency wants to say something on a subject but also wants to be very sure that no one can say that the agency has established a standard that it can be accused of not having followed.
To find the real intent of this Ruling, you have to contrast it to its predecessor, Social Security Ruling 02-01p. When you do, you notice a couple of things that were in 02-01p that didn't make it into 19-2p. The old Ruling specifically said that failure to follow prescribed treatment would rarely, if ever, be grounds for denying a claim based upon disability. That language didn't make it into the new Ruling. Also, the old Ruling said that "...
if the obesity is of such a level that it results in an inability to ambulate
effectively, as defined in sections 1.00B2b or 101.00B2b of the Listings, it
may substitute for the major dysfunction of a joint(s)
... and we will then make a finding of medical equivalence." Again, that language didn't make it into the new Ruling.
The problem with the old Ruling is that it established standards that the agency could be accused of not having followed. They couldn't have that so the Ruling was changed.
The problem with the old Ruling is that it established standards that the agency could be accused of not having followed. They couldn't have that so the Ruling was changed.