From Social Security Disability Practice by Thomas E. Bush, copyright James Publishing.

Appendix 1: Guide to Important Social Security Rulings and Acquiescence Rulings

This index consists of two parts. The first part is organized following the sequential evaluation process. The second part deals with other issues arranged alphabetically. All current rulings and Acquiescence Rulings dealing with disability issues are included.

Note that an Acquiescence Ruling, identified AR, applies only in the circuit in which the court decision was made. The circuit number appears in parentheses following the number of the Acquiescence Ruling.

Part 1: The Sequential Evaluation Process

Age 65 or Older:

  • SSR 03-3p Evaluation of Disability and Blindness in Initial Claims for Individuals Age 65 or Older

Young Adults:

  • SSR 11-2p Documenting and Evaluating Disability in Young Adults

Onset and Duration:

  • SSR 18-1p Determining the Established Onset of Disability in Disability Claims
  • SSR 18-2p Determining the Established Onset of Disability in Blindness Claims
  • SSR 23-1p Duration of the Impairment

Step 1: Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity?

  • SSR 76-4a Rebuttal of Presumption of Ability to Engage in Substantial Gainful Activity
  • SSR 83-33 Determining Whether Work is Substantial Gainful Activity-Employees
  • SSR 83-34 Determining Whether Work is Substantial Gainful Activity-Self Employed Persons
  • SSR 83-35 Averaging of Earnings in Determining Whether Work is Substantial Gainful Activity
  • SSR 84-24 Determination of Substantial Gainful Activity for Persons Working in Special Circumstances – Work Therapy Programs in Military Service – Work Activity in Certain Government Sponsored Programs
  • SSR 84-26 Deducting Impairment Related Work Expenses From Earnings in Determinations as to Substantial Gainful Activity Under Titles II and XVI and As To Countable Earned Income Under Title XVI
  • SSR 94-1c Dotson v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 1993) – Illegal Activity as Substantial Gainful Activity
  • SSR 12-1p Determining Whether Work Performed in Self-Employment by Persons Who Are Blind is Substantial Gainful Activity and Treatment of Income Resulting from the Randolph-Sheppard Act and Similar Programs

Step 2: Is the claimant’s impairment “severe”?

  • SSR 85-28 Medical Impairments That Are Not Severe
  • SSR 88-3c Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) – Validity of the Severity of Impairment Regulation

Step 3: Does the claimant’s impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the Listing of Impairments?

Medical Equivalence:

  • SSR 90-5c Adams v. Bowen, 872 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied 110 S.Ct. 151 (1989) – Sections 216(i)1)(B) and 223(c)(1) and (d)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act – Interpreting the Statutory Blindness Provision
  • SSR 17-2p Evidence Needed by Adjudicators at the Hearings and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process to Make Findings about Medical Equivalence

Specific Impairments (Most of the following discuss RFC as well as the requirements for meeting the Listings):

  • SSR 82-57 Loss of Speech
  • SSR 90-5c Blindness – Adams v. Bowen, 872 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1989) cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851 (1989)
  • SSR 03-1p Development and Evaluation of Disability Claims Involving Postpolio Sequelae
  • SSR 03-2p Evaluating Cases Involving Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome/ Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
  • AR 03-1(7) Blakes v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2003) – Court Cases Involving Sections 12.05 and 112.05 of the Listing of Impairments That Are Remanded for Further Proceedings
  • SSR 06-1p Evaluating Cases Involving Tremolite Asbestos-Related Impairments
  • SSR 07-1p Evaluating Visual Field Loss UsingAutomated Static Threshold Perimetry
  • SSR 12-2p Evaluation of Fibromyalgia
  • SSR 14-1p Evaluating Cases Involving Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)
  • SSR 14-2p Evaluating Diabetes Mellitus
  • SSR 14-3p Evaluating Endocrine Disorders Other Than Diabetes Mellitus
  • SSR 15-1p Evaluating Cases Involving Interstitial Cystitis (IC)
  • SSR 16-4p Using Genetic Test Results to Evaluate Disability
  • SSR 17-3p Evaluating Cases Involving Sickle Cell Disease
  • SSR 19-2p Evaluation of Obesity
  • SSR 19-4p Evaluating Cases Involving Primary Headache Disorders

Between Steps 3 and 4: RFC Assessment

Determining Residual Functional Capacity:

  • SSR 85-16 Residual Functional Capacity for Mental Impairments
  • SSR 96-8p Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims
  • SSR 16-3p Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims

Step 4: Is the claimant capable of past relevant work?

Past Relevant Work:

  • SSR 82-40 The Vocational Relevance of Past Work Performed in a Foreign Country
  • SSR 05-01c Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003) – Whether Past Relevant Work Must Exist in significant Numbers in the Economy
  • SSR 24-2p How We Evaluate Past Relevant Work

Step 5: Does the claimant’s impairment prevent performance of any other work?

The Medical-Vocational Profiles:

  • SSR 24-1p How We Apply The Medical-Vocational Profiles

Use of Medical-Vocational Guidelines:

  • SSR 83-5a Medical-Vocational Guidelines – Conclusiveness of Rules
  • SSR 83-10 Determining Capability To Do Other Work – The Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix 2
  • SSR 83-11 Capability To Do Other Work – The Exertionally Based Medical-Vocational Rules Met
  • SSR 83-12 Capability To Do Other Work – The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating Exertional Limitations Within a Range of Work or Between Ranges of Work
  • SSR 83-14 Capability To Do Other Work – The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a Combination of Exertional and Non-Exertional Impairments
  • SSR 83-46c Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983) – Validity of Medical-Vocational Guidelines
  • SSR 85-15 Capability To Do Other Work – The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating Solely Non-Exertional Impairments
  • AR 01-1(3) Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000) – Using the Grid Rules as a Framework for Decisionmaking When an Individual’s Occupational Base is Eroded by a Nonexertional Limitation
  • AR 14-1(8) Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012): Requiring Vocational Specialist (VS) or Vocational Expert (VE) Evidence When an Individual has a Severe Mental Impairment(s)

Use of Vocational Expert:

  • SSR 00-4p Use of Vocational Expert and Vocational Specialist Evidence, and Other Reliable Occupational Information in Disability Decisions

Education:

  • SSR 20-01p How We Determine an Individual’s Education Category

RFC for Less Than a Full Range of Sedentary Work:

  • SSR 96-9p Determining Capability To Do Other Work – Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than A Full Range of Sedentary Work

Transferability of Work Skills:

  • SSR 82-41 Work Skills and Their Transferability As Intended By the Expanded Vocational Factors Regulations Effective February 26, 1979

Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment:

  • SSR 18-3p Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment

Part 2: Other Issues

ALJ Bias:

  • SSR 13-1p Agency Processes for Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)

Americans with Disabilities Act:

  • SSR 00-1c Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corporation, 526 U. S. 795, 119 S.Ct. 1597 (1999) – Claims Filed Under Both the Social Security Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Appeals:

  • SSR 19-3p Requesting Reconsideration or Hearing by an Administrative Law Judge

Appeals Council Review:

  • SSR 82-13 Program for Ongoing Review of Hearing Decisions Pursuant to Section 304(g) of Public Law (P.L.) 96-265 – Appeals Council’s Review Authority
  • SSR 95-2c Harper v. Secretary, 978 F.2d 260 (6th Cir. 1992) – Authority of Appeals Council to Dismiss a Request for Hearing for a Reason for which the Administrative Law Judge Could Have Dismissed the Request–Res Judicata
  • SSR 11-1p Procedures for Handling Requests to File Subsequent Applications for Disability Benefits
  • SSR 19-1p Effect of the Decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Cases Pending at the Appeals Council

Attorneys Fees:

  • SSR 68-61c Hopkins v. Cohen, 390 U.S. 530 (1968) – Past-due Benefits for Calculation of Attorney Fees Include Amount of Benefits Paid to Auxiliaries
  • SSR 80-20c Whitt v. Califano, 601 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1979) – Black Lung Benefits – Representation of Claimant – Fixing Amount of Attorney’s Fees – Administrative and Court Proceedings
  • SSR 82-39 Use of Trust or Escrow Accounts in Collection of Attorneys Fees
  • SSR 90-3c Weisbrod v. Sullivan, 875 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1989) – Validity of Regulation for Determining Attorney Fees
  • SSR 94-3c Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) – Timely Filing for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act

Childhood Disability Claims:

  • SSR 98-1p Determining Medical Equivalence in Childhood Disability Claims When a Child Has Marked Limitation in Cognition and Speech
  • SSR 05-3p Title XVI: Determining Continuing Disability at Step 2 of the Medical Improvement Review Standard Sequential Evaluation Process for Children Under Age 18 – Functional Equivalence
  • SSR 09-1p Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability Under the Functional Equivalence Rule — The “Whole Child” Approach
  • SSR 09-2p Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability – Documenting a Child’s Impairment-Related Limitations
  • SSR 09-3p Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability – The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Acquiring and Using Information”
  • SSR 09-4p Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability – The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Attending and Completing Tasks”
  • SSR 09- 5p Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability – The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Interacting and Relating with Others”
  • SSR 09-6p Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability – The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Moving About and Manipulating Objects”
  • SSR 09- 7p Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability – The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Caring for Yourself”
  • SSR 09- 8p Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability – The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Health and Physical Well-Being”

Child Relationship:

  • SSR 06-02p Adjudicating Child Relationship Under Section 216(h)(2) of the Social Security Act When DNA Test Shows Sibling Relationship Between Claimant and a Child of the Worker Who is Entitled Under Section 216(h)(3) of the Social Security Act

Cross Examination:

  • AR 91-1(5) Lidy v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1990) – Claimant Has an Absolute Right to Subpoena and Cross Examine an Examining Physician

Drug Addiction and Alcoholism:

  • SSR 13-2p Evaluating Cases Involving Drug Addiction and Alcoholism (DAA)

Evidence:

  • SSR 17-4p Responsibility for Developing Written Evidence

Federal Court Decisions:

  • SSR 96-1p Application by the Social Security Administration of Federal Circuit Court and District Court Decisions

Federal Court Review:

  • SSR 73-45c Ensey v. Richardson, 469 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1972) – Administrative Appeals Rights — Request for Hearing — Time Limitation
  • AR 99-4(11) Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983) – Appeals Council Dismissal of an Untimely Request for Review is a Final Decision Conferring Federal Court Jurisdiction
  • AR 16-1(7) Boley v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2014): Judicial Review of an Administrative Law Judge’s Order Finding No Good Cause for a Late Hearing Request and Dismissing the Request as Untimely

Felony Conviction:

Note: The part of this ruling that deals with suspension of Social Security benefits for imprisoned felons is outdated. Currently a Title II beneficiary who is incarcerated for 30 days or more following conviction of any crime, including a misdemeanor, will have his or her benefits suspended.

Fraud or Similar Fault:

  • SSR 22-1p Fraud and Similar Fault Redeterminations Under Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act
  • SSR 22-2p Evaluation of Claims Involving the Issue of Similar Fault in the Providing of Evidence

Freedom of Information Action (FOIA)/ Privacy Act:

  • SSR 92-1p Request under the Privacy the Act or the Freedom of Information Act for Access to Records and for Disclosure of Material Maintained by the Office of Hearings and Appeals

Fugitive Felons:

  • AR 06-1(2) Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005) – Determining Whether an Individual is a Fugitive Felon Under the Social Security Act – Titles II and XVI of the Act

Hearing Procedure:

  • SSR 97-2p Prehearing Case Review by Disability Determination Services

Overpayments:

  • AR 92-5(9) Quinlan v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1990) – A Finding That Recovery of an Overpayment is “Against Equity and Good Conscience” Is Not Limited to the Specific Circumstances Set Forth in the Regulations

Reopening:

  • SSR 61-60 Computing Time Period for Reopening Determination
  • SSR 65-51 Finality of Decision — Reopening on Basis of New and Material Evidence — Good Cause
  • SSR 67-22 Finality of Decision – Reopening on Basis of New and Material Evidence – Good Cause
  • SSR 85-6c Munsinger v. Schweiker, 790 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir. 1983) – Disability – Reduction of Benefits Due to Receipt of a Lump Sum Workers’ Compensation Settlement – Finality of Decision – Reopening for Error of Law
  • SSR 85-23  Title XVI: Reopening Supplemental Security Income Determinations at Any Time for “Similar Fault”
  • SSR 88-1c Monger v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 15 (4th Cir. 1987) – Judicial Review – Appeal from Administration’s Refusal to Reopen prior Final Decision
  • SSR 91-5p Mental Incapacity and Good Cause for Missing the Deadline to Request Review
  • SSR 95-1p Finding Good Cause for Missing the Deadline to Request Administrative Review Due to Statements in the Notice of Initial or Reconsideration Determination Concerning the Right to Request Administrative Review and the Option to File a New Application
  • AR 90-4(4) Culbertson v. Secretary, 859 F.2d 319 (4th Cir. 1988); Young v. Bowen, 858 F.2d 951 (4th Cir. 1988) – Waiver of Administrative Finality in Proceedings Involving Unrepresented Claimants Who Lack the Mental Competence to Request Administrative Review
  • AR 92-7(9) Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1990) – When Denial Determination Fails to Give Adequate Notice of Implications of Failure to Appeal, Administrative Finality Doctrine Will Not Apply
  • SSR 17-1p Reopening Based on Error on the Face of the Evidence – Effect of a Decision by the Supreme Court of the United States Finding a Law That We Applied To Be Unconstitutional

Res Judicata:

  • SSR 63-41 Section 205(b); 221(d) – Right to Hearing
  • SSR 68-12a Sections 205(a), 216(i) and 223 – Finality of Decision – New and Material Evidence of Disability – Res Judicata
  • SSR 71-32c Easley v. Finch, 431 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1970) – Sections 205(g) and 221(d) – Judicial Review – Res Judicata
  • SSR 86-16a Finality of Decision – New and Material Evidence of Paternity – Res Judicata
  • AR 97-4(9) Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1988) – Effect of a Prior Final Decision That a Claimant is Not Disabled, And of Findings Contained Therein, On Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim Arising Under the Same Title of the Social Security Act
  • AR 98-3(6) Dennard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 907 F.2d 598 (6th Cir. 1990) – Effect of a Prior Finding of the Demands of Past Work on Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim Arising Under the Same Title of the Social Security Act
  • AR 98-4(6) Drummond v. Commissioner of Social Security, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) – Effect of Prior Findings on Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim Arising Under the Same Title of the Social Security Act
  • AR 00-1(4) Albright v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999) – Effect of Prior Disability Findings on Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim

Termination of Benefits:

  • SSR 82-66 Establishing the Cessation Date in a Continuing Disability Case
  • AR 86-4(3) Paskel v. Heckler, 768 F.2d 540 (3d Cir. 1985) – Necessity of a Determination Under Sections 225(b) and/or 1631(a)(6) of the Social Security Act for a Disability Benefits Recipient Engaged in an Approved Vocational Rehabilitation Program Prior to Cessation of His/Her Benefits Based on Medical Recovery
  • AR 86-5(9) Leschniok v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1983) – Necessity of a Determination Under Sections 225(b) and/or 1631(a)(6) of the Social Security Act for a Disability Benefits Recipient Engaged in an Approved Vocational Rehabilitation Program Prior to Cessation of His/Her Benefits Based on Medical Recovery
  • SSR 13-3p Title II: Appeal of an Initial Medical Disability Cessation Determination or Decision

Waiver of Hearing:

  • SSR 79-19 Waiver of Personal Appearance at a Hearing

Workers’ Compensation Offset:

  • SSR 97-3 Reduction of Disability Insurance Benefits Due to Receipt of State Workers’ Compensation – Validity of an Amended Stipulation on a Prior Workers’ Compensation Settlement and Award – Minnesota

 

(Revised as of 6/20/24)