SSA yesterday issued a proposed rule that would give adjudicators the discretion to skip step 4 in cases where it has “insufficient evidence” to make past relevant work (PRW) findings. 76 Fed. Reg. 56357 (Sept. 13, 2011). Comments are due by November 14, 2011. SSA’s current budget situation seems to now be driving policy changes that the agency believes could result in “administrative efficiency.” That’s rarely good news for claimants.
How would the proposed “expedited process” work? If the adjudicator does “not have sufficient evidence about your past relevant work to make a finding at the fourth step, we may proceed to the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process.” The adjudicator has the discretion to make the decision whether to use the proposed expedited process, i.e., deciding whether “sufficient evidence” re PRW exists. SSA will “not require an adjudicator to make a reasonable effort to collect additional evidence [re PRW] if he or she could use this expedited process.”
Under the proposed rule, if the adjudicator proceeds to step 5 and determines that the claimant would be disabled based on (1) the “special medical-vocation profiles,” (2) the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the grids), either directly or as a framework, or (3) “an inability to meet the mental demands of unskilled work,” the adjudicator “must” return to step 4 to further develop PRW information and determine whether the claimant can perform such work.
On the other hand, if by proceeding to step 5, the adjudicator can determine that the claimant is not disabled based solely on age, education and RFC, then the adjudicator need not return to step 4. Why? According to SSA, the Social Security Act does not require a finding regarding past relevant work before it determines that the claimant is not disabled.
Why the proposed change? SSA says that the process to gather work history is “time-consuming,” “labor-intensive,” and leads to “delays” and “requires us to divert our limited resources.”
At least this time, SSA has proposed a rule rather than made a change on its own and without public comment through a ruling