CPD evidence: A 24-year-old individual was diagnosed with profound bilateral hearing loss and they underwent bilateral cochlear implantation. The individual’s condition met the criteria of listing 2.11A and the adjudicator scheduled the diary to expire 1 year following implantation.

CDR evidence: The CDR is initiated 14 months after the cochlear implantation. Current medical evidence indicates that the individual’s word recognition score is 52% based on valid Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), and the individual’s hearing loss currently meets listing 2.11B.

Discussion: The individual’s impairment currently meets listing 2.11B at Step 2 of the Title II and adult Title XVI CDR sequential evaluation process. MI and the CPD listing are not considered in this example because the impairment meets a current listing earlier in the sequential evaluation process.

CPD evidence: A 45-year-old individual underwent a heart transplant in 03/2021 that met listing 4.09. The individual’s ejection fraction (EF) was 16% pre-transplant, and greater than 65% post-transplant. The language of the listing specified “consider under a disability for 1 year…” Due to the individual’s heart failure, they exhibited a decreased ability to perform activities of daily living, including limitations in standing and walking to only 10 yards before experiencing shortness of breath and fatigue.

CDR evidence: The individual reports intermittent chest pain and inability to stand for extended periods. The evidence indicates the individual’s heart has regular rate and rhythm, and a recent echocardiogram shows an EF of 60%. At the CDR, the individual also experienced an improvement in the ability to perform daily activities and standing and walking. Evidence indicates the individual walks a mile each day for exercise without shortness of breath or significant fatigue.

Discussion: Evidence does not show a condition that meets or equals any other current listing at Step 2 and MI is demonstrated at Step 3 based on the improved EF, improvement in daily functional activities such as standing and walking, and the improvement in shortness of breath and fatigue with activity. The specified timeframe in listing 4.09 has expired; therefore, the individual’s heart condition no longer meets the CPD listing at Step 4 and the MI is related to the individual’s ability to work. The adjudicator must proceed to Step 6 and evaluate residual functioning if a Group II exception does not apply.

CPD evidence: A 56-year-old individual had complaints of fatigue and abdominal pain. The individual underwent a kidney transplant in 10/2014. The individual’s condition met listing 6.02B and the language of the listing contained the following language: “Consider under a disability for 12 months following surgery.” At the CPD, the pre-transplant laboratory values documented stage 4 kidney disease. The individual experienced fatigue, unintended weight loss of 15 pounds from their baseline, swelling in the feet and ankles, and abdominal pain. Due to their fatigue and painful swelling, the individual reported that they were only able to stand and walk to perform activities for approximately 15 minutes at the time before needing to rest at least 45 minutes before resuming activities.

CDR evidence: Conducted in 01/2016: The transplanted kidney is functioning well, based on laboratory values within the normal range. The individual no longer has swelling in the feet and ankles and has gained approximately 10 pounds from the CPD due to increased appetite. However, the individual still complains of fatigue and abdominal pain. Evidence indicates that the individual is able to stand and walk to perform activities, such as grocery shopping, for about one hour before needing to rest.

Discussion: The individual does not have a condition that meets or equals any current listing at Step 2 of the Title II and adult Title XVI CDR sequential evaluation process. MI is demonstrated at Step 3 based on improved laboratory values, an increase in functional ability, and reduced swelling in the feet and ankles. At Step 4, it is important to recognize that listing 6.02B, which was met at the CPD, is obsolete at the time the CDR is initiated. The impairment cannot meet or equal subsection B of obsolete listing 6.02 because it is more than one year post-transplant. The impairment also does not meet the other subsections of obsolete listing 6.02. Therefore, the adjudicator must find that MI relates to the ability to work. The adjudicator must proceed to Step 6 and evaluate residual functioning if a Group II exception does not apply.

CPD evidence: A 14-year-old child was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma with bone marrow involvement, meeting listing 113.05B1. The listing contains the following language: “Consider under a disability for 24 months from the date of diagnosis.” The evidence documented fevers occurring approximately twice a month, decreased energy, loss of appetite with accompanying weight loss, and chest pain. The child had swollen lymph nodes in the neck and armpit, causing limitations in reaching objects.

CDR evidence: The CDR is initiated 26 months from the date of the Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis. The child maintains normal weight, strength, and range of motion with the improved ability in reaching objects. The child received bone marrow transplant on 07/2021 and current laboratory findings show no evidence of disease. The evidence indicates the child has not experienced a fever over the last 4 months and there is no swelling present in the lymph nodes in the armpit or neck. The child has increased energy and appetite, and has gained five pounds since the CPD.

Discussion: MI is demonstrated at Step 1 based on the improvement in signs and symptoms and the laboratory findings that show no evidence of disease. At Step 2, the CPD impairment (Hodgkin lymphoma) does not meet or equal the CPD listing or any subsections of the listing due to expiration of the timeframe. The adjudicator must proceed to Step 3 of the sequential evaluation process if a Group II exception does not apply.