I. Purpose
This Temporary Instruction (TI) sets forth procedures for implementing the 
August 23, 1993 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit in the Schisler v. Sullivan and 
Aldrich v. Sullivan class actions, with respect to 
the evaluation of treating physician opinion. 
Although the TI affects only adjudicators processing cases of Second 
Circuit residents (Connecticut, New York and Vermont), adjudicators 
throughout the country must be familiar with the TI because of potential 
case transfers or claimant changes of address. 
II. Background
On April 2, 1986, in connection with the Schisler 
litigation, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the 
Secretary to prepare a written statement directing adjudicators at all 
levels to apply the Second Circuit's treating physician rule. On February 
9, 1987, in connection with the Aldrich litigation, 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont addressed several 
matters and, among other things, ordered the Secretary to redetermine the 
claims of all class members whose applications were denied or terminated 
prior to implementation of the Schisler 
instructions. Accordingly, the Vermont Disability Determination Services 
identified for future retrieval, under “Code 254”on the 
SSA-831, all denials or terminations of Vermont residents that involved 
the evaluation of treating physician opinion. However, on August 5, 1987, 
the Aldrich court modified its prior order by 
holding that Aldrich class members whose cases had 
been decided or redetermined under the Aldrich 
Program Operations Manual System need not 
be readjudicated under the Schisler instructions. 
On October 29, 1987, after further Schisler 
litigation, the Commissioner of Social Security issued a ruling to address 
the evaluation of treating physician opinion in the disability claims of 
Second Circuit residents. Subsequently, after additional 
Schisler litigation, the court of appeals amended 
the ruling and the Commissioner issued it on March 9, 1989 (the 
"Schisler ruling"). 
Thereafter, on August 1, 1991, the Secretary published final regulations 
on the standards for consultative examinations and existing medical 
evidence (the “CE/MER” regulations). Those regulations also 
provide guidance on the evaluation of treating source opinion. The 
Secretary notified the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of 
New York and the District of Vermont in the 
Schisler and Aldrich 
litigation, respectively, of the regulations' publication and of the 
Secretary's intent to implement the regulations in the Second Circuit. In 
conjunction with that notice, the Secretary also requested the 
Schisler court's permission to rescind the 
Schisler ruling. The 
Schisler and Aldrich 
plaintiffs challenged the “CE/MER” regulations, and both 
district courts held that the regulations were binding in administrative 
proceedings but that the Second Circuit's treating physician rule would 
continue to govern in disability claims appealed to federal courts. 
Notwithstanding its holding on the regulations issue, however, the 
Schisler court granted the Secretary's request to 
rescind the Schisler ruling.
The parties in both Schisler and 
Aldrich filed cross-appeals to the Second Circuit. 
Following oral argument, the court of appeals issued a consolidated 
decision on August 23, 1993. The court upheld the validity of the 
regulations, determined that the regulations are binding on the courts and 
lifted a stay of implementation. Accordingly, on November 12, 1993, the 
Commissioner published Notice of Rescission of the 
Schisler ruling in the 
Federal Register (58 FR 60042). 
Subsequently, on November 23, 1993, the Associate Commissioner notified 
OHA decision makers to apply the “CE/MER” regulations in 
their entirety in adjudicating the disability claims of Second Circuit 
residents and to discontinue using the Schisler 
ruling. 
III. Guiding Principles
Effective with publication of the Associate Commissioner's November 23, 
1993 memorandum, OHA decision makers will apply (with the exceptions 
described below) the “CE/MER” regulations in their entirety 
to all disability claims of Second Circuit residents, and will discontinue 
using the Schisler ruling. Decision makers must 
cite the regulations, and decisional rationale must reflect application of 
the regulations. (See HALLEX 
, issued 
March 12, 1992, for discussion of the “CE/MER” regulatory 
provisions.)
OHA decision makers will continue to apply the 
Schisler ruling to 1) the cases of 
Schisler class members, if any; 2) the inactive 
cases of Aldrich class members 
(Aldrich is a continuing class); and 3) “Code 
254” cases, regardless of whether the case is received directly for 
readjudication (i.e., OHA has jurisdiction for readjudication because OHA 
processed the case prior to issuance of the first 
Schisler ruling on October 29, 1987, and issued the 
“final” decision of the Secretary), or is received on appeal 
following readjudication. Additionally, if one of these exception cases is 
consolidated with a subsequent claim, the Schisler 
ruling will apply to the adjudication of the consolidated 
claims.
 Implementation of the Aldrich and 
Schisler class actions is essentially complete. 
Although no Code 254 cases have been identified for OHA review, a copy of 
the screening sheet used by the Office of Disability and International 
Operations is attached for information concerning the individuals entitled 
to relief. 
Attachment 1. - ODIO Aldrich Screening Sheet
ODIO
ALDRICH SCREENING SHEET
(Code 254 
Cases)
Part A - Identifying Information
 
Name:    ______________________________________________________________
 
SSN:     ______________________________________________________________
 Part B - Screening Criteria
| 1. | Was the case listed under code 254? |  | 
|  |  |  | 
|  | If Yes, go to #2. | Yes [  ] | 
|  | If No, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and return folder to its prior location. | No  [  ] | 
|  |  |  | 
| 2. | Was a decision issued either by the Appeals Council or an ALJ on or after November 3, 1987. (See note below). |  | 
|  |  |  | 
|  | If Yes, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and return folder to it prior location. | Yes [  ] | 
|  | If No, go to #3. | No  [  ] | 
|  |  |  | 
| 3. | Did the treating source(s) provide an opinion about the claimant's disability, i.e., diagnosis and nature and degree of impairment? |  | 
|  |  |  | 
|  | If Yes, go to #4. | Yes [  ] | 
|  | If No, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and return case to prior location. | No  [  ] | 
|  |  |  | 
| 4. | Does the DDS rationale clearly cite substantial evidence in the file, other than solely the opinion(s) of non-examining medical personnel, which contradicts the opinions of the treating source(s)? |  | 
|  |  |  | 
|  | If Yes, go to #5. | Yes [  ] | 
|  | If No, Place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and prepare a Folder Documentation Form or allowance/continuance determination per DI 32585.006. | No  [  ] | 
|  |  |  | 
| 5. | Does the DDS rationale give extra weight to the opinion of the treating source(s) AND, if the opinion was not accepted, did the rationale explain why? |  | 
|  |  |  | 
|  | If Yes, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and return folder to its prior location. | Yes [  ] | 
|  | If No, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and prepare a Folder Documentation Form or allowance/continuance determination, per DI 32585.006. | No  [  ] | 
|  |  |  | 
If an ALJ/AC decision was made prior to November 3, 1987, and the case is 
otherwise a screen-in, transfer it to OHA for review.
  
 
Signature__________________________________      Date__________________