ISSUED: November 30, 1995; REVISED: November 18, 1996
I. Purpose
This Temporary Instruction (TI) sets forth procedures for implementing the 
relief ordered in the Dixon v. Shalala class action 
involving the “no severe impairment” issue. The United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued the relief 
order on December 22, 1993. The United States Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit upheld the district court order, in its entirety, on April 
19, 1995.
Adjudicators throughout the country must be familiar with this TI because 
Dixon class members who now reside outside of New 
York must have their cases processed in accordance with the requirements 
of the implementation order.
II. Background
On July 25, 1984, the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of New York conditionally certified a statewide class consisting 
of all disability claimants whose benefits had been, or would in the 
future be, denied or terminated pursuant to the severity regulations 
(20 CFR §§ 
404.1520(c), 
404.1521, 
416.920(c) and 416.921) or 
Social Security Ruling (SSR) 
82-55, on or after July 20, 1983. The court also granted a 
preliminary injunction, prohibiting the Secretary from denying or 
terminating disability benefits on the basis of the severity regulations, 
and directed the Secretary to identify, notify and reconsider the claims 
of those class members whose claims had been rejected or whose benefits 
had been terminated. On March 7, 1986, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a 
preliminary injunction and the Secretary petitioned the United States 
Supreme Court for a writ of 
certiorari.
On June 8, 1987, in Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 
(1987), the Supreme Court held that the severity regulation was facially 
valid and an appropriate de 
minimis screening device for disability 
determinations. The Court did not consider directly whether the regulation 
had been misapplied by the Secretary. However, in a concurring opinion, 
Justice O'Connor noted that “[e]mpirical evidence cited by the 
respondent and the amici [supported] the inference that the regulation 
[had] been used in a manner inconsistent with the statutory definition of 
disability.” Id. at 
157.
On June 16, 1987, following its decision in 
Yuckert, the Supreme Court granted 
certiorari in Dixon, vacated 
the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further 
consideration in light of Yuckert. Thereafter, on 
July 15, 1987, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's preliminary 
injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of 
Yuckert.
On September 1, 1987, the Secretary filed a motion for summary judgment 
and informed plaintiffs that, as of October 5, 1987, use of the severity 
regulations would be reinstated in New York State disability 
adjudications. In response, plaintiffs urged the district court to 
reinstate its injunction.
On September 17, 1987, the district court stayed all discovery with 
respect to prospective claims but allowed discovery with respect to 
plaintiffs' claims for retrospective relief. The court found that 
plaintiffs had made a sufficient threshold showing under Bowen 
v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986), to justify further 
discovery as to whether the Secretary followed a clandestine policy which 
could support a finding that the statute of limitations should be tolled. 
On November 5, 1987, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion to 
reinstate the preliminary injunction, but held that plaintiffs still had 
standing because several of the cases of the named plaintiffs had yet to 
be readjudicated and all the requirements for class certification were 
still present.
On June 29, 1989, after the Secretary renewed his motion for summary 
judgment, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for further 
discovery. For purposes of deciding, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 
whether the 60-day statute of limitations could be tolled, the court held 
that discovery would establish whether the Secretary's published policies 
were contrary to his actual practices and whether the Secretary had 
engaged in systematic misapplication. Although the court denied the 
Secretary's motion for summary judgment, it stated that the Secretary 
could resubmit the motion following completion of discovery. Pursuant to 
this order, plaintiffs deposed several SSA administrators who were 
instrumental in the development of the Agency's severity policy and the 
severity regulations. Subsequently, the parties agreed to a trial on a 
stipulated record and filed a joint partial stipulation of facts and a 
joint appendix.
On May 8, 1992, the district court issued an opinion and order regarding 
the merits of the case. In the Secretary's favor, the court: 1) upheld the 
facial validity of SSR 
82-55 and Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI § 2102; 
2) rejected plaintiffs' claim that allegations of pain were not fully 
considered at step two of the sequential evaluation; and 3) followed the 
Third Circuit's lead in Bailey v. Sullivan, 885 
F.2d 52 (3d Cir. 1989), and held that 
SSR 82-55 and POMS DI 
§ 2102 were interpretative instructions and, therefore, SSA's 
issuance of them did not violate the notice and comment provisions of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
Adverse to the Secretary, however, the court found that: 1) SSA 
adjudicators engaged in a pattern and practice of misapplication of the 
severity regulation fostered by 
SSR 82-55 and POMS DI 
§ 2102; 2) SSA adjudicators engaged in a pattern and practice of 
misapplication of the severity regulation even before the issuance of POMS 
DI § 2102 in April 1981, i.e., since June 1976; and 3) SSA's policy 
of refusing to consider whether different non-severe impairments, when 
considered in combination, result in a significant restriction of any 
basic work activities, violated the Social Security Act.
Following its 1992 merits opinion and order, the court requested that the 
parties present separate versions of proposed implementation orders. At a 
September 1992 conference, the court adopted the Secretary's proposal to 
apply a set of presumptions concerning disability in class member cases 
where the claim file could not be located. During the ensuing months, the 
parties resolved all major implementation issues except the scope of 
readjudication and the necessity for folder reconstruction. On December 
22, 1993, the court adopted plaintiffs' proposed implementation order with 
respect to ordering the Secretary to reconstruct the claims files of any 
class member whose file had been destroyed, and to whom the presumptions 
did not apply, and to provide full reopening-type readjudications to all 
qualified class members (Attachment 1). On April 1, 1995, the Second 
Circuit affirmed the district court's May 8, 1992 merits decision and 
December 22, 1993 implementation order, in their entirety.
On October 27, 1995, plaintiffs sent a letter to the district court 
alleging that SSA was refusing to comply with its regular evidence 
development responsibilities in readjudicating 
Dixon claims. In response, SSA asserted that, 
according to the Second Circuit's April 19, 1995 order, its obligation to 
assist in the development of medical evidence in connection with the 
“reconstruction” provision would be satisfied by requesting 
material evidence from sources specifically identified by class members 
and that it was not required to reconstruct the names of doctors or 
medical centers that the claimant visited, but was now unable to recall. 
Furthermore, SSA believed that if it wrote to a source requesting a report 
and no response or evidence was received, no further action by the Agency 
was necessary to obtain the evidence.
On December 13, 1995, the district court resolved the issue primarily in 
favor of plaintiffs and ruled that SSA must follow its regular evidence 
development procedures. However, the court also ruled that SSA is not 
required to provide consultative examinations if its requests for evidence 
are unsuccessful.
III. Guiding Principles
Under Dixon, the Commissioner will readjudicate the 
claims of those persons who: 1) respond to individual notice informing 
them of the opportunity for readjudication; and 2) are determined to be 
class members eligible for relief after screening (see 
Part V. below). Regardless of the 
claimant's current state of residence, the Office of Disability and 
International Operations (ODIO) and/or the Northeastern Program Service 
Center (NEPSC) will, in most cases, screen for class membership and the 
New York Office of Disability Determinations (ODD) will perform the agreed 
upon readjudications, regardless of the administrative level at which the 
class member claim was last decided.
The Disability Determination Service (DDS) servicing the claimant's 
current address will perform the readjudication if a face-to-face review 
is appropriate, i.e., cessation or terminal illness (TERI) 
cases.
 If the potential class member claim or a subsequent claim is pending or 
stored in OHA when class membership becomes an issue, OHA will perform the 
screening and readjudications under the limited circumstances described in 
Part V. B. below.
Cases readjudicated by the ODD will be adjudicated at the reconsideration 
level regardless of the final level at which the case was previously 
decided. Class members who receive adverse readjudication determinations 
will have full appeal rights (i.e., Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 
hearing, Appeals Council and judicial review).
Dixon does not require any change in OHA's current 
adjudicatory policies or practices because the severity regulations 
(20 CFR §§ 
404.1520(c), 
404.1521, 
416.920(c) and 416.921) and 
SSR 85-28 remain the 
proper standard for adjudicating claims at step two of the sequential 
evaluation.
IV. Definition of Class
Except as noted below, for purposes of implementing the court's December 
22, 1993 order, the Dixon class consists of all 
individuals:
- • - whose title II and/or title XVI disability claim was finally denied or 
ceased by the New York ODD or by SSA between June 1, 1976, and July 19, 
1983, inclusive; and 
- • - whose denial or cessation was based on a finding that they did not have a 
severe impairment, or that their impairment(s) was only slight; 
and 
- • - who resided in the State of New York at the time of the final decision by 
the Secretary to deny or cease their disability benefits. 
A person is not a class member entitled to relief if
- 1.  - the individual appealed the administrative denial or termination which the 
individual received on the potential Dixon claim 
and a final Agency determination/decision was made after July 19, 1983; 
or 
- 2.  - the last administrative denial or termination which the individual 
received on the potential Dixon claim was issued on 
or before July 19, 1983, and that determination/decision was based on a 
finding other than “no severe impairment,” i.e., denied at a 
step other than step two of the sequential evaluation; or 
- 3.  -  a Federal court affirmed the Agency's denial or termination of the 
potential Dixon claim; or 
- 4.  - the individual had a subsequent claim decided after July 19, 1983, and the 
subsequent claim covered the entire period of disability at issue in the 
potential Dixon claim; or 
- 5.  - the potential Dixon claim involved a denial or 
termination which was based on a non-medical factor (e.g., a denial based 
on substantial gainful activity). 
 V. Determination of Class Membership and Preadjudication 
Actions
A.  Pre-Screening Actions - General
Between August 17 and 21, 1995, SSA sent notices to all potential class 
members identified by computer run. Individuals will have 90 days from the 
date of receipt of the notice to request that SSA readjudicate their 
claims under the terms of the Dixon implementation 
order.
SSA will also display English and Spanish posters (no smaller than 
17“ by 22”) in all SSA field offices in the State of New York 
for a six-month period, beginning within seven (7) days of the date of the 
initial mailing of notices. At plaintiffs' request, SSA will place posters 
at a reasonable number of additional locations and SSA will make all 
reasonable efforts to distribute the posters to the requested locations. 
Potential class members who do not receive an individual notice will have 
until August 18, 1998, to request that SSA readjudicate their claims under 
the terms of the Dixon implementation order (i.e., 
within 3 years of the 70th day after the issuance of the court 
mandate).
If mailed notices are returned as undeliverable, Litigation Staff will 
attempt to obtain updated addresses through computer matches with any 
compatible New York State Department of Social Services or New York City 
Human Resources Administration data system or any other New York State or 
municipal human services agency data system containing public assistance, 
food stamp and/or other relevant records. After the computer matches are 
completed, Litigation Staff shall provide class counsel with a list of 
potential class members whose notices were returned as undeliverable and 
for whom no updated addresses were obtained. Class counsel will then have 
90 days after receipt of such names to furnish current addresses for such 
individuals. Thereafter, Litigation Staff will mail a second notice to all 
potential class members for whom updated addresses are 
obtained.
ODIO and/or NEPSC will send untimely responses to the servicing Social 
Security field office (FO) (i.e., district office or branch office) to 
develop good cause for the untimely response. Good cause determinations 
will be based on the standards set forth in 
20 CFR §§ 
404.911 and 
416.1411 and 
SSR 91-5p. If good cause 
is established, the field office will forward the claim for 
screening.
  
2.  Alert and Folder Retrieval Process
All reply forms and undeliverable notices will be returned to ODIO where 
they will be entered into the Civil Action Tracking System (CATS). CATS 
will generate folder alerts for all reply forms. See Attachment 2 for a 
sample Dixon alert.
In most instances, ODIO and/or NEPSC will associate the computer-generated 
alerts with any Dixon claim file(s) that it has 
within its jurisdiction or that it retrieves from another location. For 
Dixon claim file(s) which can be located, ODIO 
and/or NEPSC (or the component with jurisdiction) will screen for class 
membership or entitlement to relief. ODIO and/or NEPSC will then forward 
the screened-in Dixon claims to the FO for 
updating. After updating the file, the FO will send the file to the NY 
ODD, or to the appropriate DDS, for readjudication.
For Dixon claims which are declared lost or 
destroyed, ODIO and/or NEPSC will attempt to screen the claim(s) solely on 
the basis of information shown on the queries (FACT, SSIRD, etc.). If the 
lost or destroyed claim(s) is screened in on the basis of the queries 
alone, ODIO and/or NEPSC will attempt to apply the presumptions outlined 
in Part VI. E. If the lost or destroyed 
claim(s) cannot be readjudicated on the basis of the presumptions, ODIO 
and/or NEPSC will initiate claim file reconstruction through the FO. After 
reconstructing the file, the FO will send the file to the NY ODD, or to 
the appropriate DDS, for readjudication.
 
If ODIO and/or NEPSC determines that either a potential class member claim 
or a subsequent (current) claim is pending or stored at OHA, it will 
forward the alert to OHA, along with any prior claim file(s) not in OHA's 
possession, for screening, consolidation consideration and readjudication 
(if consolidated).
If the claim is located in a hearing office (HO), ODIO and/or NEPSC will 
forward the alert directly to the HO for processing. If the claim, is 
located in OHA headquarters, ODIO and/or NEPSC will send the alert to the 
Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) at the following address:
|  | Office of Hearings and Appeals Office
of Appellate Operations
 One Skyline Tower, Suite 701
 5107
Leesburg Pike
 Falls Church, VA 22041-3200
 ATTN:
OAO Class Action Coordinator
 | 
The OAO Class Action Coordinator is responsible for controlling and 
reconciling the disposition of class alerts shipped to OHA Headquarters 
for association with pending or stored claims. The OAO Class Action 
Coordinator will maintain a record of all alerts received and the 
location, if any, to which they are transferred. This information will be 
necessary to do the final class membership reconciliation.
   
In general, ODIO and/or NEPSC will coordinate any necessary reconstruction 
of prior claim files. When developing evidence in connection with the 
reconstruction of a lost or destroyed Dixon 
claim(s) file, SSA is not required to reconstruct the names of doctors or 
medical centers which the claimant visited when the claimant is now unable 
to recall that information. SSA will contact only those sources identified 
by the claimant. If SSA writes to the source requesting a report and no 
response or evidence is received, SSA will make one follow-up request. If 
the evidence received from the treating source(s) or other medical sources 
is insufficient for adjudication, SSA will recontact the source for 
additional information.
However, SSA is not required to obtain a consultative examination pursuant 
to 20 C.F.R. § 
404.1512(f) and 
416.912(f) if the 
request for medical evidence is unsuccessful.
OHA requests for reconstruction of potential class member cases should be 
rare. However, prior to requesting reconstruction, OHA will determine 
whether available systems data or other information provides satisfactory 
proof that the particular claim would not confer class membership. If it 
becomes necessary for OHA to request reconstruction, the OHA component 
(the HO or the OAO branch) will forward the alert and any accompanying 
claim file(s) (if the claim file(s) is not needed for adjudication 
purposes) to the servicing FO with a covering memorandum requesting that 
folder reconstruction be initiated and that the reconstructed file be sent 
to OHA after file reconstruction action is completed. The OAO branch will 
route requests through the OAO Class Action Coordinator. HO personnel and 
the OAO Class Action Coordinator will forward a copy of the reconstruction 
request memorandum to Litigation Staff at the following address:
|  | Litigation Staff Office
of the Deputy Commissioner
 for Programs, Policy,
Evaluation and
 Communications
 3-K-26
Operations Building
 6401 Security Boulevard
 Baltimore,
MD 21235
 
 ATTN: Dixon 
Coordinator
 | 
HO personnel and the OAO branch will identify in the reconstruction 
request the OHA location of any existing claim file(s) being retained for 
adjudication purposes, and the date(s) of the claim(s) 
involved.
   
a.  Current Claim Pending or Stored at OHA
As provided in Part V. A. 3. above, if 
there is a current claim pending or stored at OHA, the OAO Class Action 
Coordinator will receive the alert and related 
Dixon claim file(s). The OAO Class Action 
Coordinator will determine which OHA component has the current claim and 
forward for screening as follows:
- • - If the current claim is in an HO, the Coordinator will use Attachment 3 to 
forward the alert and prior claim file(s) to the HO for screening. 
(Part V. B. 2. a. below provides 
instructions to HOs regarding the action to take if they receive an alert 
package from the OAO Class Action Coordinator but no longer have a current 
claim pending.) 
- • - If the current claim is pending before the Appeals Council or is located 
in an OAO branch mini-docket or in an OAO Docket and Files Branch (DFB), 
the Coordinator will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and prior claim 
file(s) to the appropriate OAO branch for screening. 
(Part V. B. 2. a. below provides 
instructions to the OAO branches regarding the action to take if they 
receive an alert package from the OAO Class Action Coordinator but no 
longer have a current claim pending.) 
If the Coordinator (or his designee) is unable to locate the current claim 
file within OHA, the Coordinator (or his designee) will broaden the claim 
file search and arrange for alert transfer or claim file reconstruction, 
as necessary.
Do not screen pending cases in newly implemented class actions unless an 
alert has been received. Claimants sometimes allege class membership 
before their cases have been alerted. The presence of an alert is evidence 
that the claimant has responded to notice of potential class membership 
and that his or her case is ready for review. However, if class action 
implementation is nearly complete and a claimant with a non-alerted 
pending case should allege class membership, contact the 
Dixon coordinator in the Division of Litigation 
Analysis and Implementation (DLAI) for assistance in determining the 
claimant's status. DLAI's address is
 
|  | Office of Hearings and Appeals Division
of Litigation Analysis
 and Implementation
 Office
of Policy, Planning and
 Evaluation
 One
Skyline Tower, Suite 702
 5107 Leesburg Pike
 Falls
Church, VA 22041-3255
 
 ATTN: Dixon 
Coordinator
 | 
The DLAI Dixon Coordinator's telephone number is 
(703) 305-0328.
 b.  Current Claim Pending in Court
If the OAO Class Action Coordinator receives an alert for a claimant who 
has a civil action pending, either on the alerted case or on a subsequent 
or prior claim, the Coordinator will forward the alert and any 
accompanying claim file(s) to the appropriate OAO Court Case Preparation 
and Review Branch (CCPRB) for screening using Attachment 3. See 
Part V. B. 2. b. below for special 
screening instructions when a civil action is involved.
   
The screening component will associate the alert and any prior claim 
file(s) with the claim file(s) in its possession and complete the 
screening sheet (see Attachment 4) as follows:
If the claim pending at OHA is the only potential 
Dixon claim, then the individual is not entitled to 
relief under Dixon (see 
Part IV. above). Complete the screening 
sheet and follow the instructions in 
Part V. B. 3. a. below for processing 
non-Dixon claims.
- • - Consider all applications denied (including res 
judicata denials/dismissals) during the 
Dixon timeframe; 
 
Although not the “final decision of the Secretary,” an 
Appeals Council denial of a request for review is the last action of the 
Secretary, and the date of such a denial controls for class membership 
screening purposes.
- • - Follow all instructions on the screening sheet and screening sheet 
instructions; 
- • - Sign and date the original screening sheet, place it in the claim file (on 
the top right side of the file); and 
- • - If the screening component is an OHA Headquarters component, forward a 
copy of the screening sheet to the OAO Class Action Coordinator at the 
address in Part V. A. 3. above. (The 
Coordinator will forward the copy of the screening sheet to DLAI after 
recording the relevant information in its class action data base.) If the 
screening component is a HO, forward a copy of the screening sheet 
directly to DLAI. (DLAI will retain a copy of each screening sheet and 
forward a copy to Litigation Staff.) 
 
Final determinations or decisions made after July 19, 1983, on a 
subsequent claim filed by a potential Dixon class 
member may have adjudicated the entire time period at issue in the 
Dixon claim. If that is the case, the adjudication 
on the subsequent claim will provide a basis for denying class relief in 
connection with the Dixon claim.
 If the HO receives an alert only, or an alert associated with a prior 
claim file(s), and the HO no longer has the current claim file, it will 
send the alert and any prior claim file(s) to the OAO Class Action 
Coordinator (see address in Part V. A. 3. 
above) and advise the Coordinator of the action taken on the current claim 
and its destination. The Coordinator will determine the current claim file 
location and, if it is being stored in OHA Headquarters, will forward the 
alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the responsible OAO 
Branch for screening using Attachment 3. If the file(s) is no longer in 
OHA, the Coordinator will use Attachment 5 to send the alert and any 
accompanying prior claim file(s) to the non-OHA location of the current 
claim and request that the file(s) be forwarded to ODIO and/or NEPSC for 
screening.
If an OAO branch receives an alert only, or an alert associated with a 
prior claim file(s), and the branch no longer has the current claim file 
(and it is not located in mini-dockets or an OAO DFB), it will determine 
the location of the current claim file. If the current claim is located 
within OHA, the OAO branch will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and 
any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the current OHA location. If the 
files are no longer in OHA, the OAO branch will use Attachment 5 to 
forward the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the non-OHA 
location of the current claim and request that the file(s) be forwarded to 
ODIO and/or NEPSC for screening. The OAO branch will advise the OAO Class 
Action Coordinator of its actions.
  
b.  Special OAO Screening Instructions if a Civil Action Is 
Involved
As noted in Part V. B. 1. b. above, the 
CCPRB will screen for Dixon class membership when a 
civil action is involved. The CCPRB's class membership determination will 
dictate the appropriate post-screening action.
- • - If the claim pending in court was adjudicated in accordance with 
SSR 85-28 and resolved 
all Dixon issues, the claimant is not a 
Dixon class member entitled to relief. The CCPRB 
staff will follow the instructions in 
Part V. B. 3. a. below for processing 
non-class member claims. 
- • - If the claim pending in court was adjudicated in accordance with 
SSR 85-28, but did not 
resolve all Dixon issue(s), e.g., there is a prior 
(inactive) Dixon claim and the claim pending in 
court did not adjudicate the entire period covered by the 
Dixon claim, and the claimant elects to have the 
case remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings 
(instead of continuing in court), the CCPRB will forward the 
Dixon claim to the New York ODD for separate 
review. The CCPRB will modify the case flag in Attachment 9 to indicate 
that the pending court case does not resolve all 
Dixon issues and that the 
Dixon class member claim is being forwarded for 
separate processing. The CCPRB will notify the Class Action Coordinator of 
this action. 
- • - If the final administrative decision on the claim pending in court was not 
adjudicated in accordance with 
SSR 85-28 or is legally 
insufficient for other reasons, the CCPRB will initiate voluntary remand 
proceedings and consolidate the claims. 
   
3.  Post-Screening Actions
a.  Non-Class Member Cases
If the screening component determines that the individual is not a class 
member, the component will:
- • - notify the individual, and representative, if any, of non-class membership 
using Attachment 6 (modified as necessary to fit the facts and posture of 
the case when there is a current claim); 
Include the address and telephone number of the servicing Social Security 
field office at the top of Attachment 6.
 - • - retain a copy of the notice in the claim file; 
- • - send a copy of the notice to: - 
- 
|  | Donna H. Lee The Legal
Aid Society
 841 Broadway, 3rd Floor
 New York, NY
10003
 |  
 
- • - ODIO and/or NEPSC or OHA, as appropriate, will hold for 95 days all claim 
files of individuals to whom SSA sends notice of non-class membership or 
ineligibility for relief. If an individual wishes to request SSA's further 
consideration of the non-class membership determination, he or she may 
contact SSA in writing within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the 
non-class membership determination. An individual may also request 
assistance through class counsel. Copies of each request for review 
submitted directly by the claimant will be sent by SSA to class counsel 
promptly after it is received by SSA. Upon timely request by class counsel 
(i.e., within 60 days from the date SSA forwards the individual's request 
for review), Litigation Staff will coordinate with ODIO and/or NEPSC or 
OHA to forward the claim files, using the pre-addressed route slip in 
Attachment 7, to: - 
- 
|  | SSA, Disability Program Branch 26
Federal Plaza, Room 40-112
 New York, NY 10278
 |  
 
The files may also be sent to another mutually acceptable SSA 
location.
 - • - After SSA notifies class counsel of the availability of the claim file or 
other available administrative records, class counsel has 90 days from the 
date of notification to inspect the file or other records. (The 90 day 
time period may be extended upon consent of both parties.) If at the end 
of the period for inspecting the files, class counsel has not reviewed the 
requested file, it will be assumed that review of the file is not desired. 
Class counsel must attempt to resolve disputes concerning an individual's 
class membership denial by negotiating with counsel for SSA at the Office 
of the General Counsel, Baltimore, Maryland. If, after negotiation, SSA 
still adheres to a determination that an individual is not a class member, 
SSA will send class counsel and the individual a written confirmation of 
SSA's denial. After receipt of a confirmation notice, class counsel or the 
individual will have 60 days to submit the matter to the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York for 
resolution. 
Photocopy any material contained in the Dixon file 
that is relevant to the current claim and associate it with the current 
claim before shipping the Dixon file for class 
counsel's review.
 - • - if SSA, through OGC, resolves the dispute in the claimant's favor: 1) the 
original screening component or Litigation Staff will prepare a revised 
screening sheet; 2) OHA jurisdiction cases will proceed in accordance with 
Part VI. below; 3) the rescreening 
component will notify DLAI of the revised determination by forwarding a 
copy of the revised screening sheet to DLAI; and 4) DLAI will correlate 
with the OAO Class Action Coordinator as necessary. If the individual 
appealed the dispute of his or her class membership determination through 
class counsel, OGC will advise class counsel of the reversal of class 
membership determination, and class counsel will notify the claimant. 
However, if the individual appealed directly to SSA, OGC will notify the 
claimant in writing of the reversal of class membership determination and 
send a copy of the correspondence to class counsel. 
See the “NOTE” in the screening sheet instructions for Item 
12 regarding the action that needs to be taken if full retroactive 
benefits were not paid on a subsequent claim.
  b.  Cases Determined To Be Class Members Entitled to Relief
If the screening component determines that the individual is a class 
member entitled to relief, it will proceed with processing and 
adjudication in accordance with the instructions in 
Part VI. below.
   VI. Processing and Adjudication
Due to the particular circumstances of the Dixon 
case, the implementation order provides for the following presumptions to 
be used in the readjudication of class members claim(s) when the file(s) 
cannot be located.
1.  Presumptions of Disability
The class member will be found disabled if he/she received a favorable 
decision awarding benefits for any subsequent period of disability; 
and
- • - the medical evidence relevant to that decision demon- strates that, given 
the class member's condition at the time of the favorable decision (e.g., 
the impairment(s) at the time of the favorable determination reasonably 
related to that alleged in the original Dixon 
claim), it is reasonable to presume that he/she was disabled as of the 
date of the prior administrative determination which resulted in class 
membership (i.e., the earliest Dixon claim); 
or 
- • - absent evidence to the contrary that suggests the class member was not 
disabled, a class member was 55 years of age or older at the time of the 
administrative determination which resulted in class 
membership. 
If the presumptions are not overcome by evidence to the contrary and the 
class member will be found disabled as a result, he/she will be found to 
be disabled from the earliest date based on the application which results 
in class membership up to the date of onset established by the subsequent 
allowance regardless of whether the subsequent allowance is continuing, 
ceased or was a closed period.
In title II claims, the onset established is that alleged on the earliest 
Dixon claim. In title XVI claims, disability is 
established as of the filing date of the earliest 
Dixon claim.
  2.  Presumptions of Nondisability
Absent evidence to the contrary, there is a rebuttable presumption that a 
class member will be found not disabled if:
- • - he/she received a denial or termination of benefits for any reason after 
July 19, 1983, or for a reason other than a step two denial, i.e., no 
severe impairment(s) before July 19, 1983, on a disability claim 
subsequent to the one that forms the basis of class membership; 
or 
- • - employment records available to SSA (e.g., earnings record or SEQY) 
indicate: 1) a period of employment longer than 6 months following the 
denial or termination that forms the basis of class membership; and 2) 
earnings in that period which are in excess of the minimum monthly amounts 
prescribed in 20 C.F.R. 
§§ 404.1574 and 
416.974; 
or 
- • - he/she had a claim reviewed pursuant to Stieberger v. 
Sullivan which was denied. 
When a decision is made that a class member is not disabled based on the 
presumptions, the class member must be informed of his or her right to 
submit evidence to rebut the presumptions of non-disability. Existing 
evidence of record must be considered in the light most favorable to the 
class member. If the presumptions cannot be applied, reconstruction is 
required.
   B.  Cases Reviewed by the DDS
When the Dixon claim(s) is located or 
reconstructed, the New York ODD will conduct the 
Dixon review, except for cases consolidated at the 
OHA level (see Part VI. D. below) and 
cases in which a face-to-face review is appropriate (see the exception in 
Part III above). The ODD determination 
will be a reconsideration determination, regardless of the administrative 
level at which the class member's claim(s) was previously decided, with 
full appeal rights (i.e., ALJ hearing, Appeals Council and judicial 
review).
Except as otherwise noted in this instruction, ALJs should process and 
adjudicate requests for hearing on Dixon DDS review 
cases in the same manner as for any other case.
 C.  OHA Adjudication of Class Member Claims
The following instruction applies to both consolidation cases in which the 
ALJ or Appeals Council conducts the Dixon 
readjudication and to ODD readjudication cases in which the claimant 
requests a hearing or Appeals Council review. Except as noted herein, HOs 
and Headquarters will process Dixon class member 
cases according to all other current practices and procedures, including 
coding, scheduling, developing evidence, routing, etc.
1.  Type of Review and Period To Be Considered
- a.  - Pursuant to the Dixon implementation order, 
regardless of whether the claim under review is an initial claim or 
cessation case, the type of review to be conducted is a reopening. The 
reopening shall be a de 
novo reevaluation of the class member's 
eligibility for benefits based on all evidence in his or her file 
including newly obtained evidence. The claim of each class member must be 
reopened to determine whether the claimant was disabled at any time from 
the earliest alleged onset date of the Dixon 
claim(s) through the date of readjudication (or, in title II cases in 
which the claimant is no longer insured, through the date last insured). 
If the individual had a subsequent claim, the Dixon 
claim(s) will not be developed and reopened past the alleged onset date or 
established onset date, as appropriate, of the subsequent claim. When 
readjudicating Dixon claims, SSA will only consider 
subsequent impairment(s) that can reasonably be said to be related to the 
impairment(s) which provided the basis for the determination in the 
Dixon claim(s). 
- b.  - In cases where the claim file(s) cannot be located, adjudicators are not 
required to consider any subsequent period(s) during which the claimant 
had an impairment(s) unrelated to the disability alleged in the 
Dixon claim(s). Also, in cases where the claim 
file(s) cannot be located, if the evidence establishes that disability 
began only at some point after the 
administrative determination(s)/decision(s) that forms the basis for 
Dixon class membership, the class member must file 
a new application to establish eligibility. If the presumptions do not 
apply, the case must be reconstructed and reopened. A new application is 
not necessary. 
2.  Step Two of the Sequential Evaluation
Dixon does not require any change in OHA's current 
adjudicatory policies or practices with respect to step two of the 
sequential evaluation. Effective with the enactment of the 1984 Amendments 
to the Social Security Act, OHA's adjudicators have considered the 
combined effect of individual “not severe” impairments in 
evaluating disability claims at step two. ALJs and the Appeals Council 
will evaluate Dixon claims in accordance with the 
Social Security Act, the sequential evaluation process set forth in 
20 CFR §§ 
404.1520 - 1524, 416.920 - 924, including the current severity 
regulations, 20 CFR 
§§ 404.1520(c), 
416.920(c), 
SSR 85-28, and other 
policies and procedures of SSA.
The Acting Associate Commissioner's memorandum, dated February 21, 1991 
(Attachment 8), regarding the proper standard for adjudicating claims at 
step two, remains in effect.
 3.  Class Member Is Deceased
If a class member is deceased, the usual survivor and substitute party 
provisions and existing procedures for determining distribution of any 
potential underpayment apply.
  D.  Claim at OHA but No Current Action Pending
If the claim file (either a class member claim or a subsequent claim) is 
located in OHA Headquarters, but there is no claim actively pending 
administrative review, i.e., Headquarters is holding the file awaiting 
potential receipt of a request for review or notification that a civil 
action has been filed, OAO will associate the alert with the file and 
screen for class membership (the OAO Class Action Coordinator will 
coordinate the necessary actions as explained in 
Part V.). (See 
Part V. B. 3., above, for non-class 
member processing instructions.)
- • - If the 120-day retention period for holding a claim file after an ALJ 
decision or Appeals Council action has expired, OAO will attach a 
Dixon class member flag (see Attachment 9) to the 
outside of the file and send the claim file(s) to the New York ODD (or to 
the appropriate DDS if the exception in 
Part III above applies) for review of the 
Dixon class member claim. 
- • - If less than 120 days have elapsed, OAO will attach a 
Dixon class member flag (see Attachment 10) to the 
outside of the file to ensure that the case is routed to the New York ODD 
(or to the appropriate DDS if the exception in 
Part III. above applies) after expiration 
of the retention period. Pending expiration of the retention period, the 
OAO branch will also: - • - return unappealed ALJ decisions and dismissals to DFB, OAO; 
and 
- • - return unappealed Appeals Council denials to the appropriate OAO 
mini-docket. 
 
The respective OAO components will monitor the retention period and, if 
the claimant does not seek further administrative or judicial review, 
route the file(s) to the New York ODD (or the appropriate DDS if the 
exception in Part III. above applies) in 
a timely manner.
 E.  Processing and Adjudicating Class Member Claims in Conjunction 
with Current Claims (Consolidation Procedures)
If a class member has a current claim pending at any administrative level 
and consolidation is warranted according to the guidelines below, the 
appropriate component will consolidate all Dixon 
class member claims with the current claim at the level at which the 
current claim is pending.
  
2.  Current Claim Pending in the Hearing Office
a.  Hearing Scheduled or Held and all Remand Cases
Except as noted below, if a Dixon class member has 
a request for hearing pending on a current claim, and the ALJ has either 
scheduled or held a hearing, and in all remand cases, the ALJ will 
consolidate the Dixon case with the appeal on the 
current claim.
The ALJ will not consolidate the claims if
 - • - the current claim and the Dixon claim do not have 
any issues in common; or 
- • - a court remand contains a court-ordered time limit and it will not be 
possible to meet the time limit if the claims are 
consolidated. 
If the claims are consolidated, follow 
Part VI. E. 2. c. below. If the claims 
are not consolidated, follow 
Part VI. E. 2. d. below.
 
Except as noted below, if a Dixon class member has 
an initial request for hearing pending on a current claim and the HO has 
not yet scheduled a hearing, the ALJ will not consolidate the 
Dixon claim and the current claim. Instead, the ALJ 
will dismiss the request for hearing on the current claim and forward both 
the Dixon claim and the current claim to the New 
York ODD (or to the appropriate DDS if the exception in 
Part III. above applies) for further 
action (see Part VI. E. 2. d. 
below).
If the hearing has not been scheduled because the claimant waived the 
right to an in-person hearing, and the ALJ is prepared to issue a fully 
favorable decision on the current claim, and this decision would also be 
fully favorable with respect to all issues raised by the application that 
makes the claimant a Dixon class member, the ALJ 
will consolidate the claims.
 If the claims are consolidated, follow 
Part VI. E. 2. c. below. If the claims 
are not consolidated, follow 
Part VI. E. 2. d. below.
  
c.  Action if Claims Are Consolidated
If the ALJ decides to consolidate the current claim with the 
Dixon claim(s), the HO will:
- • - give proper notice of any new issue(s) as required by 
20 CFR §§ 
404.946(b) and 
416.1446(b), if 
the Dixon claim raises an additional issue(s) not 
raised by the current claim; 
- • - offer the claimant a supplemental hearing if the ALJ already has held a 
hearing and the Dixon claim raises an additional 
issue(s), unless the ALJ is prepared to issue a fully favorable decision 
with respect to the Dixon claim; and 
- • - issue one decision that addresses both the issues raised by the current 
request for hearing and those raised by the Dixon 
claim (the ALJ's decision will clearly indicate that the ALJ considered 
the Dixon claim pursuant to the 
Dixon implementation order). 
 d.  Action if Claims Are Not Consolidated
If common issues exist but the ALJ decides not to consolidate the current 
claim with the Dixon claim because a hearing has 
not yet been scheduled, the ALJ will:
- • - dismiss, without prejudice, the request for hearing on the current claim, 
using the language in Attachment 11 and the covering notice in Attachment 
12; and 
- • - send both the Dixon claim and the current claim to 
the New York ODD (or to the appropriate DDS if the exception in 
Part III. above applies) for ODD 
consolidation and further action. 
If the ALJ decides not to consolidate the Dixon 
claim with the current claim because: 1) the claims do not have any issues 
in common, or 2) there is a court-ordered time limit, the ALJ 
will:
- • - flag the Dixon claim for ODD review using 
Attachment 13; immediately route it to the New York ODD (or to the 
appropriate DDS if the exception in 
Part III. above applies) for 
readjudication; and retain a copy of Attachment 13 in the current claim 
file; and 
- • - take the necessary action to complete the record and issue a decision on 
the current claim. 
  3.  Current Claim Pending at the Appeals Council
The action the Appeals Council takes on the current claim dictates the 
disposition of the Dixon claim. Therefore, OAO must 
keep the claim folders together until the Appeals Council completes its 
action on the subsequent claim. The following sections identify the 
possible Appeals Council actions on the current claim and the appropriate 
corresponding action on the Dixon 
claim.
a.  Appeals Council Intends To Dismiss, Deny Review or Issue a Denial 
Decision on the Current Claim -- No Dixon Issue(s) 
Will Remain Unresolved
This situation will usually arise when the current claim duplicates the 
Dixon review claim, i.e., the current claim raises 
the issue of disability and covers the entire period adjudicated in the 
Dixon claim, and the current claim has been 
adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of 
SSR 85-28 and the 
current severity regulations, i.e., 
20 CFR §§ 
404.1520(c), 
404.1521, 
404.1523, 416.920(c), 416.921 and/or 416.923. In this instance, the 
Appeals Council will consolidate the claims and proceed with its intended 
action.
The Appeals Council's order, decision or notice of action will clearly 
indicate that the ALJ's or Appeals Council's action resolved or resolves 
both the current claim and the Dixon 
claim.
 b.  Appeals Council Intends To Dismiss, Deny Review or Issue a Denial 
Decision on the Current Claim -- Dixon Issue(s) 
Will Remain Unresolved
This situation will usually arise when the current claim does not 
duplicate the Dixon claim, e.g., the current claim 
raises the issue of disability but does not cover the entire period 
adjudicated in the Dixon claim, i.e., the 
Dixon claim raises the issue of disability for a 
period prior to the period adjudicated in the current claim. In this 
instance, the Appeals Council will proceed with its intended action on the 
current claim.
When action on the current claim is completed, OAO staff will attach a 
Dixon case flag (Attachment 9) to the 
Dixon claim, forward the 
Dixon claim to the New York ODD (or to the 
appropriate DDS if the exception in 
Part III. above applies) for 
adjudication, and retain a copy of Attachment 9 in the current claim file. 
OAO will modify Attachment 9 to indicate that the Appeals Council action 
on the current claim does not resolve all Dixon 
issues and that the Dixon class member claim is 
being forwarded for separate processing. OAO staff will include copies of 
the ALJ's or Appeals Council's decision or order or notice of denial of 
request for review on the current claim and the exhibit list used for the 
ALJ's or Appeals Council's decision.
 c.  Appeals Council Intends To Issue a Favorable Decision on the 
Current Claim -- No Dixon Issue(s) Will Remain 
Unresolved
If the Appeals Council intends to issue a fully favorable decision on a 
current claim, and this decision would be fully favorable with respect to 
all issues raised by the application that makes the claimant a 
Dixon class member, the Appeals Council will 
proceed with its intended action. In this instance, the Appeals Council 
will consolidate the claims, reopen the final determination or decision on 
the Dixon claim, and issue a decision that 
adjudicates both applications.
The Appeals Council's decision will indicate clearly that the Appeals 
Council considered the Dixon claim pursuant to the 
Dixon implementation order.
 d.  Appeals Council Intends To Issue a Favorable Decision on the 
Current Claim -- Dixon Issue(s) Will Remain 
Unresolved
If the Appeals Council intends to issue a favorable decision on a current 
claim and this decision would not be fully favorable with respect to all 
issues raised by the Dixon claim, the Appeals 
Council will proceed with its intended action. In this situation, the 
Appeals Council will request the effectuating component to forward the 
claim files to the New York ODD (or to the appropriate DDS if the 
exception in Part III. above applies) 
after the Appeals Council's decision is effectuated.
OAO staff will include the following language on the transmittal sheet 
used to forward the case for effectuation: "Dixon 
court case review needed -- following effectuation forward the attached 
combined files to:
New York Office of Disability Determinations [address]
(or to the appropriate DDS if the exception in 
Part III. above applies)."
 e.  Appeals Council Intends To Remand the Current Claim to an 
ALJ
If the Appeals Council intends to remand the current claim to an ALJ, it 
will proceed with its intended action unless one of the exceptions below 
applies. In its remand order, the Appeals Council will direct the ALJ to 
consolidate the Dixon claim with the action on the 
current claim pursuant to the instructions in 
Part VI. E. 2. a. above.
The Appeals Council will not direct the ALJ to consolidate the claim 
if
 - • - the current claim and the Dixon claim do not have 
any issues in common; or 
- • - a court remand contains a court-ordered time limit and it will not be 
possible to meet the time limit if the claims are 
consolidated. 
If the claims do not share a common issue or a court-ordered time limit 
makes consolidation impractical, OAO will forward the 
Dixon class member claim to the New York ODD (or to 
the appropriate DDS if the exception in 
Part III. above applies) for separate 
review. The case flag in Attachment 9 should be modified to indicate that 
the Appeals Council, rather than an ALJ, is forwarding the 
Dixon class member claim for separate 
processing.
   VII. Case Coding
HO personnel will code prior claims into the Hearing Office Tracking 
System (HOTS) and the OHA Case Control System (OHA CCS) as 
“reopenings.” If the prior claim is consolidated with a 
current claim already pending at the hearing level (see 
Part VI. above), HO personnel will not 
code the prior claim as a separate hearing request. Instead, HO personnel 
will change the hearing type on the current claim to a 
“reopening.” If the conditions described in 
Part VI. E. 2. c. above apply, the ALJ 
should dismiss the request for rehearing on the current claim, and HO 
personnel should enter “OTDI” in the “DSP” 
field.
To identify class member cases in HOTS, HO personnel will code 
“DI” in the “Class Action” field. No special 
identification codes will be used in the OHA CCS.
VIII.  Inquiries
HO personnel should direct any questions to their Regional Office. 
Regional Office personnel should contact the Division of Field Practices 
and Procedures in the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge at 
(703) 305-0022. Headquarters personnel should contact the Division of 
Litigation Analysis and Implementation at 305-0708.
Attachment 1. - Dixon v. Shalala 
Implementation Order; Issued by the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of New York on December 22, 1993.
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT |  |  | 
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |  |  | 
| ----------------------------- | ----------------------------- | -----X | 
| DAVID DIXON, et al., | x |  | 
|  |  |  | 
| Plaintiffs, | x |  | 
|  |  |  | 
| -and- | x |  | 
|  |  |  | 
| THE STATE OF NEW YORK, | x | 83 Civ. 7001 (WCC) | 
|  |  |  | 
| Plaintiff - Intervenors | x | ORDER | 
|  |  |  | 
| -v- | x |  | 
|  |  |  | 
| DONNA SHALALA, | x |  | 
| SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND |  |  | 
| HUMAN SERVICES, | x |  | 
|  |  |  | 
| Defendant. | x |  | 
| ----------------------------- | ----------------------------- | -----X | 
WHEREAS, pursuant to a decision dated June 22, 1984, this Court issued an 
Order on July 25, 1984, conditionally certifying as a class.
All persons in the State of New York who have filed or will file 
applications for disability benefits under Title II and/or Title XVI of 
the Social Security Act, and whose benefits have been or will be denied 
pursuant to the policies set forth in 
20 C.F.R. §§ 
404.1520 (c) and .1521, 416.920 (c) and .921 (1982), and 
Social Security Ruling 
82-55; and all recipients of such benefits who have made or will 
make claims for continued benefits, and whose benefits have been or will 
be terminated pursuant to the same policies. The plaintiff class does not 
include, at this time, any such persons who received decisions of the 
Secretary on or before July 19, 1983 and failed to file a complaint in 
federal district court or to appeal to the next level of administrative 
review within 60 days after the date of the receipt of such 
decision.
See Dixon v. Heckler, 589 F Supp 1494, 1512 
(S.D.N.T.),
 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that;
- 1.  - The class previously certified by this Court shall be revised to include 
individuals otherwise eligible for class membership who were denied 
benefits, or whose benefits were terminated between June 1, 1976 and July 
19, 1983, inclusive. 
- 2.  - (a) The class of individuals entitled to relief under this order is 
limited to:  - 
- all persons who, between June 1, 1976 and July 19, 1983 inclusive, were 
issued a final denial or termination decision by the New York Office of 
Disability Determinations (ODD) or the Social Security Administration 
concerning their application for new or continued disability insurance 
benefits or Supplemental Security Income payments based upon a finding 
that they did not have severe impairments, or that their impairments were 
only slight and who resided in the State of New York at the time of such 
decision. 
 - (b) Those class members who were entitled to relief under this Court's 
July 25, 1984 preliminary injunction Order may still obtain relief 
pursuant to that Order only. 
- 3.  - The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) shall, by means of 
its data processing systems, immediately commence identification of the 
names, Social Security numbers and last known addresses of all 
identifiable potential class members. SSA shall make good faith efforts to 
complete such identification within 120 days of the date of entry of this 
Order. Class counsel will be provided with a computer-generated list of 
the names of all potential class members following such 
identification. 
- 4.  - Within 180 days of the date of entry of this Order, SSA will issue 
instructions to all SSA and ODD adjudicators for screening and 
readjudicating the claims of class members who request readjudication and 
will simultaneously provide a copy of all instructions and directives to 
class counsel. 
- 5.  - Upon completion of the identification procedure described in paragraph 3, 
and within 30 days of the issuance of instructions described in paragraph 
4, SSA shall send a class member notice in English and Spanish (Attachment 
“A”) by first class mail to each potential class member so 
identified, at his or her last known address. This notice will advise the 
potential class member of possible entitlement to a readjudication of his 
or her disability claim and will further state that the potential class 
member must return the enclosed pre-addressed postage-paid form within 90 
days from the date of receipt of the notice in order to receive 
consideration for relief. The notice also will inform the potential class 
member that SSA's regulations for determining good cause for missing a 
deadline to request review are applicable to a failure to request 
readjudication within the 90-day period. 
20 C.F.R. §§ 
404.911, 
416.1411. The 
time in which a potential class member must respond to the notice shall 
begin to run upon receipt of the notice by the potential class member, 
which is presumed to be five (5) days after the date of the notice unless 
the potential class member shows that it was not received within that 
time. 20 C.F.R. 
§§ 404.901, 
416.1401. A 
potential class member shall be considered to have requested 
readjudication if he or she timely responds to the class member notice or, 
if no notice is received, within three years of the entry of this Order 
makes an oral or written request concerning class membership to an SSA 
field office. 
- 6.  - A potential class member will receive a written acknowledgment from SSA 
after he or she returns the response form as set forth in paragraph 5 
above or otherwise requests readjudication. 
- 7.  - When individual notices are returned as undeliverable SSA shall use its 
best efforts to effect, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act, as 
amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. 
§ 552a (Privacy Act), computer matches with any compatible New York 
State Department of Social Services or New York City Human Resources 
Administration data system or any other New York State or municipal human 
services agency data system containing public assistance, food stamp 
and/or other relevant records, solely for the purpose of obtaining the 
most recent addresses for potential class members. Such match shall be 
made for the sole purpose of sending a notice to potential class members. 
After the computer matches are completed, SSA shall provide class counsel 
with a list of potential class members whose notices were returned as 
undeliverable, and for whom no updated addresses were obtained. Class 
counsel shall have 90 days after receipt of such names to furnish current 
addresses for such individuals. Upon timely receipt of such addresses from 
class counsel, SSA shall mail a second copy of the class member notice 
(Attachment “A”) to those potential class members for whom 
updated addresses were obtained. 
- 8.  - SSA shall prepare a poster notice, the text of which is subject to the 
approval of the Court (Attachment “B”). The posters shall be 
no smaller than 17“ x 22” and shall be reproduced in both 
English and Spanish. SSA shall use its best efforts to display copies of 
these posters in all SSA field offices in the State of New York for a 
six-month period, beginning within seven (7) days of the date of the 
initial mailing of notices as provided in paragraph 5. Plaintiffs may 
request that SSA place posters at a reasonable number of additional 
locations and SSA will make all reasonable efforts to distribute the 
posters to the requested locations. 
- 9.  - Individuals who request readjudication pursuant to paragraph 5 of this 
Order will be screened for class membership by SSA, which will base its 
determination on claims files or other available records. When SSA 
determines that an individual is not a class member, a class membership 
denial notice shall be mailed to that individual with a copy to class 
counsel. The class membership denial notice shall state the reason for the 
denial of class membership. The notice also will provide that any 
individual denied class membership will have 90 days from receipt of the 
notice of class membership denial in which to seek review of the denial by 
contacting SSA in writing. The notice will explain that the individual may 
contact class counsel for assistance in resolving disputes concerning 
class membership. A copy of each request for review will be sent by SSA to 
class counsel promptly after it is received by SSA. If class counsel 
wishes to inspect the administrative record upon which a denial is based 
counsel must request inspection within 60 days of the date SSA forwards 
the individual's request for review. Counsel will have 90 days from the 
date that they are notified of the availability of the claims file or 
other available administrative records in which to conduct such inspection 
at a mutually agreeable office of SSA in New York State. This time period 
may be extended upon consent. These records may not be removed from the 
custody of SSA. If at the end of the period for inspecting a file, class 
counsel has not reviewed the requested file, it shall be assumed that 
review of the file is not desired. Class counsel will attempt to resolve 
disputes concerning an individual's class membership by negotiation with 
counsel for SSA at the Office of General Counsel, Social Security 
Division, Baltimore, Maryland. If, after negotiation, SSA adheres to its 
determination that an individual is not a class member, SSA shall send 
class counsel and the individual a written confirmation of SSA's denial. 
Class counsel or the individual may then, by duly noticed motion filed 
within 60 days of receipt of the confirmation notice, submit the matter to 
the Court for resolution. If no such motion is filed within 60 days, the 
class membership denial shall be final and not subject to further 
review. 
- 10.  - A class member's request for readjudication shall constitute a request for 
readjudication of any claims subject to readjudication under this 
Order. 
- 11.  - The claims of all individuals found to be class members shall be 
readjudicated at the reconsideration stage of the administrative process. 
20 C.F.R. §§ 
404.907-913, 416.1407-1413c. SSA will reopen the claims of class 
members whose claims files relating to the period resulting in class 
membership have been located, and will readjudicate these claims from the 
earliest potential entitlement date based on the application which 
resulted in class membership through the date of readjudication. SSA shall 
also consider all subsequent periods, except that disability for any 
period which was the subject of a disability determination rendered after 
July 25, 1984 need not be considered. - a.  - If a class member's claims file cannot be located or no longer exists, SSA 
shall attempt to apply the presumptions provided in Paragraph 13 of this 
Order. 
- b.  - If a class member's claims file cannot be found and the presumptions 
provided in Paragraph 13 are inapplicable, the class member will be 
required to submit evidence pertaining to his or her condition during the 
period to be readjudicated. SSA shall also use its regular policies on 
evidence development to assist the class member in obtaining evidence 
relevant to the readjudication of his or her claim. SSA will readjudicate 
the claim from the class member's earliest potential entitlement (based 
upon the application which resulted in class membership) through the date 
of the last administrative denial or termination. SSA shall also consider 
all subsequent periods, except that disability for any period which was 
the subject of a disability determination rendered after July 25, 1984 
need not be considered. 
- c.  - SSA shall evaluate class members' claims in accordance with the Social 
Security Act, the sequential evaluation process set forth at 
20 C.F.R. §§ 
404.1520-1524, 416.920-924 (1992), including SSA's present severity 
regulations, 20 C.F.R. 
§§ 404.1520 (c), 416.920 (c), 
Social Security Ruling 
85-28 and the policies and procedures of SSA. All class members 
will receive a notice informing them of the readjudication decision. Class 
members shall retain all rights to administrative and judicial review of 
readjudication decisions made pursuant to this Order. 
 
- 12.  - SSA will not review the claims of any class member who: - a.  - appealed the administrative determination resulting in class membership 
which: - i.   - culminated in a subsequent administrative determination made after July 
19, 1983; or, 
- ii.   - culminated in a subsequent administrative determination made on or before 
July 19, 1983, if the determination was not based upon a finding of a not 
severe impairment; or, 
- iii.   - was affirmed by a Federal court at any time; or, 
 
- b.  - was issued an administrative or judicial determination on a subsequent 
application which covered the entire period at issue in the administrative 
decision which resulted in class membership. 
 
- 13.  - SSA shall make reasonable efforts to retrieve available, relevant 
administrative records for purposes of readjudicating the claims of class 
members. However, if records cannot be located for any class member 
because they have not been retained pursuant to published file retention 
schedules, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 21, 29, 31 and 36 C.F.R. Ch. XII, or SSA is 
unable to locate them, the class member will be found disabled if he or 
she received a favorable decision awarding benefits for any subsequent 
period of disability, as defined in 42 U.S.C. §§ 416 (i) (2) and 
1382 (c), and 1) medical evidence relevant to that decision demonstrates 
that, given the class member's condition at the time of the favorable 
decision, it is reasonable to presume that he or she was disabled as of 
the date of the prior administrative determination which resulted in class 
membership, or 2) absent evidence to the contrary, a class member was 55 
years of age or older at the time of the administrative determination 
which resulted in class membership. If these presumptions are not overcome 
by evidence to the contrary and the class member is found to be disabled 
as a result, he or she will be found disabled from the earliest possible 
entitlement date based on the alleged onset date in the application, which 
resulted in class membership. - Absent evidence to the contrary, there will be a rebuttable presumption 
that a class member is not disabled if: - a.  - he or she received a denial or termination of benefits on a disability 
claim subsequent to the one that forms the basis of class membership; 
or, 
- b.  - employment records available to SSA indicate: - i.   - a period of employment longer than six months following the - 
 denial or termination that forms the basis of class membership; 
and, 
 
- c.  - he or she had a claim reviewed pursuant to Stieberger v. 
Sullivan, 84 Civ. 1302 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 1992) which was 
denied. - Class members will be informed of their right to submit evidence to rebut 
presumptions of nondisability. SSA shall consider the existing evidence of 
record in the light most favorable to class members. 
 
- 14.  - SSA may consolidate the claim of a class member to be readjudicated 
pursuant to paragraph 11 of this Order with any subsequent disability 
claims filed by the class member which are pending at any administrative 
level and review them simultaneously. 
- 15.  - Class members having individual actions pending in Federal court 
challenging the administrative decision resulting in class membership may 
elect either to have their claims remanded to SSA for readjudication 
pursuant to paragraph 11 of this Order or to have the action proceed in 
Federal court pursuant to, and subject to, the limitations contained in 42 
U.S.C. § 405 (g). Class members opting to continue their actions in 
Federal court waive all rights under this Order. Nothing in this Order 
shall be construed to avoid or preclude the res 
judicata effect of a final court decision where a class member 
decides to proceed with his or her individual action in Federal court. 
Nothing in this Order shall be construed as precluding members of the 
class from obtaining greater relief on alternative grounds. 
- 16.  - For class members eligible for readjudication under paragraph 11 who are 
deceased, SSA shall readjudicate the claim or claims upon the timely 
request for readjudication by an individual who is potentially eligible to 
receive an underpayment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 404 (d), 1383 
(b); 20 C.F.R. 
§§ 404.503 (b), or 416.542 (b), including any legal 
representative of an estate. 
- 17.  - a.  - Within 60 days after SSA determines that an individual is a 
Dixon class member, SSA shall generate and transfer 
to the appropriate SSA Field Office (“FO”) computer-generated 
alerts pertaining to the claims of all individuals, up to 10,000, who have 
requested readjudications. SSA shall continue such transfers until alerts 
pertaining to all individuals who have requested readjudications have been 
transferred. Nothing in this subparagraph shall preclude SSA from 
transferring more than 10,000 alerts within each interval. 
- b.  - As alerts are transferred to FO's, Dixon 
readjudications will be integrated into the claims determination workload 
of the New York ODD and will be completed within a reasonable time and 
with no less priority than other claims. 
 
- 18.  - The claims of individuals determined to be eligible for disability 
benefits will be paid from: - a.  - the sixth month following the date of established onset of disability, or 
12 months prior to the date of filing, whichever is later, in cases where 
benefits under title II were denied; 
- b.  - the date of application, in cases where benefits under title XVI were 
denied; or 
- c.  - the date of the termination of benefits. 
 
- 19.  - SSA will monitor the implementation of this Order and will provide to 
class counsel, on a quarterly basis, reports containing the following 
information: - a.  - the number of persons notified initially of potential class 
membership; 
- b.  - the number of persons who responded to the notice; 
- c.  - the number of persons responding who were determined not to be class 
members; 
- d.  - the number of persons responding determined to be class 
members; 
- e.  - the number of class members found eligible for disability benefits upon 
readjudication by ODD; 
- f.  - the number of class members whose applications were denied upon 
readjudication by ODD. - Once SSA has substantially completed the readjudications required by this 
Order and placed the information identified at (a) through (f) of this 
paragraph into the tracking system, SSA shall so advise class counsel by 
providing them with a final report. Upon agreement between the parties, 
this reporting requirement may be altered or amended. 
 
- 20.  - Subject to reasonable limitations, class counsel may, upon written 
request, inspect a reasonable sampling of individual claims files and/or 
administrative records and review a sampling of decisions made by SSA or 
ODD in connection with the readjudication of claims pursuant to this 
Order. Individual claims files will be made available for inspection at a 
mutually agreeable time and office of SSA. The claims files may not be 
removed from the custody of SSA. For purposes of this paragraph, if class 
counsel wishes to review a claims file, they must do so within 45 days 
after they are notified that a claims file is available for 
inspection. 
- 21.  - Pursuant to section 221(e) 
of the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. § 421(e), 
the State of New York shall be entitled to receive, in advance or by way 
or reimbursement, as determined by the Secretary, the cost to the State of 
making disability determinations. This Order does not obligate the 
Secretary to provide additional funding or to allocate additional workload 
in excess of the workload assigned to ODD in order to readjudicate cases 
under this Order. 
- 22.  - SSA shall develop reasonable procedures to facilitate proof of 
nondisability eligibility criteria for class members found disabled upon 
readjudication of claims for SSI benefits. 
- 23.  - Defendant shall authorize the provision of Medicare benefits to class 
members made eligible for Medicare under 42 U.S.C. § 1395c by a 
finding of eligibility for disability insurance benefits resulting from a 
readjudication pursuant to this Order. 
- 24.  - The parties agree to the following provisions governing Medicaid for class 
members: - A.  - The State of New York (“State”) shall provide medical 
assistance to class members found eligible for Supplemental Security 
Income (“SSI”) benefits upon readjudications conducted 
pursuant to this Order. These individuals are eligible for medical 
assistance under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a) (10) (A) (i) for the medical 
services covered under the State plan in effect at the time the service 
was rendered. 
- B.  - The Secretary shall provide for the payment to the State of New York of 
amounts required to be paid by 42 U.S.C. § 1396b for medical 
assistance, to class members (1) who are found eligible for SSI benefits 
upon readjudication and (2) who are found eligible for medical assistance 
under the State plan. 
- C.  - As to any class member who received benefits under the State's Medicaid 
plan as Medically-Needy or as categorically-related to the Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children program and who becomes eligible for medical 
assistance under this Order, the Secretary will not provide payment or 
reimbursement for medical care provided to such class 
member: - 1.  - where such medical care has already been reimbursed by the Secretary; 
or 
- 2.  - where the State did not file a claim for reimbursement within two years of 
the date the medical service or supplies were provided. 
 
- D.  - As to any class member who received State medical assistance benefits as a 
recipient of Home Relief and who becomes eligible for medical assistance 
under the State Medicaid Plan under this Order, the Secretary will provide 
payment and reimbursement for all medical care, services and supplies 
available under the State's Title XIX Medicaid Plan (“State 
Plan”). Any claims for reimbursement must be supported by adequate 
documentation. 
- E.  - Class members must provide to the State Medicaid agency proof of payment 
of bills from a health care provider or supplier. These bills must be for 
services provided to the class member and will be reimbursable as provided 
for under applicable law. Reimbursement is limited to bills for services 
and supplies provided to the class member which were reimbursable in whole 
or in part under the State's plan in effect at the time the service was 
rendered. Class members may also present to the State Medicaid agency 
unpaid bills from a health care provider or supplier for which the class 
member/Medicaid recipient is currently legally liable for payment, which 
are reimbursable in whole or in part under the State's plan. The bills 
must be for services or supplies provided to the class member (1) after 
entry of this Court's Order, or (2) bills which are documented by an 
unsatisfied judgment, or (3) a claim on which the New York statute of 
limitations for contract claims has not run. 
- F.  - As to the submission of claims for payment and the processing of 
payments: - 1.  - A class member who has been found eligible for Medicaid under this Order 
or his/her provider must submit all claims for payment to the State 
Medicaid agency (“the Department”) within twelve months after 
the State's receipt of the SSI notice of readjudication. Promptly after 
the State's receipt of notification that a plaintiff class member has been 
found eligible for SSI benefits upon a Dixon 
readjudication, the State shall notify the class member of his/her 
Medicaid eligibility under this Order, of the availability of payment or 
reimbursement of such claims, the applicable time limit, and how to submit 
such claims for payment; 
- 2.  - The Department must promptly process a claim, whether a paid bill or an 
unpaid bill, and either pay the claim, return it for further information, 
or deny it; 
- 4.  - a.  - Any paid or unpaid claim which is submitted by the recipient or his/her 
representative and returned to the recipient/representative for additional 
information must be resubmitted within sixty days to the Department from 
the date of the Department's request. If the recipient/representative 
disagrees with the Department's decision on reimbursement of paid or 
unpaid medical bills, the recipient/representative may request a fair 
hearing within sixty days of the Department's notice of 
decision. 
- b.  - Any unpaid claim which is submitted by a provider and is denied or 
returned for additional information may only be resubmitted to the 
Department within sixty days of the date of denial or 
request. 
 
- 5.  - The Department must submit all claims for federal financial participation 
(“FFP”) with respect to paid claims within two years of the 
date the Department paid the claim under the federal Medicaid program, or 
reclassifies past payments to a federal category under the terms of 
Dixon, whichever is later; and 
- 6.  - Payments for paid claims for class members as described in paragraph E 
above shall be handled in accordance with the procedures set forth in the 
New York State Fiscal Reference Manual for Local Social Services 
Districts, vol. I, ch. 7, pages 29 through 33, and vol. II, ch. 5, pages 
16 through 21, 42 C.F.R. 
§ 431.250(e). This provision is, however, without prejudice to 
any rights that class members may accrue under Greenstein v. 
Bane, 89 Civ. 1038 (RJW) (S.D.N.Y.). 
 
- G.  - Except as specifically set forth herein, the terms of the Medicaid 
provisions in this Order shall be governed by federal statutes, rules and 
regulations applicable to the Medicaid program. 
 
- 25.  - The terms set forth in this Order constitute the Court's final 
adjudication of any and all claims and demands, of whatever nature, that 
plaintiffs have against the Secretary and any of her agencies, agents, 
servants, employees or instrumentalities on account of and with respect to 
the incidents, claims or circumstances alleged in the pleadings filed 
herein. 
- 26.  - This Order does not resolve the question of attorneys' fees and costs 
based on the action resolved by this Order. 
- 27.  - This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action solely for the 
enforcement of the specific provisions of this Order. 
Dated: New York, New York
December 22, 1993
|  | SO ORDERED: | 
|  | __________/s/______________ | 
|  | United States District Judge | 
 
Attachment 2. - Dixon Court Case Flag/Alert
DI
DI
 
 
 
 Dixon
COURT CASE FLAG/ALERT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 REVIEWING
PSC DOC TOE ALERT DATE RESPONSE DATE
 OFFICE
 
 
 
 OLD
BOAN/PAN SSN (BOAN OR PAN) NAME BIRTHDATE REFERENCE #
 
 
 INFORMATION
FOLDER LOCATION
 CAN/HUN BIC/MFT CATG TITLE CFL CFL DATE
ACN
 
 
 
 
 PAYEE
ADDRESS
 
 
 
| SHIP TO ADDRESS: | 
|  | 
| SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION | 
| OFFICE OF DISABILITY AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS | 
| CLASS ACTION SECTION | 
| ATTN: DIXON COORDINATOR | 
| P.O. BOX 17369 | 
| BALTIMORE, MD 21298-0050 | 
|  | 
        SPECIAL 
INSTRUCTIONS:
        IF CLAIM IS PENDING IN OHA 
HEADQUARTERS, THEN SHIP FOLDER TO:
        OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND 
APPEALS
        OFFICE OF 
APPELLATE OPERATIONS
 
       ONE SKYLINE TOWER, SUITE 
701
        5107 LEESBURG 
PIKE
        FALLS CHURCH, VA 
22041-3200
 
 
       ATTN: OAO CLASS ACTION 
COORDINATOR
        IF THE CLAIM IS PENDING IN 
AN OHA HEARING OFFICE, THEN SHIP FOLDER DIRECTLY TO THAT 
OFFICE.
 
Attachment 3. - Route Slip or Case Flag for Screening
| Dixon Class Action Case | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| SCREENING   NECESSARY | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| Claimant's Name: | __________________________________ | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| SSN : | __________________________________ | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| This claimant may be a Dixon class member. The attached folder location information indicates that a current claim file is pending in your office. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached alert [and prior claim file(s)] for association, screening for class membership, consolidation consideration and possible readjudication. | 
|  |  | 
| Please refer to HALLEX TI 5-4-52 for additional information and instructions. | 
|  |  | 
| TO: ______________________________ | 
| __________________________________ | 
| __________________________________ | 
| __________________________________ | 
|  |  | 
 
| CLASS ACTION CODE: D  I |  | 
| 1. CLAIMANT'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER    ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___ |  | 
| 2. CLAIMANT'S NAME (LAST, FIRST, MI) (PLEASE PRINT)   | 
| 3. DATE OF BIRTH (MONTH, DAY, YEAR)    ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___ | 
| 4. CLAIM NUMBER                         (BIC/ID)    ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ | 
| 5. DATE OF SCREENING (MONTH, DAY, YEAR)    ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___ | 
| 6. a. SCREENING RESULTS Member (J)                      Non-Member or Member (F) Entitled to Relief                Not Entitled to Relief       ___                                      ___ | b. SCREENOUT CODE       ___  ___    (see Item 13 for screenout codes) | 
| 7.  Is there any record of this individual filing a DIB, CDB claim or SSID adult claim? | ___  Yes       ___ No    (if No, go to 13) | 
| 8.  Did the claimant receive a less than fully favorable final title II or title XVI determination/decision or termination at any administrative level, that was issued by the New York Office of Disability Determinations (NYODD) or OHA between June 1, 1976, and July 18, 1983, inclusive? (Note: For class membership screening purposes, an Appeals Council denial of a request for review constitutes a final determination.) | ___  Yes       ___ No    (if No, go to 13) | 
| 9.  Did the claimant reside in the State of New York termination identified in No. 8 was issued? | ___  Yes       ___ No    (if No, go to 13) | 
| 10.  Was the final determination/decision or termination made on the basis of a finding of no severe impairment(s)? | ___  Yes       ___ No    (if No, go to 13) | 
| 11.  Was the final administrative decision appealed to a Federal court and affirmed or denied? (Note: For class membership purposes, a court remand is not a decision. Court remands do entitle individuals to class membership review.) | ___  Yes       ___ No    (if Yes, go to 13) | 
| 12.  Was an administrative/judicial decision made, on a subsequent claim, after 7/19/83, or was there a decision review, either favorable or unfavorable, which covered the entire timeframe at issue in the potential Dixon claim? | ___  Yes       ___ No    (if Yes, go to 13) | 
| 13.If you checked “No” in blocks 7, 8, 9 or 10 or “Yes” in block 11 or 12, the individual is not a Dixon class member entitled to relief. Check the “Nonmember/Member Not Entitled to Relief” block (F) in item 6.a. Enter the screenout code in item 6.b. as follows:    Enter 08 if question 8 is answered “NO.”    Enter 09 if question 09 was answered “NO.”    Enter 10 if question 10 was answered “NO.”    Enter 11 if question 11 was answered “YES.”    Enter 12 if question 12 was answered “YES.”            Reason to use in Notice of Non-Entitlement to Relief:   a.  If screenout code is 07, check reason No. 1. b.  If screenout code is 08, check reason No. 2. c.  If screenout code is 09, check reason No. 3. d.  If screenout code is 10, check reason No. 4. e.  If screenout code is 11, check reason No. 5. f.  If screenout code is 12, check reason No. 6.         |     No other screenout code entry is appropriate | 
| 14.If you have checked “Yes” in blocks 7, 8, 9 and 10 and checked “No” in blocks 11 and 12, the claimant is entitled to relief as a class member. Check the “Member Entitled to Relief” block (J) in Item 6.a. | 
| Dates On the lines below, please enter the date(s) of all final decisions considered in the screening process, and indicate the administrative level at which the final decision was made (i.e., DDS, ALJ, AC). Also, record the dates of any determinations after the date agency implementation instructions were issued that you considered in the screening process. Also, indicate the administrative level at which the determination was made (i.e., DDS, ALJ or AC).                                     DECISION DATE                                           DECISION LEVEL                         _________________________                         _________________________                         _________________________                         _________________________                         _________________________                         _________________________ | 
| PRINT SCREENER'S NAME: (NOTE: BEFORE SIGNING, PLEASE COMPLETE ITEM 6.) | COMPONENT: | DATE: | 
| PHONE #: | 
| SIGNATURE:   | 
 
DIXON SCREENING SHEET INSTRUCTIONS
COMPLETE ONLY ONE SCREENING SHEET PER INDIVIDUAL, EVEN IF THE CLAIMANT 
RECEIVED MULTIPLE DETERMINATIONS WITHIN THE CLASS DATES. HOWEVER, THE 
SCREENING SHEET PROVISIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH CLAIM. A 
CLASS MEMBER WHO RECEIVED MULTIPLE DETERMINATIONS IS ELIGIBLE FOR 
READJUDICATION ONLY ON THOSE CLAIMS MEETING ALL CLASS MEMBERSHIP 
REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT YOU MUST CONSIDER ALL CLAIMS DECIDED 
DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE COURT ORDER (i.e., June 1, 1976, through 
July 19, 1983) WHEN MAKING THE CLASS MEMBERSHIP 
DETERMINATION.
Item 1
Enter the claimant's own SSN. This will 
be used to identify the claimant in CATS.
Item 2
Enter the claimant's name.
Item 3
Enter the claimant's date of birth (mm/dd/yyyy). This will also be used to 
identify the claimant in CATS.
Item 4
Fill in the appropriate account numbers, including BIC and/or ID, under 
which the claimant filed for benefits.
Item 5
Fill in the actual date that the screening is completed.
Item 6
Fill in the appropriate blocks once screening is completed, as directed in 
Items 13 and 14. When multiple claims are screened out for different 
reasons, use the screenout code for the claim with the earliest date of 
the Dixon application. If the screenout is later 
protested, the claimant will be protected with the earliest protective 
filing date.
Item 7
This is self-explanatory. If there is no record of a possible Title II or 
XVI claim number, answer this question “NO” and enter the 
appropriate screenout code (07) as directed in Item 13. Check block F in 
Item 6. a. and fill in the screenout code in Item 6. b. Sign the screening 
sheet. Complete the “Non-Class Member/Member Not Entitled to 
Relief” Notice as indicated below under “Instructions if 
Claimant Is Determined To Be a Non-Class Member or a Class Member Not 
Entitled to Relief,” checking off Item 2. as the reason that the 
individual is not entitled to any relief. In the event that the individual 
furnishes another SSN, or evidence of having filed a claim under the 
original number, which has a claim(s) denied/ceased in the timeframe, 
rescreen the case. Send a Revised Decision Notice if the claim is screened 
in.
Item 8
Review the Dixon alert, related queries (FACT, 
SSIRD, etc.) and claim file(s). Screen for date of decision, not 
application. The term “final” refers to the date of the 
administrative determination/decision that become the binding decision of 
the Commissioner pursuant to 
20 CFR §§ 
404.905, 
404.921, 404.955, 
404.972, 404.981, 416.1405, 416.1421, 416.1455, 416.1472 and 416.1481 and 
does not mean that a class member must have exhausted administrative 
remedies under §§ 205(g) and (h) of the Social Security Act, 42 
U.S.C. § 405(g) and (h). Although not the “final 
decision” of the Secretary, an Appeals Council denial of a request 
for review constitutes a final determination and controls for the purpose 
of class membership screening. If the claimant appealed a 
determination/decision made within the class membership timeframe and then 
received an administrative determination/decision made after July 19, 
1983, the claimant is not a class member entitled to relief.
This includes replacement decisions (i.e., decision reviews) made after 
July 19, 1983, which covered the entire timeframe at issue in the 
potential Dixon claim(s).
 When the claim file has been destroyed or declared lost, determine if the 
claim may be screened out solely on the basis of information shown on the 
queries.
If the answer is “NO,” enter the appropriate screenout code 
(08) as directed in Item 13. Check block F in Item 6. a. and fill in the 
screenout code in Item 6. b. Sign the screening sheet.
If the claim cannot be screened out on the basis of the queries in those 
cases where the claim(s) file is declared lost or destroyed, the claimant 
is a class member and the presumptions must be applied.
 Item 9
Screen for residency of the claimant at the time of the final 
determination/decision. Review the folder or alert package for indications 
of New York State residency at the time the claim was decided at the 
highest level of administrative review. If the answer is 
“NO,” enter the appropriate screenout code (09) as directed 
in Item 13. Check block F in Item 6. a. and fill in the screenout code in 
Item 6. b. Sign the screening sheet.
Item 10
Screen to determine whether there was a final determination/ decision made 
on the basis of no severe impairment or on the basis that the impairment 
was only “slight.” To answer this question in cases finally 
decided at the initial or reconsideration level, start with a review of 
the Form SSA-831-U5, Form SSA-3687-U2 or the Form SSA-3428-U2 for denial 
cases or a review of the Form SSA-832/833-U5 for cessation cases. Review 
the file(s) and/or queries (e.g., FACT, SSIRD) to determine whether the 
claimant received a denial/cessation decision on any claim(s) at step 2 of 
the sequential evaluation process. Look at Item 22 of the Form SSA-831-U5. 
In a CDR case, read the rationale to determine the reason for the 
cessation on the SSA-832/833. In a DHU or OHA case, read the decision to 
determine the basis for the denial or cessation. Use the latest date on 
the Form SSA-831-U5 or other denial form, or the date of a DHU or OHA 
decision as the date of the final determination/decision.
If the regulation basis code on these forms reflects a non-severe 
determination (e.g., F1 and F2 for title II cases or N30 and N41 for title 
XVI cases) check “YES” in Item 10. If not, then check 
“NO” and enter the appropriate screening code (10) as 
directed in item 13. Check block F in Item 6. a. and fill in the screenout 
code in Item 6. b. Sign the screening sheet.
If an initial or reconsideration level determination/decision was made on 
the basis of no severe impairment, but the final determination/decision on 
appeal was not based on a non-severe finding, the claimant is not a class 
member entitled to relief.
 Item 11
Check for a final administrative decision made during the class member 
timeframe (i.e., June 1, 1976, through July 19, 1983, inclusive). Look for 
a less than fully favorable final title II or title XVI 
determination/decision or termination issued by the NYODD or OHA, on an 
appeal of an NYODD determination that was appealed to a Federal court and 
either affirmed or denied by the court.
For informational purposes, the period within which an appeal of a 
district court decision may be filed is 60 days from the date of entry of 
judgment. Therefore, a district court decision entered on October 2, 1989, 
became final and unappealable on December 2, 1989, the 61st day after 
entry of judgment if no appeal was filed.
 If the answer to Item 11 is “YES” and no other claims qualify 
for Dixon DDS/OHA review, enter the appropriate 
screenout code (11) as directed in Item 13. Check block F in Item 6. a. 
and fill in the screenout code in Item 6. b. Sign the screening 
sheet.
For class membership screening purposes, a Federal court remand is not a 
decision and not a valid reason for denial of class 
membership.
 Item 12
This exception applies only if the individual has received all benefits to 
which s/he could be entitled based on the potential class member claim or 
has received a denial decision which covers the entire period covered by 
the potential class member claim.
Determine whether benefits were subsequently allowed or continued from the 
earliest possible entitlement date, cessation date or control date. Be 
sure to consider earlier eligibility for Medicare when determining if the 
subsequent decision is fully favorable. The allowance, continuance or 
denial could have either been on the same claim or on a subsequent 
application. Review the file(s) and queries (e.g., FACT, SSIRD) to 
determine if benefits were subsequently allowed or continued. If 
yes,
- • - in title II cases, check the subsequent award/continuation for first month 
of entitlement. 
- • - in title XVI cases, check the subsequent award/continuation for the first 
month of eligibility. 
Identify the earliest Dixon claim/termination. 
Determine the earliest month benefits could have been paid based on the 
Dixon alleged claim and the 
Dixon application or termination 
date.
Compare the earliest possible Dixon benefit date 
with the subsequent award or continuation dates. If the dates are the same 
and the allowance or continuation was fully favorable (not a closed period 
allowance) and no other claims qualify for Dixon 
DDS/OHA review, the answer to Item 12 is “YES”. In addition, 
if the earliest Dixon claim was a termination, and 
the individual already received a subsequent decision review on that 
potential class member claim and that decision review covered the entire 
period covered by the potential class member, then, the answer to Item 12 
is also “Yes”. Enter the appropriate screenout code (12) as 
directed in Item 13. Check block F in Item 6. a. and fill in the screenout 
code in Item 6. b. Sign the screening sheet.
If full retroactive benefits were not paid, check to see if the later 
award established an onset that would allow payment back to the first 
possible month under the Dixon claim. If the 
earliest possible onset was established, but full retroactive benefits 
were not paid, enter "Dixon Court Case - 
Retroactive Benefits Due Based on Earlier Application" on a route slip. 
Sign and date the screening sheet. Route the case to a claims authorizer 
for processing the title II claim, or to the appropriate FO, for a title 
XVI claim, for the preparation of an amended award.
 Instructions if Claimant Is Determined to be a Class Member Entitled to Relief
- a.  -  Check the “Member Entitled to Relief (J)” block in item 6.a. 
of the screening sheet. 
- b.  -  Sign and date the screening sheet. Enter the name of the screening 
component, e.g., OHA, OAO, Branch XX, and the screener's phone number. 
 
- c.  -  Show the dates of all applications screened and the dates of the final 
administrative action on each. 
- d.  -  Retain the original screening sheet in the claim file. OHA Headquarters 
components will send a copy of the screening sheet to: - 
- 
|  | Office of Appellate Operations One
Skyline Tower, Suite 701
 
 Attn: OAO Class Action
Coordinator
 |  
 
- [The Class Action Coordinator will enter the screening sheet information 
from the screening sheet into a data base and forward the screening sheet 
to the Division of Litigation Analysis and Implementation 
(DLAI).] - OHA Hearing Office components will send a copy of the screening sheet 
to: - 
- 
|  | Office of Hearings and AppealsAttn: Dixon CoordinatorDivision of Litigation Analysis and Implementation
 One Skyline Tower, Suite 702
 5107 Leesburg Pike
 Falls Church, VA 22041-3255
 |  
 
- [DLAI will retain a copy of each screening sheet received from the OAO 
Class Action Coordinator or an HO and forward a copy to the Litigation 
Staff at SSA Headquarters for entry into the Civil Action Tracking 
System.] 
Instructions if Claimant Is Determined to be a Non-Class Member or Class Member Not Entitled to Relief
- a.  - Check the “Non-Class Member/Member Not Entitled to Relief 
(F)” block in Item 6. a. of the screening sheet and enter the 
appropriate screenout code in Item 6. b. 
- b.  - Follow Items b. - d. above. 
- c.  - Prepare the “Non-Class Member/Member Not Entitled to Relief 
Notice” and retain or forward the claim file(s) as indicated in 
HALLEX 
HA 01540.052, 
Part V. B. 3. a. 
 
Attachment 5. - Route Slip for Routing Class Members Alert (and Prior Claim 
File(s) -- OHA No Longer Has Current Claim)
| ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP | DATE: | 
| TO: | INITIALS | DATE | 
| 1. |  |  | 
| 2. |  |  | 
| 3. |  |  | 
| 4. |  |  | 
| 5. |  |  | 
| 6. |  |  | 
| 7. |  |  | 
| XX | ACTION |  | FILE |  | NOTE AND RETURN | 
|  | APPROVAL |  | FOR CLEARANCE |  | PER CONVERSATION | 
|  | AS REQUESTED |  | FOR CORRECTION |  | PREPARE REPLY | 
|  | CIRCULATE |  | FOR YOUR INFORMATION |  | SEE ME | 
|  | COMMENT |  | INVESTIGATE |  | SIGNATURE | 
|  | COORDINATION |  | JUSTIFY |  |  | 
|  |  |  |  |  |  | 
| REMARKS |  | 
| DIXON CASE | 
|  |  | 
| Claimant: ___________________________ |  | 
|  |  | 
| SSN: ________________________________ |  | 
|  |  | 
| OHA received the attached alert [and prior claim file(s)] for screening and no longer has the current claim file. Our records show that you now have possession of the current claim. Accordingly, we are forwarding the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) for association with the current claim. After associating the alert with the current claim, please forward to ODIO and/or NEPSC or to the DDS, if appropriate, for screening. SEE POMS DI 12521.000ff, DI 32523.000ff OR DI 42521.000ff. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| Attachment | 
|  |  | 
| DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, | 
| clearances, and similar actions. | 
| FROM: Office of Hearings and Appeals __________________________________________ | SUITE/BUILDING | 
| PHONE NUMBER | 
| OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) | 
| *U.S.GPO:1985-0-461-274/20020 Prescribed by GSA | 
| FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206 | 
 
Attachment 6. - Non-Class Member/Member Not Entitled to Relief Notice
SOCIAL
SECURITY        Important   Information
NOTICE
_____________________________________________________________
From: 
Social Security Administration
(Insert address and phone number here.)
_____________________________________________________________
___________________________     DATE: 
        ______________________________
___________________________     CLAIM NUMBER: 
________________________
___________________________     DOC: 
___________________________________
You asked us to review your earlier claim for disability benefits under 
the Dixon v. Shalala court order. We have looked at 
your case and have decided that you are not a Dixon 
class member entitled to relief. This means that we will not review our 
earlier decision that you were not disabled. The reason that you are not a 
class member entitled to relief under the Dixon 
court decision is checked below.
|  |  | 
| WHY YOU ARE NOT A CLASS MEMBER ENTITLED TO RELIEF | 
|  |  | 
| You are not a Dixon class member entitled to relief because: | 
|  |  | 
| 1. _____ | We have no record that you filed a claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits or childhood disability benefits or adult Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. | 
|  |  | 
| 2. _____ | We did not deny or stop your Social Security or Supplemental Security Income disability benefits between June 1, 1976, and July 19, 1983, inclusive. | 
|  |  | 
| 3. _____ | You did not live in New York State when we denied or stopped your benefits. | 
|  |  | 
| 4. _____ | We denied or stopped your benefits between June 1, 1976, and July 19, 1983, but not because we concluded that your impairment was 'not severe' or 'slight.' | 
|  |  | 
| 5. _____ | Your case was reviewed and decided by a Federal court. | 
|  |  | 
| 6. _____ | You already received a decision on a later claim which covered the same time period as your Dixon claim.. | 
|  |  | 
| 7. _____ | Your claim was denied for another reason(s). The reason(s) is as follows: | 
|  | _____________________________________________________ | 
|  | _____________________________________________________ | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
We are Not Deciding If You Were Disabled
It is important for you to know we are not making a decision about whether 
you were disabled at the time of your earlier claim. We are deciding only 
that you are not a Dixon class member entitled to 
relief.
If You Do Not Agree With This Determination
If you want us to review our determination that you are not entitled to 
relief under the Dixon case, you may contact us in 
writing. You also may contact one of the following offices to ask for 
assistance with your claim:
New York City:
|      The Legal Aid Society841 Broadway, 3rd Floor
 New York, NY 10003
 (212) 477-5010
 | or | Legal Services of N.Y.C. (212)
431-7200
 | 
|  |  |  | 
| Outside of New York City:
 Greater Upstate Law Project: (800) 724-0490
 
 | 
They will answer your questions about entitlement to relief.
YOU MUST DO THIS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF RECEIVING THIS NOTICE.
If You Have Any Questions
If you have any questions, you may contact your Social Security office. 
The address and phone number are printed at the top of this letter. If you 
call or visit an office, please have this notice with you. It will help us 
answer your questions.
Also, if you have someone helping you with your claim you should contact 
him/her.
Si usted habla espanol y no entiende esta carta, favor de llevarla a la 
ofincia de Seguro Social arriba mencionada para que se la 
expliquen.
cc: The Legal Aid Society
 
Attachment 7. - Route Slip for Non-Class Member/Member Not Entitled to Relief 
Cases
| ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP | DATE: | 
| TO: | INITIALS | DATE | 
| 1. SSA, Disability Program Branch |  |  | 
| 2. 26 Federal Plaza, Room 40-112 |  |  | 
| 3. New York, NY 10278 |  |  | 
| 4. |  |  | 
| 5. [or other mutually acceptable location] |  |  | 
| 6. |  |  | 
| 7. |  |  | 
| XX | ACTION |  | FILE |  | NOTE AND RETURN | 
|  | APPROVAL |  | FOR CLEARANCE |  | PER CONVERSATION | 
|  | AS REQUESTED |  | FOR CORRECTION |  | PREPARE REPLY | 
|  | CIRCULATE |  | FOR YOUR INFORMATION |  | SEE ME | 
|  | COMMENT |  | INVESTIGATE |  | SIGNATURE | 
|  | COORDINATION |  | JUSTIFY |  |  | 
|  |  |  |  |  |  | 
| REMARKS |  | 
| DIXON CASE | 
|  |  | 
| Claimant: ___________________________ |  | 
|  |  | 
| SSN: ________________________________ |  | 
|  |  | 
| We have determined that this claimant is not a Dixon class member entitled to relief. (See screening sheet and copy of non-class member/member not entitled to relief notice in the attached claim folder(s).) We have been informed that class counsel wishes to review the file(s). SEE POMS DI 12521.000ff. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| Attachment | 
|  |  | 
| DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, | 
| clearances, and similar actions. | 
| FROM: Office of Hearings and Appeals __________________________________________ | SUITE/BUILDING | 
| PHONE NUMBER | 
| OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) | 
| *U.S.GPO:1985-0-461-274/20020 Prescribed by GSA | 
| FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206 | 
 
Attachment 8. - Acting Associate Commissioner's Memorandum Dated February 21, 
1991, Entitled “The Standard for Evaluating 'Not Severe' 
Impairments.”
| DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES | Social Security Administration | 
| _______________________________________________________________________________ | 
| Refer to: 
 FEB 21 1991
 | Office of Hearings and Appeals PO Box 3200 Arlington VA 22203
 | 
 
 
|  |  |  | 
| MEMORANDUM TO | : | Headquarters Executive Staff Appeals Council Members
 Regional Chief Administrative
 Law Judges
 Hearing Office Chief
 Administrative Law Judges
 Administrative Law Judges
 Supervisory Staff Attorneys
 Decision Writers
 | 
|  |  |  | 
| FROM | : | Acting Associate Commissioner | 
|  |  |  | 
| SUBJECT | : | The Standard for Evaluating “Not Severe” Impairments -- ACTION | 
|  |  |  | 
During the past few months, the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has 
requested voluntary remand in a number of cases, denied by the Secretary 
at step two of the sequential evaluation, on the grounds that the 
decisions have not been fully consistent with SSA policy and the Supreme 
Court's opinion in Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 
(1987).
Despite the Yuckert decision, extensive litigation, 
both in individual cases and in significant class actions, continues on 
the issue of how the Agency applies the step two standard expressed in 
Social Security Ruling (SSR) 
85-28. Because the courts continue to give step two denials close 
scrutiny, I am asking all adjudicators and decision writers to carefully 
review SSR 85-28 to 
ensure that they are applying the proper standard for adjudicating claims 
at step two.
In accordance with SSR 
85-28, a step two denial is appropriate only in very limited 
situations. The evidence must establish that the claimant's impairment, or 
combination of impairments, is so slight that it does not have more than a 
minimal effect on the individual's ability to perform basic work 
activities. When the medical evidence is inconclusive and does not clearly 
establish the effect of a claimant's impairment(s), or when the evidence 
shows more than a minimal effect, the claim may not be denied at step 
two.
Decisions denying claims at step two must include a comprehensive analysis 
of all the evidence of record and a decisional rationale consistent with 
SSR 85-28. Even when 
the medical evidence of record clearly fails to establish that the 
claimant has more than a slight mental or physical abnormality, the 
decision must clearly show that the adjudicator evaluated all the evidence 
and must articulate the reasons for finding that the impairment(s) is not 
severe. Furthermore, when the claimant has a medically determinable 
impairment(s) which might reasonably be expected to cause pain or other 
symptoms, the decision must include an evaluation of the claimant's 
subjective complaints using the factors outlined in 
SSR 88-13 or its 
equivalent, i.e., SSR 
90-1p for Fourth Circuit cases.
If hearing office personnel have questions or need copies of applicable 
instructions, they should contact the appropriate Regional Office. 
Regional Office personnel should direct their questions to the Division of 
Field Practices and Procedures, Office of the Chief Administrative Law 
Judge.
 
 
|  |  | 
|  | Lawrence W. Mason for Andrew J. Young
 | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
 
Attachment 9. - Dixon Class Member Flag for Headquarters Use (DDS Readjudication 
-- retention period expired)
| Dixon Class Action Case | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| READJUDICATION  NECESSARY | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| Claimant's Name: | __________________________________ | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| SSN : | __________________________________ | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| This claimant is a Dixon class member. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached claim file(s) to the DDS for readjudication. | 
|  |  | 
| Send the file(s) to: | 
|  |  | 
|  | New York Office
of Disability Determination Services
 5th Floor 
Mailroom
 22
Cortlandt Street
 New York, NY 10071-3107
 | 
|  |  | 
|  | (Destination
code: ____) | 
|  |  | 
If a face-to-face review is required, the claim file must be sent to the 
“resident” DDS (see Part III 
above).
  
Attachment 10. - Dixon Class Member Flag for Headquarters 
Use (DDS Readjudication -- retention period has not expired)
| Dixon Class Action Case | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| READJUDICATION  NECESSARY | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| Claimant's Name: | __________________________________ | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| SSN : | __________________________________ | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
| This claimant is a Dixon class member. After expiration of the retention period, forward claim file(s) to the DDS for readjudication. | 
|  |  | 
| Send the file(s) to: | 
|  |  | 
|  | New York Office
of Disability Determination Services
 5th Floor 
Mailroom
 22
Cortlandt Street
 New York, NY 10071-3107
 | 
|  |  | 
|  | (Destination
code: ____) | 
|  |  | 
If the claimant has filed a civil action and elected to remain in court 
for review of the current claim, forward the Dixon 
claim file(s) without delay to the DDS for readjudication.
If a face-to-face review is required, the claim file must be sent to the 
“resident” DDS (see Part III 
above).
  
 Social Security 
Administration
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
 ORDER OF DISMISSAL
| IN THE CASE OF |  | CLAIM FOR | 
|  |  |  | 
| __________________________ |  | __________________________ | 
|  |  |  | 
| __________________________ |  | __________________________ | 
|  |  |  | 
| This case is before the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to a request for hearing filed on _________________ with respect to the application(s) filed on _________________. | 
|  | 
| In accordance with the implementation order negotiated by the parties and issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of Dixon v. Shalala, No. 83 Civ. 7001 (WCC) (S.D.N.Y. December 22, 1993), the claimant has requested a review of the final (determination/ decision) on the prior application(s) filed on ______________. The claimant has been identified as a Dixon class member and is entitled to have the final administrative denial of the prior application(s) readjudicated under the terms of the Dixon implementation order. Because the claimant's current claim shares certain issues in common with the prior claim, the undersigned hereby dismisses without prejudice the request for hearing. | 
|  | 
| The claimant's current application(s) will be associated with the prior claim(s) and forwarded to the New York Office of Disability Determinations [or the “resident” DDS, if appropriate] which will conduct the Dixon readjudication. | 
|  |  |  | 
| The New York Office of Disability Determinations will notify the claimant of its new determination and of the claimant's right to file a new request for hearing. | 
|  |  |  | 
|  |  | _________________________ | 
|  |  | Administrative Law Judge | 
|  |  |  | 
|  |  | _________________________ | 
|  |  | Date | 
 
Attachment 12. - Notice Transmitting ALJ Order of Dismissal
|  |  | 
| NOTICE OF DISMISSAL | 
|  |  | 
| Claimant's Name |  | 
| Address |  | 
| City, State Zip |  | 
|  |  | 
| Enclosed is an order of the Administrative Law Judge dismissing your request for hearing and returning your case to the New York Office of Disability Determinations [or the “resident” DDS, if appropriate] which makes disability determinations for the Social Security Administration. Please read this notice and Order of Dismissal carefully. | 
|  |  | 
| What This Order Means |  | 
|  |  | 
| The Administrative Law Judge has sent your current claim and your Dixon class member claim back to the New York Office of Disability Determination Services [or the “resident” DDS, if appropriate] for further processing. The enclosed order explains why. | 
|  |  | 
| The Next Action on Your Claim | 
|  |  | 
| The New York Office of Disability Determinations will contact you to tell you what you need to do. If you do not hear from the New York Office of Disability Determinations [or the “resident” DDS, if appropriate] within 30 days, contact your local Social Security office. | 
|  |  | 
| Do You Have Any Questions? | 
|  |  | 
| If you have any questions, contact your local Social Security office. If you visit your local Social Security office, please bring this notice and the Administrative Law Judge's order with you. | 
|  |  | 
| Enclosure |  | 
|  |  | 
| cc: |  | 
| (Name and address of representative, if any) | 
| (Social Security Office (City, State)) | 
 
Attachment 13. - Dixon Class Member Flag for HO Use (DDS 
Readjudication)
| Dixon Class Action Case | 
|  | 
| READJUDICATION  NECESSARY | 
|  | 
|  | 
| Claimant's Name: |  | __________________________________ | 
|  |  |  | 
| SSN: |  | __________________________________ | 
|  |  |  | 
| This claimant is a Dixon class member. The attached Dixon claim file was forwarded to this hearing office for possible consolidation with a current claim. | 
|  |  |  | 
| _______ |  | The Administrative Law Judge has determined that the prior and current claims do not share a common issue and, therefore, should not be consolidated. | 
|  |  |  | 
| OR | 
|  |  |  | 
| _______ |  | The claims have not been consolidated because: | 
|  |  |  | 
|  |  | [state reason(s)]__________________________________ | 
|  |  | ______________________________________________ | 
|  |  |  | 
| Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached alert and prior claim file(s) to your location for any necessary Dixon readjudication action. | 
|  | 
| We are sending the alert and prior folder(s) to: | 
|  | 
|  | New York Office of Disability Determinations
 5th Floor Mailroom
 22 Cortlandt 
Street
 New
York, NY 10071-3107
 | 
|  | 
|  | (Destination code: ____ ) | 
|  | 
If a face-to-face review is required, the claim file must be sent to the 
resident “DDS” (see Part III 
above).