If there has been MI, consider whether the impairment(s) that we considered at the
CPD still meets or equals the listing it met or equaled at that time. Consider the
current severity of that impairment(s), and the same listing section and any subsections of that listing used to make that determination or decision as it
was written at that time, even if it has since been revised or removed from the Listing
of Impairments. If the child's impairment(s) met a listing with a time period at the
CPD, see DI 28010.029 for additional information.
Example 1: At the CPD, a child was 4-years old, and their hearing impairment showed average
air conduction hearing threshold of 60 decibels. The hearing impairment met listing
102.10A. If the average air conduction hearing threshold was still 60 decibels at
the CDR three years later, the impairment would not meet listing 102.10A or B.1 because
the child has surpassed the age in the listing criteria for 102.10A (which applies
for children from birth to age 5) and listing 102.10B requires average air conduction
hearing threshold of 70 decibels or greater in the better ear.
For listings that indicate a non-specific period of disability (see DI 28010.030A2.), do not consider the same criteria at the CDR that were applicable at the CPD if
the child has surpassed the age requirement in the designated listing. For listings
with different criteria for different ages, use the criteria applicable to the child’s
age at the time of the CDR, not the CPD.
Example 2: At the CPD, a child met listing 105.10, which indicates the need for supplemental
daily enteral feeding via a gastrostomy for children who have not attained age 3.
At CDR, the child is 4-years old and still requires daily enteral feeding via a gastrostomy.
The adjudicator will follow the Title XVI child CDR sequential evaluation process.
If MI is demonstrated at step 1, the adjudicator will proceed to step 2. The adjudicator
must find the listing criteria for 105.10 is no longer met at CDR, as the child has
surpassed the age requirement. The adjudicator will evaluate the residual impairment(s),
considering criteria in 105.00H in the preamble criteria for the body system as the
listing directs. For additional information about evaluating an impairment that met
a listing with an age-based period of disability at the CPD, see DI 28010.040.
Does the impairment(s) meet/equal the severity of the listing met/equaled at the
If the CPD basis was meets or medically equals a listing, determine if the CPD impairment(s)
still meets or medically equals the same listing as the listing appeared at the CPD.
If the CPD basis was a functional equivalence, determine if the CPD impairment(s)
still supports a finding of functional equivalence at the CDR. Find that disability
continues if the impairment(s) still meets or equals the listing met or equaled at
the CPD, UNLESS a Group I or Group II exception applies (see DI 28020.001).
If no exception applies, find that disability continues
If a Group II exception applies (see DI 28020.900), find that disability has ended. Group II exceptions may apply at any point in the
CDR sequential evaluation process.
If the impairment(s) does
not still meet or equal the listing met or equaled at the CPD, go to step 3.
If there is MI in the impairment(s) (step 1) and the child did not meet or equal a
listing at CPD, go to step 3.
NOTE: See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 05-03p (in DI 28005.021) for how we apply the functional equivalence rules at this step and how we apply
this step when the CPD was based on functional equivalence to the listings. The basis
for evaluating functional equivalence changed effective January 2, 2001. Prior to
that date, functional equivalence was based on functionally equaling a listed impairment.
On or after January 2, 2001, functional equivalence is not based on a specific listing
or a specific listed impairment; instead, it applies when a child has “marked” limitations
in two domains of functioning or an “extreme” limitation in one domain. For additional
information, see DI 25225.001