AR 24-1(6) requires adjudicators to apply the principles in DI 52707.010A.2 when:

1. a. 

   The adjudicator is deciding a subsequent disability claim on or after 12/02/2024 (effective date of the AR) with an unadjudicated period;

2. b. 

   The subsequent claim arises under the same or a different Title of the Act as the prior disability claim on which there has been a final decision by an administrative law judge (ALJ) or the Appeals Council (AC);

3. c. 

   The requirements for disability on the current claim are identical to the requirements for disability on the prior claim; and

4. d. 

   The claimant resides in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee at the time of the determination or decision on the subsequent claim at the initial, reconsideration, ALJ hearing, or AC level.

1. a. 

   The adjudicator must consider certain findings from a final decision by an ALJ or the AC on the prior disability claim as evidence when adjudicating the subsequent disability claim involving an unadjudicated period.

2. b. 

   The requirement to consider prior findings as evidence when adjudicating the subsequent claim applies, as appropriate, only to:

   • •

     A finding of a claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC), or other finding required at a step in the sequential evaluation process for determining disability for Title II disability claims, or for Title XVI disability claims of adults (individuals aged 18 or older), as described in DI 52707.010B.1.a.; or

   • •

     A finding required at a step in the sequential evaluation process for determining disability for Title XVI disability claims for children (individuals under age 18), as described in DI 52707.010B.1.b.

     NOTE: In making a finding of a claimant’s RFC or other finding that is required at a step in the sequential evaluation process for adjudicating disability, an ALJ or the AC may have made certain subsidiary findings, such as an assessment of the claimant’s symptoms. A subsidiary finding is not a finding that is required at a step in the sequential evaluation process described in 20 CFR 404.1520, 416.920, or 416.924. The Earley AR does not require consideration of past subsidiary findings.

3. c. 

   The adjudicator must consider the prior findings as evidence in light of all relevant facts and circumstances.

4. d. 

   In determining the probative value of the prior findings as evidence, an adjudicator might consider such factors as:

   • •

     Whether the fact on which the prior finding was based is subject to change with the passage of time, such as a fact relating to the severity of a claimant's medical condition;

   • •

     The likelihood of such a change, considering the amount of time that has elapsed between the period previously adjudicated and the period being adjudicated in the subsequent claim; and

   • •

     The extent to which evidence not considered in the final decision on the prior claim provides a basis for making a different finding for the period being adjudicated in the subsequent claim.

5. e. 

   When a prior finding was about a fact which is subject to change with the passage of time, the likelihood that such a fact has changed generally increases as the amount of time between the previously adjudicated period and the subsequent period increases. An adjudicator generally should pay particular attention to the lapse of time between the earlier claim and the subsequent claim and the impact of the passage of time on the claim. The adjudicator must consider all relevant facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, a change in the law, regulations, or rulings affecting a relevant finding or the method for arriving at the finding may be a reason why the prior finding, considered as evidence, is properly departed from in the current determination or decision.

If the prior file is lost or has been destroyed and the ALJ or AC decision cannot be located anywhere in SSA or by the claimant or claimant's representative, the AR cannot be applied.

1. a. 

   For individuals claiming Title II disability benefits and for adults (individuals age 18 or older) claiming Title XVI disability benefits, the applicable sequential evaluation process is set forth in DI 22001.001. For claims of these individuals, findings required at a step in the sequential evaluation process include findings of:

   Step	Finding
   Step 1	Whether a claimant is working and, if so, Whether the work a claimant is doing constitutes substantial gainful activity (SGA),
   Step 2	Whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment or a combination of impairments that is "severe" and Whether a claimant’s impairment(s) meets the duration requirement
   Step 3	Whether a claimant has an impairment(s) that meets a listed impairment in the Listing of Impairments, or Whether a claimant’s impairment(s) is medically equal in severity to a listed impairment,
   Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)
   Step 4	Whether a claimant worked in the past, and, if so, Whether the work a claimant did in the past constitutes past relevant work (PRW) and, The physical and mental demands of a claimant's PRW, and Based on a claimant’s RFC and these findings at step 4, whether a claimant can do PRW as the claimant performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy,
   Step 5	The claimant's age, The claimant’s education, The claimant’s work experience (including, as appropriate, the skill level of a claimant’s PRW and whether a claimant’s skills are transferable), and In certain cases, other matters relevant to step 5 (e.g., whether the claimant meets a medical-vocational profile), and Based on a claimant’s RFC and these findings at step 5, whether a claimant can do other work.

   NOTE: Under the Earley AR where a final ALJ or AC decision on a prior disability claim contains findings required at step 4 or 5, the adjudicator of the subsequent claim must consider all of the prior findings required at that step as evidence —not just the ultimate finding at that step—in determining disability with respect to the unadjudicated period involved in the subsequent claim.

2. b. 

   For children (individuals under age 18) claiming supplemental security income (SSI) benefits based on disability, the applicable sequential evaluation process for determining disability is set forth in DI 25201.005. For claims of children for SSI based on disability, a finding required at a step in the sequential evaluation process includes a finding of:

   Step	Finding
   Step 1	Whether a claimant is working and, if so, Whether the work a claimant is doing constitutes SGA,
   Step 2	Whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment or a combination of impairments that is "severe" and if so, Whether a claimant's impairment(s) meets the duration requirement,
   Step 3	Whether a claimant has an impairment(s) that meets a listed impairment in the Listing of Impairments, or Whether a claimant's impairment(s) medically equals the severity of a listed impairment, or Whether a claimant's impairment(s) results in limitations that functionally equals the listings.

   NOTE: This AR does not apply when the prior ALJ or AC decision was made for an individual under age 18 claiming SSI, but who has since attained age 18 and must be evaluated as an adult. This is because the requirements for disability under the prior claim are not identical to the requirements for disability on the subsequent claim.

For purposes of the Earley AR, a decision by an ALJ or the AC on a prior disability claim is a decision which found the claimant not disabled (i.e., a denial, cessation, or an award of a closed period of disability) or a decision which found the claimant disabled (e.g., where the subsequent claim was filed following termination of entitlement/eligibility for non-disability reasons). If a final ALJ or AC decision contains findings described in DI 52707.010B.1., the adjudicator must apply the AR with respect to such findings when adjudicating the subsequent claim. The Earley AR does not apply when an attorney advisor issued a fully favorable decision on the prior claim.

An ALJ or AC decision is final as of the date of the decision notice unless:

• •

  It is appealed timely (or a civil action is timely filed).

• •

  It is appealed late but good cause for late filing of an appeal or civil action is found.

• •

  In the case of an ALJ decision, the AC takes jurisdiction on its own motion within 60 days of the date of the ALJ decision; or

• •

  The decision is reopened and revised.

Interim period cases are cases where notice of the final determination or decision on an individual’s subsequent disability claim is dated June 27, 2018 (the date of the Earley court decision) through 12/01/2024 (the day before publication of the AR).

Post-publication cases are cases where the notice of the determination or decision on a subsequent claim is dated on or after 12/02/2024, the date of publication of the AR.

1. a. 

   Generally, the claimant in an interim period case must request application of the AR to the subsequent claim that was determined or decided in the interim period, and the claimant must demonstrate that application of the AR could change that prior determination or decision. A claimant may demonstrate this by submitting a statement that cites the AR, or the holding, or portion of the circuit court decision which could change the prior determination or decision. The claim must typically be readjudicated at the same level it was last adjudicated. (See DI 52707.015 and DI 52707.020 for readjudication procedures and information about readjudication of an interim period determination or decision when the claim to be readjudicated is pending on appeal or when a subsequent claim is pending.)

2. b. 

   If an interim period case is discovered during development/adjudication of a current disability claim of the individual, refer the claim to the same level it was last adjudicated. That level will readjudicate the claim to determine whether application of the AR would change the final determination or decision on the (interim period) case to be more favorable to the claimant, and, if so, issue a revised determination or decision in accordance with the AR even if the claimant has not specifically requested application of the AR (See DI 52707.015 and DI 52707.020 for readjudication procedures and information about readjudication of an interim period determination or decision when the claim to be readjudicated is pending on appeal or when a subsequent claim is pending). If application of the AR would not change the final determination or decision on the interim period claim to be more favorable to the claimant, no action will be taken on the interim period case.

   NOTE: 

   The readjudication of a claim under the Earley AR in an interim period case is distinct from the rules of reopening and revising final determinations or decisions. A claim on which there was a final determination or decision in the interim period described in DI 52707.010C.1 may be readjudicated under the AR even though the 4-year rule (Title II) or 2-year rule (Title XVI) for reopening does not apply.

Determine if the AR applies. If it does, adjudicate the claim in accordance with the AR.

Examples of application of the AR when there are multiple prior ALJ or AC decisions are found in DI 52707.020B.2.d. If there are two or more prior claims with final ALJ or AC decisions, adjudicate the subsequent claim under the Earley AR as provided in DI 52707.020B.2.d. Interim period cases have different instructions that are covered above.

1. a. 

   When a claimant with DAA (including a child under SSI) is found disabled considering the effects of DAA, a determination must then be made excluding the effects of DAA to determine whether DAA is material to the finding of disability. See DI 90070.050 and sections 20 CFR 404.1535 and 416.935 of the regulations. Adjudicators must use a two-part process. First, they must follow the sequential evaluation process, considering all of a claimant’s impairments, including DAA, to determine whether the claimant is disabled. Second, if the claimant is found disabled under the first part of the process, adjudicators must again follow sequential evaluation process, but without considering the effects of DAA, to determine whether the claimant would be found disabled if the claimant was no longer using drugs or alcohol. If the claimant would not be found disabled under the second part of the process, DAA is material to the determination of disability. If the claimant would be found disabled, DAA is not material. Thus, when there is a prior final decision in which:

   • •

     An ALJ or the AC made findings required at steps in the sequential evaluation process and found that a claimant with DAA is disabled, considering the effects of DAA, and

   • •

     The ALJ or AC made separate findings following the steps in the sequential evaluation process by considering the claimant’s condition without the effects of DAA to decide whether DAA was material to the determination of disability,

     The adjudicator(s) must consider the findings from both parts of the two-part DAA process when adjudicating a DAA case (applying the same two-part process) under the requirements of AR 24-1(6).

2. b. 

   If the ALJ or AC has stated a conclusion in the prior decision that DAA was material, or that DAA was not material, to the determination of disability, but has not set out findings showing how this conclusion was reached under the second part of the process, there will be no findings that are relevant to the decision whether a claimant’s DAA is material to the determination of disability.

3. c. 

   In adjudicating the subsequent claim, consider the prior findings described in DI 52707.010B.1. from the ALJ’s or AC’s decision about whether the claimant is disabled under the first part of the DAA process. Treat such prior findings as evidence to be considered along with the other evidence in the subsequent claim in determining disability under the first part of the DAA process. If the claimant is determined to be disabled under the first part of the DAA process, consider prior findings described in DI 52707.010B.1. from the ALJ's or AC's decision about whether the claimant is disabled under the second part of the DAA process. Treat such prior findings as evidence to be considered along with the other evidence in the subsequent claim in determining disability under the second part of the DAA process.

   EXAMPLE: The claimant alleged disability due to a heart condition and alcohol dependence and was found disabled in a final decision by an ALJ. The ALJ first considered all of the claimant's impairments, including his alcoholism, under the 5-step sequential evaluation process. The ALJ found the claimant's impairments to be severe but not listing level. The ALJ found that the claimant was unable to do any PRW and that based on his age, education, work experience and RFC, the claimant was disabled at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. The ALJ then applied the second part of the DAA process and made findings under the sequential evaluation process considering the claimant's heart condition, but not his alcohol dependence. The ALJ determined that in the absence of the claimant's alcoholism, his heart condition was by itself not disabling. Therefore, DAA was material to the determination of disability.

   When adjudicating the subsequent claim, the adjudicator will consider the findings described in DI 52707.010B.1. which were made by the ALJ in the decision regarding disability under the first part of the DAA process. Treat such a prior finding as evidence to be considered along with the other evidence in the subsequent claim in making a determination regarding disability under the first part of the DAA process. If the claimant is determined disabled under the first part of the DAA process, the adjudicator will consider the findings described in DI 52707.010B.1. from the ALJ's disability decision under the second part of the DAA process. Treat such a prior finding as evidence to be considered along with other evidence in the subsequent claim in making the disability determination under the second part of the DAA process. Under the AR, any prior finding described in DI 52707.010B.1.a., or DI 52707.010B.1.b., as applicable, must be considered as evidence in light of all relevant facts and circumstances in determining disability with respect to the subsequent claim. In determining the probative value of such a prior finding by the ALJ as evidence, the adjudicator will consider the factors described in DI 52707.010A.2.d., DI 52707.010A.2.e., and DI 52707.020B.4.