The Quality Review (QR) component conducts pre-effectuation reviews of sampled cases from adjudicating components to verify that disability and blindness determinations made under the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs comply with federal regulations, as outlined in DI 00115.001. These reviews are conducted according to the procedures specified in this section.

Quality reviewers follow steps 1 through 8 in this section, as the facts of each case dictate.

1. 1. 

   Determine whether the case meets the criteria for exclusion, as outlined in QR 04440.004 (Quality Review Exclusions).

   If the case is an exclusion, and does not warrant quality review, enter the appropriate exclusion code in the case processing system and route the closed case to the field office (FO).

   If the case is not an exclusion, skip to step 2.

2. 2. 

   Open and review all case documents in the electronic folder. The order of document review is at the discretion of the quality reviewer.

3. 3. 

   After initial review, determine if the adjudicating component’s determination complies with the Social Security Act Regulations, and other written guidelines such as Social Security Rulings and sections within the Program Operations Manual System (POMS). The evidence in the case must be consistent and sufficient, as outlined in DI 24501.016B, to support the adjudicating component's determination.

   If the determination is policy compliant, the review component considers it a supported disability determination.

   If the determination is not policy compliant, otherwise known as deficient, and the case needs additional input, continue to step 4.

   If the adjudicating component's determination is supported, process the case as outlined here:

   • •

     Verify that all determination information is correct on the SSA-831-C3/U3 (Disability Determination and Transmittal), Cessation or Continuance of Disability or Blindness Determination and Transmittal - Title XVI (SSA-832), or Cessation or Continuance of Disability or Blindness Determination and Transmittal (SSA-833).

   • •

     Code the case processing system.

   • •

     Date and release any notice(s), as appropriate.

   • •

     Route the folder to the FO.

     Potential issues to consider:

     1. a. 

        It is possible that the determination and onset for a case are policy compliant, but the information on the SSA-831, SSA-832, or SSA-833 is incorrect. In these instances, upload a modified Determination and Transmittal form(s) with the correct information. Note any changes made in Item 34 of the SSA-831.

     2. b. 

        It is possible that the determination and onset for a case are policy compliant, but the information on the SSA-831, SSA-832, or SSA-833 is incorrect. In these instances, upload a modified Determination and Transmittal form(s) with the correct information. Note any changes made in Item 34 of the SSA-831.

4. 4. 

   Determine if you need a consultation from a medical contractor (MC) or psychological contractor (PC).

   Address questions pertinent to the medical issues in file using the medical referral in the case processing system.

   Be sure to address the issues to the MC or PC in a clear and concise manner.

   Issues that often require review by an MC or PC include questions regarding the sufficiency of evidence, onset of disability, evaluation of medical opinions, and assessing the accuracy of the symptom evaluation completed by the adjudicating component.

   For more information regarding medical review policy, see QR 04440.130.

   NOTE: When the quality reviewer and the MC or PC cannot reach an agreement on the medical findings and conclusions, or both , expressed in the formal assessment, that assessment must remain in the official claims folder, even when it is contrary to the final conclusion(s) made by the quality reviewer. In that situation, quality reviewers must prepare a rationale explaining why the medical findings and conclusions, or both , in a specific medical assessment(s), are not reflected in the final disposition of the case (e.g., the assessment(s) contains incorrect conclusions, it does not address issues that need resolution.).

5. 5. 

   Determine if any type of deficiency is present. If a deficiency is identified, proceed with the steps listed in this section.

   1. a. 

      Deficiencies fall into three categories:

      (1) Group I deficiencies , as defined in QR 04440.202 (Group I Decisional Deficiencies) and QR 04440.203 (Group I Documentation Deficiencies), have the potential to reverse the determination from unfavorable to favorable or from favorable to unfavorable.

      (2) Group II deficiencies, as defined in QR 04440.204 (Group II Deficiencies), have the potential to change the period of disability; that is, when disability started, ended, or ceased.

      (3) Technical corrective actions (TCAs ) , as explained in QR 04440.230 (Introduction to Technical Corrective Actions (TCAs)), QR 04440.231 (Substantive Technical Corrective Actions (TCAs)), and QR 04440.232 (Non-substantive Technical Corrective Actions (TCAs)), are instances of non-compliance with procedural requirements that do not impact the basic determination to allow or deny or the period of disability.

   2. b. 

      Group I and group II deficiencies are further classified as decisional or documentation.

      (1) Decisional deficiencies exist when the adjudicating component sufficiently documents a case to support a determination, but the evidence contradicts the determination.

      Potential issue to consider:

      Substitution of Judgment (SOJ), as explained in QR 04440.118, when a group I or group II decisional deficiency exists. Quality reviewers, MCs, and PCs must be aware of SOJ, as a review principle, to ensure they do not perform a "de novo" case review, as defined in QR 04440.003D. If SOJ is considered, reviewers must document this in the case processing system by creating a case note explanation.

      (2) Documentation deficiencies exist when medical evidence in a case is insufficient to support a disability determination or to determine the correct onset, ending, or cessation date.

      Potential issue to consider:

      Probability of Reversal (POR) , as explained in QR 04440.110, when a group I or group II medical or vocational documentation deficiency exists. The MCs and PCs do not make the POR determination. Reviewers may ask MCs or PCs to provide an opinion, but this opinion is not binding. Quality reviewers make the final POR determination. Reviewers must provide a rationale whenever POR is considered or applied.

6. 6. 

   Provide a clear and concise explanation of the deficiency and development needed to the adjudicating component or FO and request, or take, corrective action.

   If taking corrective action is appropriate, correct the claim and follow the procedures in step 3 of the quality review process.

   If taking corrective action is not appropriate, code the case processing system to reflect why the case is not policy compliant.

   Control the return and continue to step 7.

7. 7. 

   Send the case back to the adjudicating component or request assistance from the FO.

   Prepare a summary of the case, including an explanation of why the case does not comply with policy.

   Notify the adjudicating component or FO, when applicable, of the deficiency and the required corrective action(s) as follows:

   1. a. 

      Use the Request for Corrective Action function in the case processing system to return cases with group I or group II deficiencies, and TCAs which may affect the disability determination or the period of disability, to the adjudicating component.

   2. b. 

      Use the Request for Case Action function in the case processing system to provide feedback about TCAs to the adjudicating component.

   3. c. 

      Use the FO Assistance Request function in the case processing system to request work activity development from the FO.

8. 8. 

   When the adjudicating component or FO corrects the deficient case or completes the required development and returns the case to the review component, the quality reviewer should reevaluate the full case record.

   Ensure that the adjudicating component has made the requested corrections, if needed.

   Determine if the case is now policy compliant, further corrective actions are needed by the reviewing component, or if a subsequent return is warranted to the adjudicating component, as explained in QR 04440.205.

   If the case is policy compliant, clear the case following the procedures outlined in step 3 of this section.