The administrative law judge (ALJ) must provide Decision Writers (DWs) with clear, internally consistent, and policy compliant decision writing instructions (DWI). These instructions must correctly apply Social Security Administration (SSA) policy and procedure and include rationale supporting the findings that affect the outcome.

The ALJ is solely responsible for identifying the issues, investigating the facts, analyzing the evidence, and making all findings of fact and conclusions of law in each case. This responsibility cannot be delegated to DWs. To ensure decisions comply with agency policy, the ALJ must clearly and concisely convey the findings and supporting rationale to the DW through complete, self-contained instructions.

An ALJ's instructions must clearly identify the ultimate case disposition, the specific information and evidence required to support the findings, the step at which the claim is being allowed or denied, and findings at each applicable step of the evaluation process. As applicable, DWI must:

• •

  Identify the period being adjudicated;

• •

  Address work activity after the alleged onset date or application date;

• •

  Identify each medically determinable impairment and whether it is severe;

• •

  Identify the relevant listings and the evidence that supports the step three finding;

• •

  Include any required “B” and “C” criteria findings at steps two and three of the sequential evaluation process;

• •

  Include a function-by-function residual functional capacity (RFC) or functional domain assessment and specific evidence supporting these findings:

  • •

    Ensure the RFC contains policy-compliant and vocationally specific terms;

  • •

    Ensure the RFC includes work-related limitations to accommodate each medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, as appropriate, particularly those that are “severe;”

  • •

    Ensure the RFC in the instructions matches an RFC given to the Vocational Expert (VE) at the hearing, or provide an explanation for the discrepancy;

• •

  Identify all opinions and prior administrative medical findings in the file, specifically evaluating the relevant factors listed in 20 CFR 404.1520c, 404.1527, 416.920c, and 416.927, as required. For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, include an evaluation of the factors of consistency and supportability for each opinion at the source level.

• •

  Include an evaluation of the consistency of the claimant's allegations, including pertinent observations;

• •

  Identify any past relevant work and transferable skills, and evaluate as necessary;

• •

  Identify occupations and corresponding job numbers for a step five evaluation;

• •

  Evaluate any VE evidence to support findings at step four and, as applicable, step five, consistent with Social Security Ruling (SSR) 24-3p: Titles II and XVI: Use of Occupational Information and Vocational Specialist and Vocational Expert Evidence in Disability Determinations and Decisions, and HALLEX HA 01260.074;

• •

  Explain the resolution of any objections or procedural issues;

• •

  Address any reopening issues consistent with HALLEX HA 01290.010. Express requests must be addressed in all decisions; implied requests must be addressed in favorable decisions;

• •

  Address any claim escalation issues consistent with HALLEX HA 01220.022;

• •

  Address any evidence submitted within five days of the hearing or afterwards, as required by HALLEX HA 01260.058 or HA 01260.059;

• •

  Address any post-hearing proffer of evidence issues consistent with HALLEX HA 01270.030;

• •

  Respond to remand orders or instructions from the Appeals Council or federal court ensuring all directives are followed and specified issues are resolved;

• •

  Explain the rationale for a later onset or closed period of disability, including any basis for, or an exception to, medical improvement;

• •

  Indicate and evaluate how drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability (SSR 13-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Drug Addiction and Alcoholism (DAA));

• •

  Address any applicable Acquiescence Rulings; and

• •

  Include any other relevant information to support applicable medical or non-medical findings, such as whether borderline age or a special medical-vocational profile applies.

Instructions must be clear to DWs in all offices. To ensure consistency and clarity, ALJs must avoid:

• •

  Using uncommon or undefined abbreviations;

• •

  Including information unnecessary to the case disposition;

• •

  Including multiple RFCs unless a different RFC is required, e.g., for a later onset decision;

• •

  Instructing DWs to listen to the VE testimony without specifying occupations, jobs numbers, and support for VE evidence in the instructions;

• •

  Instructing DWs to use non-prescribed standardized language in the rationale (HALLEX HA 01280.025);

• •

  Instructing alternate findings for different steps of the sequential evaluation process, except where appropriate to issue a step 4 or alternative step 5 decision;

• •

  Using language that does not comply with policy in the RFC;

• •

  Including instructions that lack sufficient rationale or explanation for findings;

• •

  Omitting required elements or steps in the sequential evaluation process;

• •

  Including personal opinions or commentary unrelated to the case facts or policy (HALLEX HA 01280.025);

• •

  Specifying personal or stylistic preferences (such as exhibit citation format or style requests) except for first or third person usage; and

• •

  Citing case law except when referencing an applicable Acquiescence Ruling.