I. Purpose
This Temporary Instruction (TI) sets forth procedures for implementing the
August 23, 1993 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit in the Schisler v. Sullivan and
Aldrich v. Sullivan class actions, with respect to
the evaluation of treating physician opinion.
Although the TI affects only adjudicators processing cases of Second
Circuit residents (Connecticut, New York and Vermont), adjudicators
throughout the country must be familiar with the TI because of potential
case transfers or claimant changes of address.
II. Background
On April 2, 1986, in connection with the Schisler
litigation, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the
Secretary to prepare a written statement directing adjudicators at all
levels to apply the Second Circuit's treating physician rule. On February
9, 1987, in connection with the Aldrich litigation,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont addressed several
matters and, among other things, ordered the Secretary to redetermine the
claims of all class members whose applications were denied or terminated
prior to implementation of the Schisler
instructions. Accordingly, the Vermont Disability Determination Services
identified for future retrieval, under “Code 254”on the
SSA-831, all denials or terminations of Vermont residents that involved
the evaluation of treating physician opinion. However, on August 5, 1987,
the Aldrich court modified its prior order by
holding that Aldrich class members whose cases had
been decided or redetermined under the Aldrich
Program Operations Manual System need not
be readjudicated under the Schisler instructions.
On October 29, 1987, after further Schisler
litigation, the Commissioner of Social Security issued a ruling to address
the evaluation of treating physician opinion in the disability claims of
Second Circuit residents. Subsequently, after additional
Schisler litigation, the court of appeals amended
the ruling and the Commissioner issued it on March 9, 1989 (the
"Schisler ruling").
Thereafter, on August 1, 1991, the Secretary published final regulations
on the standards for consultative examinations and existing medical
evidence (the “CE/MER” regulations). Those regulations also
provide guidance on the evaluation of treating source opinion. The
Secretary notified the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of
New York and the District of Vermont in the
Schisler and Aldrich
litigation, respectively, of the regulations' publication and of the
Secretary's intent to implement the regulations in the Second Circuit. In
conjunction with that notice, the Secretary also requested the
Schisler court's permission to rescind the
Schisler ruling. The
Schisler and Aldrich
plaintiffs challenged the “CE/MER” regulations, and both
district courts held that the regulations were binding in administrative
proceedings but that the Second Circuit's treating physician rule would
continue to govern in disability claims appealed to federal courts.
Notwithstanding its holding on the regulations issue, however, the
Schisler court granted the Secretary's request to
rescind the Schisler ruling.
The parties in both Schisler and
Aldrich filed cross-appeals to the Second Circuit.
Following oral argument, the court of appeals issued a consolidated
decision on August 23, 1993. The court upheld the validity of the
regulations, determined that the regulations are binding on the courts and
lifted a stay of implementation. Accordingly, on November 12, 1993, the
Commissioner published Notice of Rescission of the
Schisler ruling in the
Federal Register (58 FR 60042).
Subsequently, on November 23, 1993, the Associate Commissioner notified
OHA decision makers to apply the “CE/MER” regulations in
their entirety in adjudicating the disability claims of Second Circuit
residents and to discontinue using the Schisler
ruling.
III. Guiding Principles
Effective with publication of the Associate Commissioner's November 23,
1993 memorandum, OHA decision makers will apply (with the exceptions
described below) the “CE/MER” regulations in their entirety
to all disability claims of Second Circuit residents, and will discontinue
using the Schisler ruling. Decision makers must
cite the regulations, and decisional rationale must reflect application of
the regulations. (See HALLEX
, issued
March 12, 1992, for discussion of the “CE/MER” regulatory
provisions.)
OHA decision makers will continue to apply the
Schisler ruling to 1) the cases of
Schisler class members, if any; 2) the inactive
cases of Aldrich class members
(Aldrich is a continuing class); and 3) “Code
254” cases, regardless of whether the case is received directly for
readjudication (i.e., OHA has jurisdiction for readjudication because OHA
processed the case prior to issuance of the first
Schisler ruling on October 29, 1987, and issued the
“final” decision of the Secretary), or is received on appeal
following readjudication. Additionally, if one of these exception cases is
consolidated with a subsequent claim, the Schisler
ruling will apply to the adjudication of the consolidated
claims.
Implementation of the Aldrich and
Schisler class actions is essentially complete.
Although no Code 254 cases have been identified for OHA review, a copy of
the screening sheet used by the Office of Disability and International
Operations is attached for information concerning the individuals entitled
to relief.
Attachment 1. - ODIO Aldrich Screening Sheet
ODIO
ALDRICH SCREENING SHEET
(Code 254
Cases)
Part A - Identifying Information
Name: ______________________________________________________________
SSN: ______________________________________________________________
Part B - Screening Criteria
1. |
Was the case listed under code 254? |
|
|
|
|
|
If Yes, go to #2. |
Yes [ ] |
|
If No, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and return folder to its prior location. |
No [ ] |
|
|
|
2. |
Was a decision issued either by the Appeals Council or an ALJ on or after November 3, 1987. (See note below). |
|
|
|
|
|
If Yes, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and return folder to it prior location. |
Yes [ ] |
|
If No, go to #3. |
No [ ] |
|
|
|
3. |
Did the treating source(s) provide an opinion about the claimant's disability, i.e., diagnosis and nature and degree of impairment? |
|
|
|
|
|
If Yes, go to #4. |
Yes [ ] |
|
If No, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and return case to prior location. |
No [ ] |
|
|
|
4. |
Does the DDS rationale clearly cite substantial evidence in the file, other than solely the opinion(s) of non-examining medical personnel, which contradicts the opinions of the treating source(s)? |
|
|
|
|
|
If Yes, go to #5. |
Yes [ ] |
|
If No, Place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and prepare a Folder Documentation Form or allowance/continuance determination per DI 32585.006. |
No [ ] |
|
|
|
5. |
Does the DDS rationale give extra weight to the opinion of the treating source(s) AND, if the opinion was not accepted, did the rationale explain why? |
|
|
|
|
|
If Yes, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and return folder to its prior location. |
Yes [ ] |
|
If No, place this form in file (copy to Litigation Staff), and prepare a Folder Documentation Form or allowance/continuance determination, per DI 32585.006. |
No [ ] |
|
|
|
If an ALJ/AC decision was made prior to November 3, 1987, and the case is
otherwise a screen-in, transfer it to OHA for review.
Signature__________________________________ Date__________________