The decision to rescind or correct a deficiency after rebuttal is based on whether the adjudicating component’s disability determination conformed to the Social Security Act, regulations, rulings, and the POMS as of the date of the determination. When the review component agrees to rescind the deficiency following the adjudicating component’s successful rebuttal action, the review component removes the deficiency from the record.

1. 1. 

   Discovery of a wrong deficiency type in a deficient case

   If the review component identifies a wrong deficiency type in a case, e.g., documentation vs decisional or group I vs group II, they correct the cited deficiency to reflect the subsequently identified correct deficiency type. The correct deficiency type is recorded in the OQR case processing system for performance accuracy purposes. There is no rescission of the deficiency.

2. 2. 

   Discovery of an additional deficiency type in a deficient case

   If the review component rescinds an incorrectly cited deficiency, any subsequently identified policy deficiency is not recorded in the OQR case processing system for performance accuracy purposes (i.e., a new deficiency identified by the review component during the rebuttal evaluation and resolution, unrelated to the deficiency described in the original SSA-1774-U5, Request for Corrective Action). However, any new policy deficiencies identified by the review component during the rebuttal process must be corrected, if appropriate, or returned to the adjudicating component for correction.

   See Details

   GN 04440.501, Completion of the SSA-1774-U5, Request for Corrective Action

3. 3. 

   Citing more than one deficiency on the SSA-1774-U5

   If the review component cites more than one policy deficient issue in the narrative of the SSA-1774-U5, Request for Corrective Action, and the adjudicating component successfully rebuts only one of the policy issues in the cited deficiency, the case remains deficient and the review component will not rescind the remaining deficiency.

   For example, the review component may cite policy issues with both medical documentation and vocational history documentation in the deficiency. However, if the adjudicating component successfully rebuts the medical documentation deficiency, but the vocational history documentation deficiency remains, the review component will not rescind the deficiency because the case remains deficient based on documentation.

The adjudicating component prepares the rebuttal submission, and takes the following actions:

• •

  Submits an Informal Resolution Request (IRR) if the criteria is met in GN 04440.401, or

• •

  Submits a Request for Program Consultation (RPC) if the RPC criteria is met in GN 04440.405.