ISSUED: October 20, 1995
I. Purpose
This Temporary Instruction (TI) sets forth procedures for implementing the
parties' joint Stipulation in the Mason v. Shalala
class action involving the “not severe” impairment issue. The
Stipulation was approved by the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont on January 23, 1995.
Adjudicators throughout the country must be familiar with this TI because
Mason class members who now reside outside of
Vermont must have their cases processed in accordance with the
requirements of the Stipulation.
II. Background
On March 21, 1985, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a report
recommending that the United States District Court declare the Secretary's
severity regulations and ruling
(20 CFR §§
404.1520(c),
404.1521,
416.920(c), 416.921 and Social
Security Ruling (SSR) 82-55) invalid and permanently enjoin the use
of the regulations and ruling. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that
the class be certified.
On May 21, 1986, the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont substantially adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation and certified a class. In connection with its class
certification action, the court enjoined the Secretary from denying or
terminating disability benefits at step two of the sequential evaluation
and ordered the Secretary to readjudicate class member claims.
On October 8, 1986, the district court granted in part both the
Secretary's and plaintiffs' motions to amend the earlier judgment and
denied the Secretary's request to stay the judgment pending review by the
United States Supreme Court of a related case known as Yuckert
v. Heckler, 774 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1985).
On October 31, 1986, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit granted a partial stay of the district court's orders, which
required the Secretary to reopen and readjudicate “closed”
disability claims retroactive to May 31, 1984, only weeks before oral
argument, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v.
Yuckert.
On January 21, 1987, the district court granted a partial stay of the
injunction which required reopening and readjudication of disability
claims that were “abandoned” or “closed,”
pending final disposition of the appeal to the Second Circuit.
On June 8, 1987, the United States Supreme Court held in Bowen
v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) that the severity regulation
was facially valid and an appropriate de minimis
screening device for disability determinations. The Court in
Yuckert did not consider directly whether the
regulation had been misapplied by the Secretary. However, in a concurring
opinion, Justice O'Connor noted that “[e]mpirical evidence cited by
respondent and the amici [supported] the inference that the regulation
[had] been used in a manner inconsistent with the statutory definition of
disability.” Id. at 157.
On August 11, 1987, in response to the joint motion of class counsel and
the Secretary, following the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen
v. Yuckert, the court of appeals remanded this case to the
district court for further consideration in light of
Yuckert.
On August 31, 1987, the district court vacated its May 21, 1986 order and
judgment.
On May 24, 1988, the district court denied the Secretary's motion for
summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for discovery. Although
the court agreed that Yuckert disposed of
plaintiffs' facial validity challenge to the severity regulations, it
found that the class action complaint included a challenge to the
regulation as applied by the Secretary and a challenge to the regulation
and policies under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
On February 8, 1989, the district court issued an opinion and order
granting the Secretary's motion for summary judgment with respect to the
APA issue, concluding that the severity regulation did not violate the APA
and that SSR 82-55 was
an interpretive ruling exempt from the notice and comment provisions of
the APA.
On November 12, 1991, the district court issued a decision again
confirming that the class consisted of all Vermont applicants who had
received unfavorable step two decisions from May 31, 1984 to the present.
Settlement discussions brought the case to a close without the need for
further litigation. On January 23, 1995, the district court approved the
parties' joint Stipulation setting forth the definition of the class and
terms and conditions for the implementation of relief (Attachment
1).
III. Guiding Principles
Under Mason, the Secretary will redetermine the
claims of those persons who: 1) timely respond to individual or
publication notice informing them of the opportunity for readjudication;
and 2) are determined to be class members after screening (see
Part V. below). Regardless of the
claimant's current state of residence, the Northeastern Program Service
Center (NEPSC) will, in most cases, screen for class membership and the
Vermont Disability Determination Services (DDS) will perform the agreed
upon readjudications, regardless of the administrative level at which the
class member claim was last decided.
The DDS servicing the claimant's current address will perform the
readjudication if a reconsideration disability hearing or a face-to-face
review is necessary, i.e., cessation or terminal illness (TERI)
cases.
If the potential class member claim or a subsequent claim is pending or
stored in OHA when class membership becomes an issue, OHA will perform the
screening and readjudication under the limited circumstances described in
Part V. B. below.
Cases readjudicated by the DDS will be redetermined at the reconsideration
level regardless of the final level at which the case was previously
decided. Class members who receive adverse readjudication determinations
will have full appeal rights (i.e., Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
hearing, Appeals Council and judicial review).
Mason does not require any change in OHA's current
adjudicatory policies or practices because the severity regulations
(20 CFR §§
404.1520,
404.1521, 416.920
and 416.921) and SSR
85-28 remain the proper standards for adjudicating claims at step
two of the sequential evaluation.
IV. Definition of Class
Except as noted below, for purposes of implementing the January 23, 1995
Stipulation, the Mason class consists of all
individuals who:
•
resided in Vermont between May 30, 1984, and August 31, 1987, inclusive;
and
•
were issued a final administrative determination or decision denying or
terminating title II or title XVI disability benefits based on a finding
of “no severe” impairment, i.e., a step two
denial.
A person is not a class member if
(1) the last administrative denial or termination the individual received
on the potential Mason claim was issued after
August 31, 1987; or
(2) the last administrative denial or termination the individual received
on the potential Mason claim was based on a finding
other than “no severe” impairment, i.e., denied at a step
other than step two of the sequential evaluation; or
(3) a federal court affirmed the denial or termination; or
(4) the individual had a subsequent claim denied after August 31, 1987,
and the subsequent claim covered the entire period of disability at issue
in the potential Mason claim; or
(5) the individual applied for SSI child's benefits and was entitled to
readjudication pursuant to Sullivan v. Zebley, 110
S. Ct. 885 (1990), for the entire period at issue in the potential
Mason claim; or
(6) the individual applied for widow's(er's) benefits for the entire
period at issue in the potential Mason claim;
or
(7) the individual was or will be entitled to readjudication pursuant to
Aldrich v. Sullivan, Civil No. 80-270 (D. Vt.) for
the entire period at issue in the potential Mason
claim.
V. Determination of Class Membership and Preadjudication
Actions
On January 13, 1995, SSA published notice of this settlement in the
following papers: Burlington Free Press, Caledonian Record, Rutland
Herald, Times Argus, Valley News, Brattleboro Reformer, The Newport Daily,
St. Albans Messenger and Bennington Banner.
On June 2, 1995, SSA sent notices to all potential class members
identified by computer run. Individuals are given 120 days from the date
of receipt of the notice to request that SSA readjudicate their claims
under the terms of the Mason
Stipulation.
On June 2, 1995, SSA also posted notice in each SSA district office within
Vermont and provided a public service announcement to radio stations in
Vermont. Potential class members who do not receive an individual notice
will have until January 22, 1997, to request that SSA readjudicate their
claims under the terms of the Mason
Stipulation.
If mailed notices are returned as undeliverable, SSA will attempt to
obtain updated addresses by providing a computer tape to the Vermont
Department of Social Welfare and the Vermont Agency of Human Services for
a computerized match with public assistance, food stamp and/or other
relevant records. Thereafter, SSA will mail a second notice to all
potential class members for whom updated addresses are
obtained.
The Office of Disability and International Operations (ODIO) will send
untimely responses to the servicing Social Security field office (i.e.,
district office or branch office) to develop good cause for the untimely
response. Good cause determinations will be based on the standards set
forth in 20 CFR
§§ 404.911 and
416.1411 and
SSR 91-5p. If good cause
is established, the field office will forward the claim for
screening.
2. Alert and Folder Retrieval Process
All response forms and undeliverable notices will be returned to ODIO
where they will be entered into the Civil Action Tracking System (CATS).
CATS will generate folder alerts to ODIO for all response forms. See
Attachment 2 for a sample Mason
alert.
For Title II and concurrent claims, in most instances, ODIO will associate
the computer-generated alerts with any claim file(s) that it has within
its jurisdiction or that it retrieves from another location. ODIO will
then forward the alert package and potential class member files to NEPSC
or OHA for screening.
For Title XVI claims, in most instances, Wilkes-Barre Data Operations
Center (Wilkes-Barre) will have the file. Consequently, ODIO will mail the
alert package to Wilkes-Barre. Wilkes-Barre will forward the alert package
and the file to NEPSC or OHA for screening.
If ODIO, NEPSC or the Wilkes-Barre Folder Staging Operation determines
that either a potential class member claim or a subsequent (current) claim
is pending or stored at OHA, it will forward the alert to OHA, along with
any prior claim file(s) not in OHA's possession, for screening,
consolidation consideration and readjudication (if
consolidated).
ODIO, NEPSC or Wilkes-Barre will send all alerts potentially within OHA
jurisdiction and related prior claim file(s) to the Office of
Appellate
Operations (OAO) at the following address:
|
Office of Hearings and Appeals Office
of Appellate Operations One Skyline Tower, Suite 701 5107
Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041-3200 ATTN:
OAO Class Action Coordinator
|
The OAO Class Action Coordinator is responsible for controlling and
reconciling the disposition of class alerts shipped to OHA for association
with pending or stored claims. The OAO Class Action Coordinator will
maintain a record of all alerts received and the location, if any, to
which they are transferred. This information will be necessary to do the
final class membership reconciliation.
After a thorough search not to exceed 120 days, ODIO, NEPSC or
Wilkes-Barre will initiate folder reconstruction through the servicing
Field Office (FO). Because the NEPSC, FO and Wilkes-Barre DOC will either
obtain all appropriate claim files within the Mason
timeframes, or arrange for their reconstruction prior to forwarding files
for screening, OHA requests for reconstruction of potential class member
cases should be rare. However, if it becomes necessary for OHA to request
reconstruction, the OHA component (the HO or the OAO branch) will forward
the alert and any accompanying claim file(s) (if the claim file(s) is not
needed for adjudication purposes) to the servicing FO with a covering
memorandum requesting that folder reconstruction be initiated and that the
reconstructed file be sent to OHA after the reconstruction action is
completed. The OAO branch will route requests through the OAO Class Action
Coordinator. HO personnel and the OAO Class Action Coordinator will
forward a copy of the reconstruction request memorandum to Litigation
Staff at the following address:
|
Litigation Staff Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Programs, Policy, Evaluation and Communications 3-K-26 Operations Building 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235
ATTN: Mason Coordinator
|
HO personnel or the OAO branch will identify in the reconstruction request
the OHA location of any existing claim file(s) being retained for
adjudication purposes, and the date(s) of the claim(s)
involved.
5. Class Membership Denials (Non-Eligibility for Relief)
NEPSC or OHA, as appropriate, will hold for 75 days all claim files of
individuals to whom SSA sends notice of non-class membership or
ineligibility for relief pending review by class counsel. If an individual
wishes to request SSA's further consideration of the class
membership/eligibility for relief determination, he or she must do so
through class counsel. Class counsel has 60 days from receipt of the
notice of non-class membership/ineligibility for relief to notify the
Office of the General Counsel (OGC) of their disagreement. Upon timely
written request by class counsel (i.e., within 60 days of receipt of the
notice that the individual is not a class member eligible for relief) to
review the files, Litigation Staff will coordinate with NEPSC or OHA to
forward the claim files to:
|
Social Security Administration District
Office 58 Pearl Street Burlington, VT 05401
|
The district office will hold the case for 30 days.
Class counsel will then have 30 days to review the file. If class
counsel's review establishes that there is a dispute, they must notify
OGC. If the parties are unable to resolve a dispute, class counsel may
submit any unresolved dispute to the court for final resolution by proper
motion made within 30 days of the date of written notice by
OGC.
a. Current Claim Pending or Stored at OHA
As provided in Part V. A. 3. above, if
there is a current claim pending or stored at OHA, the OAO Class Action
Coordinator will receive the alert and related
Mason claim file(s). The OAO Class Action
Coordinator will determine which OHA component has the current claim and
forward for screening as follows.
•
If the current claim is in an HO, the Coordinator will use Attachment 3 to
forward the alert and prior claim file(s) to the HO for screening.
(Part V. B. 2. a. below provides
instructions to HOs regarding the action to be taken if they receive an
alert package from the OAO Class Action Coordinator but no longer have a
current claim pending.)
•
If the current claim is pending before the Appeals Council, or is located
in an OAO branch mini-docket or in an OAO Docket and Files Branch, the
Coordinator will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and prior claim
file(s) to the appropriate OAO branch for screening.
(Part V. B. 2. a. below provides
instructions to the OAO branches regarding the action to be taken if they
receive an alert package from the OAO Class Action Coordinator but no
longer have a current claim pending.)
If the Coordinator (or his designee) is unable to locate the current claim
file within OHA, the Coordinator (or the designee) will broaden the claim
file search and arrange for alert transfer or claim file reconstruction,
as necessary.
Do not screen pending cases in newly implemented class actions unless an
alert has been received. Claimants sometimes allege class membership
before their cases have been alerted. The presence of an alert is evidence
that the claimant has responded to notice of potential class membership
and that his or her case is ready for review. However, if class action
implementation is nearly complete and a claimant with a non-alerted
pending case should allege class membership, contact the
Mason coordinator in the Division of Litigation
Analysis and Implementation (DLAI) for assistance in determining the
claimant's status. DLAI's address is
|
Office of Hearings and Appeals Division
of Litigation Analysis and Implementation
Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation One
Skyline Tower, Suite 702 5107 Leesburg Pike Falls
Church, VA 22041-3255
ATTN: Mason
Coordinator
|
The DLAI Mason Coordinator's telephone number is
(703) 305-0725.
b. Current Claim Pending in Court
If the OAO Class Action Coordinator receives an alert for a claimant who
has a civil action pending, either on the alerted case or on a current or
prior claim, the Coordinator will forward the alert and any accompanying
claim file(s) to the appropriate OAO Court Case Preparation and Review
Branch (CCPRB) for screening, using Attachment 3. (See
Part V. B. 2. b. below for special
screening instructions when a civil action is involved.)
The screening component will associate the alert and any prior claim
file(s) with the claim file(s) in its possession and complete the
screening sheet (see Attachment 4) as follows.
If the claim pending at OHA is the only potential
Mason claim, then the individual is not entitled to
relief under Mason (see
Part IV. above). Complete the screening
sheet and follow the instructions in
Part V. B. 3. a. below for processing
non-Mason claims.
•
Consider all applications denied (including res
judicata denials/dismissals) during the
Mason timeframe;
Although not the “final decision of the Secretary,” an
Appeals Council denial of a request for review is the last action of the
Secretary, and the date of such a denial controls for class membership
screening purposes.
•
Follow all instructions on the screening sheet and screening sheet
instructions;
•
Sign and date the original screening sheet; place it in the claim file (on
the top right side of the file); and
•
Forward a copy of the screening sheet to the OAO Class Action Coordinator
at the address in Part V. A. 3. above.
(The Coordinator will enter information from the screening sheet onto a
database and forward the screening sheet to DLAI. DLAI will retain a copy
of each screening sheet and forward a copy to Litigation
Staff.)
Final determinations or decisions made after August 31, 1987, on a
subsequent claim filed by a potential Mason class
member may have adjudicated the entire timeframe at issue in the
Mason claim. These claims should be denied class
membership.
If the HO receives an alert only, or an alert associated with a prior
claim file(s), and the HO no longer has the current claim file, it will
return the alert and any prior claim file(s) to the OAO Class Action
Coordinator (see address in Part V. A. 3.
above) and advise the Coordinator of the action taken on the current claim
and its destination. The Coordinator will determine the current claim file
location and, if it is located in OHA Headquarters, will forward the alert
and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the responsible OAO Branch for
screening using Attachment 3. If the file(s) is no longer in OHA, the
Coordinator will use Attachment 5 to send the alert and any accompanying
prior claim file(s) to the non-OHA location and request that the file(s)
be forwarded to NEPSC for screening.
If an OAO branch receives an alert only, or an alert associated with a
prior claim file(s), and the branch no longer has the current claim file
(and it is not located in an OAO branch mini-docket or Docket and Files
Branch), it will determine the location of the current claim file. If the
current claim file is located within OHA, the OAO branch will use
Attachment 3 to forward the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s)
to the current OHA location. If the files are no longer in OHA, the OAO
branch will use Attachment 5 to send the alert and any accompanying prior
claim file(s) to the non-OHA location and request that the file(s) be
forwarded to NEPSC for screening. The OAO branch will also advise the OAO
Class Action Coordinator of its actions.
b. Special OAO Screening Instructions if a Civil Action Is
Involved
As noted in Part V. B. 1. b. above, the
CCPRB will screen for Mason class membership when a
civil action is involved. The CCPRB's class membership determination will
dictate the appropriate post-screening action.
•
If the claim pending in court was adjudicated in accordance with
SSR 85-28 and resolved
all Mason issues, the claimant is not a
Mason class member entitled to relief. The CCPRB
will follow the instructions in
Part V. B. 3. a. below for processing
non-class member claims.
•
If the claim pending in court was adjudicated in accordance with
SSR 85-28, but did not
resolve all Mason issue(s), e.g., there is a prior
(inactive) Mason claim and the claim pending in
court did not include the entire period covered by the
Mason claim, and the claimant elects to have the
case remanded to the Secretary for a redetermination (instead of
proceeding in court), the CCPRB will forward the
Mason claim to the Vermont DDS for separate review.
The CCPRB will modify the case flag in Attachment 9 to indicate that the
pending court case does not resolve all Mason
issues and that the Mason class member claim is
being forwarded for separate processing. The CCPRB will notify the Class
Action Coordinator of this action.
•
If the final administrative decision on the claim pending in court was not
adjudicated in accordance with
SSR 85-28 or is legally
insufficient for other reasons, the CCPRB will initiate voluntary remand
proceedings and consolidate the claims.
3. Post-Screening Actions
a. Non-Class Member Cases
If the screening component determines that the individual is not a class
member, the component will:
•
notify the individual, and representative, if any, of non-class membership
using Attachment 6 (modified as necessary to fit the facts and posture of
the case when there is a current claim);
Include the address and telephone number of the servicing Social Security
field office at the top of Attachment 6.
•
retain a copy of the notice in the claim file;
•
send a copy of the notice to:
|
Dixie Henry, Esq. Vermont
Developmental Disabilities Law Project P.O. Box
1367 Burlington, VT 05402
|
•
retain the claim file(s) for 75 days pending a possible class membership
dispute; and
•
if class counsel makes a timely request for review, send the non-class
member claim file(s) to the Burlington Vermont district office using the
pre-addressed route slip in Attachment 7.
Photocopy any material contained in the prior file that is relevant to the
current claim and place it in the current claim file before shipping the
prior file.
•
if SSA, through OGC, resolves the dispute in the claimant's favor: 1) the
original screening component or Litigation Staff will prepare a revised
screening sheet; 2) proceed in accordance with
Part VI. below; and 3) notify the Class
Action Coordinator at the address in
Part V. A. 3. above, for coordination
with DLAI, of the revised determination by forwarding a copy of the
revised screening sheet. OGC will advise class counsel of the reversal of
class membership determination, and class counsel will notify the
claimant.
An individual who wishes to appeal a determination of non-class membership
may do so only through class counsel, as explained in the notice
(Attachment 6).
b. Cases Determined To Be Class Members Entitled to Relief
If the screening component determines that the individual is a class
member entitled to relief, it will proceed with processing and
adjudication in accordance with the instructions in
Part VI. below.
VI. Processing and Adjudication
A. Cases Reviewed by the DDS
The Vermont DDS will conduct the first Mason
review, except for cases consolidated at the OHA level (see
Part VI. D. below) and cases in which a
reconsideration disability hearing or a face-to-face review is appropriate
(see the exception in Part III. above).
The DDS determination will be a reconsideration determination, regardless
of the administrative level at which the class member's claim(s) was
previously decided, with full appeal rights (i.e., ALJ hearing, Appeals
Council and judicial review).
Except as otherwise noted in this instruction, ALJs should process and
adjudicate requests for hearing on Mason DDS review
cases in the same manner as for any other case.
B. OHA Adjudication of Class Member Claims
The following instruction applies to both consolidation cases in which the
ALJ or Appeals Council conducts the Mason
readjudication and to DDS readjudication cases in which the claimant
requests a hearing or Appeals Council review. Except as noted herein, HOs
and Headquarters will process Mason class member
cases according to all other current practices and procedures including
coding, scheduling, developing evidence, routing, etc.
1. Type of Review and Period To Be Considered
a.
Pursuant to the Mason Stipulation, regardless of
whether the claim under review is an initial claim or cessation case, the
type of review to be conducted is a redetermination. The redetermination
shall be a de
novo readjudication of the class
member's eligibility for benefits based on all the evidence in his or her
file including newly obtained evidence relevant to the period that was at
issue in the administrative decision(s) that forms the basis for
Mason class membership. The redetermination shall
readjudicate the class member's eligibility for benefits only through the
date of the prior decision(s) that forms the basis for
Mason class membership.
b.
If the redetermination results in a favorable decision, the adjudicator
will determine, under the medical improvement standard, whether the class
member's disability has continued through the date of the readjudication
(or through the date of onset of disability established in any allowance
on a subsequent application).
c.
If evidence comes to light that suggests that disability began only at
some point after the administrative determination(s) that forms the basis
for Mason class membership, the class member must
file a new application to establish entitlement or eligibility. The scope
of the ALJ's review in connection with the class member claim is limited
to the period from the alleged onset date through the date of the last
final determination or decision that forms the basis for class membership.
If the ALJ determines that a claimant was disabled on or before the ending
date of the period under review, the ALJ will proceed with full reopening
of the claim, i.e., the ALJ will consider the issues through the current
date. If, as noted above, the evidence suggests that disability only began
after the ending date of the period under review, the ALJ will advise the
claimant to file a new application but will not attempt to take
jurisdiction or adjudicate the subsequent period unless a current,
consolidated claim allows the ALJ to do so. Even in the latter case,
payment would be restricted by the retroactivity limitations of the
current claim.
2. Step Two of the Sequential Evaluation
Mason does not require any change in OHA's current
adjudicatory policies or practices with respect to step two of the
sequential evaluation. Effective with the enactment of the 1984 Amendments
to the Social Security Act, OHA's adjudicators have considered the
combined effect of individual “not severe” impairments in
evaluating disability claims at step two. ALJs and the Appeals Council
may, when the evidentiary record warrants, continue to deny or cease the
disability claims of Vermont residents in accordance with
20 CFR §§
404.1520(c),
404.1521,
404.1523, 416.920(c), 416.921 and 416.923, as well as
SSR 85-28. The Acting
Associate Commissioner's memorandum, dated February 21, 1991 (Attachment
8), regarding the proper standard for adjudicating claims at step two,
remains in effect.
3. Class Member Is Deceased
If a class member is deceased, the usual survivor and substitute party
provisions and existing procedures for determining distribution of any
potential underpayment apply.
C. Claim at OHA but No Current Action Pending
If the claim file (either a class member or a subsequent claim) is located
in OHA Headquarters, but there is no claim actively pending administrative
review, i.e., Headquarters is holding the file awaiting potential receipt
of a request for review or notification that a civil action has been
filed, OAO will associate the alert with the file and screen for class
membership (the OAO Class Action Coordinator will coordinate the necessary
actions, as explained above in Part V.).
(See Part V. B. 3., above, for non-class
member processing instructions.)
•
If the 120-day retention period for holding a claim file after an ALJ
decision or Appeals Council action has expired, OAO will attach a
Mason class member flag (see Attachment 9) to the
outside of the file and send the claim file(s) to the Vermont DDS (or to
the appropriate DDS if the exception in
Part III. above applies) for review of
the Mason class member claim.
•
If less than 120 days have elapsed, OAO will attach a
Mason class member flag (see Attachment 10) to the
outside of the file to ensure that the case is routed to the Vermont DDS
(or to the appropriate DDS if the exception in
Part III. above applies) after expiration
of the retention period. Pending expiration of the retention period, the
OAO Branch will also:
•
return unappealed ALJ decisions and dismissals to DFB, OAO;
and
•
return unappealed Appeals Council denials to the appropriate OAO
minidocket.
The respective OAO components will monitor the retention period and, if
the claimant does not seek further administrative or judicial review,
route the file(s) to the Vermont DDS (or the appropriate DDS if the
exception in Part III. above applies) in
a timely manner.
D. Processing and Adjudicating Class Member Claims in Conjunction
with Current Claims (Consolidation Procedures)
If a class member has a current claim pending at any administrative level
and consolidation is warranted according to the guidelines below, the
appropriate component will consolidate all Mason
class member claims with the current claim at the level at which the
current claim is pending.
2. Current Claim Pending in the Hearing Office
a. Hearing Scheduled or Held and all Remand Cases
Except as noted below, if a Mason class member has
a request for hearing pending on a current claim, and the ALJ has either
scheduled or held a hearing, and in all remand cases, the ALJ will
consolidate the Mason case with the appeal on the
current claim.
The ALJ will not consolidate the claims if
•
the current claim and the Mason claim do not have
any issues in common; or
•
a court remand contains a court-ordered time limit and it will not be
possible to meet the time limit if the claims are
consolidated.
If the claims are consolidated, follow
Part VI. D. 2. c. below. If the claims
are not consolidated, follow
Part VI. D. 2. d. below.
Except as noted below, if a Mason class member has
an initial request for hearing pending on a current claim and the HO has
not yet scheduled a hearing, the ALJ will not consolidate the
Mason claim and the current claim. Instead, the ALJ
will dismiss the request for hearing on the current claim and forward both
the Mason claim and the current claim to the
Vermont DDS (or to the appropriate DDS if the exception in
Part III. above applies) for further
action (see Part VI. D. 2. d.
below).
If the hearing has not been scheduled because the claimant waived the
right to an in-person hearing, and the ALJ is prepared to issue a fully
favorable decision on the current claim, and this decision would also be
fully favorable with respect to all issues raised by the application that
makes the claimant a Mason class member, the ALJ
will consolidate the claims.
If the claims are consolidated, follow
Part VI. D. 2. c. below. If the claims
are not consolidated, follow
Part VI. D. 2. d. below.
c. Action if Claims Are Consolidated
If the ALJ decides to consolidate the current claim with the
Mason claim(s), the HO will:
•
give proper notice of any new issue(s) as required by
20 CFR §§
404.946(b) and
416.1446(b), if
the Mason claim raises an additional issue(s) not
raised by the current claim;
•
offer the claimant a supplemental hearing if the ALJ already has held a
hearing and the Mason claim raises an additional
issue(s), unless the ALJ is prepared to issue a fully favorable decision
with respect to the Mason claim; and
•
issue one decision that addresses both the issues raised by the current
request for hearing and those raised by the Mason
claim (the ALJ's decision will clearly indicate that the ALJ considered
the Mason claim pursuant to the
Mason Stipulation).
d. Action if Claims Are Not Consolidated
If common issues exist but the ALJ decides not to consolidate the current
claim with the Mason claim because a hearing has
not yet been scheduled, the ALJ will:
•
dismiss, without prejudice, the request for hearing on the current claim,
using the language in Attachment 11 and the covering notice in Attachment
12; and
•
send both the Mason claim and the current claim to
the Vermont DDS (or to the appropriate DDS if the exception in
Part III. above applies) for DDS
consolidation and further action.
If the ALJ decides not to consolidate the Mason
claim with the current claim because: 1) the claims do not have any issues
in common; or 2) there is a court-ordered time limit, the ALJ
will:
•
flag the Mason claim for DDS review using
Attachment 13; immediately route it to the Vermont DDS (or to the
appropriate DDS if the exception in
Part III. above applies) for
readjudication; and retain a copy of Attachment 13 in the current claim
file; and
•
take the necessary action to complete the record and issue a decision on
the current claim.
3. Current Claim Pending at the Appeals Council
The action the Appeals Council takes on the current claim dictates the
disposition of the Mason claim. Therefore, OAO must
keep the claim folders together until the Appeals Council completes its
action on the subsequent claim. The following sections identify the
possible Appeals Council actions on the current claim and the appropriate
corresponding action on the Mason
claim.
a. Appeals Council Intends to Dismiss, Deny Review or Issue a Denial
Decision on the Current Claim -- No Mason Issue(s)
Will Remain Unresolved.
This situation will usually arise when the current claim duplicates the
Mason review claim, i.e., the current claim raises
the issue of disability and covers the entire period adjudicated in the
Mason claim, and the current claim has been
adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of
SSR 85-28 and the
current severity regulations, i.e.,
20 CFR §§
404.1520(c),
404.1521,
404.1523, 416.920(c), 416.921 and/or 416.923. In this instance, the
Appeals Council will consolidate the claims and proceed with its intended
action.
The Appeals Council's order, decision or notice of action will clearly
indicate that the ALJ's or Appeals Council's action resolved or resolves
both the current claim and the Mason
claim.
b. Appeals Council Intends To Dismiss, Deny Review or Issue a Denial
Decision on the Current Claim -- Mason Issue(s)
Will Remain Unresolved.
This situation will usually arise when the current claim does not
duplicate the Mason claim, e.g., the current claim
raises the issue of disability but does not cover the entire period
adjudicated in the Mason claim, i.e., the
Mason claim raises the issue of disability for a
period prior to the period adjudicated in the current claim. In this
instance, the Appeals Council will proceed with its intended action on the
current claim.
When action on the current claim is completed, OAO staff will attach a
Mason case flag (Attachment 9) to the
Mason claim, forward the
Mason claim to the Vermont DDS (or to the
appropriate DDS if the exception in
Part III. above applies) for
adjudication, and retain a copy of Attachment 9 in the current claim file.
OAO will modify Attachment 9 to indicate that the Appeals Council action
on the current claim does not resolve all Mason
issues and that the Mason class member claim is
being forwarded for separate processing. OAO staff will include copies of
the ALJ's or Appeals Council's decision or order or notice of denial of
request for review on the current claim and the exhibit list used for the
ALJ's or Appeals Council's decision.
c. Appeals Council Intends To Issue a Favorable Decision on the
Current Claim -- No Mason Issue(s) Will Remain
Unresolved.
If the Appeals Council intends to issue a fully favorable decision on a
current claim, and this decision would be fully favorable with respect to
all issues raised by the application that makes the claimant a
Mason class member, the Appeals Council will
proceed with its intended action. In this instance, the Appeals Council
will consolidate the claims, reopen the final determination or decision on
the Mason claim, and issue a decision that
adjudicates both applications.
The Appeals Council's decision will indicate clearly that the Appeals
Council considered the Mason claim pursuant to the
Mason Stipulation.
d. Appeals Council Intends To Issue a Favorable Decision on the
Current Claim -- Mason Issue(s) Will Remain
Unresolved.
If the Appeals Council intends to issue a favorable decision on a current
claim and this decision would not be fully favorable with respect to all
issues raised by the Mason claim, the Appeals
Council will proceed with its intended action. In this situation, the
Appeals Council will request the effectuating component to forward the
claim files to the Vermont DDS (or to the appropriate DDS if the exception
in Part III. above applies) after the
Appeals Council's decision is effectuated.
OAO staff will include the following language on the transmittal sheet
used to forward the case for effectuation: "Mason
court case review needed -- following effectuation forward the attached
combined files to:
|
Vermont Disability Determination
Service Ladd Hall Building 103 South Main
Street Waterbury,
VT 05676
|
(or to the appropriate DDS if the exception in
Part III. above applies)."
e. Appeals Council Intends To Remand the Current Claim to an
ALJ.
If the Appeals Council intends to remand the current claim to an ALJ, it
will proceed with its intended action unless one of the exceptions below
applies. In its remand order, the Appeals Council will direct the ALJ to
consolidate the Mason claim with the action on the
current claim pursuant to the instructions in
Part VI. D. 2. a. above.
The Appeals Council will not direct the ALJ to consolidate the claim
if
•
the current claim and the Mason claim do not have
any issues in common; or
•
a court remand contains a court-ordered time limit and it will not be
possible to meet the time limit if the claims are
consolidated.
If the claims do not share a common issue or a court-ordered time limit
makes consolidation impractical, OAO will forward the
Mason class member claim to the Vermont DDS (or to
the appropriate DDS if the exception in
Part III. above applies) for separate
review. The case flag in Attachment 9 should be modified to indicate that
the Appeals Council, rather than an ALJ, is forwarding the
Mason class member claim for separate
processing.
E. Class Member Claim Is Stored Pending Appeal
OAO will flag the case (see Attachment 10) for forwarding to the DDS at
the expiration of the appeal period.
VII. Case Coding
HO personnel will code prior claims into the Hearing Office Tracking
System (HOTS) and the OHA Case Control System (OHA CCS) as
“reopenings.” If the prior claim is consolidated with a
current claim already pending at the hearing level (see
Part VI. D. 2. c. above), HO personnel
will not code the prior claim as a separate hearing request. Instead, HO
personnel will change the hearing type on the current claim to a
“reopening.” If the conditions described in
Part VI. D. 2. b. and d. above apply, the
ALJ should dismiss the request for rehearing on the current claim, and HO
personnel should enter “OTDI” in the “DSP”
field.
To identify class member cases in HOTS, HO personnel will code
“M2” in the “Class Action” field. No special
identification codes will be used in the OHA CCS.
VIII. Inquiries
HO personnel should direct any questions to their Regional Office.
Regional Office personnel should contact the Division of Field Practices
and Procedures in the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge at
(703) 305-0022.
Attachment 1. - Mason v. Shalala Stipulation;
Approved by the United States District Court for the District of Vermont
and Filed January 23, 1995.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT
WENDELL MASON, on behalf of |
) |
|
himself and all others |
) |
|
similarly situated, |
) |
|
|
) |
|
Plaintiffs,
|
) |
Civil No. 83-390
|
|
) |
|
v. |
) |
|
|
) |
|
DONNA E. SHALALA. |
) |
|
Secretary of Health and |
) |
|
Human Services, |
) |
|
|
) |
|
Defendant.
|
) |
|
STIPULATION
The parties to this action, by their undersigned counsel, hereby agree to
a settlement of plaintiff's claims in this litigation in accordance with
the following terns and conditions:
1.
The class members who shall be entitled to seek relief pursuant to this
settlement shall be limited to those defined as follows:
a.
all Vermont applicants for Social Security disability benefits or
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits based upon disability who,
between May 30, 1984 and August 31, 1987, received an unfavorable final
administrative decision by the Secretary while residing in Vermont
resulting in denial or termination of such benefits based on a finding
that they did not have a severe impairment.
b.
However, the class shall exclude those individuals who subsequently
received a final decision in federal court with respect to an unfavorable
administrative decision, or who have received a subsequent administrative
determination or decision after August 31, 1997, with respect to the same
period at issue. The class shall also exclude claimants for SSI child's
benefits, who are or will be entitled to redeterminations pursuant to
Zebley v. Sullivan, 110 S. Ct. 885 (1990),
claimants for widows benefits, and those person who were or will be
entitled to readjudications under Aldrich v.
Sullivan, Civil No. 80-270 (D Vt.) for the same period at
issue.
2.
Those claim members who received an unfavorable final administrative
decision by the secretary while residing in Vermont resulting in a denial
or termination of Social Security disability benefits of Supplemental
Security Income based on a finding that they did not have a severe
impairment between September 1, 1987 and the date this Stipulation is
approved by the Court are not entitled to any relief under this settlement
and they will be notified accordingly by counsel for the
class.
Plaintiff's counsel agrees that if plaintiffs send individual notices to
claimants excluded from further relief pursuant to ¶ of this
Stipulation and Order that they will provide the Secretary with a draft of
the notice and allow the Secretary 10 days to comment prior to the
mailing.
3.
The Secretary agrees to publish notice of this settlement one time, within
ten days prior to the date set by the court for hearing on approval of the
settlement, in the following papers:
Burlington Free Press,
Caledonian Record,
Rutland Herald,
Times Argus,
Valley News,
Brattleboro Reformer,
The Newport Daily,
St. Albans Messenger and
Bennington Banner.
4.
Within 120 days after court's approval of this stipulation, the Social
Security Administration (SSA) shall, by means of its data processing
systems, identify the names, Social Security numbers and last known
addresses of potential class members in accordance with the criteria set
forth in ¶ 1 and 2. SSA shall provide plaintiffs' counsel with a copy
of the list of potential class members. The list provided to plaintiffs
counsel will be divided into two groups, those class members identified in
¶ 1 (a) and those class members identified in ¶ 2 who are not
entitled to any relief.
5.
Within 120 days of the Court's approval of this Stipulation, SSA will
issue advance copies of final instructions for screening and
re-adjudicating the claim of class members, including the notice referred
to in ¶ ¶ 6 and 9, to all SSA adjudicators responsible for
processing adjudications hereunder. The Secretary will provide copies of
the proposed final instructions to plaintiffs' counsel within a reasonable
time prior to distribution of the final instructions and will allow
plaintiffs 10 days after receipt to review and comment on the
instructions.
6.
Within 10 days of the issuance of the instructions described in ¶ 5
of this Stipulation, SSA shall send a notice by first class mail to each
potential class member so identified under ¶ 1.a., at his or her last
known address. This notice will advise potential class members of their
possible entitlement to a redetermination of their claims and will further
inform such individuals that they must return an enclosed pre-addressed,
postage prepaid form, within 120 days of receipt of the notice in order to
receive consideration for relief. The notice will contain the name and
telephone number of designated class counsel and will advise the
individual that legal assistance is available. The notice will also
contain a short tag statement in French, to be provided by plaintiff's
counsel, stating that the individual may be entitled to additional
benefits and to contact SSA for further assistance.
a.
Potential class members who never received the individual notices mailed
pursuant to this paragraph, may request readjudication at any SSA field
office within two years of the date of this order.
b.
For a period of 180 days after the date the notices in ¶ 6 are
released, SSA will post the notice in each SSA district office within
Vermont and provide plaintiffs' counsel with 100 additional posters which
they may distribute at offices other than the SSA.
c.
Further, the Secretary will provide a public service announcement to radio
stations in Vermont with the understanding that the Secretary will not
attempt to control, and will not have control over, the announcements
broadcast.
d.
SSA Survivor and substitute party provisions and existing procedures for
determining the distribution of any potential underpayment will apply to
any deceased class member's claims.
7.
In the event that a notice mailed pursuant to ¶ 6 is returned as
undeliverable, SSA will attempt to obtain updated addresses by providing a
computer tape to the Vermont Department of Social Welfare and the Vermont
Agency of Human Services, with a request for the performance by said
agency of a computerized a computerized match with public assistance, food
stamp and/or other relevant records. SSA will use its best efforts to
effect, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended by the
Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, a
computer match with a compatible, current or archival state data system.
Such match is restricted to the data available under income and
maintenance program. This attempt to deliver otherwise undeliverable
notices to potential class members is conditioned upon the willingness and
ability of the state agency to participate in a matching
process.
a.
SSA will thereafter mail e second notice to all potential class members
for whom updated addresses are obtained.
b.
After the state tape match and second notice, SSA will also provide
plaintiffs' counsel with a list of potential class members for whom mailed
notices were returned as undeliverable and plaintiffs' counsel shall have
90 days to search their records for an updated address.
8.
If a potential class member receives a notice and requests class
membership by responding more than 120 days after receiving such notice,
SSA shall determine whether the person has “good cause” for
the late request as defined in
20 C.F.R. §§
404.911 and
416.1411 and
SSR 91-5p.
9.
SSA will send an acknowledgment of receipt to those class members who have
responded. For those individuals who respond to the notice, SSA will
screen the applicable claims folders or other relevant records to
determine if they are class members. Those individuals who have been
determined not to be class members will be notified in writing of such
determination, and the basis for such denial, and will be further informed
of their right to a review thereof, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in ¶ 10 to this Stipulation. Copies of said notices shall be
sent contemporaneously to plaintiff's counsel.
For individuals whom SSA has determined to be class members, SSA will
contact these class members at the tine their redetermination is processed
as described in ¶ 13, to advise them of their right to submit
additional evidence pertaining to the period covered by the prior
denial.
10.
Individuals who disagree with a finding that they do not meet the class
membership criteria may contact or write plaintiffs' counsel for
additional review. Class counsel may, within 60 days of the date of the
class membership determination notice, in turn notify in writing an
individual to be designated in the Office of the General Counsel, Region
I, Boston, Massachusetts that review of the individual's claims file or
relevant records is desired. Within 30 days of the receipt of class
counsel's written request, SSA will make available that individual's
claims file or other relevant records at a designated SSA field office
location in Vermont and will notify, class counsel in writing. Such
records will be available for review by class counsel for a period of 30
days. At the expiration of the 30 days, if class counsel has still not
reviewed the records, it shall be assumed that review is no longer desired
and SSA's non-class membership determination shall become final and not
subject to further review.
11.
If class counsel's review establishes that there is a dispute as to
whether the individual is a class member, class counsel wi1l notify the
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services,
Region I, Boston, within 30 days of such review. Both parties will then
attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event the parties are unable to
settle the dispute, class counsel may submit any unresolved dispute to the
Court for final resolution by proper motion made within 30 days of the
date of written reaffirmation, by the Office of the General Counsel, of
the prior non-class membership determination, and the defendant shall have
the opportunity to respond consistent with federal and local court rules.
Failure of class counsel to request a judicial determination within the
aforesaid 30 day period shall render SSA's non-class membership
determination final and not subject to further review.
12.
The claims of individuals determined to be class members will be reviewed
and, if determined to be eligible, class members will be paid benefits
from:
a.
the sixth month following the date of onset of disability; or 12 months
prior to the date of filing, whichever is later, in cases of Title II
disability benefits;
b.
the date of application or established onset of disability, whichever is
later, in cases of Title XVI disability benefits; or
c.
the date of the termination of benefits in continuing disability
cases.
SSA shall provide plaintiffs' counsel with a copy of the notice of all
denied claims and shall make available to plaintiffs' counsel upon written
request a 10% random sample of these claim folders.
13.
The Secretary shall redetermine the applications of all persons found to
be class members using the Secretary's present severity regulations and
SSR 85-28. The
Secretary will consider new evidence, but only as it pertains to the
period covered by the prior decision. If the evidence of record at the
time of the prior decision is considered insufficient to make a
determination at step two of the sequential evaluation, the Secretary will
attempt to obtain any evidence necessary to make a step two determination.
Where, upon such redetermination, the individual's impairments are
considered to have been severe (either individually or in combination),
the Secretary shall evaluate the individual's claim in accordance with the
sequential evaluation set forth at
20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520 and
416.92D. If a
determination at steps three through five of the sequential evaluation
cannot be made without additional medical or vocational evidence the
Secretary shall seek to obtain such evidence. If a redetermination under
the paragraph results in a finding of disability for the period covered by
the prior decision, the claim shall be reopened and the individual's
disability shall be considered through the date of the new determination.
However, if a class member had obtained benefits for a subsequent period,
that subsequent period of eligibility will not be reopened except in
accordance with normal regulatory requirements or valid continuing
disability reviews.
14.
Except as noted in ¶¶ 15 and 16 of this Stipulation, all reviews
shall be conducted at the reconsideration level, with determinations being
appealable to an Administrative Law Judge upon request made pursuant to
the procedures set forth at
20 C.F.R. §§
404.933 and
416.1433. Appeal
of an Administrative Law Judge decision will be to the Appeals Council
upon request made pursuant to the procedures set forth at 2O C.F.R
§§ 404.968 and 416.1468. Class members will retain rights to
judicial review as provided in 42 U.S.C. §§ 4O5(g) and
1383(c)(1) and (3).
15.
At the option of SSA, class members with subsequent disability claims
active and simultaneously pending at any administrative level of review at
the time the class claim is being evaluated may have all other claims
covered by this stipulation consolidated with the current claim. SSA will
use its best efforts to ensure that current adjudication of current claims
will not be delayed by consolidation and claims will not be consolidated
at the Appeals Council level except for the purposes of issuing a fully
favorable decision.
16.
Class members having individual actions pending in federal court with
respect to the unfavorable administrative decision resulting in class
membership may elect either to have their claim remanded decides to
proceed with his or her individual action in administrative and judicial
review as provided in 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.933,
404.968, 416.1433,
and 416.1468) or to have the action proceed in federal court pursuant to,
and subject to, the limitations contained in 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g). Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed to avoid or
preclude the res judicata effect of a final court
decision where a class member decides to proceed with his or her
individual action in federal court.
17.
SSA will monitor the implementation of this Stipulation and shall provide
plaintiffs' counsel, on a quarterly basis until all class member's claims
are processed, reports containing the following information.
a.
the total number of persons notified initially of potential class
membership;
b.
the total number of persons who responded to the notice;
c.
the total number of persons responding who were found not to be class
members,
d.
the total number of persons responding determined to be class
members;
e.
the total number of class members found eligible for disability benefits
upon readjudication by the Vermont Disability Determination Service
(“DDS”);
f.
the total number of class members whose applications were denied upon
readjudication by the DDS.
18.
The time limitations set forth in this Stipulation shall be subject to
modification by mutual agreement of the parties at any time, or at the
request of either of the parties hereto, by motion duly served, upon a
showing of one or more of the following reasons:
a.
due to a material change in circumstances, compliance with the
provision(s) sought to be modified would impose an undue or unreasonable
burden not reasonably contemplated by the party seeking such modification
at the time this Stipulation was executed;
b.
despite good faith efforts by the party seeking such modification, the
time limitation sought to be modified is impractical or unworkable in
practice; or
c.
any other reason justifying relief from the operation thereof pursuant to
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Civil Procedure.
19.
Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the entry of the order approving this
stipulation within which to file a petition pursuant to the equal access
to Justice Act, and the Secretary shall have 10 days to
respond.
Individual class members who are successful in appealing the denial of
their individual claims on redetermination shall not be precluded from
pursuing Peer; pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act and/or 42
U.S.C. § 406.
20.
The terms set forth in this stipulation shall be in full settlement and
satisfaction of any and all claims and demands, except for claims for
attorney fees, costs and monitoring and implementation expenses, of
whatever nature, the plaintiffs had or may hereafter acquire against the
defendant, and any of her agencies, agents, servants, employees or
instrumentalities on account of and with respect to the incidents, claim
or circumstances giving rise to and/or alleged, in the above-entitled
action and as more particularly set forth in the pleadings filed herein.
Upon the Court's approval of this Stipulation, the complaint herein and
any amendments thereto shall be dismissed, with prejudice, and the court
shall retain continuing jurisdiction of this matter solely for the
purposes of interpreting and enforcing the terms of this
Stipulation.
21.
Because this Stipulation is entered by agreement of the parties, as a
means of avoiding further litigation, the terms of this Stipulation shall
not be cited as precedent in any other case.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLANTIFFS |
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT |
|
|
_________________________ |
CHARLES R. TETZLAFF |
DIXIE HENRY |
|
Vermont Developmental |
United States Attorney |
Disabilities Law Project |
|
P.O. Box 1367 |
by: ______________________ |
Burlington, VT 05402 |
CHRISTOPHER B. BARIL |
Federal Bar No.__________ |
Assistant U.S. Attorney |
|
P.O. Box 10 |
|
Rutland, VT 05702 |
|
(802) 773-0231 |
|
Federal Bar No.000295734 |
PAULA J. KANE |
|
18 Kingman Street |
|
St. Albans, VT 05478 |
|
Federal Bar No.__________ |
|
|
|
_________________________ |
|
RICHARD A. JOHNSTON, ESQ. |
|
BRIAN E. WHITELEY, ESQ. |
|
Hale Dorr |
|
60 State Street |
|
Boston, MA 02109 |
|
The foregoing Stipulation of the parties is approved and so ORDERED this
____ day, of _____________, 1993.
|
___________________________ |
|
FRED I. PARKER, Chief Judge |
|
U.S. DISTRICT Court |
Attachment 2. - Mason COURT CASE FLAG/ALERT
TITLE: CATEGORY:
REVIEW OFFICE PSC MFT DOC ALERT DATE
FUN NAME
SSN OR HUN RESP
DTE TOE
000-00-0000
FOLDER
LOCATION INFORMATION
TITLE CFL CFL DATE ACN PAYEE
ADDRESS
SCREENING OFFICE ADDRESS: |
SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
NORTHEASTERN
PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER
SECOND
FLOOR
P.O. BOX
314600
JAMAICA,
NEW YORK 11431
ATTN:
DISABILITY REVIEW SECTION
IF CLAIM IS PENDING IN OHA, THEN SHIP FOLDER
TO:
OFFICE
OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
OFFICE
OF APPELLATE OPERATIONS
ONE
SKYLINE TOWER, SUITE 701
5107
LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS
CHURCH, VA 22041-3200
ATTN:
OAO CLASS ACTION COORDINATOR
Attachment 3. - Route Slip or Case Flag for Screening
Mason Class Action Case
|
|
|
|
|
SCREENING NECESSARY
|
|
|
|
|
Claimant's Name: |
__________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
SSN : |
__________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
This claimant may be a Mason class member. The attached folder location information indicates that a current claim file is pending in your office. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached alert [and prior claim file(s)] for association, screening for class membership, consolidation consideration and possible readjudication. |
|
|
Please refer to HALLEX TI 5-4-50 for additional information and instructions. |
|
|
TO: ______________________________
|
__________________________________
|
__________________________________
|
__________________________________
|
|
|
CLASS ACTION CODE: M 2 |
1. CLAIMANT'S SSN
___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___
|
2. CLAIMANT'S NAME CLAIMANT'S NAME (LAST, FIRST, MI) (PLEASE PRINT)
|
3. DATE OF BIRTH (MM/DD/YYYY)
___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___
|
4. CLAIM NUMBER (BIC/ID)
___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___
|
5. DATE OF SCREENING (MM/DD/YYYY)
___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___
|
6. a. SCREENING RESULTS
Member (J) Non-Member or Member (F)
Entitled to Relief Not Entitled to Relief
___ ___
|
b. SCREENOUT CODE
___ ___
(see Item 14 for screenout codes)
|
7. Is this a DIB, CDB claim or a SSID adult claim?
|
___ Yes ___ No
(if No, go to 14)
|
8. Did the claimant receive a less than fully favorable final title II or title XVI determination/decision or termination at any administrative level, that was issued between May 30, 1984, and August 31, 1987, inclusive? (Note: Although not the “final decision” of the Secretary, an Appeals Council denial of a request for review is the last action of the Secretary, and the date of such a denial controls for the class membership screening purposes.) |
___ Yes ___ No
(if No, go to 14)
|
9. Did the claimant reside in the State of Vermont termination was issued? |
___ Yes ___ No
(if No, go to 14)
|
10. Was the final determination/decision or termination made on the basis of a finding that the claimant did not have a severe impairment(s)? |
___ Yes ___ No
(if No, go to 14)
|
11. Was the claim reviewed or will the claim be reviewed under Zebley or Aldrich for the entire period at issue in Mason, i.e., May 30, 1984, through August 31, 1987, inclusive? |
___ Yes ___ No
(if Yes, go to 14)
|
12. Was the final administrative decision reviewed and decided by a Federal court at any time? |
___ Yes ___ No
(if Yes, go to 14)
|
13. Did the claimant receive an administrative or judicial decision, either favorable or unfavorable, after August 31, 1987, on a subsequent claim which covered the entire period at issue in the potential Mason claim? |
___ Yes ___ No
(if Yes, go to 14)
|
14.The claimant is not a Mason class member entitled to relief. Check the nonmember block in item 6.a. and enter the screenout code in item 6.b. as follows:
Enter 07 if question O7 was answered “NO.”
Enter 08 if question 08 was answered “NO.”
Enter 09 if question 09 was answered “NO.”
Enter 10 if question 10 was answered “NO.”
Enter 11 if question 11 was answered “YES.”
Enter 12 if question 12 was answered “YES.”
Enter 13 if question 13 was answered “YES.”
Reason to use in the Nonmember Notice:
If screenout code is 07, check reason No. 1.
If screenout code is 08, check reason No. 2.
If screenout code is 09, check reason No. 3.
If screenout code is 10, check reason No. 4.
If screenout code is 11, check reason No. 5.
If screenout code is 12, check reason No. 6.
If screenout code is 13, check reason No. 7.
No other screenout code entry is appropriate
|
SCREENER'S NAME:
|
COMPONENT |
PHONE NUMBER |
DATE |
Enter dates of all applications screened and the date of the final determination/decision for each application.
________________ _________________ ________________ _________________
|
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MASON SCREENING SHEET
Questions 1-3: Fill in the claimant's own
SSN, name and date of birth.
Question 4: Fill in the SSN on which the
claim was filed and the BIC.
Question 5: Date on which the screening
is completed.
Question 6: Fill in the member/nonmember
block when the screening is completed.
Question 7: This preliminary screening
question limits relief to certain title II and/or title XVI disability
claims, e.g., DWB claims are excluded under the order. If the answer to
this question is “NO,” enter the appropriate screenout code
as directed in Item 14 on the screening sheet.
Question 8: This screening question is
looking for final determinations/decisions issued during the class
membership timeframe. Screen for date of determination/decision, not date
of application. The term “final” refers to the date of the
administrative determination/decision that became the binding decision of
the Secretary pursuant to
20 CFR §§
404.905,
404.921, 404.955,
404.972, 404.981, 416.1405, 416.1421, 416.1455, 416.1472 and 416.1481 and
does not mean that a class member must have exhausted administrative
remedies under §§ 205(g) and (h) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h)). Although not the “final
decision” of the Secretary, an Appeals Council denial of a request
for review is the last action of the Secretary, and the date of such a
denial controls for class membership screening purposes. If the answer to
the question is “NO,” enter the appropriate screenout code as
directed in Item 14 on the screening sheet.
Question 9: This screening question is
looking for the residency of the claimant at the time of the final
determination/decision. The claimant must have been residing in the State
of Vermont at the time the final determination/decision was issued. If the
answer to the question is “NO,” enter the appropriate
screenout code as directed in Item 14 on the screening
sheet.
Question 10: This screening question is
looking to see if the final determination/decision was made on the basis
of a non-severe impairment. To answer this question, start with a review
of the Form SSA-831-U5 for denial cases or a review of the Form SSA-833-U5
for cessation cases. If the regulation basis code on these forms does not
reflect a non-severe determination (e.g., FI and F2 for Title II cases or
N30 or N41 for Title XVI cases), check “NO” and enter the
appropriate screenout code as directed in Item 14 on the screening sheet.
See POMS DI 26510.45 for a description of the Reg. Basis Codes. In a DHU
or OHA case, read the decision to determine the basis for the denial. Use
the latest date on the Form SSA-831-U5, or other denial form, or the date
of the DHU or OHA decision as the date of the final
determination/decision. If the answer to this question is
“NO,” enter the appropriate screenout code as directed in
item 14 on the screening sheet. If a “lower level”
determination/decision was made on the basis of a non-severe impairment,
but the final determination/decision on appeal was not based on a finding
of a non-severe impairment, the claimant is not a class member entitled to
relief.
Question 11: This screening question is
looking to see if the claim was or will be reviewed under
Zebley or Aldrich for the
entire period at issue in the potential Mason case.
If the claim was or will be reviewed pursuant to one of these class
actions, the claimant is not a Mason class member.
If the answer to this question is “YES,” enter the
appropriate screenout code as directed in Item 14 on the screening
sheet.
Question 12: Check to see if the final
administrative decision made during the class member timeframe (i.e., May
30, 1984, through August 31, 1987, inclusive) was appealed to a Federal
court and decided by the court. If the answer is “YES,” enter
the appropriate screenout code as directed in Item 14 on the screening
sheet.
Question 13: This class relief exception
applies only if the individual has received all benefits to which s/he
could be entitled based on the potential class member claim. Review the
file to determine whether benefits were subsequently (e.g., since August
31, 1987) allowed or continued (in cessation or closed period cases) from
the earliest onset date, cessation date or a control date of a claim
decided within the timeframes for class membership. The allowance or
continuance could have been either on the same claim or on a subsequent
application. If the answer to this question is “YES,” enter
the appropriate screenout code as directed in Item 14 on the screening
sheet.
Note: If full retroactive benefits were not awarded because of
subsequent application filing date limitations, route the case to a claims
authorizer, if Title II, or to the appropriate FO, if Title XVI, for the
preparation of an amended award in accordance with
DI 42529.010
C.6.
Processing Class Member Determinations
a.
Be sure to check the “Member Entitled to Relief” block in
item 6. a. of the screening sheet.
b.
Sign and date the screening sheet. Enter the name of the screening
component, e.g. OHA, OAO, Branch XX, and the screener's phone
number.
c.
Show the dates of all applications screened and the dates of the final
administrative action on each.
d.
Retain the original screening sheet in the claim file (on the top right
side of the file). Send a copy to:
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Office of Appellate
Operations
One Skyline Tower, Suite 701
5107 Leesburg
Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3200
Attn:
OAO Class Action Coordinator[The Class Action Coordinator will enter information from the screening
sheet onto a data base and forward the screening sheet to the Division of
Litigation Analysis and Implementation (DLAI). DLAI will retain a copy of
each screening sheet and forward a copy to the Litigation Staff at SSA
Central Office.]
Processing Non-class Member Determinations
a.
Be sure to check the “Nonmember or Member Not Entitled to
Relief” block in item 6. a. of the screening sheet and enter the
screen-out code in item 6. b.
b.
Follow items b. - d. above.
c.
Prepare notice and forward the claim file(s) as indicated in
HALLEX HA 01540.050,
________.
Attachment 5. - Route Slip for Routing Mason Court Case
Flag/Alert (and Prior Claim File(s) -- OHA No Longer Has Current
Claim
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP |
DATE: |
TO: |
INITIALS |
DATE |
1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|
XX |
ACTION |
|
FILE |
|
NOTE AND RETURN |
|
APPROVAL |
|
FOR CLEARANCE |
|
PER CONVERSATION |
|
AS REQUESTED |
|
FOR CORRECTION |
|
PREPARE REPLY |
|
CIRCULATE |
|
FOR YOUR INFORMATION |
|
SEE ME |
|
COMMENT |
|
INVESTIGATE |
|
SIGNATURE |
|
COORDINATION |
|
JUSTIFY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REMARKS |
|
MASON CASE
|
|
|
Claimant: ___________________________ |
|
|
|
SSN: ________________________________ |
|
|
|
OHA received the attached alert [and prior claim file(s)] for screening and no longer has the current claim file. Our records show that you now have possession of the current claim. Accordingly, we are forwarding the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) for association with the current claim. After associating the alert with the current claim, please forward to the NEPSC or to the DDS, if appropriate, for screening. SEE POMS DI 12529.001 ff., DI 32529.001 ff., OR DI 42529.001 ff. |
|
|
|
|
Attachment |
|
|
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, |
clearances, and similar actions. |
FROM: Office of Hearings and Appeals __________________________________________ |
SUITE/BUILDING |
PHONE NUMBER |
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
*U.S.GPO:1985-0-461-274/20020
Prescribed by GSA
FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206
Attachment 6. - Non-Class Membership Notice
SOCIAL
SECURITY Important Information
NOTICE
_____________________________________________________________
From: Social Security Administration
(Insert address and phone number here.)
_____________________________________________________________
___________________________ DATE:
______________________________
___________________________ CLAIM NUMBER:
________________________
___________________________ DOC:
___________________________________
We are writing to tell you that we received your request to review your
earlier claim for disability benefits under the
Mason settlement agreement. We have looked at your
case and have decided that you are not a class member entitled to relief.
This means that we will not review our earlier decision that you were not
disabled. The reason that you are not a class member entitled to relief
under the Mason court order is checked below.
|
|
You are not a Mason class member entitled to relief because: |
|
|
1. _____ |
We have no record that you filed a claim for Disability Insurance Benefits, Child's Insurance Benefits based on disability, or adult Supplemental Security Income disability benefits or that your benefits were ceased between May 30, 1984, and August 31, 1987, inclusive. |
|
|
2. _____ |
We did not issue a final decision denying or stopping your Social Security or adult Supplemental Security Income disability benefits between May 30, 1984, and August 31, 1987, inclusive. |
|
|
3. _____ |
You did not live in the state of Vermont when we issued the final decision denying or stopping your benefits. |
|
|
4. _____ |
We denied or stopped your benefits between May 30, 1984, and August 31, 1987, inclusive, but not because you did not have a severe impairment. |
|
|
5. _____ |
Your claim was or will be reviewed under the Zebley or Aldrich court orders for the same time period as your Mason claim. |
|
|
6. _____ |
Your claim was reviewed and decided by a Federal court. |
|
|
7. _____ |
You already received a decision on a later claim which covered the same time period as your Mason claim. |
|
|
8. _____ |
Your claim was denied for other reasons. They are as follows: |
|
_____________________________________________________ |
|
_____________________________________________________ |
|
_____________________________________________________ |
|
_____________________________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
We are Not Deciding If You Were Disabled
It is important for you to know that we are not making a decision about
whether you were disabled at the time of your earlier claim. We are
deciding only that you are not a Mason class member
entitled to relief.
If You Do Not Agree With This Determination
A copy of this letter will be mailed to the attorney representing the
Mason class. If you do not agree with our decision
that you are not a class member, you should call or write to the class
attorney, who will answer your questions about class membership. If the
attorney thinks this determination is incorrect, she has 60 days from the
date of this letter to ask us to look at your case again. The name and
address of the attorney is:
|
Dixie Henry, Esq. Vermont
Developmental Disabilities Law Project P.O. Box
1367 Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 863-2881
|
If You Think You Are Disabled Now
If you think you are disabled now, you should fill out a new application.
A new application is not the same as asking us to review your claim under
Mason. In the new application, you may not be able
to receive disability benefits for the period of time you asked for in
your prior claim. If you decide to file a new application, contact any
Social Security office.
If You Have Any Questions
If you have any questions, you may contact your Social Security office.
The address and phone number are printed at the top of this letter. If you
call or visit an office, please have this notice with you. It will help us
answer your questions. You may also contact your personal legal
representative, if you have one, or the Mason class
attorney listed above.
SI VOUS NE COMPRENEZ PAS CET AVIS, VOUS POUVEZ VISITER UN BUREAU DE
SÉCURITÉ SOCIALE POUR UNE EXPLICATION. PRIERE D'APPORTER CET
AVIS AVEC VOUS.
cc: Dixie Henry, Esq.
Attachment 7. - Route Slip for Non-Class Membership Cases
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP |
DATE: |
TO: |
INITIALS |
DATE |
1. SSA District Office 58
Pearl Street Burlington, VT 05401
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|
XX |
ACTION |
|
FILE |
|
NOTE AND RETURN |
|
APPROVAL |
|
FOR CLEARANCE |
|
PER CONVERSATION |
|
AS REQUESTED |
|
FOR CORRECTION |
|
PREPARE REPLY |
|
CIRCULATE |
|
FOR YOUR INFORMATION |
|
SEE ME |
|
COMMENT |
|
INVESTIGATE |
|
SIGNATURE |
|
COORDINATION |
|
JUSTIFY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REMARKS |
|
Mason
|
|
|
Claimant: ___________________________ |
|
|
|
SSN: ________________________________ |
|
|
|
We have determined that this claimant is not entitled to relief as a Mason class member. (See screening sheet and copy of non-class membership notice in the attached claim folder(s).) SEE POMS DI 12529.001 ff. |
|
|
|
|
Attachment |
|
|
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, |
clearances, and similar actions. |
FROM: Office of Hearings and Appeals __________________________________________ |
SUITE/BUILDING |
PHONE NUMBER |
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
|
*U.S.GPO:1985-0-461-274/20020 Prescribed by GSA
|
FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206
|
Attachment 8. - Acting Associate Commissioner’s Memorandum Dated February
21, 1991, Entitled “The Standard for Evaluating 'Not Severe'
Impairments”

|
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services |
Social Security Administration |
------------------- |
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
------------ |
------------------------------------------- |
Refer to:
|
|
|
Office of Hearing and Appeals |
|
|
|
PO Box 3200 |
|
|
|
Arlington, VA 22203 |
MEMORANDUM TO: |
|
|
Headquarters Executive Staff Appeals Council Members Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judges Administrative Law Judges Supervisory Staff Attorneys Decision Writers
|
FROM: |
Acting Associate Commissioner |
SUBJECT: |
The Standard for Evaluating “Not Severe” Impairments - ACTION |
During the past few months, the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has
requested voluntary remand in a number of cases, denied by the Secretary
at step two of the sequential evaluation, on the grounds that the
decisions have not been fully consistent with SSA policy and the Supreme
Courts opinion in Bowen v. Yuckert, 82 U.S. 137
(1987).
Despite the Yuckert decision, extensive litigation,
both in individual cases and in significant class actions, continues on
the issue of how the Agency applies the step two standard expressed in
Social Security Ruling (SSR)
815-28. Because the courts continue to give step two denials close
scrutiny, I am asking all adjudicators and decision writers to carefully
review SSR 85-28 to
ensure that they are applying the proper standard for adjudicating claims
at step two.
In accordance with SSR
85-28, a step two denial is appropriate only in very limited
situations. The evidence must establish that the claimant's impairment or
combination of impairments is so slight that it does not have more than a
minimal effect on the individual's ability to perform basic work
activities. When the (medical evidence is inconclusive and does not
clearly establish the effect of a claimant's impairment(s), or when the
evidence shows more than a minimal effect, the claim may not be denied at
step two.
Decisions denying claims at step two must include a comprehensive analysis
of all the evidence of record and a decisional rationale consistent with
SSR 85-28). Even when
the medical evidence of accord clearly fails to establish that the
claimant has more than a slight mental or physical abnormality, the
decision must clearly show that the adjudicator evaluated all the evidence
and must articulate the reasons for finding that the impairment(s) is not
severe. Furthermore, when the claimant has a medically determinable
impairment(s) which might reasonably be expected to cause pain or other
symptoms, the decision must include an evaluation of the claimant's
subjective complaints using the factors outlined in
SSR 88-13 or its
equivalent, i.e., SSR
90-1p for Fourth Circuit cases.
If hearing office personnel have questions or need copies of applicable
instructions, they should contact the appropriate Regional Office.
Regional Office personnel should direct their questions to the Division of
Field Practices and Procedures, Office of the Chief Administrative LAW
Judge.
Attachment 9. - Mason Class Member Flag for Headquarters
Use (DDS Readjudication -- retention period expired)
Mason Class Action Case
|
|
|
|
|
READJUDICATION NECESSARY
|
|
|
|
|
Claimant's Name: |
__________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
SSN : |
__________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
This claimant is a Mason class member. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached claim file(s) to the DDS for readjudication. |
|
|
Send the file(s) to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Destination code: ____) |
|
|
If a reconsideration disability hearing or a face-to-face review is
required, the claim file must be sent to the “resident” DDS
(see Part III. of the TI).
Attachment 10. - Mason Class Member Flag for Headquarters
Use (DDS Readjudication -- retention period has not expired)
Mason Class Action Case
|
|
|
|
|
READJUDICATION NECESSARY
|
|
|
|
|
Claimant's Name: |
__________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
SSN : |
__________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
This claimant is a Mason class member. After expiration of the retention period, forward claim file(s) to the DDS for readjudication. |
|
|
Send the file(s) to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Destination code: ____)
|
|
|
If the claimant has filed a civil action and elected to remain in court
for review of the current claim, forward the Mason
claim file(s) without delay to the DDS for readjudication.
If a reconsideration disability hearing or a face-to-face review is
required, the claim file must be sent to the “resident” DDS
(see Part III. of the TI).
Social Security
Administration
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
IN THE CASE OF |
|
CLAIM FOR |
|
|
|
__________________________ |
|
__________________________ |
|
|
|
__________________________ |
|
__________________________ |
|
|
|
This case is before the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to a request for hearing filed on _________________ with respect to the application(s) filed on _________________. |
|
In accordance with the Stipulation negotiated by the parties and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Vermont in the case of Mason v. Shalala, No. 83-390 (D. Vt. January 23, 1995), the claimant has requested a redetermination of the final (determination/decision) on the prior application(s) filed on ______________. The claimant has been identified as a Mason class member and is entitled to have the final administrative denial of the prior application(s) reviewed under the terms of the Mason Stipulation and Order. Because the claimant's current claim shares certain issues in common with the prior claim, the undersigned hereby dismisses without prejudice the request for hearing. |
|
The claimant's current application(s) will be associated with the prior claim(s) and forwarded to the Vermont Disability Determination Service [or the “resident” DDS, if appropriate] which will conduct the Mason redetermination. |
|
|
|
The Disability Determination Service will notify the claimant of its new determination and of the claimant's right to file a new request for hearing. |
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________ |
|
|
Administrative Law Judge |
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________ |
|
|
Date |
Attachment 12. Notice Transmitting ALJ Order of Dismissal
|
|
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
|
|
|
Claimant's Name |
|
Address |
|
City, State Zip |
|
|
|
Enclosed is an order of the Administrative Law Judge dismissing your request for hearing and returning your case to the Vermont Disability Determination Service [or the “resident” DDS, if appropriate] which makes disability determinations for the Social Security Administration. Please read this notice and Order of Dismissal carefully. |
|
|
What This Order Means |
|
|
|
The Administrative Law Judge has sent your current claim and your Mason class member claim back to the Vermont Disability Determination Service [or the “resident” DDS, if appropriate] for further processing. The enclosed order explains why. |
|
|
The Next Action on Your Claim |
|
|
The Vermont Disability Determination Service will contact you to tell you what you need to do. If you do not hear from the Vermont Disability Determination Service [or the “resident” DDS, if appropriate] within 30 days, contact your local Social Security office. |
|
|
Do You Have Any Questions? |
|
|
If you have any questions, contact your local Social Security office. If you visit your local Social Security office, please bring this notice and the Administrative Law Judge's order with you. |
|
|
Enclosure |
|
|
|
cc: |
|
(Name and address of representative, if any) |
(Social Security Office (City, State)) |
Attachment 13. - Mason Class Member Flag for HO Use (DDS
Readjudication)
Mason Class Action Case
|
|
READJUDICATION NECESSARY
|
|
|
Claimant's Name: |
|
__________________________________ |
|
|
|
SSN: |
|
__________________________________ |
|
|
|
This claimant is a Mason class member. The attached Mason claim file was forwarded to this hearing office for possible consolidation with a current claim. |
|
|
|
_______ |
|
The Administrative Law Judge has determined that the prior and current claims do not share a common issue and, therefore, should not be consolidated. |
|
|
|
OR |
|
|
|
_______ |
|
The claims have not been consolidated because: |
|
|
|
|
|
[state reason(s)]__________________________________ |
|
|
______________________________________________ |
|
|
|
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached alert and prior claim file(s) to your location for any necessary Mason readjudication action. |
|
We are sending the alert and prior folder(s) to: |
|
|
|
|
(Destination code: ____ )
|
|
If a reconsideration disability hearing or a face-to-face review is
required, the claim file must be sent to the resident “DDS”
(see Part III. of the TI)