14828 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The NPRM is available at http://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-20/pdf/2014-03426.pdf. 

AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Milwaukee ................... General Mitchell Intl .... 5/9537 02/11/15 LOC RWY 25L, Amdt 5. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Milwaukee ................... General Mitchell Intl .... 5/9538 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 25L, Amdt 

1B. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Milwaukee ................... General Mitchell Intl .... 5/9539 02/11/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 25L, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Mineral Point ............... Iowa County ................ 5/9540 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Mineral Point ............... Iowa County ................ 5/9541 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Wausau ....................... Wausau Downtown ..... 5/9550 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Wausau ....................... Wausau Downtown ..... 5/9551 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Reedsburg .................. Reedsburg Muni ......... 5/9552 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Reedsburg .................. Reedsburg Muni ......... 5/9553 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Black River Falls ......... Black River Falls Area 5/9554 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Sparta ......................... Sparta/Fort Mc Coy .... 5/9555 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Mosinee ...................... Central Wisconsin ....... 5/9556 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Mosinee ...................... Central Wisconsin ....... 5/9557 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Mosinee ...................... Central Wisconsin ....... 5/9558 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Mosinee ...................... Central Wisconsin ....... 5/9559 02/11/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 13. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Mosinee ...................... Central Wisconsin ....... 5/9560 02/11/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 2. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Mosinee ...................... Central Wisconsin ....... 5/9561 02/11/15 VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 9. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Baraboo ...................... Baraboo Wisconsin 

Dells.

5/9562 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Baraboo ...................... Baraboo Wisconsin 

Dells.

5/9563 02/11/15 LOC/DME RWY 1, Amdt 1A. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Baraboo ...................... Baraboo Wisconsin 

Dells.

5/9564 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Medford ....................... Taylor County ............. 5/9567 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Medford ....................... Taylor County ............. 5/9568 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Marshfield ................... Marshfield Muni .......... 5/9569 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Marshfield ................... Marshfield Muni .......... 5/9570 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Marshfield ................... Marshfield Muni .......... 5/9571 02/11/15 NDB RWY 5, Amdt 14. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Hartford ....................... Hartford Muni .............. 5/9572 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ WI Hartford ....................... Hartford Muni .............. 5/9573 02/11/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig. 

2-Apr-15 ............ NE Ogallala ....................... Searle Field ................ 5/9777 02/12/15 VOR RWY 8, Amdt 6A. 

2-Apr-15 ............ NE Ogallala ....................... Searle Field ................ 5/9778 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-B. 

2-Apr-15 ............ NE Ogallala ....................... Searle Field ................ 5/9779 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 2A. 

2-Apr-15 ............ NE Ogallala ....................... Searle Field ................ 5/9780 02/12/15 VOR RWY 26, Amdt 6A. 

2-Apr-15 ............ NE Ogallala ....................... Searle Field ................ 5/9781 02/12/15 VOR/DME RWY 26, Amdt 1A. 

2-Apr-15 ............ NE Ogallala ....................... Searle Field ................ 5/9782 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-A. 

2-Apr-15 ............ NE Ogallala ....................... Searle Field ................ 5/9783 02/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 2A. 

2-Apr-15 ............ NE Ogallala ....................... Searle Field ................ 5/9784 02/12/15 VOR/DME RWY 8, Amdt 1A 

[FR Doc. 2015–06251 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404, 405, and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2012–0068] 

RIN 0960–AH53 

Submission of Evidence in Disability 

Claims 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are clarifying our 

regulations to require you to inform us 

about or submit all evidence known to 

you that relates to your disability claim, 

subject to two exceptions for certain 

privileged communications. This 

requirement includes the duty to submit 

all evidence that relates to your 

disability claim received from any 

source in its entirety, unless you 

previously submitted the same evidence 

to us or we instruct you otherwise. We 

are also requiring your representative to 

help you obtain the information or 

evidence that we require you to submit 

under our regulations. These 

modifications to our regulations will 

better describe your duty to submit all 

evidence that relates to your disability 

claim and enable us to have more 

complete case records on which to make 

more accurate disability determinations 

and decisions. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 20, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet Truhe, Office of Retirement and 

Disability Policy, Social Security 

Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235– 

6401, (410) 966–7203. For information 

on eligibility or filing for benefits, call 

our national toll-free number, 1–800– 

772–1213, or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or 

visit our Internet site, Social Security 

Online, at http://

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on February 20, 2014 (79 FR 

9663). The preamble to the NPRM 

discussed the changes from our current 

rules and our reasons for proposing 

those changes.1 In the NPRM, we 

proposed to clarify our regulations to 

require you to inform us about or submit 

all evidence known to you that relates 

to your disability claim, subject to two 

exceptions for certain privileged 

communications. We explained that this 

requirement would include the duty to 

submit all evidence from any source in 

its entirety, unless subject to one of 

these exceptions. We also proposed to 

require your representative to help you 

obtain the information or evidence that 

we would require you to submit under 

our regulations. 

Public Comments 

We provided 60 days for the public to 

comment on the NPRM. We received 85 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14829 

2 79 FR at 9665. 

3See 20 CFR 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a); see also 

42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(B) and 1382c(a)(3)(G). 

4See 20 CFR 404.1523 and 416.923. 

5See 20 CFR 404.1512(d) and 416.912(d). 

6See 20 CFR 404.1740 and 416.1540. 

7 79 FR at 9664. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. at 9665. 

comments. The comments came from 

members of the public, advocacy 

groups, legal organizations, members of 

the disability advocacy community, and 

several national groups of Social 

Security claimants’ representatives. 

After carefully considering the 

comments, we are adopting our 

proposed rule revisions, with the 

changes described below, in this final 

rule. 

We provide summaries of the 

significant comments that were relevant 

to this rulemaking and our responses to 

those comments below. Some 

commenters supported the proposed 

changes. We appreciate those 

comments, but we have not summarized 

or responded to them because they do 

not require a response. 

The Submission of Evidence That 

Relates to Disability Claims 

Comment: Several commenters said 

our proposal in 20 CFR 404.1512(a) and 

416.912(a) for claimants to submit 

evidence that ‘‘relates’’ to their 

disability claims is less clear than our 

current requirement to submit evidence 

that is ‘‘material’’ to the disability 

determination. Other commenters said 

the word ‘‘relates’’ is too vague and 

claimants will not know, for example, if 

they must inform us about medical 

treatment for a physical impairment 

when they have alleged disability based 

solely on a mental impairment. Several 

of these commenters said requiring 

claimants to submit information that 

‘‘relates’’ to their disability claims 

would be an invasion of privacy, as it 

could include every matter about a 

claimant’s health history (for example, 

an abortion or HIV status). Other 

commenters said it would be difficult 

for claimants to know whether nonmedical information, such as from 

social media or other types of 

proceedings (for example, a worker’s 

compensation claim), ‘‘relates’’ to their 

disability claims. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters. Unless the context 

indicates otherwise, we generally intend 

for the words we use in our regulations 

to be construed according to their 

ordinary meaning. In final 

§§ 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a), we 

intend for the word ‘‘relates’’ to have its 

ordinary meaning, which is to show or 

establish a logical or causal connection 

between two things. Our current rules 

already incorporate this concept in the 

definition of evidence. Under our 

current rules, and under this final rule, 

we define evidence as ‘‘anything you or 

anyone else submits to us or that we 

obtain that relates to your claim.’’ In our 

experience, neither claimants nor their 

representatives have had any difficulty 

determining whether something 

qualified as ‘‘evidence’’ under this 

definition. 

Our current regulations, however, 

describe a claimant’s duty to submit 

evidence in several ways and suggest 

that claimants must furnish medical and 

non-medical evidence that is ‘‘material’’ 

to the disability determination. The 

issue of what is ‘‘material’’ involves 

legal judgment. As we explained in the 

NPRM, by requiring claimants to submit 

all evidence that ‘‘relates’’ to their 

disability claims, we are removing the 

need to make that type of judgment.2

In addition, we expect claimants to 

exercise their reasonable, good faith 

judgment about what evidence ‘‘relates’’ 

to their disability claims keeping in 

mind, however, that the meaning of 

‘‘relates’’ is broad and includes anything 

that has a logical or causal connection 

whether it is favorable or unfavorable to 

the claim. It is also important to note 

that we consider all of a claimant’s 

impairments for which we have 

evidence, not just the ones alleged,3 and 

we consider the combined effect of all 

impairments.4 We are also required, 

subject to certain exceptions, to develop 

a complete medical history for at least 

the 12 months preceding the date of the 

disability application.5 Therefore, 

evidence of treatment for conditions 

other than the one alleged by the 

claimant could relate to the disability 

claim. For example, if a claimant alleged 

a back impairment, the treatment 

records from health care providers other 

than the treating orthopedic surgeon (for 

example, from a family doctor who has 

rendered treatment for a condition other 

than the one alleged) may contain 

related information. Therefore, we may 

ask the claimant if he or she saw other 

providers during the period at issue. In 

addition, if the back impairment arose 

out of an injury at work, we would 

expect the claimant, upon our request, 

to inform us whether he or she filed a 

worker’s compensation claim. If so, we 

may obtain the records from that claim, 

because they may contain evidence that 

‘‘relates’’ to the claim for disability. 

However, we would expect our 

adjudicators to exercise their 

reasonable, good faith judgment when 

requesting information or evidence from 

claimants. For example, we would not 

require a claimant to disclose treatment 

for a health matter such as an abortion, 

if the claimant alleged disability based 

on a genetic disorder. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that we not revise our 

regulations regarding the submission of 

evidence, because they believed our 

current rules work well. Several of these 

commenters said claimants already have 

a duty to inform us about all medical 

treatment received and submit evidence 

that is ‘‘material’’ to the disability 

determination. Some of these 

commenters also said no change was 

necessary regarding the submission of 

evidence by representatives, because 

attorneys have an ethical duty not to 

withhold evidence. Some of these 

commenters said our current ‘‘Rules of 

conduct and standards of responsibility 

for representatives,’’ which apply to 

attorney and non-attorney 

representatives,6 are sufficient to ensure 

the submission of complete evidence on 

behalf of claimants. One of these 

commenters recommended that we 

impose harsher penalties on 

representatives who withhold evidence 

that is unfavorable to the disability 

claim. 

Response: We did not adopt the 

comments. As we explained in the 

NPRM, our current regulations describe 

a claimant’s duty to submit medical and 

non-medical evidence in several ways, 

and they could be clearer about the duty 

to submit all evidence (both favorable 

and unfavorable) that relates to the 

disability claim.7 Similarly, our current 

regulations governing the conduct of 

representatives describe their related 

duty to submit evidence in several 

ways; those regulations could also be 

clearer.8 We provide that greater clarity 

in this final rule. The need for greater 

clarification also implicates program 

integrity because, as we explained in the 

NPRM, we know that we do not always 

receive complete evidence from 

claimants or their representatives.9

Clarifying our rules regarding the duty 

to submit all evidence that relates to the 

disability claim will ‘‘enable us to 

obtain more complete case records and 

adjudicate claims more accurately.’’ 10

In addition, as we previously stated, 

our current regulations suggest that 

claimants and their representatives must 

make legal judgments about what is 

‘‘material’’ to the disability claim. Our 

final rule removes the need to make that 

type of legal judgment. 

Comment: Several commenters 

questioned how claimants would inform 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

14830 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

11See Form SSA–3368–BK, Disability Report— 

Adult (available at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ 

forms/ssa-3368.pdf). 12For example, in some cases, we may want to 

obtain evidence about a claimant’s ability to 

function and perform activities of daily living, and 

we will ask him or her to complete Form SSA– 

3373–BK, Function Report—Adult. We would 

expect the claimant to provide all information 

known to him or her that relates to the requests on 

this form. 

13See Program Operations Manual System 

(POMS) DI 11005.004 (available at: https:// 

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0411005004). 14For example, when obtaining evidence from a 

claimant with a mental impairment, our 

adjudicators should consider any request for 

accommodation, such as giving additional time to 

comply. See POMS DI 23007.005 (available at: 

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/ 

0423007005). 

15Administrative Conference of the United 

States, SSA Disability Benefits Programs: The Duty 

of Candor and Submission of All Evidence, at 40 

(Oct. 15, 2012) (‘‘ACUS Final Report’’), available at 

http://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 

ACUS_Final_Report_SSA_Duty_of_Candor.pdf. 

us about all evidence that ‘‘relates’’ to 

their disability claims and asked 

whether they will have to volunteer this 

information or simply respond to our 

specific requests. Some of these 

commenters said it would be 

burdensome and unrealistic to require 

claimants, particularly those who are 

unrepresented, homeless, or who have 

mental impairments, to disclose on a 

voluntary basis every disability-related 

statement or activity. Other commenters 

asked whether claimants should 

memorialize, and then submit to us, all 

of the disability-related statements they 

made to others (for example, to doctors, 

friends, or family members). One of the 

commenters asked whether the duty to 

submit all evidence would require 

claimants to disclose the names of all 

people with personal knowledge of the 

claim. Another commenter asked 

whether claimants would have a duty to 

supplement information they previously 

submitted, if they later become aware of 

additional responsive information. 

Another commenter asked if claimants 

would have to disclose the existence of 

evidence, which they were unaware of 

at the time of our initial request, but that 

they became aware of later. One 

commenter asked whether the duty to 

submit all evidence would apply at the 

Appeals Council level. 

Response: We use a standardized 

process for obtaining information and 

evidence from claimants about their 

disability claims. For example, in the 

adult disability application process, we 

ask a variety of questions about the 

claimant’s medical condition, work 

activity, job history, and medical 

treatment.11 Under final §§ 404.1512(a) 

and 416.912(a), we expect claimants to 

comply with their duty to submit 

evidence by providing all information 

known to them that relates to these 

requests. We may also make other types 

of requests for information and evidence 

that we would expect claimants to 

provide.12

Aside from responding fully to our 

specific requests, claimants also submit 

other evidence to us. Claimants do not 

have to memorialize statements made to 

others or disclose the names of all 

people with personal knowledge of their 

claims, unless they would like us to 

consider that information. Final 

§§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) require 

only that claimants submit all evidence 

‘‘received’’ from another source in its 

entirety. 

For claimants who need assistance in 

responding to our requests for 

information and evidence, we currently 

provide that assistance. For example, 

when a claimant submits a disability 

application, we ask the claimant to 

provide the name of someone we can 

contact who knows about the claimant’s 

medical condition and can help the 

claimant with his or her disability 

claim. We also provide special 

procedures for obtaining evidence from 

homeless claimants 13 and instruct our 

adjudicators on how to assist claimants 

with mental impairments when 

requesting information or evidence from 

them.14

The duty to inform us about or submit 

all evidence that relates to the disability 

claim is ongoing, and we have modified 

proposed (now final) §§ 404.1512(a) and 

416.912(a) to clarify that claimants must 

disclose any additional evidence related 

to their disability claims about which 

they become aware. Therefore, after we 

have made a request for a particular 

type of information or evidence, 

claimants must supplement their 

previous response, if they become aware 

of additional related evidence. 

Claimants must also disclose the 

existence of evidence that they were 

unaware of at the time of our initial 

request, but become aware of later on. 

This ongoing duty applies at each level 

of the administrative review process, 

including the Appeals Council level if 

relates to the period which is the subject 

of the most recent hearing decision. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that we only require 

claimants to submit evidence in specific 

categories (for example, medical 

records), which was one of several 

options suggested by the Administrative 

Conference of the United States (ACUS) 

in its Final Report.15 These commenters 

said this requirement would be 

preferable to the more general 

requirement we proposed in 

§§ 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a) (for the 

submission of all evidence that ‘‘relates’’ 

to the disability claim), because it 

would minimize the need for claimants 

or their representatives to make legal 

judgments about whether evidence is 

‘‘material’’ or ‘‘relevant.’’ One of these 

commenters also said it would be 

difficult for claimants to know what 

constitutes related unfavorable 

evidence. 

Response: We did not adopt these 

comments. We considered ACUS’s 

suggestion that we identify a particular 

category of documents that a claimant 

must identify or produce with some 

reasonable degree of certainty, but we 

decided that it was not practical for 

several reasons. First, there is a wide 

variety of evidence that could relate to 

a disability claim, and it is difficult to 

specify all of the potential categories in 

a regulation (aside from medical 

records, which we need to determine 

disability in all cases). Second, as we 

previously stated, we removed the need 

for claimants to make any legal 

judgments about what evidence they 

should submit. By requiring the 

submission of all evidence that ‘‘relates’’ 

to the disability claim in final 

§§ 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a), claimants 

will only have to inform us about or 

submit evidence that has a logical or 

causal connection with their disability 

claims; such evidence will necessarily 

include both favorable and potentially 

unfavorable evidence. Thus, there will 

be no need for claimants to determine 

what constitutes ‘‘unfavorable’’ 

evidence. 

Comment: Several commenters said 

we should not require claimants to 

submit evidence that relates to their 

disability claims if it is unfavorable. For 

example, some of these commenters 

said unfavorable evidence could be 

inaccurate or unreliable, or it could 

come from doctors who are biased 

against claimants or are not 

knowledgeable about certain 

impairments. Another commenter said 

the requirement to submit all evidence 

that relates to the disability claim would 

preclude representatives from exercising 

their professional judgment about what 

evidence they should submit in support 

of their clients’ disability claims. One 

commenter expressed concern that the 

requirement could mean claimants 

would have to submit statements by 

those who have a personal grudge (for 

example, a former spouse). Another 

commenter believed the requirement to 

submit unfavorable evidence might 

deter claimants from seeking medical 

evaluations that could lead to helpful 

treatment out of fear they might have to 

disclose this information later in a 

disability claim. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14831 

16 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8. 

17See 20 CFR 404.902 and 416.1402. 18 79 FR at 9665. 

19Social Security Protection Act of 2004, section 

201, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8. 

20 Id. section 201, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8(a)(1). 

21 Id. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters. We proposed to require 

claimants to submit all evidence 

(favorable or unfavorable) that relates to 

their disability claims because we 

believe a more complete record will give 

us a fuller picture of the extent of a 

claimant’s impairments and the 

limitations they impose. As a result, we 

expect that the changes we are making 

in this final rule will enable us to make 

more accurate disability determinations 

and decisions, consistent with 

Congress’s intent and our responsibility 

to ensure the proper stewardship of the 

disability program. Allowing claimants 

(or their representatives) to inform us 

about or submit only the evidence that 

they would like us to consider would 

undermine that goal. It would also be 

inconsistent with Congress’s intent in 

enacting section 201 of the Social 

Security Protection Act of 2004 

(SSPA),16 which authorizes us to 

impose a civil monetary penalty on a 

claimant who should have come 

forward to notify us of changed 

circumstances that affect eligibility, but 

failed to do so. As we previously stated, 

we expect our adjudicators to exercise 

their reasonable, good faith judgment 

when requesting evidence from 

claimants that relates to the disability 

claim. Therefore, we do not believe 

claimants or their representatives will 

have to respond to requests for 

information or evidence that are 

burdensome or pertain to unrelated 

matters. 

In addition, it is fair to require the 

disclosure of related but potentially 

unfavorable evidence, because 

claimants (or their representatives) can 

explain to us why they believe we 

should give such evidence little or no 

weight. Claimants and their 

representatives routinely make 

arguments for and against certain 

evidence in other types of cases, and 

they can also make these arguments in 

disability cases. Moreover, we do not 

base our determinations or decisions on 

only one piece of evidence when we 

adjudicate a claim. Rather, our 

adjudicators must base their 

determinations and decisions on the 

preponderance of the evidence.17

Because we base our determinations or 

decisions on a preponderance of the 

evidence, we do not believe the 

commenter’s concern that unfavorable 

evidence could be inaccurate or 

unreliable, or could come from a 

medical source who is biased or not 

knowledgeable about certain 

impairments, requires us to make any 

revisions to the final rule. In addition, 

we disagree with one commenter’s 

suggestion that the duty to submit 

potentially unfavorable evidence might 

deter people from seeking medical 

evaluations and treatment out of fear 

they might have to disclose this 

evidence in a future disability claim. We 

believe that view is speculative and 

contrary to how people behave, which 

is to act in their best interests by seeking 

medical treatment when needed. 

Comment: Several commenters said 

our proposal to require the submission 

of all evidence that relates to the 

disability claim makes the 

determination process more formal and 

adversarial. Some of these commenters 

believed this requirement would be 

inconsistent with our duty to gather 

evidence regarding the claim. One of 

these commenters said that providing 

claimants with the protections of 

attorney-client privilege and the 

attorney work product doctrine was 

inconsistent with the informal and nonadversarial nature of our current 

disability determination process. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters. In fact, the non-adversarial 

nature of our disability determination 

process is what requires us to ensure a 

high level of cooperation from 

claimants. Moreover, we did not 

propose any change to how we 

determine disability at any level of the 

administrative review process. In the 

NPRM, we stated that our disability 

system is ‘‘non-adversarial,’’ and we 

reaffirmed our duty to ‘‘assist claimants 

in developing the medical and nonmedical evidence we need to determine 

whether or not they are disabled.’’ 18

The requirement for claimants to inform 

us about or submit all evidence that 

relates to the disability claim does not 

change the process for how we 

determine disability. Rather, as we have 

stated repeatedly, this requirement will 

simply enable us to make more accurate 

disability determinations, because we 

will have more complete case records 

on which to make those determinations. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about claimants who 

conceal evidence from their 

representatives, either intentionally or 

by mistake, and asked whether we 

would penalize the representative in 

these situations. Some of the 

commenters also expressed concern 

about unrepresented claimants who 

mistakenly withhold evidence from us 

that we believe relates to the disability 

claim. These commenters believed it 

would be unfair for us to penalize these 

claimants, especially if their mistakes 

were due to a cognitive difficulty. 

Response: As we previously stated, 

under our final rule, we expect 

claimants to exercise their reasonable, 

good faith judgment about what 

evidence ‘‘relates’’ to their disability 

claims consistent, of course, with the 

meaning of the term ‘‘relates,’’ which 

could include unfavorable evidence. 

Our final rule does not broaden or 

otherwise alter the Commissioner’s 

statutory authority to impose a civil 

monetary penalty under the SSPA.19

The standard for imposing a civil 

monetary penalty under the SSPA 

requires the Commissioner to find that 

a person withheld ‘‘disclosure of, a fact 

which the person knows or should 

know is material to the determination of 

any initial or continuing right to . . . 

[benefits or payments].’’ 20 The 

Commissioner must also find that the 

person ‘‘knows, or should know, that 

the statement or representation with 

such omission is false or misleading or 

that the withholding of such disclosure 

is misleading.’’ 21 Given the standard set 

forth in the SSPA, we do not expect that 

a claimant who mistakenly withholds 

evidence due to a cognitive deficit 

would be subject to a civil monetary 

penalty. We also do not expect that a 

representative would be subject to a 

civil monetary penalty under the SSPA 

if the representative’s client concealed 

evidence from him or her. It is also 

important to note, as we previously 

stated, that we assist any claimant who 

requests help in responding to our 

requests for information or evidence, 

and we have special procedures when 

requesting information or evidence from 

homeless claimants and those with 

mental impairments. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that rather than revise our 

regulations regarding the submission of 

evidence by claimants and their 

representatives, we should instead do 

more to obtain the evidence we need to 

decide disability claims. For example, 

one of these commenters recommended 

that we assign a government 

representative to work with claimants 

(or their representatives) to ensure the 

development of needed evidence. 

Another commenter suggested that we 

consider expanding our own obligation 

to assist claimants in obtaining medical 

records. 

Response: We did not adopt the 

comments, some of which are outside 

the scope of this rulemaking proceeding. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

14832 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

22 79 FR at 9665. See 20 CFR 404.1512(d) and (e), 

416.912(d) and (e). 

23See 20 CFR 404.1740(b)(1) and (2) and 

416.1540(b)(1) and (2). 

24 79 FR at 9665–66. 

25See 20 CFR 404.1740 and 416.1540. 

26ACUS Final Report at 38. 

27As we explained in the NPRM, this doctrine 

protects an attorney’s analysis, theories, mental 

impressions, and notes from disclosure. 79 FR at 

9666 (footnote omitted). 

28As we noted in the NPRM, however, the 

attorney-client privilege does not protect the 

disclosure of underlying facts that the claimant 

communicates to the attorney; it protects only the 

disclosure of the communication, itself. Id. at 9665. 

As we explained in the NPRM, under 

our current regulations, we assist 

claimants in developing the medical 

and non-medical evidence we need to 

determine disability throughout the 

administrative review process.22

Representatives (attorney and nonattorney) also assist claimants in 

submitting evidence and in complying 

with our requests for evidence.23

Therefore, we do not believe it is 

necessary to assign an additional 

government representative to assist 

claimants or their representatives in the 

evidence collection process. In any 

event, such a suggestion is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking proceeding. 

In addition, we are always striving to 

find better methods of obtaining 

medical and other evidence we need to 

decide disability claims. For example, 

use of health information technology 

(HIT) enables us to access and organize 

a person’s complete medical records 

upon receipt of a claim. We continue to 

expand our use of HIT and explore ways 

of improving the medical and nonmedical evidence collection process. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about our removal of 

the term ‘‘relevant’’ in proposed 

§§ 404.1512(b)(1)(iii) and 

416.912(b)(1)(iii). Sections 

404.1512(b)(3) and 416.912(b)(3) 

currently refer to evidence of disabilityrelated statements made by the claimant 

or others ‘‘or any other relevant 

statements’’ made by the claimant ‘‘to 

medical sources during the course of 

examination or treatment, or to us 

during interviews, on applications, in 

letters, and in testimony in our 

administrative proceedings.’’ Without 

the term ‘‘relevant,’’ the commenters 

asked whether there would be any limit 

on the scope of these ‘‘other 

statements,’’ which we require 

claimants to disclose under this final 

rule. 

Response: We removed the term 

‘‘relevant’’ in proposed (now final) 

§§ 404.1512(b)(1)(iii) and 

416.912(b)(1)(iii) to avoid confusion 

with the standard for submission of 

evidence in this final rule, which is the 

submission of all evidence that ‘‘relates’’ 

to the disability claim. These sections 

must still be read, however, in 

conjunction with final §§ 404.1512(b) 

and 416.912(b), where we define the 

term ‘‘evidence’’ as ‘‘anything you or 

anyone else submits to us or that we 

obtain that relates to your claim.’’ 

(Emphasis added). All of the categories 

of ‘‘evidence’’ that we go on to define 

in these sections, such as the ‘‘other 

statements’’ referred to in final 

§§ 404.1512(b)(1)(iii) and 

416.912(b)(1)(iii), are, therefore, limited 

in scope to those that relate to the 

disability claim. 

The Privilege and Work Product 

Exceptions 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern about our extension 

of the protections afforded by attorneyclient privilege and the attorney work 

product doctrine in proposed 

§§ 404.1512(b)(2)(iii) and 

416.912(b)(2)(iii) to non-attorney 

representatives. One of these 

commenters said non-attorney 

representatives have no experience or 

knowledge of what these privileges 

protect; therefore, the claimants they 

represent may not have the same 

protections as claimants who are 

represented by attorneys. The other 

commenter said it was not practical or 

reasonable to require non-attorneys to 

make legal judgments about what 

communications would be subject to 

these privileges. This commenter also 

said that extension of these privileges to 

non-attorney representatives would 

cause confusion and uncertainty, 

resulting in detriment to claimants. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters for several reasons. First, 

we defined both types of privileges in 

plain language and gave examples of 

what would and would not be covered 

by each privilege in the NPRM and in 

this final rule.24 Second, our current 

‘‘Rules of conduct and standards of 

responsibility’’ apply to all 

representatives,25 and we do not believe 

there is any basis to distinguish between 

attorney and non-attorney 

representatives regarding their duty to 

help obtain the evidence that claimants 

must submit. We would disadvantage 

certain claimants if we did not apply the 

protections afforded by these privileges 

to non-attorney representatives. For 

example, claimants who are represented 

by non-attorney representatives would 

have to disclose information that a 

claimant represented by an attorney 

representative would not be required to 

disclose. Finally, as recommended by 

ACUS, we believe that any changes to 

our evidence regulations should apply 

to both attorney and non-attorney 

representatives because, under the 

Social Security Act and our rules, a 

claimant has the right to be represented 

by either an attorney or a qualified nonattorney representative.26

Comment: Several commenters said 

the requirement for attorney 

representatives to assist claimants in 

submitting related but unfavorable 

evidence would violate their state bar 

ethics rules requiring the preservation of 

client confidentiality and zealous 

representation. One of these 

commenters said this requirement 

would also violate state bar rules 

because it would require the submission 

of attorney work product. Some of the 

commenters expressed concern about 

situations where claimants direct their 

attorneys to withhold unfavorable 

evidence, which may leave the attorneys 

with having to choose between 

following their clients’ instructions and 

complying with a representative’s duty 

to help the claimant obtain the 

information or evidence that he or she 

must submit under the final rule. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters. In proposed (now final) 

§§ 404.1512(b)(2)(i) and 416.912(b)(2)(i), 

we exclude from the definition of 

evidence oral and written 

communications between claimants and 

their representatives (attorney or nonattorney) that are, or would be, subject 

to the attorney-client privilege, unless 

the claimant voluntarily discloses them 

to us. In proposed (now final) 

§§ 404.1512(b)(2)(ii) and 

416.912(b)(2)(ii), we also exclude from 

the definition of evidence the 

information that is generally subject to 

the attorney work product doctrine.27

We drafted the requirement for 

claimants to inform us about or submit 

all evidence that relates to the disability 

claim with the attorney client and 

attorney work product privileges in 

mind, and believe that the final rule 

does not require an attorney to violate 

his or her ethical duty to keep client 

communications confidential 28 or 

require the submission of attorney work 

product. 

In addition, while we acknowledge 

that state bar rules generally require 

client confidentiality and zealous 

representation, we do not believe state 

bar rules prevent an attorney from 

complying with our Federal rule, which 

requires a representative to help a 

claimant satisfy his or her disclosure 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14833 

29ACUS Final Report at 33–34 (citing the ABA’s 

Model Rules of Professional Conduct section 

1.6(b)(6) (2012). 

30See Robert Rains, Professional Responsibility 

and Social Security Representation: The Myth of the 

State-Bar Bar to Compliance with Federal Rules on 

Production of Adverse Evidence, 92 Cornell L. Rev. 

363, 390 (2007). 

31 Id. at 392. 

32 Id. 

33See Form SSA–827, Authorization to Disclose 

Information to the Social Security Administration. 

34We describe what we mean by ‘‘evidence’’ in 

final 20 CFR 404.1512(b)(1) and 416.912(b)(1). 

35Under our policy, if a claimant appoints a 

representative, we make all contacts in connection 

with that claim or a post-entitlement issue through, 

or with the permission of, the appointed 

representative. This policy is subject to exceptions 

when the representative asks us to deal directly 

with the claimant, the claimant alleges blindness or 

a visual impairment and elects to receive notices by 

first class mail with a follow-up telephone call from 

us to read the notices, there is an indication that 

a representative’s appointment may have expired, 

or the contact involves a possible violation by the 

representative. See POMS GN 03910.050A 

(available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/

poms.nsf/lnx/0203910050). 36 79 FR at 9666. 

obligation. As ACUS noted, the 

American Bar Association’s (ABA) 

Model Rules of Professional Conduct 

permit attorneys to disclose otherwise 

confidential information if ‘‘other law’’ 

or a ‘‘court order’’ requires the 

disclosure.29 These rules would 

constitute such ‘‘other law.’’ In addition, 

as one leading legal scholar in this area 

has noted, ‘‘none of the opinions’’ that 

various State bars have issued on a 

representative’s duty to submit adverse 

evidence in connection with a disability 

claim ‘‘suggests that an attorney may 

violate federal law because of a state bar 

ethics rule.’’ 30 Moreover, ‘‘Even if a 

state’s bar rules did not contain 

provisions similar to Model Rules 

1.6(b)(6) or 8.5(b), the notion that an 

attorney could be punished by his or her 

state bar for complying with federal law 

in a federal forum is antithetical to the 

Supremacy Clause’’ of the Constitution 

and the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 

U.S. 379 (1963).31 In short, ‘‘there is no 

merit to the argument that an SSA rule 

mandating that an attorney disclose 

adverse evidence would subject an 

attorney to sanctions by his or her state 

bar.’’ 32

Furthermore, we are unaware of any 

other forum that permits attorneys to 

withhold unfavorable evidence, if it 

relates to an issue in the case. Under 

this final rule, we expect all 

representatives (attorney or nonattorney) to inform the claimants they 

represent that we do not permit the 

withholding of any evidence related to 

the disability claim, even if it is 

unfavorable. Accordingly, in the 

situation described by several 

commenters where the claimant directs 

the representative to withhold 

unfavorable evidence, that 

communication is privileged, but the 

evidence would still have to be 

produced. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we extend the 

protections afforded by attorney-client 

privilege to non-authorized 

representatives, such as physicians, 

licensed clinical social workers, and 

other licensed health care providers. 

The commenter noted that many of 

these professionals engage in privileged 

communications with their patients, 

and they sometimes assist patients with 

their disability claims. Therefore, the 

commenter said we should also regard 

these communications as privileged. 

Response: We did not adopt the 

comment. When claimants apply for 

disability benefits, they sign an 

authorization form that permits all 

medical and certain other sources to 

disclose all medical records and other 

information related to the claimant’s 

ability to perform tasks.33 Therefore, 

claimants cannot keep these otherwise 

privileged communications about their 

physical or mental condition(s) private. 

Comment: One commenter believed 

that our exception for privileged 

communications between claimants and 

their representatives, unless voluntarily 

disclosed by the claimant, would permit 

us to communicate directly and 

impermissibly with claimants instead of 

their representatives. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter. In final §§ 404.1512(b)(2)(i) 

and 416.912(b)(2)(i), we exclude from 

the definition of ‘‘evidence,’’ 34 oral and 

written communications between 

claimants and their representatives, 

unless the claimant voluntarily 

discloses them to us. The attorney-client 

privilege belongs to the client, and only 

the client can waive this privilege. The 

exception for voluntary disclosure of 

otherwise privileged communications in 

final §§ 404.1512(b)(2)(i) and 

416.912(b)(2)(i) is in recognition of this 

legal principle; it does not mean we 

intend to communicate directly with 

claimants who have representatives 

assisting them with their disability 

claims.35

Comment: Several commenters asked 

why we proposed a more limited 

version of the work product doctrine in 

§§ 404.1512(b)(2)(ii) and 

416.912(b)(2)(ii) than is recognized 

under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Several of these 

commenters said a more limited version 

of the work product doctrine would 

deter representatives from having 

candid discussions with a claimant’s 

medical sources, due to the potential of 

having to disclose an unfavorable or 

inaccurate written report. Some 

commenters said that representatives 

would have to disclose written opinions 

received from medical experts, even if 

the expert was not going to testify. The 

commenters recommended we adopt the 

full scope of the work product doctrine, 

so representatives could withhold this 

type of evidence. 

Response: We did not adopt the 

comments. We proposed a more limited 

version of the work product doctrine 

because we believe program integrity 

requires us to obtain complete medical 

evidence (favorable or unfavorable) in 

disability claims. Therefore, we 

expressly stated in proposed (now final) 

§§ 404.1512(b)(2)(ii) and 

416.912(b)(2)(ii) that representatives 

could not withhold any medical 

evidence or medical source opinions 

based on the attorney work product 

doctrine. As we explained in the NPRM, 

if a claimant’s medical source sends his 

or her representative medical records or 

a written opinion about the claimant’s 

medical condition, the representative 

cannot withhold those records or that 

opinion based on the work product 

doctrine adopted under these rules.36 If 

those records or that opinion contains 

an inaccuracy or unfavorable 

information, then claimants or their 

representatives can explain this to us. 

In addition, representatives may still 

protect from disclosure their 

consultation with any medical source 

about the claimant’s medical condition. 

As we stated previously, if a 

representative takes notes during a 

discussion with a claimant’s medical 

source, those notes are protected from 

disclosure as work product. Moreover, 

under the final rule, the representative 

does not have to request a written 

opinion from any medical source. 

Therefore, representatives can fully 

investigate the merits of any disability 

claim, and they do not have to disclose 

the results of their investigation, unless 

they obtain a medical record or a 

written opinion from a medical source. 

The Submission of Evidence In Its 

Entirety 

Comment: Many commenters asked 

whether our proposal in §§ 404.1512(c) 

and 416.912(c) to require the 

submission of evidence from a source in 

its entirety would create a duty on the 

part of claimants (or their 

representatives) to request and submit 

all medical records from all treating 

sources. Several commenters asked 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

14834 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

37 Id. at 9665 (emphasis added). 

38 Id. at 9666. 

39These are the Form SSA–3368–BK, Disability 

Report—Adult (available at: http://

www.socialsecurity.gov/forms/ssa-3368.pdf), and 

the Form SSA–3820–BK, Disability Report—Child 

(available at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/forms/

ssa-3820.pdf). 40See final 20 CFR 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a). 

whether claimants (or their 

representatives) should request all 

records from a treating source or only 

those dated after the onset of disability. 

Some of the commenters noted that 

medical records could be costly and 

difficult for some claimants to obtain. 

One of these commenters said treating 

sources do not always send all the 

records requested, and another 

commenter noted that sometimes a 

doctor sends records for someone other 

than the claimant by mistake. Another 

commenter described the example of a 

hospital file numbering 1000 pages or 

more and asked whether a 

representative could simply request and 

submit the discharge summary. Other 

commenters asked whether we would 

still be requesting and paying for 

medical records from sources identified 

by claimants. One commenter asked 

whether claimants would now have to 

obtain and submit not only all medical 

evidence, but also all non-medical 

evidence that relates to the disability 

claim. Another commenter 

recommended that we lower the burden 

on claimants to submit all related nonmedical evidence, because its 

evidentiary value is less than that of 

medical evidence. Another commenter 

suggested we require claimants to 

submit only medical evidence in its 

entirety. 

Response: We are modifying proposed 

(now final) §§ 404.1512(c) and 

416.912(c) to clarify that claimants must 

submit evidence ‘‘received’’ from 

another source in its entirety. We did 

not intend in these sections to impose 

a duty on claimants or their 

representatives to request and submit all 

evidence (medical and non-medical) 

from all sources, and we believe this 

clarification makes that intent more 

clear. For example, if claimants or their 

representatives request only the 

discharge summary from a hospital 

chart, we require them to submit only 

what they receive in response to that 

request in its entirety. We would not 

require them to request and pay for all 

of the other records from that 

hospitalization. We would also not 

require them to submit any record for a 

person other than the claimant, sent by 

mistake, because it clearly would not 

relate to the disability claim. 

Moreover, as we proposed in 

§§ 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a) and 

explained in the NPRM, by requiring 

claimants ‘‘to inform us about or 

submit’’ all evidence that relates to the 

disability claim, we are not shifting our 

responsibility for developing the record 

to claimants 37 or their representatives.38

For example, we currently request the 

names and addresses of medical sources 

in our disability application process.39

Under the final rule, we expect 

claimants to respond fully by providing 

that information; we will then obtain 

the records from those sources. As we 

previously stated, we also expect 

claimants to respond fully to any other 

requests we make for information or 

evidence related to their disability 

claims. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed concern about our 

requirement for claimants to submit 

evidence from another source in its 

entirety, because it would require the 

submission of potentially duplicative 

evidence. One of these commenters 

described the example of when a 

representative submits medical records 

from a treating source and then requests 

updated records; the source sends 

everything he or she has already 

provided, plus the updated records. 

Another commenter noted that our 

adjudicators sometimes instruct 

claimants (or their representatives) not 

to submit duplicative records. The 

commenters recommended we not 

require the submission of evidence that 

is already in the claim file, because that 

evidence can be costly for claimants to 

resubmit and time-consuming for our 

adjudicators to review. To avoid 

duplicative evidence, one commenter 

recommended that we not require 

claimants to submit any evidence 

previously submitted by them. Other 

commenters recommended that we 

simply not require the submission of 

any duplicative evidence. 

Response: We partially adopted the 

comments by clarifying in final 

§§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) that 

evidence from another source must be 

submitted in its entirety ‘‘unless you 

previously submitted the same evidence 

to us or we instruct you otherwise.’’ 

For example, in the scenario 

described above about the receipt of 

duplicative medical records from a 

treating source, the representative is 

only required to submit the updated 

records; he or she would not have to 

submit any record duplicative of the one 

previously submitted. In addition, by 

‘‘duplicative,’’ we mean an exact 

duplicate of a document in the record, 

and not simply the substance of what is 

in the record. 

The other exception we provide in 

final §§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) is for 

when one of our adjudicators directs 

claimants or their representatives not to 

submit duplicative evidence; in that 

case, they would not have to submit that 

evidence under the final rule. We do not 

believe it is advisable to preclude the 

submission of all duplicative evidence, 

however, because this would impose a 

duty on claimants to review their files 

before submitting new evidence. For 

claimants who do not have 

representatives, this could be a 

significant burden in some cases. Not 

requiring claimants (or their 

representatives) to resubmit the same 

evidence they previously submitted is, 

however, reasonable. We believe the 

two limited exceptions for duplicative 

evidence specified in final 

§§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) will 

underscore the importance of 

submitting evidence received from 

another source in its entirety and better 

ensure our goal of having more 

complete case records on which to make 

more accurate disability determinations 

and decisions. 

Comment: One commenter believed 

the proposed revisions to our 

regulations governing the submission of 

evidence would require claimants to get 

representatives. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter. We did not propose any 

change to our regulations that would 

require claimants to get representatives. 

In addition, by stating that the 

claimant’s duty to submit evidence now 

includes the option to simply ‘‘inform 

us about’’ evidence that relates to the 

disability claim,40 we believe it will be 

easier for claimants to comply with their 

duty to submit evidence. Our 

responsibility to assist claimants in 

developing the record also remains 

unchanged. 

Comment: Many commenters said our 

requirement in proposed §§ 404.1512(c) 

and 416.912(c) for claimants to submit 

evidence from another source in its 

entirety would burden our adjudicators 

with an excessive amount of potentially 

irrelevant evidence. Several of these 

commenters noted, for example, that 

medical records from some sources 

(such as the Department of Veterans 

Affairs) can be voluminous, and the 

time spent reviewing those records 

would cause delays in the adjudication 

of disability claims. Several of these 

commenters said a provider’s medical 

records could include evidence that is 

unrelated to the disability claim. Other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14835 

41For more information about compassionate 

allowances, see www.socialsecurity.gov/

compassionateallowances. 

commenters expressed concern about 

whether our adjudicators would 

carefully review voluminous records 

submitted by claimants (or their 

representatives). Several commenters 

said it would be preferable for claimants 

or their representatives to exercise their 

own judgment and submit only those 

records or other evidence that they 

think is relevant. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters. We do not believe the 

requirement to submit all evidence 

received from another source in its 

entirety will burden our adjudicators 

with having to review unnecessary 

evidence in most cases. First, as we 

previously stated, we did not intend in 

proposed (now final) §§ 404.1512(c) and 

416.912(c) to require claimants (or their 

representatives) to request and submit 

all medical and non-medical evidence 

from all sources, and we modified these 

sections to clarify that claimants must 

only submit evidence ‘‘received’’ from 

another source in its entirety. We did 

not adopt the comments recommending 

that we permit claimants or their 

representatives to decide what evidence 

they would like to submit from these 

other sources, because this would 

undermine the purpose of the final rule, 

which is to enable us to have more 

complete records on which to 

adjudicate claims more accurately. 

Second, as we previously stated, we 

modified proposed (now final) 

§§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) to require 

the submission of evidence received 

from another source in its entirety, 

unless previously submitted by the 

claimant or otherwise instructed by us 

in a particular case. We believe these 

exceptions to the general requirement 

for submission of evidence in its 

entirety will reduce the receipt of 

duplicative and, therefore, unnecessary 

evidence. 

Finally, we do not share the concerns 

of the commenters who said the 

submission of voluminous documents 

by claimants or their representatives 

would burden our adjudicators and 

delay the adjudication of disability 

claims. For example, when a claimant 

has had extensive medical treatment, it 

is already our practice to request 

complete medical records, unless we 

can decide the claim based on minimal 

objective medical evidence, as in the 

case of a compassionate allowance.41

Our program experience shows that our 

adjudicators have little difficulty 

reviewing medical and other evidence 

expeditiously to find the information 

they need to decide the claim. We also 

continue to expand our use of HIT, 

which enables us to speed our review of 

medical records, even when they are 

voluminous. We intend to take full 

advantage of this technology as it 

becomes more widespread in the 

medical community. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 13563 

We consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

determined that this final rule meets the 

criteria for a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed it. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this final rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because it affects individuals only. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These rules do not create any new or 

affect any existing collections and, 

therefore, do not require Office of 

Management and Budget approval 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; and 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance) 

List of Subjects 

20 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability 

Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social Security. 

20 CFR Part 405 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability 

Insurance, Public assistance programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social Security, 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 

20 CFR Part 416 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability 

benefits, Public assistance programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we amend subparts J, P, and 

R of part 404, subparts A and D of part 

405, and subparts I, N, and O of part 416 

as set forth below: 

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD–AGE, 

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE (1950–) 

Subpart J—[Amended] 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart J 

of part 404 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)–(b), 

(d)–(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 

404(f), 405(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 

425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97–455, 96 

Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)– 

(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 

U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 

118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 

■ 2. Amend § 404.900 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 404.900 Introduction. 

* * * * * 

(b) Nature of the administrative 

review process. In making a 

determination or decision in your case, 

we conduct the administrative review 

process in an informal, non-adversarial 

manner. Subject to the limitations on 

Appeals Council consideration of 

additional evidence (see §§ 404.970(b) 

and 404.976(b)), we will consider at 

each step of the review process any 

information you present as well as all 

the information in our records. You may 

present the information yourself or have 

someone represent you, including an 

attorney. If you are dissatisfied with our 

decision in the review process, but do 

not take the next step within the stated 

time period, you will lose your right to 

further administrative review and your 

right to judicial review, unless you can 

show us that there was good cause for 

your failure to make a timely request for 

review. 

■ 3. Revise § 404.935 to read as follows: 

§ 404.935 Submitting evidence prior to a 

hearing before an administrative law judge. 

You should submit information or 

evidence as required by § 404.1512 or 

any summary of the evidence to the 

administrative law judge with the 

request for hearing or within 10 days 

after filing the request, if possible. Each 

party shall make every effort to ensure 

that the administrative law judge 

receives all of the evidence (see 

§ 404.1512) or all of the evidence is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

14836 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

available at the time and place set for 

the hearing. 

Subpart P—[Amended] 

■ 4. The authority citation for subpart P 

of part 404 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a)–(b) and (d)– 

(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 

225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)–(b) and (d)–(h), 416(i), 

421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 

902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, 110 

Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 

118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 

■ 5. In § 404.1512, revise paragraphs (a) 

through (c) to read as follows: 

§ 404.1512 Evidence. 

(a) General. In general, you have to 

prove to us that you are blind or 

disabled. You must inform us about or 

submit all evidence known to you that 

relates to whether or not you are blind 

or disabled. This duty is ongoing and 

requires you to disclose any additional 

related evidence about which you 

become aware. This duty applies at each 

level of the administrative review 

process, including the Appeals Council 

level if the evidence relates to the 

period on or before the date of the 

administrative law judge hearing 

decision. We will consider only 

impairment(s) you say you have or 

about which we receive evidence. 

(b) What we mean by ‘‘evidence.’’ 

Evidence is anything you or anyone else 

submits to us or that we obtain that 

relates to your claim. 

(1) Evidence includes, but is not 

limited to: 

(i) Objective medical evidence, that is, 

medical signs and laboratory findings as 

defined in § 404.1528(b) and (c); 

(ii) Other evidence from medical 

sources, such as medical history, 

opinions, and statements about 

treatment you have received; 

(iii) Statements you or others make 

about your impairment(s), your 

restrictions, your daily activities, your 

efforts to work, or any other statements 

you make to medical sources during the 

course of examination or treatment, or 

to us during interviews, on applications, 

in letters, and in testimony in our 

administrative proceedings; 

(iv) Information from other sources, as 

described in § 404.1513(d); 

(v) Decisions by any governmental or 

nongovernmental agency about whether 

or not you are disabled or blind (see 

§ 404.1504); 

(vi) At the initial level of the 

administrative review process, when a 

State agency disability examiner makes 

the initial determination alone (see 

§ 404.1615(c)(3)), opinions provided by 

State agency medical and psychological 

consultants and other program 

physicians, psychologists, or other 

medical specialists based on their 

review of the evidence in your case 

record (see § 404.1527(e)(1)(ii)); 

(vii) At the reconsideration level of 

the administrative review process, when 

a State agency disability examiner 

makes the determination alone (see 

§ 404.1615(c)(3)), findings, other than 

the ultimate determination about 

whether or not you are disabled, made 

by the State agency medical or 

psychological consultants and other 

program physicians, psychologists, or 

other medical specialists at the initial 

level of the administrative review 

process, and other opinions they 

provide based on their review of the 

evidence in your case record at the 

initial and reconsideration levels (see 

§ 404.1527(e)(1)(iii)); and 

(viii) At the administrative law judge 

and Appeals Council levels, findings, 

other than the ultimate determination 

about whether or not you are disabled, 

made by State agency medical or 

psychological consultants and other 

program physicians or psychologists, or 

other medical specialists, and opinions 

expressed by medical experts or 

psychological experts that we consult 

based on their review of the evidence in 

your case record (see §§ 404.1527(e)(2)– 

(3)). 

(2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

evidence does not include: 

(i) Oral or written communications 

between you and your representative 

that are subject to the attorney-client 

privilege, unless you voluntarily 

disclose the communication to us; or 

(ii) Your representative’s analysis of 

your claim, unless he or she voluntarily 

discloses it to us. Your representative’s 

‘‘analysis of your claim,’’ means 

information that is subject to the 

attorney work product doctrine, but it 

does not include medical evidence, 

medical source opinions, or any other 

factual matter that we may consider in 

determining whether or not you are 

entitled to benefits (see paragraph 

(b)(2)(iv) of this section). 

(iii) The provisions of paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) apply to communications 

between you and your non-attorney 

representative only if the 

communications would be subject to the 

attorney-client privilege, if your nonattorney representative were an 

attorney. The provisions of paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) apply to the analysis of your 

claim by your non-attorney 

representative only if the analysis of 

your claim would be subject to the 

attorney work product doctrine, if your 

non-attorney representative were an 

attorney. 

(iv) The attorney-client privilege 

generally protects confidential 

communications between an attorney 

and his or her client that are related to 

providing or obtaining legal advice. The 

attorney work product doctrine 

generally protects an attorney’s analysis, 

theories, mental impressions, and notes. 

In the context of your disability claim, 

neither the attorney-client privilege nor 

the attorney work product doctrine 

allows you to withhold factual 

information, medical source opinions, 

or other medical evidence that we may 

consider in determining whether or not 

you are entitled to benefits. For 

example, if you tell your representative 

about the medical sources you have 

seen, your representative cannot refuse 

to disclose the identity of those medical 

sources to us based on the attorneyclient privilege. As another example, if 

your representative asks a medical 

source to complete an opinion form 

related to your impairment(s), 

symptoms, or limitations, your 

representative cannot withhold the 

completed opinion form from us based 

on the attorney work product doctrine. 

The attorney work product doctrine 

would not protect the source’s opinions 

on the completed form, regardless of 

whether or not your representative used 

the form in his or her analysis of your 

claim or made handwritten notes on the 

face of the report. 

(c) Your responsibility. You must 

inform us about or submit all evidence 

known to you that relates to whether or 

not you are blind or disabled. When you 

submit evidence received from another 

source, you must submit that evidence 

in its entirety, unless you previously 

submitted the same evidence to us or we 

instruct you otherwise. If we ask you, 

you must inform us about: 

(1) Your medical source(s); 

(2) Your age; 

(3) Your education and training; 

(4) Your work experience; 

(5) Your daily activities both before 

and after the date you say that you 

became disabled; 

(6) Your efforts to work; and 

(7) Any other factors showing how 

your impairment(s) affects your ability 

to work. In §§ 404.1560 through 

404.1569a, we discuss in more detail the 

evidence we need when we consider 

vocational factors. 

* * * * * 

Subpart R—[Amended] 

■ 6. The authority citation for subpart R 

of part 404 continues to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14837 

Authority: Secs. 205(a), 206, 702(a)(5), and 

1127 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

405(a), 406, 902(a)(5), and 1320a–6). 

■ 7. In § 404.1740, revise paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) through (vi) and add 

paragraph (b)(2)(vii) to read as follows: 

§ 404.1740 Rules of conduct and 

standards of responsibility for 

representatives. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Act with reasonable promptness to 

help obtain the information or evidence 

that the claimant must submit under our 

regulations, and forward the 

information or evidence to us for 

consideration as soon as practicable. 

(2) * * * 

(i) The claimant’s medical source(s); 

(ii) The claimant’s age; 

(iii) The claimant’s education and 

training; 

(iv) The claimant’s work experience; 

(v) The claimant’s daily activities both 

before and after the date the claimant 

alleges that he or she became disabled; 

(vi) The claimant’s efforts to work; 

and 

(vii) Any other factors showing how 

the claimant’s impairment(s) affects his 

or her ability to work. In §§ 404.1560 

through 404.1569a, we discuss in more 

detail the evidence we need when we 

consider vocational factors; 

* * * * * 

PART 405—ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 

PROCESS FOR ADJUDICATING 

INITIAL DISABILITY CLAIMS 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 405 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 201(j), 205(a)–(b), (d)–(h), 

and (s), 221, 223(a)–(b), 702(a)(5), 1601, 1602, 

1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 401(j), 405(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (s), 421, 

423(a)–(b), 902(a)(5), 1381, 1381a, 1383, and 

1383b). 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 9. In § 405.1, revise the first sentence 

of paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 405.1 Introduction. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Evidence considered and right to 

representation. Subject to §§ 405.331 

and 405.430, you must submit evidence 

and information to us (see §§ 404.1512 

and 416.912 of this chapter). * * * 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

■ 10. In § 405.331, revise the first two 

sentences of paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 405.331 Submitting evidence to an 

administrative law judge. 

(a) When you submit your request for 

hearing, you should also submit 

information or evidence as required by 

§§ 404.1512 or 416.912 of this chapter or 

any summary of the evidence to the 

administrative law judge. You must 

submit any written evidence no later 

than 5 business days before the date of 

the scheduled hearing. * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

■ 11. The authority citation for subpart 

I of part 416 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 

1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 

1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 

1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 

4(c) and 5, 6(c)–(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98– 

460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 

U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note). 

■ 12. In § 416.912, revise paragraphs (a) 

through (c) to read as follows: 

§ 416.912 Evidence. 

(a) General. In general, you have to 

prove to us that you are blind or 

disabled. You must inform us about or 

submit all evidence known to you that 

relates to whether or not you are blind 

or disabled. This duty is ongoing and 

requires you to disclose any additional 

related evidence about which you 

become aware. This duty applies at each 

level of the administrative review 

process, including the Appeals Council 

level if the evidence relates to the 

period on or before the date of the 

administrative law judge hearing 

decision. We will consider only 

impairment(s) you say you have or 

about which we receive evidence. 

(b) What we mean by ‘‘evidence.’’ 

Evidence is anything you or anyone else 

submits to us or that we obtain that 

relates to your claim. 

(1) Evidence includes, but is not 

limited to: 

(i) Objective medical evidence, that is, 

medical signs and laboratory findings as 

defined in § 416.928(b) and (c); 

(ii) Other evidence from medical 

sources, such as medical history, 

opinions, and statements about 

treatment you have received; 

(iii) Statements you or others make 

about your impairment(s), your 

restrictions, your daily activities, your 

efforts to work, or any other statements 

you make to medical sources during the 

course of examination or treatment, or 

to us during interviews, on applications, 

in letters, and in testimony in our 

administrative proceedings; 

(iv) Information from other sources, as 

described in § 416.913(d); 

(v) Decisions by any governmental or 

nongovernmental agency about whether 

or not you are disabled or blind (see 

§ 416.904); 

(vi) At the initial level of the 

administrative review process, when a 

State agency disability examiner makes 

the initial determination alone (see 

§ 416.1015(c)(3)), opinions provided by 

State agency medical and psychological 

consultants and other program 

physicians, psychologists, or other 

medical specialists based on their 

review of the evidence in your case 

record (see § 416.927(e)(1)(ii)); 

(vii) At the reconsideration level of 

the administrative review process, when 

a State agency disability examiner 

makes the determination alone (see 

§ 416.1015(c)(3)), findings, other than 

the ultimate determination about 

whether or not you are disabled, made 

by the State agency medical or 

psychological consultants and other 

program physicians, psychologists, or 

other medical specialists at the initial 

level of the administrative review 

process, and other opinions they 

provide based on their review of the 

evidence in your case record at the 

initial and reconsideration levels (see 

§ 416.927(e)(1)(iii)); and 

(viii) At the administrative law judge 

and Appeals Council levels, findings, 

other than the ultimate determination 

about whether or not you are disabled, 

made by State agency medical or 

psychological consultants and other 

program physicians or psychologists, or 

other medical specialists, and opinions 

expressed by medical experts or 

psychological experts that we consult 

based on their review of the evidence in 

your case record (see §§ 416.927(e)(2)– 

(3)). 

(2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

evidence does not include: 

(i) Oral or written communications 

between you and your representative 

that are subject to the attorney-client 

privilege, unless you voluntarily 

disclose the communication to us; or 

(ii) Your representative’s analysis of 

your claim, unless he or she voluntarily 

discloses it to us. Your representative’s 

‘‘analysis of your claim,’’ means 

information that is subject to the 

attorney work product doctrine, but it 

does not include medical evidence, 

medical source opinions, or any other 

factual matter that we may consider in 

determining whether or not you are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

14838 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

eligible for benefits (see paragraph 

(b)(2)(iv) of this section). 

(iii) The provisions of paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) apply to communications 

between you and your non-attorney 

representative only if the 

communications would be subject to the 

attorney-client privilege, if your nonattorney representative were an 

attorney. The provisions of paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) apply to the analysis of your 

claim by your non-attorney 

representative only if the analysis of 

your claim would be subject to the 

attorney work product doctrine, if your 

non-attorney representative were an 

attorney. 

(iv) The attorney-client privilege 

generally protects confidential 

communications between an attorney 

and his or her client that are related to 

providing or obtaining legal advice. The 

attorney work product doctrine 

generally protects an attorney’s analysis, 

theories, mental impressions, and notes. 

In the context of your disability claim, 

neither the attorney-client privilege nor 

the attorney work product doctrine 

allows you to withhold factual 

information, medical source opinions, 

or other medical evidence that we may 

consider in determining whether or not 

you are eligible for benefits. For 

example, if you tell your representative 

about the medical sources you have 

seen, your representative cannot refuse 

to disclose the identity of those medical 

sources to us based on the attorneyclient privilege. As another example, if 

your representative asks a medical 

source to complete an opinion form 

related to your impairment(s), 

symptoms, or limitations, your 

representative cannot withhold the 

completed opinion form from us based 

on the attorney work product doctrine. 

The attorney work product doctrine 

would not protect the source’s opinions 

on the completed form, regardless of 

whether or not your representative used 

the form in his or her analysis of your 

claim or made handwritten notes on the 

face of the report. 

(c) Your responsibility. You must 

inform us about or submit all evidence 

known to you that relates to whether or 

not you are blind or disabled. When you 

submit evidence received from another 

source, you must submit that evidence 

in its entirety, unless you previously 

submitted the same evidence to us or we 

instruct you otherwise. If we ask you, 

you must inform us about: 

(1) Your medical source(s); 

(2) Your age; 

(3) Your education and training; 

(4) Your work experience; 

(5) Your daily activities both before 

and after the date you say that you 

became disabled; 

(6) Your efforts to work; and 

(7) Any other factors showing how 

your impairment(s) affects your ability 

to work. In §§ 416.960 through 

416.969a, we discuss in more detail the 

evidence we need when we consider 

vocational factors. 

* * * * * 

Subpart N—[Amended] 

■ 13. The authority citation for subpart 

N of part 416 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 

108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 

■ 14. Amend § 416.1400 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 416.1400 Introduction. 

* * * * * 

(b) Nature of the administrative 

review process. In making a 

determination or decision in your case, 

we conduct the administrative review 

process in an informal, non-adversarial 

manner. Subject to the limitations on 

Appeals Council consideration of 

additional evidence (see §§ 416.1470(b) 

and 416.1476(b)), we will consider at 

each step of the review process any 

information you present as well as all 

the information in our records. You may 

present the information yourself or have 

someone represent you, including an 

attorney. If you are dissatisfied with our 

decision in the review process, but do 

not take the next step within the stated 

time period, you will lose your right to 

further administrative review and your 

right to judicial review, unless you can 

show us that there was good cause for 

your failure to make a timely request for 

review. 

■ 15. Revise § 416.1435 to read as 

follows: 

§ 416.1435 Submitting evidence prior to a 

hearing before an administrative law judge. 

You should submit information or 

evidence as required by § 416.912 or any 

summary of the evidence to the 

administrative law judge with the 

request for hearing or within 10 days 

after filing the request, if possible. Each 

party shall make every effort to ensure 

that the administrative law judge 

receives all of the evidence (see 

§ 416.912) or all of the evidence is 

available at the time and place set for 

the hearing. 

Subpart O—[Amended] 

■ 16. The authority citation for subpart 

O of part 416 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1127, and 

1631(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

902(a)(5), 1320a–6, and 1383(d)). 

■ 17. In § 416.1540, revise paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) through (vi) and add 

paragraph (b)(2)(vii) to read as follows: 

§ 416.1540 Rules of conduct and 

standards of responsibility for 

representatives. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Act with reasonable promptness to 

help obtain the information or evidence 

that the claimant must submit under our 

regulations, and forward the 

information or evidence to us for 

consideration as soon as practicable. 

(2) * * * 

(i) The claimant’s medical source(s); 

(ii) The claimant’s age; 

(iii) The claimant’s education and 

training; 

(iv) The claimant’s work experience; 

(v) The claimant’s daily activities both 

before and after the date the claimant 

alleges that he or she became disabled; 

(vi) The claimant’s efforts to work; 

and 

(vii) Any other factors showing how 

the claimant’s impairment(s) affects his 

or her ability to work. In §§ 416.960 

through 416.969a, we discuss in more 

detail the evidence we need when we 

consider vocational factors; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–05921 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 14 

[Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0218] 

Advisory Committee; Antiviral Drugs 

Advisory Committee; Termination 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is announcing the 

termination of the Antiviral Drugs 

Advisory Committee. This document 

removes the Antiviral Drugs Advisory 

Committee from the Agency’s list of 

standing advisory committees. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 20, 

2015. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES