[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34474-34478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16691]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. Titles II and XVI: Assessing 
Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 422.406(b)(1), the Commissioner of 
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling SSR 96-8p. This 
Ruling states the Social Security Administration's policies and policy 
interpretations regarding the assessment of residual functional 
capacity (an individual's ability to perform sustained work activities 
in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis) in 
initial claims for disability benefits under title II of the Social 
Security Act (the Act) and supplemental security income payments based 
on disability under title XVI of the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne K. Castello, Division of 
Regulations and Rulings, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 965-1711.


[[Page 34475]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although we are not required to do so 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this 
Social Security Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 422.406(b)(1).
    Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential 
decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, 
supplemental security income, and black lung benefits programs. Social 
Security Rulings may be based on case decisions made at all 
administrative levels of adjudication, Federal court decisions, 
Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General 
Counsel, and other policy interpretations of the law and regulations.
    Although Social Security Rulings do not have the force and effect 
of the law or regulations, they are binding on all components of the 
Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20 CFR 
422.406(b)(1), and are to be relied upon as precedents in adjudicating 
cases.
    If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or 
rescinded, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that 
effect.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Programs 96.001 Social 
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security--Retirement 
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security--Survivors Insurance; 96.005 
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners; 96.006 Supplemental 
Security Income.)

    Dated: June 7, 1996.
Shirley S. Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.

Policy Interpretation Ruling--Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual 
Functional Capacity in Initial Claims

    Purpose: To state the Social Security Administration's policies and 
policy interpretations regarding the assessment of residual functional 
capacity (RFC) in initial claims for disability benefits under titles 
II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act). In particular, to 
emphasize that:
    1. Ordinarily, RFC is an assessment of an individual's ability to 
do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work 
setting on a regular and continuing basis. A ``regular and continuing 
basis'' means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work 
schedule.
    2. The RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and 
restrictions that result from an individual's medically determinable 
impairment or combination of impairments, including the impact of any 
related symptoms. Age and body habitus are not factors in assessing 
RFC. It is incorrect to find that an individual has limitations beyond 
those caused by his or her medically determinable impairment(s) and any 
related symptoms, due to such factors as age and natural body build, 
and the activities the individual was accustomed to doing in his or her 
previous work.
    3. When there is no allegation of a physical or mental limitation 
or restriction of a specific functional capacity, and no information in 
the case record that there is such a limitation or restriction, the 
adjudicator must consider the individual to have no limitation or 
restriction with respect to that functional capacity.
    4. The RFC assessment must first identify the individual's 
functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work-
related abilities on a function-by-function basis, including the 
functions in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 20 CFR 404.1545 and 
416.945. Only after that may RFC be expressed in terms of the 
exertional levels of work, sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very 
heavy.
    5. RFC is not the least an individual can do despite his or her 
limitations or restrictions, but the most.
    6. Medical impairments and symptoms, including pain, are not 
intrinsically exertional or nonexertional. It is the functional 
limitations or restrictions caused by medical impairments and their 
related symptoms that are categorized as exertional or nonexertional.
    Citations (Authority): Sections 223(d) and 1614(a) of the Social 
Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart P, sections 
404.1513, 404.1520, 404.1520a, 404.1545, 404.1546, 404.1560, 404.1561, 
404.1569a, and appendix 2; and Regulations No. 16, subpart I, sections 
416.913, 416.920, 416.920a, 416.945, 416.946, 416.960, 416.961, and 
416.969a.
    Introduction: In disability determinations and decisions made at 
steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process in 20 CFR 404.1520 
and 416.920, in which the individual's ability to do past relevant work 
and other work must be considered, the adjudicator must assess RFC. 
This Ruling clarifies the term ``RFC'' and discusses the elements 
considered in the assessment. It describes concepts for both physical 
and mental RFC assessments.
    This Ruling applies to the assessment of RFC in claims for initial 
entitlement to disability benefits under titles II and XVI. Although 
most rules and procedures regarding RFC assessment in deciding whether 
an individual's disability continues are the same, there are some 
differences.

Policy Interpretation

General

    When an individual is not engaging in substantial gainful activity 
and a determination or decision cannot be made on the basis of medical 
factors alone (i.e., when the impairment is ``severe'' because it has 
more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities 
yet does not meet or equal in severity the requirements of any 
impairment in the Listing of Impairments), the sequential evaluation 
process generally must continue with an identification of the 
individual's functional limitations and restrictions and an assessment 
of his or her remaining capacities for work-related activities.<SUP>1 
This assessment of RFC is used at step 4 of the sequential evaluation 
process to determine whether an individual is able to do past relevant 
work, and at step 5 to determine whether an individual is able to do 
other work, considering his or her age, education, and work experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  However, a finding of ``disabled'' will be made for an 
individual who: a) has a severe impairment(s), b) has no past 
relevant work, c) is age 55 or older, and d) has no more than a 
limited education. (See SSR 82-63, ``Titles II and XVI: Medical-
Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability to Make an Adjustment to 
Other Work'' (C.E. 1981-1985, p. 447.) In such a case, it is not 
necessary to assess the individual's RFC to determine if he or she 
meets this special profile and is, therefore, disabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Definition of RFC. RFC is what an individual can still do despite 
his or her limitations. RFC is an administrative assessment of the 
extent to which an individual's medically determinable impairment(s), 
including any related symptoms, such as pain, may cause physical or 
mental limitations or restrictions that may affect his or her capacity 
to do work-related physical and mental activities. (See SSR 96-4p, 
``Titles II and XVI: Symptoms, Medically Determinable Physical and 
Mental Impairments, and Exertional and Nonexertional Limitations.'') 
Ordinarily, RFC is the individual's maximum remaining ability to do 
sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and 
continuing basis, and the RFC assessment must include a discussion of 
the individual's abilities on that basis. A ``regular and continuing 
basis'' means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work 
schedule.<SUP>2 RFC does not represent the

[[Page 34476]]

least an individual can do despite his or her limitations or 
restrictions, but the most.<SUP>3 RFC is assessed by adjudicators at 
each level of the administrative review process based on all of the 
relevant evidence in the case record, including information about the 
individual's symptoms and any ``medical source statements''--i.e., 
opinions about what the individual can still do despite his or her 
impairment(s)--submitted by an individual's treating source or other 
acceptable medical sources.<SUP>4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\  The ability to work 8 hours a day for 5 days a week is not 
always required when evaluating an individual's ability to do past 
relevant work at step 4 of the sequential evaluation process. Part-
time work that was substantial gainful activity, performed within 
the past 15 years, and lasted long enough for the person to learn to 
do it constitutes past relevant work, and an individual who retains 
the RFC to perform such work must be found not disabled.
    \3\ See SSR 83-10, ``Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability 
to Do Other Work--The Medical Vocational Rules of Appendix 2'' (C.E. 
1981-1985, p. 516). SSR 83-10 states that ``(T)he RFC determines a 
work capability that is exertionally sufficient to allow performance 
of at least substantially all of the activities of work at a 
particular level (e.g., sedentary, light, or medium), but is also 
insufficient to allow substantial performance of work at greater 
exertional levels.''
    \4\  For a detailed discussion of the difference between the RFC 
assessment, which is an administrative finding of fact, and the 
opinion evidence called the ``medical source statement'' or ``MSS,'' 
see SSR 96-5p, ``Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on 
Issues Reserved to the Commissioner.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFC Assessment Must be Based Solely on the Individual's 
Impairment(s). The Act requires that an individual's inability to work 
must result from the individual's physical or mental impairment(s). 
Therefore, in assessing RFC, the adjudicator must consider only 
limitations and restrictions attributable to medically determinable 
impairments. It is incorrect to find that an individual has limitations 
or restrictions beyond those caused by his or her medical impairment(s) 
including any related symptoms, such as pain, due to factors such as 
age or height, or whether the individual had ever engaged in certain 
activities in his or her past relevant work (e.g., lifting heavy 
weights.) Age and body habitus (i.e., natural body build, physique, 
constitution, size, and weight, insofar as they are unrelated to the 
individual's medically determinable impairment(s) and related symptoms) 
are not factors in assessing RFC in initial claims.<SUP>5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The definition of disability in the Act requires that an 
individual's inability to work must be due to a medically 
determinable physical or mental impairment(s). The assessment of RFC 
must therefore be concerned with the impact of a disease process or 
injury on the individual. In determining a person's maximum RFC for 
sustained activity, factors of age or body habitus must not be 
allowed to influence the assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, when there is no allegation of a physical or mental 
limitation or restriction of a specific functional capacity, and no 
information in the case record that there is such a limitation or 
restriction, the adjudicator must consider the individual to have no 
limitation or restriction with respect to that functional capacity.

RFC and Sequential Evaluation

    RFC is an issue only at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation 
process. The following are issues regarding the RFC assessment and its 
use at each of these steps.
    RFC and exertional levels of work. The RFC assessment is a 
function-by-function assessment based upon all of the relevant evidence 
of an individual's ability to do work-related activities. At step 4 of 
the sequential evaluation process, the RFC must not be expressed 
initially in terms of the exertional categories of ``sedentary,'' 
``light,'' ``medium,'' ``heavy,'' and ``very heavy'' work because the 
first consideration at this step is whether the individual can do past 
relevant work as he or she actually performed it.
    RFC may be expressed in terms of an exertional category, such as 
light, if it becomes necessary to assess whether an individual is able 
to do his or her past relevant work as it is generally performed in the 
national economy. However, without the initial function-by-function 
assessment of the individual's physical and mental capacities, it may 
not be possible to determine whether the individual is able to do past 
relevant work as it is generally performed in the national economy 
because particular occupations may not require all of the exertional 
and nonexertional demands necessary to do the full range of work at a 
given exertional level.
    At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, RFC must be 
expressed in terms of, or related to, the exertional categories when 
the adjudicator determines whether there is other work the individual 
can do. However, in order for an individual to do a full range of work 
at a given exertional level, such as sedentary, the individual must be 
able to perform substantially all of the exertional and nonexertional 
functions required in work at that level. Therefore, it is necessary to 
assess the individual's capacity to perform each of these functions in 
order to decide which exertional level is appropriate and whether the 
individual is capable of doing the full range of work contemplated by 
the exertional level.
    Initial failure to consider an individual's ability to perform the 
specific work-related functions could be critical to the outcome of a 
case. For example:
    1. At step 4 of the sequential evaluation process, it is especially 
important to determine whether an individual who is at least ``closely 
approaching advanced age'' is able to do past relevant work because 
failure to address this issue at step 4 can result in an erroneous 
finding that the individual is disabled at step 5. It is very important 
to consider first whether the individual can still do past relevant 
work as he or she actually performed it because individual jobs within 
an occupational category as performed for particular employers may not 
entail all of the requirements of the exertional level indicated for 
that category in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and its related 
volumes.
    2. The opposite result may also occur at step 4 of the sequential 
evaluation process. When it is found that an individual cannot do past 
relevant work as he or she actually performed it, the adjudicator must 
consider whether the individual can do the work as it is generally 
performed in the national economy. Again, however, a failure to first 
make a function-by-function assessment of the individual's limitations 
or restrictions could result in the adjudicator overlooking some of an 
individual's limitations or restrictions. This could lead to an 
incorrect use of an exertional category to find that the individual is 
able to do past relevant work as it is generally performed and an 
erroneous finding that the individual is not disabled.
    3. At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, the same 
failures could result in an improper application of the rules in 
appendix 2 to subpart P of the Regulations No. 4 (the ``Medical-
Vocational Guidelines) and could make the difference between a finding 
of ``disabled'' and ``not disabled.'' Without a careful consideration 
of an individual's functional capacities to support an RFC assessment 
based on an exertional category, the adjudicator may either overlook 
limitations or restrictions that would narrow the ranges and types of 
work an individual may be able to do, or find that the individual has 
limitations or restrictions that he or she does not actually have.
    RFC represents the most that an individual can do despite his or 
her limitations or restrictions. At step 5 of the sequential evaluation 
process, RFC must not be expressed in terms of the lowest exertional 
level (e.g., ``sedentary'' or ``light'' when the individual can perform 
``medium'' work) at which the medical-vocational rules would still 
direct a finding of ``not disabled.'' This

[[Page 34477]]

would concede lesser functional abilities than the individual actually 
possesses and would not reflect the most he or she can do based on the 
evidence in the case record, as directed by the regulations.<SUP>6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\  In the Fourth Circuit, adjudicators are required to adopt a 
finding, absent new and material evidence, regarding the 
individual's RFC made in a final decision by an administrative law 
judge or the Appeals Council on a prior disability claim arising 
under the same title of the Act. In this jurisdiction, an 
unfavorable determination or decision using the lowest exertional 
level at which the rules would direct a finding of not disabled 
could result in an unwarranted favorable determination or decision 
on an individual's subsequent application; for example, if the 
individual's age changes to a higher age category following the 
final decision on the earlier application. See Acquiescence Ruling 
(AR) 94-2(4), ``Lively v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
820 F.2d 1391 (4th Cir. 1987)--Effect of Prior Disability Findings 
on Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim Arising Under the 
Same Title of the Social Security Act--Titles II and XVI of the 
Social Security Act.'' AR 94-2(4) applies to disability findings in 
cases involving claimants who reside in the Fourth Circuit at the 
time of the determination or decision on the subsequent claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The psychiatric review technique. The psychiatric review technique 
described in 20 CFR 404.1520a and 416.920a and summarized on the 
Psychiatric Review Technique Form (PRTF) requires adjudicators to 
assess an individual's limitations and restrictions from a mental 
impairment(s) in categories identified in the ``paragraph B'' and 
``paragraph C'' criteria of the adult mental disorders listings. The 
adjudicator must remember that the limitations identified in the 
``paragraph B'' and ``paragraph C'' criteria are not an RFC assessment 
but are used to rate the severity of mental impairment(s) at steps 2 
and 3 of the sequential evaluation process. The mental RFC assessment 
used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process requires a 
more detailed assessment by itemizing various functions contained in 
the broad categories found in paragraphs B and C of the adult mental 
disorders listings in 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments, and 
summarized on the PRTF.
Evidence Considered
    The RFC assessment must be based on all of the relevant evidence in 
the case record, such as:
    <bullet> Medical history,
    <bullet> Medical signs and laboratory findings,
    <bullet> The effects of treatment, including limitations or 
restrictions imposed by the mechanics of treatment (e.g., frequency of 
treatment, duration, disruption to routine, side effects of 
medication),
    <bullet> Reports of daily activities,
    <bullet> Lay evidence,
    <bullet> Recorded observations,
    <bullet> Medical source statements,
    <bullet> Effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably 
attributed to a medically determinable impairment,
    <bullet> Evidence from attempts to work,
    <bullet> Need for a structured living environment, and
    <bullet> Work evaluations, if available.
    The adjudicator must consider all allegations of physical and 
mental limitations or restrictions and make every reasonable effort to 
ensure that the file contains sufficient evidence to assess RFC. 
Careful consideration must be given to any available information about 
symptoms because subjective descriptions may indicate more severe 
limitations or restrictions than can be shown by objective medical 
evidence alone.
    In assessing RFC, the adjudicator must consider limitations and 
restrictions imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even those 
that are not ``severe.'' While a ``not severe'' impairment(s) standing 
alone may not significantly limit an individual's ability to do basic 
work activities, it may--when considered with limitations or 
restrictions due to other impairments--be critical to the outcome of a 
claim. For example, in combination with limitations imposed by an 
individual's other impairments, the limitations due to such a ``not 
severe'' impairment may prevent an individual from performing past 
relevant work or may narrow the range of other work that the individual 
may still be able to do.
Exertional and Nonexertional Functions
    The RFC assessment must address both the remaining exertional and 
nonexertional capacities of the individual.
Exertional Capacity
    Exertional capacity addresses an individual's limitations and 
restrictions of physical strength and defines the individual's 
remaining abilities to perform each of seven strength demands: Sitting, 
standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling. Each 
function must be considered separately (e.g., ``the individual can walk 
for 5 out of 8 hours and stand for 6 out of 8 hours''), even if the 
final RFC assessment will combine activities (e.g., ``walk/stand, lift/
carry, push/pull''). Although the regulations describing the exertional 
levels of work and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and its 
related volumes pair some functions, it is not invariably the case that 
treating the activities together will result in the same decisional 
outcome as treating them separately.
    It is especially important that adjudicators consider the 
capacities separately when deciding whether an individual can do past 
relevant work. However, separate consideration may also influence 
decisionmaking at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, for 
reasons already given in the section on ``RFC and Sequential 
Evaluation.''
Nonexertional Capacity
    Nonexertional capacity considers all work-related limitations and 
restrictions that do not depend on an individual's physical strength; 
i.e., all physical limitations and restrictions that are not reflected 
in the seven strength demands, and mental limitations and restrictions. 
It assesses an individual's abilities to perform physical activities 
such as postural (e.g., stooping, climbing), manipulative (e.g., 
reaching, handling), visual (seeing), communicative (hearing, 
speaking), and mental (e.g., understanding and remembering instructions 
and responding appropriately to supervision). In addition to these 
activities, it also considers the ability to tolerate various 
environmental factors (e.g., tolerance of temperature extremes).
    As with exertional capacity, nonexertional capacity must be 
expressed in terms of work-related functions. For example, in assessing 
RFC for an individual with a visual impairment, the adjudicator must 
consider the individual's residual capacity to perform such work-
related functions as working with large or small objects, following 
instructions, or avoiding ordinary hazards in the workplace. In 
assessing RFC with impairments affecting hearing or speech, the 
adjudicator must explain how the individual's limitations would affect 
his or her ability to communicate in the workplace. Work-related mental 
activities generally required by competitive, remunerative work include 
the abilities to: understand, carry out, and remember instructions; use 
judgment in making work-related decisions; respond appropriately to 
supervision, co-workers and work situations; and deal with changes in a 
routine work setting.
Consider the Nature of the Activity Affected
    It is the nature of an individual's limitations or restrictions 
that determines whether the individual will have only exertional 
limitations or restrictions, only nonexertional limitations or 
restrictions, or a combination of exertional and nonexertional 
limitations or restrictions. For example, symptoms, including pain, are 
not intrinsically exertional or nonexertional. Symptoms often affect

[[Page 34478]]

the capacity to perform one of the seven strength demands and may or 
may not have effects on the demands of occupations other than the 
strength demands. If the only limitations or restrictions caused by 
symptoms, such as pain, are in one or more of the seven strength 
demands (e.g., lifting) the limitations or restrictions will be 
exertional. On the other hand, if an individual's symptoms cause a 
limitation or restriction that affects the individual's ability to meet 
the demands of occupations other than their strength demands (e.g., 
manipulation or concentration), the limitation or restriction will be 
classified as nonexertional. Symptoms may also cause both exertional 
and nonexertional limitations.
    Likewise, even though mental impairments usually affect 
nonexertional functions, they may also limit exertional capacity by 
affecting one or more of the seven strength demands. For example, a 
mental impairment may cause fatigue or hysterical paralysis.

Narrative Discussion Requirements

    The RFC assessment must include a narrative discussion describing 
how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing specific medical 
facts (e.g., laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence (e.g., daily 
activities, observations). In assessing RFC, the adjudicator must 
discuss the individual's ability to perform sustained work activities 
in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis (i.e., 8 
hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule <SUP>7), 
and describe the maximum amount of each work-related activity the 
individual can perform based on the evidence available in the case 
record. The adjudicator must also explain how any material 
inconsistencies or ambiguities in the evidence in the case record were 
considered and resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Symptoms. In all cases in which symptoms, such as pain, are 
alleged, the RFC assessment must:
    <bullet> Contain a thorough discussion and analysis of the 
objective medical and other evidence, including the individual's 
complaints of pain and other symptoms and the adjudicator's personal 
observations, if appropriate;
    <bullet> Include a resolution of any inconsistencies in the 
evidence as a whole; and
    <bullet> Set forth a logical explanation of the effects of the 
symptoms, including pain, on the individual's ability to work.
    The RFC assessment must include a discussion of why reported 
symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions can or cannot 
reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical and other 
evidence. In instances in which the adjudicator has observed the 
individual, he or she is not free to accept or reject that individual's 
complaints solely on the basis of such personal observations. (For 
further information about RFC assessment and the evaluation of 
symptoms, see SSR 96-7p, ``Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in 
Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's 
Statements.'')
    Medical opinions. The RFC assessment must always consider and 
address medical source opinions. If the RFC assessment conflicts with 
an opinion from a medical source, the adjudicator must explain why the 
opinion was not adopted.
    Medical opinions from treating sources about the nature and 
severity of an individual's impairment(s) are entitled to special 
significance and may be entitled to controlling weight. If a treating 
source's medical opinion on an issue of the nature and severity of an 
individual's impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable 
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent 
with the other substantial evidence in the case record, the adjudicator 
must give it controlling weight. (See SSR 96-2p, ``Titles II and XVI: 
Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions,'' and 
SSR 96-5p, ``Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues 
Reserved to the Commissioner.'') \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A medical source opinion that an individual is ``disabled'' 
or ``unable to work,'' has an impairment(s) that meets or is 
equivalent in severity to the requirements of a listing, has a 
particular RFC, or that concerns the application of vocational 
factors, is an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 
Every such opinion must still be considered in adjudicating a 
disability claim; however, the adjudicator will not give any special 
significance to the opinion because of its source. See SSR 96-5p, 
``Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to 
the Commissioner.'' For further information about the evaluation of 
medical source opinions, SSR 96-6p, ``Titles II and XVI: 
Consideration of Administrative Findings of Fact by State Agency 
Medical and Psychological Consultants and Other Program Physicians 
and Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals 
Council Levels of Administrative Review; Medical Equivalence.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective Date: This ruling is effective on the date of its 
publication in the Federal Register.
    Cross-References: SSR 82-52, ``Titles II and XVI: Duration of the 
Impairment'' (C.E. 1981-1985, p. 328), SSR 82-61, ``Titles II and XVI: 
Past Relevant Work--The Particular Job Or the Occupation As Generally 
Performed'' (C.E. 1981-1985, p. 427), SSR 82-62, ``Titles II and XVI: A 
Disability Claimant's Capacity To Do Past Relevant Work, In General'' 
(C.E. 1981-1985, p. 400), SSR 83-20, ``Titles II and XVI: Onset of 
Disability'' (C.E. 1981-1985, p. 375), SSR 85-16, ``Titles II and XVI: 
Residual Functional Capacity for Mental Impairments'' (C.E. 1981-1985, 
p. 390), SSR 86-8, ``Titles II and XVI: The Sequential Evaluation 
Process'' (C.E. 1986, p. 78), SSR 96-6p, ``Titles II and XVI: 
Consideration of Administrative Findings of Fact by State Agency 
Medical and Psychological Consultants and Other Program Physicians and 
Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council 
Levels of Administrative Review; Medical Equivalence,'' SSR 96-2p, 
``Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source 
Medical Opinions,'' SSR 96-4p, ``Titles II and XVI: Symptoms, Medically 
Determinable Physical and Mental Impairments, and Exertional and 
Nonexertional Limitations,'' SSR 96-5p, ``Titles II and XVI: Medical 
Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner,'' SSR 96-9p, 
``Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability to Do Other Work--
Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full 
Range of Sedentary Work,'' SSR 96-7p, ``Titles II and XVI: Evaluation 
of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an 
Individual's Statements;'' and Program Operations Manual System, 
sections DI 22515.010, DI 24510.000 ff., DI 24515.002-DI 24515.007, DI 
24515.061-DI 24515.062, DI 24515.064, DI 25501.000 ff., DI 25505.000 
ff., and DI 28015.000 ff.

[FR Doc. 96-16691 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P