U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The Use of Medical Experts 

During Disability 

Determinations at the Railroad 

Retirement Board Can Be 

Improved

Report No. 19-17 September 27, 2019
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

The Use of Medical Experts During Disability Determinations at the 

Railroad Retirement Board Can Be Improved

Report Summary September 27, 2019 Report No. 19-17

What DP George & Company Found

DP George & Company (DP George) determined that the 

Railroad Retirement Board’s (RRB) use of medical experts in 

the disability determination process can be improved. RRB 

medical experts do not always reach a consistent medical 

assessment based on the medical evidence. In these 

instances, RRB identifies if there are inconsistencies but does 

not have an established process for documenting and 

reviewing the final medical assessment to ensure that the 

basis for the final decision is clear.

What DP George Recommends

To address the weaknesses identified in this audit, DP George 

made two recommendations. The first recommendation was

to establish procedures specifying how differences in medical 

assessments between medical experts, including the 

disability claims examiner, should be documented and 

reviewed to ensure the basis for the final decision is clearly 

evident in the disability case file. The second 

recommendation was to gather details about areas where a 

lack of objective findings to support medical assessments are 

observed for assessment performed by contracted medical 

experts, and establish a process for discussing and resolving 

common inconsistencies with the contracted medical 

experts.

RRB management did not concur with either of the two

recommendations. 

What We Did

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

for the RRB engaged DP George to 

conduct a performance audit of the use 

of medical experts in the RRB’s 

disability determinations. This audit 

was conducted in accordance with the 

performance audit standards 

established by Generally Accepted 

Government Auditing Standards. DP 

George is responsible for the audit 

report and the conclusions expressed 

therein. RRB OIG does not express any 

assurance on the conclusions presented 

in DP George audit report.

The objectives were to review RRB’s use 

of medical experts in the RRB’s 

disability determinations to assess how 

the RRB relies on their input, potential 

changes to the process, and the 

efficiency and effectiveness of their 

involvement in the disability 

determination process. In order to 

complete this work, DP George

identified criteria in laws, regulations, 

and best practices; identified applicable 

RRB policies, procedures; and gained an 

understanding of types of disability

claims at the RRB. DP George also 

interviewed applicable agency staff and 

reviewed disability decisions.

The scope of the audit covered 

disability determinations made in fiscal 

years 2016 to 2018 where the use of a 

medical expert was involved.
The Use of Medical Experts 

During Disability 

Determinations at the 

Railroad Retirement Board 

Can Be Improved

 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

Objective(s), Scope, and Methodology ........................................................................................... 2

Background...................................................................................................................................... 2

Audit Results.................................................................................................................................... 4

Finding #1: Improved Use of Medical Experts................................................................. 4

Appendix I: Management Comments ............................................................................................. 6
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

September 25, 2019

Mr. Martin Dickman, Inspector General

Railroad Retirement Board

Office of Inspector General

844 North Rush Street

Chicago, IL 60611-1275

Dear Mr. Dickman,

DP George & Company, LLC (DPG) audited the Railroad Retirement Board’s (RRB) use of medical experts, against 

Government Accountability Office internal control guidance and the RRB’s policies, procedures, and practices

related to the use of medical experts in the disability determination process. Performance against these criteria

is the responsibility of RRB’s management. DPG’s responsibility is to make a determination regarding RRB’s 

performance against the criteria.

DPG conducted the audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) 

issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (2011 Revision, as amended). Those standards require 

that DPG plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

its findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the audit objective. The stated objective of our audit 

was to:

review the use of medical experts in the RRB’s disability determinations to assess how the RRB relies on 

their input, potential changes to the process, and the efficiency and effectiveness of their involvement in 

the disability determination process.

The evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for DPG’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations based 

on the audit objectives. 

Based on the test work performed, our audit determined that use of medical experts in the disability 

determination process can be improved. The detailed finding for the audit is presented in the Audit Results 

section of this report. 

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance extended by RRB and the OIG staff during the audit. 

Sincerely,

DP George & Company, LLC

Alexandria, Virginia
2

OBJECTIVE(S), SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

The objective of this audit was to review the Railroad Retirement Board’s (RRB’s) use of medical experts in the 

RRB’s disability determinations to assess how the RRB relies on their input, potential changes to the process, and 

the efficiency and effectiveness of their involvement in the disability determination process. 

To accomplish our objective, we:

• identified criteria provided in applicable laws, regulations, and best practices related to RRB’s 

disability program;

• identified and reviewed applicable RRB policies and procedures related to RRB’s disability program 

and disability determination process;

• gained an understanding of the four types of disability claims: Occupational Disability, Total & 

Permanent Disability, Disabled Widow, and Disabled Child;

• interviewed applicable RRB management, disability staff, and medical experts used by RRB; and

• obtained and reviewed disability decisions and continuing disability reviews involving the use of 

medical experts.

The scope of our audit covered disability determinations made in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 to FY 2018 where the use 

of a medical expert was involved. Medical experts consist of individuals contracted by RRB to perform medical 

exams and individuals contracted by RRB to provide medical consultations.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards 

(GAGAS). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence 

to provide a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the audit objective. 

We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations based on our audit objective.

We conducted our fieldwork from October 2018 through August 2019. During our audit, we performed site visits 

to RRB headquarters in Chicago, Illinois in October 2018, April 2019, and June 2019.

BACKGROUND

The RRB administers the retirement, survivor, unemployment and sickness programs mandated by the Railroad 

Retirement Act (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). The RRA provides for payment of 

retirement benefits based on age and service in the railroad industry and to those who are permanently 

disabled from work in their regular railroad occupation or who are totally disabled from any regular 

employment.

Under the RRB disability program which is governed by the RRA, the RRB approves and processes payments in 

support of total and permanent, and occupational disabilities. When evaluating disability claims, evidence from 

a medical source is required to determine the existence or severity of impairment. In order to have complete 

and accurate case records to make disability determination decisions, the RRB will obtain and consider all 

evidence that may or may not support the applicant’s claimed impairment(s).
3

Key definitions pertaining to medical evidence include:

Medical Assessment – A medical assessment describes a person’s ability to do work related to activities such as 

sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, handling objects, hearing, and speaking. In cases of mental 

impairment, it describes the person’s ability to reason or make occupational, personal, or social adjustments.

Medical Evidence – Medical evidence consists of reports from acceptable sources about the disability. 

Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion regarding disability.

Medical Findings – Medical findings consist of symptoms, signs and laboratory findings:

1. Symptoms are the claimant’s own description of his/her physical or mental impairment.

2. Signs are anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be observed, apart 

from his/her symptoms. Signs must be shown by medically acceptable clinical diagnostics 

techniques. Psychiatric signs are medically demonstrable phenomenon which indicates specific 

abnormalities of behavior, affect, thought, memory, orientation, and contact with reality. They must 

all be shown by observable facts that can be medically described and evaluated.

3. Laboratory findings are anatomical, physiological, or psychological phenomena which can be shown 

by the use of medically acceptable laboratory diagnostic techniques. They include chemical tests, 

electrophysiological studies, roentgen logical studies (x-rays), and psychological tests.

An accurate disability decision requires medical evidence which shows the nature of the claimant’s impairments 

and the extent of the impairments from the date disability is alleged to have occurred. The compilation of 

evidence in the file should be sufficient to allow the disability examiner to make an independent determination 

as to the nature and limiting extent of the claimant’s impairment(s). In general, medical evidence should include 

the following information:

• a history of the impairment;

• current objective findings which support the diagnosis and document any physical or mental 

changes which have occurred;

• the factual medical data upon which the diagnosis and prognosis are based;

• a description of objective findings regarding the claimant’s functional limitations and remaining 

functional capabilities; and

• certification by the physician or physiologist submitting the medical report.

To further support medical evidence contained in the file, field office and disability benefits division staff may 

order consultative examinations and tests from independent medical examiners (medical expert). The results of 

these reports should include:

• the major or chief complaint(s) of the claimant;

• within the area of specialty of the examination, a detailed description of the history of the major 

complaint(s);

• a description and disposition of pertinent detailed findings based on the history, examination and 

laboratory tests related to the major complaint(s) and any other abnormalities reported or found 

during examination or laboratory testing;
4

• the results of requested laboratory tests performed that are necessary as a result of the physician’s 

examination;

• diagnosis and prognosis; and

• a medical assessment which shows the ability of the individual to do work-related activities or to 

function in a work setting.

Lastly, disability claims examiners can refer any claim requiring medical advice to the medical consultant 

(medical expert). The medical consultant completes Form G-137 SUP which provides the residual functional 

capacity (RFC) assessment (Part I) and provides comments and a review summary of the medical records used to 

support the RFC (Part II). The Form G-137 SUP may also be used by the medical consultant to advise the 

examiner when the medical records are not sufficient to provide a RFC and to recommend what medical records 

to obtain. 

AUDIT RESULTS

Our audit determined that RRB medical experts do not always reach a consistent medical assessment based on 

the medical evidence. In these instances, RRB identifies if there are inconsistencies but does not have an 

established process for documenting and reviewing the final medical assessment to ensure that the basis for the 

final decision is clear. Because of this, the use of medical experts in the disability determination process is not as 

effective or efficient as intended. 

We provide two recommendations aimed at addressing this weakness.

Finding #1: Improved Use of Medical Experts

DPG reviewed 73 case files where the input of one or more medical experts or consultants was obtained by RRB 

to support the disability or continuing disability decision. Our review considered 8 cases where only a medical 

exam was obtained, 32 cases where only a medical consultation was obtained, and 33 cases where a medical 

exam and medical consultation were obtained. We identified 18 cases where the disability claim examiner 

and/or the medical consultants gave an indication in the file that the objective medical findings provided by the 

RRB medical expert did not support the medical assessment. We noted that an alternate RFC medical 

assessment was provided by the medical consultant and accepted by the claims examiner without additional 

review or specific explanation as to why one or the other medical assessment was better supported. 

Existing procedures do not require the disability claims examiner to document the basis for resolving differences 

between medical expert assessments. Without proper documentation describing how differences in assessment 

or the lack of objective findings are resolved, the basis for the final decision is not evident to an independent 

examiner.

The Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provide that 

management should clearly document internal control and all transactions and other significant events in a 

manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for examination. The documentation may appear 

in management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals, in either paper or electronic form. 

Documentation and records are to be properly managed and maintained.
5

RECOMMENDATIONS

DPG recommends that the Office of Programs:

1. establish procedures specifying how differences in medical assessments between medical experts, 

including the disability claims examiner, should be documented and reviewed to ensure the basis for 

the final decision is clearly evident in the disability case file; and 

2. gather details about areas where a lack of objective findings to support medical assessments are 

observed in medical exam reports provided by contracted medical experts, and establish a process 

with the contracted medical experts for discussing and improving the consistency and quality of 

future medical exam reports. 

MANAGEMENT’S COMMENTS 

The Office of Programs did not concur with Recommendations 1 and 2. For Recommendation 1 their response 

indicated that there are existing procedures and regulations that address the issue of reviewing and 

documenting differences in medical opinions. The response referenced DCM 4.3.4 Type of Medical Evidence 

Development, 20 CFR 220.112 Conclusions by Physicians Concerning the Claimant’s Disability, and DCM 

13.10.1.3 Significant Differences in Medical Findings. The Office of Programs also referenced guidance in DCM 

12.5.5 and 12.5.6 as providing instructions to examiners on how to complete the final determination Form G325B rationale to describe how they handled conflicting medical evidence.

For Recommendation 2 the Office of Programs also indicated that an existing process is in place via Federal 

Acquisition Regulations (FAR) for the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to address issues that arise 

concerning the contracted medical experts. Management’s response also indicated that the Director of Disability 

interacts regularly with the contractors’ points of contact and discusses cases both when issues are identified 

and in annual review meetings.

DPG RESPONSE

DPG response regarding Recommendation 1. The guidance referenced by the Office of Programs in its response

provides instruction to examiners on how to weigh medical evidence; when to order consultative exams, 

functional tests, and consultative opinions; and how to complete the sections of the form G-325B documenting 

medical evidence. These processes focus on obtaining and reviewing medical evidence leading up to the 

decision. Our concern is with the clarity of the decision summary. In cases where medical assessments were 

inconsistent, it was not clear how the examiner determined reliance on one medical assessment over another. 

We view the medical assessment portion of the decision process as a key component in making the overall 

disability decision. Therefore, we maintain that the Office of Programs should implement Recommendation 1 to 

strengthen the transparency of the decision process.

DPG response regarding Recommendation 2. DPG agrees that the COR process establishes a communications 

channel for conducting discussions and providing feedback to the contracted medical experts. We did not 

observe evidence that a process exists to gather and summarize details about medical conditions where a lack 

of objective findings is more commonly identified. We maintain that implementing this portion of the 

recommendation and using it to target areas for feedback will strengthen the use of medical experts. 
6

APPENDIX I: MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
7
8
9