[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If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or
rescinded, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that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.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.2 RFC does not represent the
[[Page 34476]]
least an individual can do despite his or her limitations or
restrictions, but the most.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.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.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.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:
Medical history,
Medical signs and laboratory findings,
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),
Reports of daily activities,
Lay evidence,
Recorded observations,
Medical source statements,
Effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably
attributed to a medically determinable impairment,
Evidence from attempts to work,
Need for a structured living environment, and
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 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:
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;
Include a resolution of any inconsistencies in the
evidence as a whole; and
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