[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 233 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78164-78189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25250]



[[Page 78163]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 233

December 3, 2020

Part II





Social Security Administration





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





20 CFR Parts 404 and 416





Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 78164]]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

[Docket No. SSA-2006-0112]
RIN 0960-AG38


Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Final rules.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising the criteria in the Listing of Impairments 
(listings) that we use to evaluate claims involving musculoskeletal 
disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social 
Security Act (Act). The revisions reflect our adjudicative experience, 
advances in medical knowledge, and comments we received from the public 
in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

DATES: These rules are effective April 2, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl A. Williams, Office of 
Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. 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 are making final the rules for evaluating musculoskeletal 
disorders that we proposed in the NPRM published in the Federal 
Register on May 7, 2018.\1\ The preamble to the NPRM provides the 
background for these revisions. You can view the preamble to the NPRM 
by visiting http://www.regulations.gov and searching for document 
``SSA-2006-0112.'' We are making a number of changes in these final 
rules in response to public comments to the NPRM, which we explain 
below. We are also making a conforming change to the endocrine 
disorders body system to comport with the change we proposed to section 
416.926a(m) to be consistent with these final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 83 FR 20646 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are we revising the listings for evaluating musculoskeletal 
disorders?

    We developed these final rules as part of our ongoing review of the 
listings. We are revising the listings for evaluating musculoskeletal 
disorders to update the medical criteria and clarify how we evaluate 
musculoskeletal disorders.

When will we begin to use these final rules?

    As we noted in the dates section of this preamble, these final 
rules will be effective on April 2, 2021. We delayed the effective date 
of the rules to give us time to update our systems, and to provide 
training and guidance to all of our adjudicators before we implement 
the final rules. The current rules will continue to apply until the 
effective date of these final rules. When the final rules become 
effective, we will apply them to new applications filed on or after the 
effective date of the rules, and to claims that are pending on or after 
the effective date.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This means that we will use these final rules on and after 
their effective date in any case in which we make a determination or 
decision. We expect that Federal courts will review our final 
decisions using the rules that were in effect at the time we issued 
the decisions. If a court reverses our final decision and remands a 
case for further administrative proceedings after the effective date 
of these final rules, we will apply these final rules to the entire 
period at issue in the decision we make after the court's remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments on the NPRM

    In the NPRM, we provided the public with a 60-day comment period, 
which ended on July 6, 2018. We received 39 comments.\3\ The comments 
came from advocacy groups, legal services organizations, a State agency 
that makes disability determinations for us, medical organizations, and 
individual commenters. A number of the letters provided identical (or 
very similar) comments and recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The docket summary on Regulations.gov indicates 46 comments 
were received; however, this number includes seven comments we 
received for a prior final rule in which we sought comments with a 
comment period that closed in January 2002 (66 FR 58009, November 
19, 2001). Thus, we actually only received a total of 39 public 
comments in response to these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We carefully considered all of the comments that were relevant to 
this rulemaking. We have tried to summarize the commenters' views 
accurately and respond to all of the significant issues raised by the 
commenters that were within the scope of these rules. We have not 
summarized or responded to comments that were outside the scope of the 
proposed rules. Some commenters noted provisions with which they agreed 
and did not make suggestions for changes in those provisions. We did 
not summarize or respond to those comments.
    Comment: Several commenters asked us to withdraw this rule because 
they opined the changes we proposed were more stringent in nature. They 
asserted fewer applicants would therefore qualify for disability at the 
listing level. Consequently, they asserted, further assessment at later 
steps in the evaluation process would be needed, requiring vocational 
information and consideration of the person's age, education, and work 
experience to make a determination. Ultimately, the entire disability 
process would be prolonged. Commenters also asserted that in some 
cases, even if we changed certain listing criteria, the functional 
limitations associated with some musculoskeletal conditions would not 
necessarily change, but would rather result in further evaluations 
being needed at steps 4 and 5 (and perhaps disability awards being made 
at those levels). This too could result in longer decision times.
    Response: We decline to withdraw this final rule. The listings 
describe impairments that preclude the ability to perform ``any gainful 
activity'' (or, in the case of a child applying for Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) payments based on disability, to identify 
impairments that result in marked and severe functional 
limitations).\4\ Even if in some cases (although not all) the revised 
rule results in more decisions being made at steps 4 and 5, we still 
have a statutory obligation to ensure the listings are up to date and 
accurately reflect current medical criteria. Contrary to the 
commenters' assertion, changing the listing does affect the associated 
functional criteria as well. The updated functional criteria are 
uniform and specific severity criteria, which represent the level of 
dysfunction of the upper and lower extremities that would cause a 
person to be unable to do any work or would cause a child to be unable 
to perform age-appropriate activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 20 CFR 404.1525(a) and 416.925(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter believes that the functional criteria we use 
for adults (Part A) and for children (Part B) should not be the same, 
because children with disabilities are defined by their ability to 
participate in activities at a level comparable to children of the same 
age without disabilities.
    Response: We disagree. The functional criteria for musculoskeletal 
disorders in children age 3 and older are appropriately comparable to 
the functional criteria for musculoskeletal disorders in adults. When 
we evaluate a child's functioning for purposes of the disability 
program, including under these listings, we consider whether the child 
does the things that other children their age typically do, or whether 
they

[[Page 78165]]

have limitations and restrictions because of their medically 
determinable impairment(s). We also look at how well children do the 
activities and how much help they need from family, teachers, or 
others. Information about what children can and cannot do, and how they 
function on a day-to-day basis at home, school, and in the community, 
allows us to compare their activities to the activities of children the 
same age who do not have impairments.\5\ In 101.00E1 (How do we use the 
functional criteria to evaluate your musculoskeletal disorder under 
these listings?), we explain that under these rules we compare the 
musculoskeletal functioning of a child age 3 and older to the 
functioning of children the same age who do not have impairments, 
whereas we explain in 1.00E2 (Work environment) that we evaluate 
musculoskeletal functioning for adults with respect to the work 
environment. Furthermore, we provide unique criteria for evaluating 
musculoskeletal disorders in infants and toddlers in listing 101.24 
(Musculoskeletal disorders of infants and toddlers, from birth to 
attainment of age 3, with developmental motor delay), which take into 
account the rapid development of motor function during the infant and 
toddler stages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 20 CFR 416.924a and Social Security Ruling (SSR) 09-1p: 
Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability Under the Functional 
Equivalence Rule--The ``Whole Child'' Approach. Available at: 
https://mwww.ba.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/ssi/02/SSR2009-01-ssi-02.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters asked that, in addition to considering a 0 
to 5 grading scale of muscle function, we consider alternative, 
equivalent, medically acceptable grading scales. One commenter 
expressed that a 0 to 5 grading scale may not be reliable for children 
who are age 5 or younger, or for older children and adults with 
cognitive impairments, because of these groups' presumed inability to 
follow the test instructions.
    Response: We agree with these comments, and provide clarification 
in 1.00C2c (Physical examination report(s)) and 101.00C2c (Physical 
examination report(s)). We revised the introductory text for reduction 
in muscle strength to indicate that the measurement should be based on 
a muscle strength grading system that is considered medically 
acceptable for the person's age and impairments. We also state that we 
will accept muscle strength tests using scales other than the 0 to 5 
scale, provided the scales used are equivalent, medically acceptable 
scales.\6\ Furthermore, we added an explanation of what we consider 
reduction in muscle strength present when the evidence demonstrates 
that the person's muscle strength is less than active range of motion 
against gravity with maximum resistance. Since Table 1--Grading System 
of Muscle Function in 1.00C2c (Physical examination report(s)) and 
101.00C2c (Physical examination report(s)) already includes multiple 
examples of alternative scales, including those suggested, and we added 
the clarification that we will accept equivalent, medically acceptable 
scales, we did not add the additional suggested alternative percentage 
scale used by Kendall and McCreary. If a person's musculoskeletal 
disorder causes a reduction in muscle strength, and we do not have a 
report documenting the strength of the muscle(s) in question because 
the person cannot participate in muscle strength testing, we will 
consider other objective clinical findings appropriate to the specific 
musculoskeletal disorder. As well, we note that adults and children 
with cognitive impairments also may be found disabled on another basis 
without consideration of their musculoskeletal impairments. We will 
cover this information, about equivalent, medically acceptable scales, 
including the Kendall and McCreary scale, during our training on these 
final rules to fully ensure that adjudicators are aware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, Table 1 (included in the NPRM and again here) 
includes, under the muscle strength chart, the none/trace/poor/fair/
good/normal alternate scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we should not require a 
positive straight-leg raising test, but should instead use a ``cluster 
of tests'' and allow flexibility in evaluations.
    Response: We disagree. The straight-leg raising test is a 
longstanding requirement for current listing 1.04 (Disorders of the 
spine), and it provides objective medical evidence in cases involving 
lumbar nerve root compromise. The straight-leg raising test is 
routinely used in medical examinations and is well-accepted by the 
medical community. It does not require specialty equipment and is 
considered reliable, accurate, and non-invasive.7 8 
Furthermore, the commenter did not specify the ``cluster of tests'' 
that should be used instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Fajolu, O.K., Pencle, F.J.R., Rosas, S., & Chin, K.R. 
(2018). A prospective analysis of the supine and sitting straight-
leg raise test and its performance in litigation patients. Journal 
of Spine Surgery, 12(1), 58-63. https://doi.org/10.14444/5010.
    \8\ Rabin, A., Gerszten, P.C., Karausky, P., Bunker, C.H., 
Potter, D.M., & Welch, W.C. (2007). The sensitivity of the seated 
straight-leg raise test compared with the supine straight-leg raise 
test in patients presenting with magnetic resonance imaging evidence 
of lumbar nerve root compression. Archives of Physical Medicine and 
Rehabilitation, 88(7), 840-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.04.016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify which sources we 
consider to be acceptable medical sources, and that we consider 
physical therapists as acceptable medical sources.
    Response: We need objective medical evidence from an ``acceptable 
medical source'' to establish the existence of a medically determinable 
impairment(s). We define in 20 CFR 404.1502(a) and 416.902(a) which 
sources we consider to be ``acceptable medical sources.'' To the extent 
that information is already provided at length in our existing 
regulations, we do not repeat it here. However, in response to the 
commenter's specific concern, we note that physical therapists are not 
included in the list of acceptable medical sources. As we explained 
when we updated our medical evidence rules in 2017,\9\ our acceptable 
medical sources have licensure requirements that are more nationally 
consistent, which is essential for us to administer a national 
disability program. For physical therapists, States significantly vary 
on titles, the required hours of experience for licensure, and the 
scope of practice, such as clinical and non-clinical practice. Thus, we 
do not include them in the list of acceptable medical sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 82 FR 5844 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When we evaluate the severity of musculoskeletal disorders 
throughout the sequential evaluation process, we consider all relevant 
evidence we receive from all medical sources, including physical 
therapists, regardless of whether they are an acceptable medical 
source. We therefore note that while evidence from physical therapists 
cannot establish a medically determinable impairment, the evidence can 
still help us establish what, if any, functional limitations arise from 
the medically determinable impairment.
    Comment: One commenter asked that we use the terms ``arm'' instead 
of ``upper extremity'' and ``leg'' instead of ``lower extremity.''
    Response: We did not adopt this comment. An upper extremity 
includes not just the arm, but also structures such as the fingers, 
hand, wrist, elbow, forearm, upper arm, and shoulder; and a lower 
extremity includes not just the leg, but also the toes, feet, ankles, 
lower leg, knee, upper leg, and hip.
    Comment: One commenter asked that we define the ankle as the 
talocrural joint, instead of the tarsal joint, as the talocrural joint 
is the ankle proper.

[[Page 78166]]

    Response: We agree with the comment. In 1.00M (What do we consider 
when we evaluate non-healing or complex fractures of the femur, tibia, 
pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural bones (1.22)?), 1.20C 
(Amputation due to any cause), 1.20D (Amputation due to any cause), 
101.00M (What do we consider when we evaluate non-healing or complex 
fractures of the femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural 
bones (101.22)?), 101.20C (Amputation due to any cause), and 101.20D 
(Amputation due to any cause), we referred to the ankle as the ``tarsal 
joint,'' which is incorrect. We replaced ``tarsal'' with ``talocrural'' 
in these sections, and also in listings 1.22 (Non-healing or complex 
fractures of the femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural 
bones) and 101.22 (Non-healing or complex fractures of the femur, 
tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural bones).
    Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify whether these rules 
consider Syme amputations.
    Response: We did not make any changes in the final rules based on 
this comment. The criteria in 1.20D (Amputation due to any cause) and 
101.20D (Amputation due to any cause) require amputation of one or both 
lower extremities, occurring at or above the ankle. A Syme amputation 
does not meet the criteria in 1.20D and 101.20D, because it is an 
amputation done through the ankle in which the tibia and fibular are 
left intact, the foot is removed, and the heel pad is saved. This is 
done so that the body's weight can be borne over the distal end of the 
stump.\10\ A Syme amputation offers early post-operative weight-bearing 
without the need for gait training, better gait pattern with less 
energy expenditure, and less pressure on the distal 
stump.11 12 As a result, a person with a Syme amputation 
often requires only a cane and walking boot to ambulate post-surgery. 
Once the stump has sufficiently healed, a prosthesis is fitted to allow 
near-normal functioning. For this reason, the impairment, in and of 
itself, does not rise to listing-level severity. In cases involving a 
Syme amputation we would then evaluate the claim under the guidance in 
1.00S (How do we evaluate musculoskeletal disorders that do not meet 
one of these listings?) and 101.00R (How do we evaluate musculoskeletal 
disorders that do not meet one of these listings?).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Diveley, R.L., & Kiene, R.H. (2008). An improved prosthesis 
for a syme amputation: Rex L. Diveley MD (1893-1980), Richard H. 
Kiene MD. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 466(1), 127-
129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0027-0.
    \11\ Syme Amputation for Limb Salvage: Early Experience with 26 
Cases, Frykberg, R., Abraham, S., Tierney, E., and Hall, J. The 
Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Volume 45, Issue 2, March-April 
2007, pp 93-100. Doi: 10.1053/j.jfras.2006.11.005.
    \12\ Syme Amputation and Prosthetic Fitting Challenges, Philbin, 
T., DeLuccia, D., Nitsch, R., Maurus, P. Techniques in Foot & Ankle 
Surgery, Sept. 2007--Volume 6--Issue 3--p147-155. Doi: 10.1097/
BTF.0b013e31814255b9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters asked that we clarify that the terms 
``compromise'' and ``impingement'' are not required for listings 1.15 
(Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a nerve 
root(s)) and 101.15 (Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in 
compromise of a nerve root(s)), because other terms such as 
``displacement'' and ``foraminal stenosis'' also may indicate 
compromise of a nerve root.
    Response: We did not make any changes in the final rules based on 
these comments. Listings 1.15 (Disorders of the skeletal spine 
resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s)) and 101.15 (Disorders of 
the skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s)) require 
symptoms of radicular distribution of one or more manifestations, 
radicular neurological signs, findings on imaging, and physical 
limitation of musculoskeletal functioning. We explain in 1.00F1 (What 
do we consider when we evaluate disorders of the skeletal spine 
resulting in a compromise of a nerve root(s)? (1.15)) and 101.00F1 
(What do we consider when we evaluate disorders of the skeletal spine 
resulting in a compromise of a nerve root(s)? (101.15)) that compromise 
of a nerve root may be referred to as ``nerve root impingement,'' and 
both are terms used when a physical object, such as a tumor or 
herniated disc, is seen pushing on the nerve root in an imaging study 
or during surgery. Moreover, while the proposed terms of 
``displacement'' and ``foraminal stenosis'' may indicate compromise of 
a nerve root, they are not exclusively alternative terms for compromise 
of a nerve root but instead have separate meanings.13 14 
``Disc displacement'' is an alternative term for ``disc herniation'' 
and ``foraminal stenosis'' refers to narrowing of the openings between 
the bones of the spine. Both of these conditions may occur in people 
without nerve root compromise as described by these listings. We do not 
include every possible term indicating compromise of a nerve root. We 
consider all evidence regardless of whether the terms we include in the 
rules, or other comparable terms, appear in the evidence. We also note 
that our medical consultants are acceptable medical sources with formal 
medical training, and they will not be confused by commonly accepted 
alternative medical terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Raja, A., Hoang, S, Viswanath, O., Herman, J.A., & Mesfin, 
F.B. (2020). Spinal stenosis. In StatPearls. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441989/.
    \14\ Leonardi, M. & Boos, N. (2008). Disc herniation and 
radiculopathy. In N. Boos & M. Aebi, (Eds.), Spinal Disorders 
Fundamentals of Diagnosis and Treatment (pp. 481-512). Berlin: 
Springer. Available from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-540-69091-7_18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters asked that we include 
``pseudoclaudication'' as an alternative term for ``neurogenic 
claudication.''
    Response: We adopted these comments. In 1.00G2 (Compromise of the 
cauda equina) and 101.00G2 (Compromise of the cauda equina), we added 
``pseudoclaudication'' as an alternative term for ``neurogenic 
claudication.''
    Comment: Some commenters objected to the removal of listing 
criteria for spinal arachnoiditis found in current 1.04B (Disorders of 
the spine).
    Response: Spinal arachnoiditis is a rare spinal disorder involving 
inflammation of the arachnoid, which is one of the membranes 
surrounding the spinal cord. The inflammation can result in adhesion of 
the nerve roots, which, in turn, affects nerve 
function.15 16 The disorder is characterized by neurological 
signs and symptoms, including, but not limited to, pain, numbness or 
weakness in the legs, muscle cramps or spasms, and motor 
paralysis.17 18 We believe spinal arachnoiditis is more 
appropriately evaluated under the neurological body system due to its 
origins in the nervous system. Listings 11.08 (Spinal cord disorders) 
and 111.08 (Spinal cord disorders) offer different methods of 
evaluating functional limitations resulting from spinal cord disorders, 
such as spinal arachnoiditis, including extreme limitation in motor 
function or marked limitation in physical and mental functioning, which 
may be appropriate for evaluating the functional limitations caused by 
spinal arachnoiditis depending on the medical evidence we receive. We 
added a statement to 1.00F (What do we consider when we evaluate 
disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in compromise

[[Page 78167]]

of a nerve root(s) (1.15)?) and 101.00F (What do we consider when we 
evaluate disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a 
nerve root(s) (101.15)?) indicating that spinal arachnoiditis should be 
evaluated under 11.00 and 111.00. Additionally, we will highlight this 
clarification during our training on these final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Wright, M.H. + Denney, L.C. (2003). A comprehensive review 
of spinal arachnoiditis. Orthopaedic Nursing, 22(3), 215-9. doi: 
10.1097/00006416-200305000-00010.
    \16\ https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/5839/arachnoiditis.
    \17\ https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/12062-arachnoiditis.
    \18\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237290/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters asked that we use plain language 
terminology instead of medical terminology in these rules, and gave an 
example of using ``pins and needles'' instead of ``paresthesia.''
    Response: We did not make any changes in the final rules based on 
these comments. While we drafted these rules using plain language to 
the extent possible, the rules specify the medical criteria we use to 
evaluate musculoskeletal disorders. The appropriate medical term is 
paresthesia. We note that the term ``pins and needles'' is at times 
used in medical literature 19 20 21 but as a specific 
medical criteria we believe it is overly colloquial. As such, while we 
acknowledge that the term ``pins and needles'' may appear in medical 
records, we choose to not include the colloquialism in the regulatory 
text. We will cover this information during our training on these final 
rules to fully remind adjudicators that colloquialisms such as ``pins 
and needles'' may be seen in medical records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Chapter 22 
(https://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?sectionid=192011473&bookid=2129#196882079).
    \20\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/medgen/14619.
    \21\ Bates' Guide to Physical Examination and History Taking 
Twelfth Edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that many of the terms used in these 
rules are ``not defined well enough'' for adjudicators and others to be 
sure what they mean and gave the examples of ``unable,'' ``walk,'' 
``fine and gross motor movements,'' ``picking,'' ``pinching,'' 
``manipulating and fingering,'' ``handling,'' ``gripping and 
grasping,'' ``holding,'' ``turning,'' ``lifting and carrying,'' 
``seriously limit,'' and ``prescribed treatment.''
    Response: We disagree with these comments. These rules use ``fine 
and gross movements'' (not ``fine and gross motor movements''), which 
is a term defined in 1.00E4 (Fine and gross movements) and 101.00E4 
(Fine and gross movements). The majority of the other terms identified 
by this commenter are examples of fine movements (picking, pinching, 
manipulating, and fingering) and gross movements (handling, gripping, 
grasping, holding, turning, lifting, and carrying), and we use these 
terms, as well as ``unable'' and ``walk,'' in these rules as they are 
defined in common English usage. The proposed rules did not include the 
terms ``prescribed treatment'' or ``seriously limit.''
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the guidance in 
101.00C5b (Response to treatment) for child claims (which is also in 
1.00C5b (Response to treatment) for adult claims) that explains we may 
defer our determination or decision under these listings for up to 3 
months from the date treatment began. The commenters recommended that 
the length of deferral time be considered in consultation with a 
physician or other medical professional.
    Response: We agree with and are adopting these comments. We revised 
1.00C5b (Response to treatment) and 101.00C5b (Response to treatment) 
by removing the last sentence, which stated that we may defer our 
determination or decision under these listings for up to 3 months. The 
remaining guidance continues to explain that we need information about 
treatment over a sufficient period of time to determine its effect on a 
person's musculoskeletal functioning. We use medical consultants and 
our adjudicative experience to determine the appropriate amount of 
time. We will not defer our determination or decision when the evidence 
establishes that the claimant is disabled, either under these listings 
or on another basis.
    Comment: We sought comment on whether the proposed functional 
criteria in 1.00C6 (Assistive devices) and 101.00C6 (Assistive devices) 
were appropriate and sufficient. In response, one commenter asked that 
we add a fourth category of assistive devices, specifically wheeled 
mobility devices, including manual and power wheelchairs, to the list 
of assistive devices in 1.00C6 (Assistive devices) and 101.00C6 
(Assistive devices). Most of the other commenters made similar 
comments, recommending that we add ``wheelchairs and scooters'' 
wherever we include ``a documented medical need for a walker, bilateral 
canes, or bilateral crutches'' in these rules, because people with a 
documented need for a wheelchair or scooter require ``at least as much 
assistance in walking as those with a need for other assistive 
devices.'' These commenters also asked that we ``examine how a patient 
will use an assistive device, not merely why it is needed,'' and that 
we require documentation of distance, cadence, and level of assistance.
    Response: We are partially adopting the suggestions offered. The 
functional criteria in these rules do not require an inability to walk, 
so the relative assistance in walking offered by different assistive 
devices is not the point of consideration. Rather, the functional 
criteria in these rules represent functional limitations related to the 
upper extremities. These functional limitations either directly 
represent upper extremity limitations, as with the criteria for an 
inability to perform fine and gross movements, or indirectly represent 
upper extremity limitations, as with the criteria for the use of a 
hand-held assistive device(s), which necessarily limits the use of the 
upper extremity holding the assistive device. Further, as we explain in 
1.00C6d (Hand-held assistive devices) and 101.00C6d (Hand-held 
assistive devices), ``[w]hen you use a one-handed, hand-held assistive 
device (such as a cane) with one upper extremity to walk and you cannot 
use your other upper extremity for fine or gross movements (see 
1.00E4), the need for the assistive device limits the use of both upper 
extremities.''
    To be responsive to the commenters, however, we added wheeled and 
seated mobility devices to the functional criteria based on how the 
wheeled and seated mobility device affects the person's use of the 
upper extremities. As suggested by the commenters, these modifications 
to the functional criteria are reflected everywhere hand-held assistive 
devices were proposed in the NPRM. We also added explanation to the 
introductory text about how we will consider wheeled and seated 
mobility devices in 1.00C6e (Wheeled and seated mobility devices), 
1.00E3 (Functional criteria), 1.00K4 (Amputation of one upper extremity 
and one lower extremity (1.20C)), 1.00K5 (Amputation of one lower 
extremity or both lower extremities with complications of the residual 
limb(s) (1.20D)), 101.00C6e (Wheeled and seated mobility devices), 
101.00E3 (Functional criteria), 101.00K4 (Amputation of one upper 
extremity and one lower extremity (101.20C)), and 101.00K5 (Amputation 
of one lower extremity or both lower extremities with complications of 
the residual limbs(s) (101.20D)). We further clarified that any 
assistive device, regardless of whether it is wheeled, hand-held, or 
worn, must be supported by medical documentation of the medical need 
for the assistive device for a continuous period of at least 12 months 
in 1.00C6a (General) and 101.00C6a (General). With respect to the 
requests that we require documentation of distance, cadence, and level 
of assistance, we decline to do so. Most records already supply the 
information

[[Page 78168]]

needed to assess the new functional criteria whereas information about 
the requested items, especially distance, is not typically provided and 
would necessitate additional development and burden to the claimant to 
obtain that information.
    Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify that hand-held 
assistive devices are devices you hold onto.
    Response: We adopted this comment. In 1.00C6d (Hand-held assistive 
devices) and 101.C6d (Hand-held assistive devices), we clarified that 
hand-held assistive devices are devices you hold onto, not carry, with 
your hands.
    Comment: One commenter expressed that the statement in 1.00C6d 
(Hand-held assistive devices) about the need for evidence from a 
medical source describing how the person walks when using a hand-held 
assistive device is vague and open to interpretation.
    Response: We did not make changes in response to this comment. 
Depending on the specific musculoskeletal impairment causing the 
functional limitation, there is variability in the type of device being 
used, how a person uses an assistive device, and how this device 
affects mobility. Requiring specific details from the medical source 
may not adequately address the facts in an individual case. For these 
reasons, we are intentionally leaving the type of description provided 
to the discretion of the medical source rather than prescribing a 
specific type of description. This allows the medical source necessary 
flexibility in providing a description.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested we explain in 1.00D (How do we 
consider symptoms, including pain, under these listings?) and 101.00D 
(How do we consider symptoms, including pain, under these listings?) of 
the introductory text of the listings that a lack of opioid 
prescription or a person's attempt to reduce or avoid opioid use does 
not indicate the severity of a musculoskeletal disorder.
    Response: In 1.00C5b (Response to treatment) and 101.00C5b 
(Response to treatment), we clarified that a person's musculoskeletal 
disorder may meet or medically equal one of these listings regardless 
of whether the person was prescribed opioid medication, or whether the 
person was prescribed opioid medication and did not follow this 
prescribed treatment. In addition to how we consider opioids in the 
context of treatment, in 1.00D (How do we consider symptoms, including 
pain, under these listings?) and 101.00D (How do we consider symptoms, 
including pain, under these listings?), we explain how we consider 
symptoms, including pain, under these listings. The disability program 
rules require the presence of a medically determinable impairment that 
could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms (including pain), 
a description of the person's medications (see 1.00C5b (Response to 
treatment) and 101.00C5b (Response to treatment)), and the effects of 
those medications on the allegations of pain. Our regulations in 20 CFR 
404.1529 and 416.929 and Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p: Titles II 
and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims,\22\ explain how 
we evaluate symptoms, including pain, in disability adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 81 FR 14166 (03/16/16), 81 FR 15776 (03/24/16) 
(Correction), 82 FR 49462 (10/25/17) (Republished).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our rules about the failure to follow prescribed treatment are 
found in 20 CFR 404.1530 and 416.930, with additional guidance found in 
SSR 18-3p: Titles II and XVI: Failure to Follow Prescribed 
Treatment.\23\ If a person is prescribed opioid medication, and chooses 
to not take the medication, we consider these rules for any medical 
condition(s), not just musculoskeletal disorders. SSR 18-3p 
specifically references the ``risk of addiction to opioid medication'' 
as an example of a ``good cause'' reason for not following prescribed 
treatment with opioid medication.\24\ We further note that the 
musculoskeletal disorders listings are used at step three of our 
sequential evaluation process, and are used to establish medical 
criteria to help expedite allowances. Therefore, we do not deny adult 
claims at this step for any reason and only deny childhood claims if 
the child's medically determinable impairment(s) does not meet, 
medically equal, or functionally equal the listings.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ SSR 18-3p: Titles II and XVI: Failure to Follow Prescribed 
Treatment. Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR2018-03-di-02.html.
    \24\ SSR 18-3p: Titles II and XVI: Failure to Follow Prescribed 
Treatment. Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR2018-03-di-02.html.
    \25\ We use a five-step sequential evaluation process to 
determine whether an adult is disabled under titles II and XVI. 20 
CFR 404.1520 and 416.920. We use a different process to decide 
whether a child is disabled under title XVI of the Act. 20 CFR 
416.924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A number of commenters asked that we continue to consider 
obesity and its effects on the musculoskeletal system.
    Response: We agree with the comments. We have not changed our 
policy on evaluating obesity. We consider all medically determinable 
impairments when we evaluate claims for disability purposes. If obesity 
is a medically determinable impairment, we consider its effects on 
functioning throughout the sequential evaluation process. These final 
rules do not eliminate or prevent our consideration of obesity. We 
added section 1.00Q (How do we consider the effects of obesity when we 
evaluate your musculoskeletal disorder?), which explains that the 
combined effects of obesity with musculoskeletal impairments can be 
greater than the effects of each impairment considered separately. We 
also provide guidance in SSR 19-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases 
Involving Obesity, which explains how we consider obesity in disability 
claims.\26\ The removal of the prior section 1.00Q (Effects of 
obesity), which explained that the combined effects of obesity with 
musculoskeletal impairments can be greater than the effects of each 
impairment considered separately, does not change our policy on 
evaluating obesity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ SSR 19-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving 
Obesity. Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2019-02-di-01.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter asked how these rules account for 
fibromyalgia, considering there are no diagnostic tests for this 
condition; no clear physical, anatomical, or psychological 
abnormalities resulting from fibromyalgia; and that it is difficult to 
fully assess pain as part of a medical evaluation, which is 
particularly challenging given that pain is the primary presenting 
symptom of fibromyalgia.
    Response: These final rules do not change how we consider 
fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a complex medical condition characterized 
primarily by widespread pain in the joints, muscles, tendons, or nearby 
soft tissues that has persisted for at least 3 months. SSR 12-2p: 
Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Fibromyalgia explains how we consider 
fibromyalgia in disability claims, including how we evaluate it at step 
3 of our sequential evaluation process.\27\ We consider all medically 
determinable impairments when we evaluate claims for disability 
purposes. Once fibromyalgia is established as a medically determinable 
impairment based on appropriate medical evidence, we consider its 
effects on functioning throughout the sequential evaluation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ SSR 12-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Fibromyalgia. 
Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2012-02-di-01.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with our introduction into 
the regulations of an explicit requirement that all applicable listing 
criteria must

[[Page 78169]]

be present simultaneously, and asked that we change our policy to 
reflect the holding with respect to prior 1.04A in Radford v. Colvin, 
734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 15-1(4): Radford v. Colvin, 734 
F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013): Standard for Meeting Section 1.04A of the 
Listing of Impairments--Disorders of the Spine with Evidence of 
Nerve Root Compression--Titles II and XVI of the Social Security 
Act. Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/ar/04/AR2015-01-ar-04.html. The Radford Court held that ``[a] claimant need not 
show that each symptom was present at precisely the same time--i.e., 
simultaneously--in order to establish the chronic nature of his 
condition. Nor need a claimant show that the symptoms were present 
in the claimant in particularly close proximity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We did not adopt these comments. The holding of the Court 
of Appeals in Radford differs from our interpretation of the listing 
requirement, and is inconsistent with our understanding of the degree 
of severity requirements at step 3 of the sequential evaluation 
process.
    In Radford,\29\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit held that Listing 1.04A required a claimant to show only ``that 
each of the symptoms are present, and that the claimant has suffered or 
can be expected to suffer from nerve root compression continuously for 
at least 12 months.'' Contrary to our policy that the requisite level 
of severity requires the simultaneous presence of all the medical 
criteria in paragraph A of former 1.04, the Court of Appeals held that 
a claimant need not show that each criterion was present simultaneously 
or in particularly close proximity. Because this holding was contrary 
to our policy, we issued AR 15-1(4), which implemented the Court of 
Appeals' holding within the Fourth Circuit.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013).
    \30\ Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 15-1(4): Radford v. Colvin, 734 
F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013): Standard for Meeting Section 1.04A of the 
Listing of Impairments--Disorders of the Spine with Evidence of 
Nerve Root Compression--Titles II and XVI of the Social Security 
Act. Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/ar/04/AR2015-01-ar-04.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These final rules clarify our interpretation of the regulations. 
For a medically determinable impairment to meet a listing, the criteria 
must be present simultaneously to establish listing-level severity. 
Once that is established, evidence must show that this level of 
severity has lasted, or is expected to last, for at least 12 months.
    We note that in reaching its conclusion in Radford, the Court of 
Appeals declined to give our interpretation deference because the 
agency had not previously published any regulation or other agency 
guidance supporting our interpretation.\31\ The Court of Appeals also 
found that our interpretation was ``plainly inconsistent with the text 
and structure of the regulation because the regulation said ``nothing 
about a claimant's need to show that the symptoms present 
simultaneously in the claimant or in close proximity to one another'' 
\32\ Thus, the Court of Appeals decision itself does not preclude us 
from developing regulations to explicit state this requirement and 
establish national consistency. Furthermore, our acquiescence rules 
also allow us to subsequently clarify, modify, or revoke regulations 
that are the subject of a circuit holding that we determine conflicts 
with our interpretation of the regulations.\33\ In accordance with 
these rules, we will rescind AR 15-1(4) when these final rules become 
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d at 294.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ 20 CFR 404.985(e)(4) and 416.1485(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: These commenters also stated that the 4-month duration 
period, during which all of the relevant criteria must be present, if 
not ``present simultaneously,'' in the medical evidence, should not be 
a requirement for these listings, and that we should allow medical 
sources to opine whether the criteria occurred within a 4-month period 
regardless of whether these findings are actually recorded in the 
medical record. One commenter suggested that we change the 4-month 
period to a 6-month period.
    Response: We did not adopt these comments. None of these commenters 
submitted any supporting research or data to justify such a change to 
these rules. The intention of a 4-month time period was to best ensure 
all relevant criteria are ``present simultaneously,'' while also 
providing leeway in cases where multiple visitations or examinations 
are necessary, such as when a physical examination might not have been 
performed or symptoms might not have been documented at a given 
appointment. In the absence of research or data to support these 
comments, we are not changing the 4-month period, which is consistent 
with the standard of care and common industry practice. For example, a 
2012 study of over 100,000 patients with chronic lower back pain found 
that the median patient visited a physician office 10 times in the 
study year, with an interquartile range between 6 and 17 outpatient 
visits.\34\ This is consistent with a requirement to document all 
relevant criteria within a four-month duration can reasonably be 
accommodated by most patients' routine visitation frequencies. As 
another example, a two-year study using data from the Medical Panel 
Expenditure Survey regarding utilization of healthcare showed that for 
people with spine disease, arthritis/joint disease, musculoskeletal 
injuries, and other musculoskeletal disease, the average total visits 
to physician and non-physician ambulatory services was greater in 
frequency than once every three months.\35\ Other studies also suggest 
that for chronic ailments, including certain musculoskeletal disorders, 
re-visitation within 3-4 months is normative.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Gore, M., Sadosky, A., Stacey, B.R., Tai, K.S., & Leslie, 
D. (2012). The burden of chronic low back pain: Clinical 
comorbidities, treatment patterns, and health care costs in usual 
care settings. Spine, 37(11), E668-E677. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318241e5de.
    \35\ BMUS: The Burden of Musculoskeletal Diseases in the United 
States. In: BMUS: The Burden of Musculoskeletal Diseases in the 
United States [internet]. [cited 15 July 2020]. https://www.boneandjointburden.org/fourth-edition/viiic2/utilization-condition-group.
    \36\ J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Apr; 14(4): 230-235. doi: 10.1046/
j.1525-1497.1999.00322.x Lisa M. Schwartz, MD, MS, Steven Woloshin, 
MD, MS, John H. Wasson, MD, Roger A. Renfrew, MD, and H. Gilbert 
Welch, MD, MPH, Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Research 
Network\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, it is generally perceived that providers are trained to 
schedule their patients for visits every 3 to 4 months routinely, 
regardless of disease severity.\37\ This is further backed by clinical 
practice guidelines. For example, the Veteran's Health Administration 
(VHA) and Department of Defense's (DoD) Clinical Practice Guideline for 
the Management of Medically Unexplained Symptoms: Chronic Pain and 
Fatigue (2001) recommends ``initially, a revisit at two to three weeks 
would be appropriate. As soon as the patient is doing well, then 
revisits every 3 to 4 months would be recommended.'' \38\ Similarly, 
the VHA/DoD 2017 guide Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis and 
Treatment of Low Back Pain recommends reassessment monthly after 
initiation of therapy if low back pain continues and

[[Page 78170]]

no serious specific underlying cause for low back pain is found.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Bavafa, H., Savin, S., & Terwiesch, C. (2019). Redesigning 
Primary Care Delivery: Customized Office Revisit Intervals and E-
Visits. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2363685 Paper referenced by 
Bavafa: Schectman, G., G. Barnas, P. Laud, L. Cantwell, M. Horton, 
E.J. Zarling. 2005. Prolonging the return visit interval in primary 
care. The American Journal of Medicine, 118(4) 393-399.
    \38\ Veterans Health Administration & Department of Defense. 
(2001). VHA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of 
Medically Unexplained Symptoms: Chronic Pain and Fatigue. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/MR/mus/mus_fulltext.pdf (2001 VA 
Practice Guideline for Medically Unexplained Chronic Pain and 
Fatigue).
    \39\ Veterans Health Administration & Department of Defense. 
(2017). VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis and 
Treatment of Low Back Pain. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/Pain/lbp/VADoDLBPCPG092917.pdf (Module B in document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe our review of available medical literature and clinical 
guidelines reflects the appropriateness of selecting a 4-month time 
period. We recognize that one routine visit alone does not necessarily 
ensure that all necessary criterion for a medical listing are 
appropriately documented; however the 4-month time period provides 
sufficient buffer to ensure the criteria are present within a close 
proximity of time.
    We cannot accept a medical opinion that opines that otherwise 
undocumented medical findings would have occurred during a 4-month 
period in the absence of any other supporting evidence to bolster that 
view. We note that when prescribing how we should consider medical 
opinions, our existing regulations \40\ make clear that the most 
important factors are supportability and consistency. The medical 
opinions must be supportive of and consistent with other evidence in 
the case file for us to find them persuasive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 20 CFR 404.1520b and 404.1520c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the criterion 
for imaging in 1.15C (Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in 
compromise of a nerve root(s)), 1.16C (Lumbar spinal stenosis resulting 
in compromise of the cauda equina), 101.15C (Disorders of the skeletal 
spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s)), and 101.16C (Lumbar 
spinal stenosis resulting in compromise of the cauda equina). These 
comments noted that there may be people eligible for disability under 
current rules who may not be able to afford medical imaging or feel 
that medical imaging is necessary to treat their condition. These 
commenters asked that we remove this criterion because many claimants 
cannot afford imaging.
    Response: We do not believe that final rule introduces new medical 
imaging requirements that were not already present under existing 
rules. Current 1.04 (Disorders of the spine) establishes three 
potential means for meeting the medical listing. Current 1.04C 
(Disorders of the spine) explicitly requires appropriate medically 
acceptable imaging. Current 1.04B (Disorders of the spine) pertains to 
spinal arachnoiditis and explicitly requires medical imaging, an 
operative note, or pathology report of tissue biopsy. As discussed 
elsewhere in this preamble, spinal arachnoiditis is more appropriately 
evaluated under the neurological body system (for example, under 
listings 11.08 (Spinal cord disorders) and 111.08 (Spinal cord 
disorders) and will be assessed using the requirements in the 
neurological listings. Finally, current 1.04A does not have an explicit 
medical imaging requirement. In full, 1.04A reads: ``[e]vidence of 
nerve root compression characterized by neuro-anatomic distribution of 
pain, limitation of motion of the spine, motor loss (atrophy with 
associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory 
or reflex loss and, if there is involvement of the lower back, positive 
straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine)''. Despite not having an 
explicit medical imaging requirement, under current adjudication policy 
we would always consider the ``evidence of nerve root compression'' 
required in 1.04A to necessarily include medical imaging. Because of 
this, while 1.15 is more explicit than 1.04A in its requirements 
pertaining to medical imaging, it does not impose any new medical 
imaging requirements nor does it impose additional costs on applicants.
    Comment: One commenter asked that we replace the medical term 
``cauda equina involvement'' with ``nerve root impingement,'' since 
``nerve root impingement'' is more commonly used in the medical 
community.
    Response: The term ``nerve root impingement'' is not 
interchangeable with ``cauda equina involvement,'' so we did not make 
changes in response to this comment. As we explain in 1.00F (What do we 
consider when we evaluate disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in 
compromise of a nerve root(s) (1.15)?) and 101.00F (What do we consider 
when we evaluate disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in 
compromise of a nerve root(s) (101.15)?), ``compromise of a nerve 
root,'' which is an alternative term to ``nerve root impingement,'' is 
used when a physical object is pushing on the nerve root and results in 
related symptoms that follow the path of the affected nerve root. 
Compromise of the cauda equina, as we explain in 1.00G (What do we 
consider when we evaluate lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in 
compromise of the cauda equina (1.16)?) and 101.00G (What do we 
consider when we evaluate lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in 
compromise of the cauda equina (101.16)?), involves the bundle of 
nerves descending from the lower part of the spinal cord and typically 
results in nonradicular pain, because it is not associated with a 
specific nerve root.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we incorporate impairment of 
the muscles controlling joint movements into 1.00I (What do we consider 
when we evaluate abnormality of a major joint(s) in any extremity 
(1.18)?) and that we should consider how these impairments impact 
function.
    Response: These suggestions are already included in the 
introductory text and listing criteria for 1.18 (Abnormality of a major 
join(s) in any extremity). In 1.00I1 (What do we consider when we 
evaluate abnormality of a major joint(s) in any extremity (1.18)?), we 
indicate that ``[a]bnormalities of the joints include ligamentous 
laxity or rupture, soft tissue contracture, or tendon rupture and can 
cause muscle weakness of the affected joint(s).'' We explain functional 
abnormality in 1.00I1b (What do we consider when we evaluate 
abnormality of a major joint(s) in any extremity (1.18)?).
    Comment: Several commenters asked that we insert ``at or'' before 
``above the wrists'' because amputation at the wrists causes 
essentially identical functional limitations as amputation just above 
the wrists.
    Response: We agree with the comments. In 1.00K2 (Amputation of both 
upper extremities), 1.20A (Amputation due to any cause), 101.00K2 
(Amputation of both upper extremities), and 101.20A (Amputation due to 
any cause), we added ``at or'' before ``above the wrists.''
    Comment: Several commenters suggested we combine the proposed 
criteria in 1.15A and B (Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in 
compromise of a nerve root(s)) and 101.15A and B (Disorders of the 
skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s)) and ``allow 
them to be satisfied when at least one of the following 
neuroanatomically-distributed (radicular) symptoms is present: . . . 
pain; limitation of motion of the spine; muscle weakness or fatigue; 
signs of nerve root irritation, tension, or compression; and 
paresthesias.''
    Response: We did not adopt these comments. The commenters 
mischaracterized muscle weakness and signs of nerve root irritation, 
tension, or compression as ``symptoms'' of disorders of the skeletal 
spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s). These are, in fact, 
medical signs. The commenters' suggestion would conflate the symptoms 
and signs of skeletal spine disorders. The separation of symptoms and 
signs into two distinct criteria is appropriate given our requirements 
establishing a medically

[[Page 78171]]

determinable impairment.\41\ SSA defines a symptom as one's own 
description of a physical or mental impairment(s),\42\ whereas a sign 
is one or more anatomical, physiological, or psychological 
abnormalities that can be observed apart from one's own statements. 
Signs must be ``shown by accepted medically acceptable clinical 
diagnostic techniques.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 20 CFR 404.1521 and 416.921.
    \42\ 20 CFR 404.1502(i) and 416.902(i).
    \43\ 20 CFR 404.1502(g) and 416.902(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters suggested that we remove the functional 
criteria for 1.15 (Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in 
compromise of a nerve root(s)) and 101.15 (Disorders of the skeletal 
spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s)). For example, they 
argued that the skeletal spine disorder would have serious limitations 
that would be disabling without any accompanying need for a hand-held 
assistive device (which we require for the skeletal spine disorder to 
be considered listing level).
    Response: We agree that skeletal spine disorders can cause 
significant limitations. However, the signs and symptoms that are 
included in 1.15A and B (Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in 
compromise of a nerve root(s)) and 101.15A and B (Disorders of the 
skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s)) have a wide 
range of presentation. There can be a similarly wide range of 
limitations resulting from those signs and symptoms. The functional 
criteria are designed to specify the level of limitation that results 
in the inability to perform ``any gainful activity,'' which is the 
level of severity required to meet or equal a listing.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 20 CFR 404.1525(a) and 416.925(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters asked that we omit the functional 
criteria from 1.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper 
extremity) and 101.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper 
extremity), because the proposed criteria makes the new listings more 
difficult to meet or equal than the prior listings.
    Response: We partially adopted this comment. Functional criteria 
continue to be an important part of establishing the inability to 
perform ``any gainful activity,'' which is the level of severity 
required to meet or equal a listing.\45\ We did, however, modify the 
criteria in 1.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper 
extremity) and 101.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper 
extremity) to remove the proposed criterion for the use of a hand-held 
assistive device, and to instead focus on the inability to perform fine 
and gross movements that would be associated with non-union or complex 
fracture of an upper extremity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters expressed that the functional criteria 
in 1.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper extremity) and 
101.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper extremity) are 
``flawed because they fail to distinguish whether the dominant or non-
dominant extremity is injured, which is a crucial distinction in terms 
of functional abilities and limitations.''
    Response: We did not make changes in response to this comment. 
Although the commenters are correct about the lack of distinction 
between the dominant and non-dominant upper extremity, the listings for 
musculoskeletal disorders have never considered the difference between 
a dominant and non-dominant extremity, because people can still use 
their non-dominant extremities. We more appropriately consider a 
distinction when we assess manipulative limitations in the residual 
functional capacity (at a later step in the disability determination 
process), since manipulations require more targeted motor skills and 
coordination, and the role of the dominant extremity is more important 
in that area.
    Comment: Some commenters argued that listings 1.22 (Non-healing or 
complex fracture of the femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the 
talocrural bones), 1.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper 
extremity), 101.22 (Non-healing or complex fracture of the femur, 
tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural bones), and 101.23 
(Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper extremity) are not 
sufficient replacements for non-pathologic fractures due to the 
exclusion of fractures of bones such as the skull, ribs, and clavicle.
    Response: We do not agree with these comments. First, listings 1.22 
(Non-healing or complex fracture of the femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or 
more of the talocrural bones), 1.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of 
an upper extremity), 101.22 (Non-healing or complex fracture of the 
femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural bones), and 
101.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper extremity) include 
the same types of fractures as current listings 1.06 (Fracture of the 
femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the tarsal bones), 1.07 
(Fracture of an upper extremity), 101.06 (Fracture of the femur, tibia, 
pelvis, or one or more of the tarsal bones), and 101.07 (Fracture of an 
upper extremity), which also did not include fractures of the skull, 
ribs, and clavicle. Second, non-pathologic fractures likely result in 
impairments that are more appropriately evaluated under other listing 
criteria. For example, a fracture of the skull may accompany a 
traumatic brain injury, which is better considered under neurological 
listings 11.18 (Traumatic brain injury) and 111.18 (Traumatic brain 
injury), whereas fractures of the ribs or clavicle may result in soft 
tissue injury that is more appropriately considered under 1.21 (Soft 
tissue injury or abnormality under continuing surgical management) and 
101.21 (Soft tissue injury or abnormality under continuing surgical 
management).
    Comment: Several commenters suggested we should not limit the 
criteria for 1.19 (Pathologic fractures due to any cause) and 101.19 
(Pathological fractures due to any cause) to pathologic fractures, 
because the same functional limitations can result from both pathologic 
and non-pathologic fractures.
    Response: We did not make changes as a result of these comments. As 
we explained in the NPRM, medical treatment and recovery expectations 
for fractures differ, depending on whether the condition is due to an 
underlying pathology (such as osteoporosis), or to a traumatic event. 
For this reason, we are adding separate listings for fractures caused 
by an underlying pathology to provide specific criteria in 1.19 
(Pathologic fractures due to any cause) and 101.19 (Pathologic 
fractures due to any cause) related to evaluation and adjudication of 
pathologic fractures. We will evaluate complex or non-healing traumatic 
fractures under 1.22 (Non-healing or complex fracture of the femur, 
tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural bones), 1.23 (Non-
healing or complex fracture of an upper extremity) (Non-healing or 
complex fracture of the femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the 
talocrural bones), or 101.23 (Non-healing or complex fracture of an 
upper extremity).
    Furthermore, the criterion in 1.19 (Pathologic fractures due to any 
cause) and 101.19 (Pathologic fractures due to any cause) for three 
fractures in a 12-month period is not appropriate for non-pathologic 
fractures. Each traumatic fracture constitutes a separate medically 
determinable impairment under our program rules, and each would need to 
be evaluated separately to determine whether the duration requirement 
is met. As we state in 20 CFR 404.1523(a) and 419.923(a), we cannot 
combine two or more unrelated severe impairments to meet the 12 month 
duration test. In contrast, multiple pathologic fractures over an 
extended period are considered

[[Page 78172]]

related impairments because of the underlying medical condition (for 
example, osteoporosis).
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about children with a 
diagnosis of osteogenesis imperfecta, and suggested we revise the 
criteria to only require a ``definitive diagnosis'' of osteogenesis 
imperfecta with multiple fractures at one time, rather than the 
proposed requirement for fractures on separate and distinct occasions.
    Response: We did not make changes in response to this comment. 
Osteogenesis imperfecta is not the only cause of pathologic fractures 
evaluated under 101.19 (Pathologic fractures due to any cause). Other 
causes include osteoporosis, other skeletal dysplasias, side effects of 
medications, and disorders of the endocrine system. The criteria for 
pathological fractures need to be appropriate for pathologic fractures 
and not just for one condition that has variable effects such as 
osteogenesis imperfecta. The terminology ``definitive diagnosis'' would 
contradict our other regulations. Our regulations require a medically 
determinable impairment established by objective medical evidence. We 
specifically state that we do not use a diagnosis to establish the 
existence of an impairment.\46\ Once we establish the presence of a 
severe medically determinable impairment, we then determine whether the 
level of impairment results in the inability to perform ``any gainful 
activity,'' which is the level of severity required to meet or equal a 
listing.\47\ A ``definitive diagnosis'' is not, on its own, indicative 
of listing level severity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 20 CFR 404.1521 and 416.921.
    \47\ 20 CFR 404.1525(a) and 416.925(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We describe in 101.00J (What do we consider when we evaluate 
pathologic fractures due to any cause (101.19)?) that osteogenesis 
imperfecta is one of the conditions that might result in pathologic 
fractures. Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic disease that can 
manifest at differing levels of severity. For this reason, there is a 
recognized classification system for the disorder, from type 1 to type 
4, to differentiate between the clinical characteristics of each 
type.\48\ The requirement in 101.19 (Pathologic fractures due to any 
cause) is that the fractures ``must occur on separate, distinct 
occasions, rather than multiple fractures occurring at the same time, 
but they may affect the same bone(s) multiple times. There is no 
required period between the incidents of fracture(s), but they must all 
occur within a 12-month period; for example, separate incidents may 
occur within hours or days of each other. However, the associated 
limitation(s) of function must last, or be expected to last, at least 
12 months.'' This criterion ensures that the severity of the 
osteogenesis imperfecta, or any other types of pathological fractures, 
rises to the level required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ https://radiopaedia.org/articles/osteogenesis-imperfecta-classification-1?lang=us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify when we adjust a 
child's age for prematurity.
    Response: We did not make any changes in the final rules based on 
this comment. In 101.00O2a (Severity of motor development delay), we 
provide a citation to 20 CFR 416.924b(b), which explains at length our 
rules for correcting the chronological age of premature infants. We 
have not changed those rules here; as such, we direct the commenter to 
the rules cited above.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the listing will 
``favor or encourage claimants to engage in medical treatment that they 
would not otherwise engage in'' and that ``claimants should make 
treatment decisions with their medical providers and the other 
consideration should be whether or not the treatment may be beneficial 
and if the potential benefits outweigh any risks.'' A similar comment 
outlined a series of examples of clients who were found eligible at 
Step 3 under current rules but who the commenter does not believe would 
be found eligible at Step 3 under this final rule and would therefore 
need to move on to subsequent steps in the sequential evaluation 
process.
    Response: We did not make changes in response to this comment. In 
fact, the Act specifically prevents us from interfering with medical 
practice.\49\ At no point do we instruct or require that any form of 
treatment be prescribed, which would violate the cited section of the 
Act. We only state that in some cases, we consider some items (for 
example, the use of handheld assistive devices, for certain disorders) 
or treatments to be effective functional indicators of the presence of 
a particular musculoskeletal disorder. However, it is understood that 
if a person is engaging in medical treatment, that treatment must be 
prescribed by a medical source, and that source will have documented 
the need for the treatment or assistive device. We do not believe that 
this requirement will cause the affected public to pursue a different 
course of treatment than they otherwise would have under our existing 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Sec. 216(i)1: ``Nothing in this title shall be construed as 
authorizing the Commissioner or any other officer or employee of the 
United States to interfere in any way with the practice of medicine 
or with relationships between practitioners of medicine and their 
patients, or to exercise any supervision or control over the 
administration or operation of any hospital.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that many of our medical listings include a functional 
limitation component, and in the case of certain musculoskeletal 
disorders, we believe the use of certain treatments or assistive 
devices is the only objective functional component we can assess. We do 
not believe that this requirement will cause the affected public to 
pursue a different course of treatment than they otherwise would have, 
including the purchase of assistive devices, for people who may seek to 
apply for disability. This rule requires only the documented medical 
need for the assistive device, not the ownership of the device. We do 
not believe that this final rule will result in people, who previously 
had a documented medical need for an assistive device but who had 
chosen not to in consultation with their physician due to a perceived 
lack of benefit (for example, because they are confined to bed) 
purchase and assistive device to satisfy the functional requirements of 
this rule. Conversely, a person without a documented medical need for 
an assistive device in their record will continue to be evaluated under 
steps 4 and 5 of the disability determination process even if they are 
not found eligible at step 3.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that we do not provide 
quantitative data to show the validity of these listings, noting that 
many people engage in work even though their impairments meet the 
listing requirements. The commenter opined that this challenges the 
validity of using the listings to determine whether a person is 
disabled, and that the listings are in conflict with the statutory 
definition of disability. Several other commenters asserted that we do 
not provide any justification for making the substantial changes.
    Response: We did not make any changes in the final rules based on 
these comments. Contrary to the commenters' assertion that we did not 
provide justification or sources for our changes, our NPRM included a 
list of 64 references that we relied on in proposing these rules.\50\ 
We also invited the public to comment on these references and the data 
contained within them. The listings help ensure that determinations and 
decisions of disability have a sound medical basis, that claimants 
receive equal treatment throughout the country, and that we can

[[Page 78173]]

readily identify the majority of people who are disabled. The level of 
severity described in the listings is such that we consider a person, 
who is not engaging in substantial gainful activity (SGA) and has an 
impairment that meets or medically equals all of the criteria of the 
listing, is generally considered unable to do any work because of the 
medical impairment alone at step 3 of the sequential evaluation 
process. When such a person's impairment or combination of impairments 
meets or medically equals the level of severity described in the 
listing for the required duration, we will find the person disabled on 
the basis of medical facts alone in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary (for example, the actual performance of substantial gainful 
activity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 83 FR 20646, 20656-58 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter opined that our proposed revisions 
discriminate against the poor because the criteria in the listings 
depend on specific diagnoses that, in turn, require medical tests that 
many people cannot afford and that we will not purchase. The commenter 
notes that these tests are not specifically required by the listings, 
but that they still help establish disability for those people who are 
able to afford them.
    Response: We did not make any changes in the final rules based on 
these comments. The Act and our regulations require a claimant to 
submit medical evidence to establish a medically determinable 
impairment. We use medical evidence generally accepted in the medical 
community and available in medical records to establish and determine 
the severity of an impairment. We consider all available evidence about 
all of a claimant's impairments, not just information about a 
particular allegation, such as a musculoskeletal condition. We may also 
purchase medical examinations or tests to obtain the evidence that we 
need.\51\ We may find a person disabled even if he or she does not have 
a medical diagnosis for his or her impairment(s) when applying for 
benefits, as long as we are able to establish a medically determinable 
severe physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that 
meets the duration requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 20 CFR 404.1517, 404.1519, 404.1519a-404.1519f, 404.1519k, 
416.917, 416.919, and 416.919a-419.919f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that our proposed 
updates would ultimately result in more denials of claims at the 
initial and reconsideration levels.
    Response: In some cases, the revised criteria may result in more 
denials of claims. However, our updated listing criteria most 
accurately reflect current medical thought in these areas. As well, we 
note that not all claimants applying on the basis of a musculoskeletal 
disorder will necessarily be denied because of these listings. In some 
cases, the impairment(s) also could be found to medically equal a 
listing (or, in the case of a child seeking SSI payments, functionally 
equal the listings). If an adult claimant's impairment(s) does not meet 
or medically equal any listing, in some cases he or she could be found 
disabled at a later step in the sequential evaluation process once we 
consider the person's residual functional capacity and the factors of 
age, education, and vocational experience and skills.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that these rules will negatively 
affect current disability beneficiaries by taking away their benefits.
    Response: When these rules become final, we will not terminate any 
person's disability benefits solely because we have revised these 
listings. We do not readjudicate previously decided cases when we 
revise our listings.
    However, under the Act, we are required to periodically conduct 
continuing disability reviews (CDR) to determine whether beneficiaries 
are still disabled.\52\ When we conduct CDRs, we re-examine an existing 
beneficiary's or recipient's case using the Medical Improvement Review 
Standard (MIRS) to determine whether a person continues to meet the 
disability requirements of the Act.\53\ When SSA applies the MIRS, our 
threshold inquiry is whether the beneficiary or recipient has an 
impairment that still meets that listing. So, if a disability 
beneficiary or recipient undergoes a CDR after these final rules 
becomes effective, the standards these rules contain could potentially 
be applied; theoretically, then, the new standards could contribute to 
the possibility of a cessation of benefits or payments. We again, note, 
however, that we would examine all relevant factors when conducting the 
CDR, just as we do during an initial or reconsideration claim. These 
include whether the impairment(s) meets or equals a listing, whether 
there has been medical improvement in the impairments present at the 
most recent favorable determination, and, if necessary, whether the 
person has the ability to engage in SGA, given his or her residual 
functional capacity, and his or her age, education, and past work 
experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 42 U.S.C. 421(i), 20 CFR 404.1589, 416.989.
    \53\ 42 U.S.C. 423(f), 20 CFR 404.1594, 416.994, 416.994a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What is our authority to make rules and set procedures for 
determining whether a person is disabled under our statutory 
definition?
    Under the Act, we have authority to make rules and regulations and 
to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to carry out such 
provisions.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
405(a), 902(a)(5), 1383(d)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How long will these final rules be in effect?
    These final rules will remain in effect for 5 years after the date 
they become effective, unless we extend them, or revise and issue them 
again. We will continue to monitor these rules to ensure that they 
continue to meet program purposes, and may revise them before the end 
of the 5-year period if warranted.
    How we will implement these final rules?
    We will begin to apply these final rules to new applications, 
pending claims, and CDRs, as appropriate, as of the effective date of 
these final rules.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ We will use the final rules beginning on its effective 
date. We will apply the final rules to new applications filed on or 
after the effective date, and to claims that are pending on and 
after the effective date. This means that we will use the final 
rules on and after its effective date in any case in which we make a 
determination or decision, including CDRs, as appropriate. 20 CFR 
404.902 and 416.1402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 
determined that these final rules meet the criteria for a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by 
Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed the rules. Details about 
the economic impacts of our rules follow.
    Anticipated Reduction in Transfer Payments Made by Our Programs:
    In 2017, we conducted a case study covering about 1,400 initial 
DDS-level decisions, based on the proposed rules as developed at that 
time. The case study sample was stratified by specific musculoskeletal 
diagnosis category and included listing-level allowances as well as 
denials at the medical-vocational stage of the disability determination 
process. Implementation of this final rule would result in decisional 
changes relative to those made under current listings both from 
allowance to denial and from denial to allowance. Based on the results 
of the

[[Page 78174]]

case study, we estimate that for the OASDI program, there would be a 
net annual reduction in allowances of about 260, the net effect of an 
estimated 480 annual changes from allowance to denial, and an estimated 
220 annual changes from denial to allowance. This small shift is 
primarily driven by claimants who were allowed at the listing-level 
(Step 3) under existing regulations but whose case files do not contain 
medical evidence indicating they would meet the new assistive devices 
requirements in this final rule, because such documentation is not 
required under current rules. Under implementation of this final rule, 
some of these claimants would be expected to be able to provide this 
information under the new requirement, and would do so. We made a small 
adjustment to the case study results based on this expectation.
    For the SSI program the estimates indicate a net increase in annual 
allowances of about 180, the net effect of an estimated 285 annual 
changes from denial to allowance, and an estimated 105 annual changes 
from allowance to denial. The results of the actuarial analysis using 
the case study results indicate a net reduction in OASDI benefit 
payments ($263 million) and a net increase in Federal SSI payments ($67 
million) over the FY 2021 Budget projection period, FYs 2021-30.
    Anticipated Administrative Costs to the Social Security 
Administration:
    In calculating whether the implementation of these final rules will 
result in administrative costs or savings to the agency, we examine two 
sources: (1) Work-years and (2) direct financial administrative costs.
    We define work-years as a measure of the SSA employee work time 
these final rules will cost or save during implementation of its 
policies. We calculate one work-year as 2,080 hours of labor, which 
represents the amount of hours one SSA employee works per year based on 
a standard 40-hour workweek.
    We are estimating net administrative savings of less than $2 
million and 15 work years per year. The administrative savings result 
from fewer SSI appeals, fewer maintenance actions for OASDI 
beneficiaries, and administrative efficiencies from decisions made 
earlier in the sequential evaluation process. Because we project an 
increase in SSI allowances, we believe there will be fewer SSI appeals 
once the regulation is implemented. We estimate an increase in OASDI 
denials. Because more OASDI claims would be denied, there would be 
fewer OASDI actions to process such as change of address or payment 
corrections. Offsetting administrative costs include those to process 
additional appeals for the net increase in OASDI claims that are 
denied, as well as costs to train Disability Determination Service 
(DDS) employees, and for increased maintenance-of-the-rolls actions 
from the net increase in SSI recipients. Although this rule results in, 
on net, slightly more overall denials than allowances when compared to 
the current regulations, because of the administrative efficiencies 
resulting from decisions made earlier in the sequential evaluation 
process, the overall impact to this rulemaking is a slight reduction in 
administrative costs.

Anticipated Costs to the Public

    We do not believe there are any more than de minimis costs to the 
public associated with this rulemaking. First, as discussed earlier in 
responses to comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as well as 
in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below, we do not believe any of 
the requirements contained in this rulemaking will impose new 
additional costs outside of the normal course of business for 
applicants. We do not believe that the new rules induce any new medical 
imaging requirements and do not believe they will result in additional 
purchasing and documentation of assistive devices.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
OMB designated these rules as major rules, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    We analyzed these final rules in accordance with the principles and 
criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and determined that they 
will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism assessment. We also determined that the 
final rules will not preempt any State law or State regulations or 
affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State 
governmental functions.

Executive Order 13771

    Based upon the criteria established in Executive Order 13771 and M-
17-21 (``Guidance Implementing E.O. 13771''), we consider this rule a 
transfer rule with no more than de minimis costs. As such, it is exempt 
from requirements under E.O. 13771.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that these final rules will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they 
affect individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 
amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility 
analysis.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    These final rules comprehensively revise the regulatory criteria we 
use to evaluate musculoskeletal disorders, and will affect the OASDI 
and SSI programs. SSA uses multiple existing OMB-approved information 
collection (IC) tools to document disability claims for all body system 
disorders, including musculoskeletal disorders. However, because these 
ICs are not specific to any particular body system disorders, they do 
not require modification in any way as a result of these final rules. 
As well, the regulatory changes are not changing the frequency of 
reporting or the burden--including documentation--involved in 
musculoskeletal disability claims. So, we are not making any changes 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act as a result of these rules.
    Below we list for informational purposes the ICs that SSA uses to 
collect information related to Musculoskeletal (and all other) 
disability Title II & Title XVI claims. However, for the reasons 
provided above, we are not modifying them in any way due to these final 
rules.

 OMB No. 0960-0579 (SSA-3368, Disability Report--Adult)
 OMB No. 0960-0577 (SSA-3820, Disability Report--Child)
 OMB No. 0960-0578 (SSA-3369, Work History Report)
 OMB No. 0960-0540 (SSA-3371, Pain Report--Child)
 OMB No. 0960-0681 (SSA-3373, Function Report--Adult)
 OMB No. 0960-0542 (SSA-3375, SSA-3376, SSA-3377, SSA-3378 and 
SSA-3379, Function Report--Child)
 OMB No. 0960-0635 (SSA-3380, Function Report--Adult--Third 
Party)
 OMB No. 0960-0623 (SSA-827, Authorization to Disclose 
Information to the Social Security Administration)
 OMB No. 0960-0598 (SSA-820 or SSA-821, Work Activity Report--
Self Employed Person & Work Activity Report--Employee)
 OMB No. 0960-0144 (SSA-3441, Disability Report--Appeal)
 OMB No. 0960-0499 (SSA-3881, Questionnaire for Children 
Claiming SSI Benefits)
 OMB No. 0960-0720 (SSA-3830, Certification of Low Birth Weight 
for SSI Eligibility)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social 
Security--

[[Page 78175]]

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security--Retirement Insurance; 
96.004, Social Security--Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, 
Supplemental Security Income)

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 416

    Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability cash 
payments; Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    The Commissioner of Social Security, Andrew Saul, having reviewed 
and approved this document, is delegating the authority to 
electronically sign this document to Faye I. Lipsky, who is the primary 
Federal Register Liaison for the Social Security Administration, for 
purposes of publication in the Federal Register.

Faye I. Lipsky,
Federal Register Liaison, Office of Legislative and Congressional 
Affairs, Social Security Administration.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending subpart P 
of part 404 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below:

PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE 
(1950-)

Subpart P--Determining Disability and Blindness

0
1. 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) and 
(h)-(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) and (h)-(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).


0
2. Amend appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text before part A, revise paragraph 2;
0
b. In part A:
0
i. Amend the table of contents for part A by revising the entry for 
section 1.00;
0
ii. Revise section 1.00;
0
iii. Revise paragraph 4.00G4b;
0
iv. Revise paragraphs 14.00C6 through 14.00C8, 14.00C12, 14.00D4c(i), 
14.00D6a, 14.00D6e(i), and 14.00D6e(ii); and
0
v. Under section 14.00, revise listings 14.04B, 14.04C2, 14.05A, 
14.09A, and 14.09B introductory text; and
0
c. In part B:
0
i. Amend the table of contents by revising the entry for section 
101.00;
0
ii. Revise section 101.00;
0
iii. Revise paragraph 104.00F9b;
0
iv. Revise paragraph 109.00C;
0
v. Revise paragraphs 114.00C6 through 114.00C8, 114.00C12, 
114.00D4c(ii), 114.00D6a, 114.00D6e(i), and 114.00D6e(ii); and
0
vi. Under section 114.00, revise listings 114.04B, 114.04C2, 114.05A, 
114.09A, and 114.09B introductory text.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404--Listing of Impairments

* * * * *
    2. Musculoskeletal Disorders (1.00 and 101.00): April 2, 2026.
* * * * *

Part A

* * * * *

1.00 Musculoskeletal Disorders

* * * * *

1.00 Musculoskeletal Disorders

    A. Which musculoskeletal disorders do we evaluate under these 
listings?
    1. We evaluate disorders of the skeletal spine (vertebral 
column) or of the upper or lower extremities that affect 
musculoskeletal functioning under these listings. We use the term 
``skeletal'' when we are referring to the structure of the bony 
skeleton. The skeletal spine refers to the bony structures, 
ligaments, and discs making up the spine. We refer to the skeletal 
spine in some musculoskeletal listings to differentiate it from the 
neurological spine (see 1.00B1). Musculoskeletal disorders may be 
congenital or acquired, and may include deformities, amputations, or 
other abnormalities. These disorders may involve the bones or major 
joints; or the tendons, ligaments, muscles, or other soft tissues.
    2. We evaluate soft tissue injuries (including burns) or 
abnormalities that are under continuing surgical management (see 
1.00O1). The injuries or abnormalities may affect any part of the 
body, including the face and skull.
    3. We evaluate curvatures of the skeletal spine that affect 
musculoskeletal functioning under 1.15. If a curvature of the 
skeletal spine is under continuing surgical management (see 1.00O1), 
we will evaluate it under 1.21 using our rules for determining 
medical equivalence. See Sec. Sec.  404.1526 and 416.926 of this 
chapter.
    B. Which related disorders do we evaluate under other listings?
    1. We evaluate a disorder or injury of the skeletal spine that 
results in damage to, and neurological dysfunction of, the spinal 
cord and its associated nerves (for example, paraplegia or 
quadriplegia) under the listings in 11.00.
    2. We evaluate inflammatory arthritis (for example, rheumatoid 
arthritis) under the listings in 14.00.
    3. We evaluate curvatures of the skeletal spine that interfere 
with your ability to breathe under the listings in 3.00, impair 
myocardial function under the listings in 4.00, or result in social 
withdrawal or depression under the listings in 12.00.
    4. We evaluate non-healing or pathological fractures due to 
cancer, whether it is a primary site or metastases, under the 
listings in 13.00.
    5. We evaluate the leg pain associated with peripheral vascular 
claudication and foot ulceration associated with peripheral arterial 
disease under the listings in 4.00.
    6. We evaluate burns that do not require continuing surgical 
management under the listings in 8.00.
    C. What evidence do we need to evaluate your musculoskeletal 
disorder?
    1. General. We need objective medical evidence from an 
acceptable medical source to establish that you have a medically 
determinable musculoskeletal disorder. We also need evidence from 
both medical and nonmedical sources, who can describe how you 
function, to assess the severity and duration of your 
musculoskeletal disorder. We will determine the extent and kinds of 
evidence we need from medical and nonmedical sources based on the 
individual facts about your disorder. For our basic rules on 
evidence, see Sec. Sec.  404.1512, 404.1513, 404.1520b, 416.912, 
416.913, and 416.920b of this chapter. For our rules on evidence 
about your symptoms, see Sec. Sec.  404.1529 and 416.929 of this 
chapter.
    2. Physical examination report(s). In the report(s) of your 
physical examination, we require a medical source's detailed 
description of the orthopedic, neurologic, or other objective 
clinical findings appropriate to your specific musculoskeletal 
disorder from his or her direct observations during your physical 
examination. We will not accept a report of your statements about 
your symptoms and limitations in place of the medical source's 
report of objective clinical findings. We will not use findings on 
imaging or other diagnostic tests (see 1.00C3) as a substitute for 
findings on physical examination.
    a. When the medical source reports that a clinical test sign(s) 
is positive, unless we have evidence to the contrary, we will assume 
that he or she performed the test properly and accept the medical 
source's interpretation of the test. For example, we will assume a 
straight-leg raising test was conducted properly (that is, in 
sitting and supine positions), even if the medical source does not 
specify the positions in which the test was performed.
    b. If you use an assistive device (see 1.00C6), the report must 
support the medical need for the device.
    c. If your musculoskeletal disorder causes a reduction in muscle 
strength, the report must document measurement of the strength of 
the muscle(s) in question. The measurement should be based on a 
muscle strength grading system that is considered medically 
acceptable based on your age and impairments. For example, a grading 
system

[[Page 78176]]

of 0 to 5, with 0 indicating complete loss of strength and 5 
indicating maximum strength or equivalent medically acceptable scale 
(see Table 1). Reduction in muscle strength is demonstrated by 
evidence that your muscle strength is less than active range of 
motion (ROM) against gravity with maximum resistance. If the 
reduction in muscle strength involves one or both of your hands, the 
report must also document measurements of grip and pinch strength.

               Table 1--Grading System of Muscle Function
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Grade                       Function of the muscle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0--None...........................  No visible or palpable contraction.
1--Trace..........................  Visible or palpable contraction with
                                     no motion.
2--Poor...........................  Active ROM with gravity eliminated.
3--Fair...........................  Active ROM against gravity only,
                                     without resistance.
4--Good...........................  Active ROM against gravity, moderate
                                     resistance.
5--Normal.........................  Active ROM against gravity, maximum
                                     resistance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Imaging and other diagnostic tests.
    a. Imaging refers to medical imaging techniques, such as x-ray, 
computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and 
radionuclide scanning. For the purpose of these listings, the 
imaging must be consistent with the prevailing state of medical 
knowledge and clinical practice as the proper technique to support 
the evaluation of the disorder.
    b. Findings on imaging must have lasted, or be expected to last, 
for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
    c. Imaging and other diagnostic tests can provide evidence of 
physical abnormalities; however, these abnormalities may correlate 
poorly with your symptoms, including pain, or with your 
musculoskeletal functioning. Accordingly, we will not use findings 
on imaging or other diagnostic tests as a substitute for findings on 
physical examination about your ability to function, nor can we 
infer severity or functional limitations based solely on such tests.
    d. For our rules on purchasing imaging and other diagnostic 
tests, see Sec. Sec.  404.1519k, 404.1519m, 416.919k, and 416.919m 
of this chapter.
    4. Operative reports. If you have had a surgical procedure, we 
need a copy of the operative report, including details of the 
findings at surgery and information about any medical complications 
that may have occurred. If we do not have the operative report, we 
need confirmatory evidence of the surgical procedure from a medical 
source (for example, detailed follow-up reports or notations in the 
medical records concerning the surgical procedure in your medical 
history).
    5. Effects of treatment.
    a. General. Treatments for musculoskeletal disorders may have 
beneficial or adverse effects, and responses to treatment vary from 
person to person. We will evaluate all of the effects of treatment 
(including surgical treatment, medications, and therapy) on the 
symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings of your musculoskeletal 
disorder, and on your musculoskeletal functioning.
    b. Response to treatment. To evaluate your musculoskeletal 
functioning in response to treatment, we need the following: A 
description, including the frequency of the administration, of your 
medications; the type and frequency of therapy you receive; and a 
description of your response to treatment and any complications you 
experience related to your musculoskeletal disorder. The effects of 
treatment may be temporary or long-term. We need information over a 
sufficient period to determine the effects of treatment on your 
current musculoskeletal functioning and permit reasonable 
projections about your future functioning. We will determine the 
amount of time that constitutes a sufficient period in consultation 
with a medical consultant on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, we 
will need additional evidence to make an assessment about your 
response to treatment. Your musculoskeletal disorder may meet or 
medically equal one of these listings regardless of whether you were 
prescribed opioid medication, or whether you were prescribed opioid 
medication and did not follow this prescribed treatment.
    6. Assistive devices.
    a. General. An assistive device, for the purposes of these 
listings, is any device that you use to improve your stability, 
dexterity, or mobility. An assistive device can be worn (see 1.00C6b 
and 1.00C6c), hand-held (see 1.00C6d), or used in a seated position 
(see 1.00C6e). When we use the phrase ``documented medical need,'' 
we mean that there is evidence from a medical source that supports 
your medical need for an assistive device (see 1.00C2b) for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months (see 1.00C6a). This evidence 
must describe any limitation(s) in your upper or lower extremity 
functioning and the circumstances for which you need to use the 
assistive device. We do not require that you have a specific 
prescription for the assistive device.
    b. Prosthesis(es). A prosthesis is a wearable device, such as an 
artificial limb, that takes the place of an absent body part. If you 
have a prosthesis(es), we need evidence from a medical source 
documenting your ability to walk, or perform fine and gross 
movements (see 1.00E4), with the prosthesis(es) in place. When 
amputation(s) involves one or both lower extremities, it is not 
necessary for the medical source to evaluate your ability to walk 
without the prosthesis(es) in place. If you cannot use your 
prosthesis(es) due to complications affecting your residual limb(s), 
we need evidence from a medical source documenting the condition of 
your residual limb(s) and the medical basis for your inability to 
use the device(s).
    c. Orthosis(es). An orthosis is a wearable device, such as a 
brace, that prevents or corrects a dysfunction or deformity by 
aligning or supporting the affected body part. If you have an 
orthosis(es), we need evidence from a medical source documenting 
your ability to walk, or perform fine and gross movements (see 
1.00E4), with the orthosis(es) in place. If you cannot use your 
orthosis(es), we need evidence from a medical source documenting the 
medical basis for your inability to use the device(s).
    d. Hand-held assistive devices. Hand-held assistive devices 
include walkers, canes, or crutches, which you hold onto with your 
hand(s) to support or aid you in walking. When you use a one-handed, 
hand-held assistive device (such as a cane) with one upper extremity 
to walk and you cannot use your other upper extremity for fine or 
gross movements (see 1.00E4), the need for the assistive device 
limits the use of both upper extremities. If you use a hand-held 
assistive device, we need evidence from a medical source describing 
how you walk with the device.
    e. Wheeled and seated mobility devices. Wheeled and seated 
mobility devices are assistive devices that you use in a seated 
position, such as manual wheelchairs, motorized wheelchairs, 
rollators, and power operated vehicles. If you use a wheeled and 
seated mobility device, we need evidence from a medical source 
describing the type of wheeled and seated mobility device that you 
use and how you use the assistive device including any 
customizations or modifications to the assistive device itself or 
for your use of the assistive device. For example, if you use a 
wheelchair that typically requires the use of both hands but has 
been customized for your use with one hand, then we will evaluate 
your use of the assistive device using the criteria in 1.00E3b and 
not 1.00E3a.
    (i) Wheeled and seated mobility devices involving the use of 
both hands. Some wheeled and seated mobility devices involve the use 
of both hands to use the assistive device (for example, most manual 
wheelchairs). If you use a wheeled and seated mobility device that 
involves the use of both hands, then the need for the assistive 
device limits the use of both upper extremities.
    (ii) Wheeled and seated devices involving the use of one hand. 
Some wheeled and seated mobility devices involve the use of one hand 
to use the assistive device (for example, most motorized 
wheelchairs). If you use a wheeled and seated mobility device that 
involves the use of one upper extremity and you cannot use your 
other upper extremity for fine or gross movements (see

[[Page 78177]]

1.00E4), then the need for the assistive device limits the use of 
both upper extremities.
    7. Longitudinal evidence.
    a. We generally need a longitudinal medical record to assess the 
severity and duration of your musculoskeletal disorder because the 
severity of symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings related to most 
musculoskeletal disorders may improve over time or respond to 
treatment. Evidence over an extended period will show whether your 
musculoskeletal functioning is improving, worsening, or unchanging.
    b. For 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.20C, 1.20D, 1.22, and 1.23, all 
of the required criteria must be present simultaneously, or within a 
close proximity of time, to satisfy the level of severity needed to 
meet the listing. The phrase ``within a close proximity of time'' 
means that all of the relevant criteria must appear in the medical 
record within a consecutive 4-month period. When the criterion is 
imaging, we mean that we could reasonably expect the findings on 
imaging to have been present at the date of impairment or date of 
onset. For listings that use the word ``and'' to link the elements 
of the required criteria, the medical record must establish the 
simultaneous presence, or presence within a close proximity of time, 
of all the required medical criteria. Once this level of severity is 
established, the medical record must also show that this level of 
severity has continued, or is expected to continue, for a continuous 
period of at least 12 months.
    8. Surgical treatment and physical therapy. For some 
musculoskeletal disorders, a medical source may recommend surgery or 
physical therapy (PT). If you have not yet had the recommended 
surgery or PT, we will not assume that these interventions will 
resolve your disorder or improve your functioning. We will assess 
each case on an individual basis. Depending on your response to 
treatment, or your medical sources' treatment plans, we may defer 
our findings regarding the effect of surgery or PT, until a 
sufficient period has passed to permit proper consideration or 
judgment about your future functioning. When necessary, we will 
follow the rules on following prescribed treatment in Sec. Sec.  
404.1530 and 416.930 of this chapter, including consideration of 
your reasons for failure to follow prescribed treatment.
    D. How do we consider symptoms, including pain, under these 
listings?
    1. Musculoskeletal disorders may cause pain or other symptoms; 
however, your statements about your pain or other symptoms will not 
alone establish that you are disabled. We will not substitute an 
alleged or a reported increase in the intensity of a symptom, such 
as pain, no matter how severe, for a medical sign or diagnostic 
finding present in the listing criteria. Pain is included as just 
one consideration in 1.15A, 1.16A, and 1.18A, but it is not required 
to satisfy the criteria in 1.15, 1.16, and 1.18.
    2. To consider your symptom(s), we require objective medical 
evidence from an acceptable medical source showing the existence of 
a medically determinable musculoskeletal impairment that we could 
reasonably expect to produce the symptom(s). See Sec. Sec.  404.1529 
and 416.929 of this chapter for how we evaluate symptoms, including 
pain, related to your musculoskeletal disorder.
    E. How do we use the functional criteria to evaluate your 
musculoskeletal disorder under these listings?
    1. General. The functional criteria are based on impairment-
related physical limitations in your ability to use both upper 
extremities, one or both lower extremities, or a combination of one 
upper and one lower extremity. The required impairment-related 
physical limitation of musculoskeletal functioning must have lasted, 
or be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 
months. We do not use the functional criteria in 1.20A, 1.20B, or 
1.21.
    2. Work environment. We use the relevant evidence that we have 
to evaluate your musculoskeletal functioning with respect to the 
work environment rather than the home environment. For example, an 
ability to walk independently at home without an assistive device 
does not, in and of itself, indicate an ability to walk without an 
assistive device in a work environment.
    3. Functional criteria. A musculoskeletal disorder satisfies the 
functional criteria of a listing when the medical documentation 
shows the presence of at least one of the impairment-related 
limitations cited in the listing. The required impairment-related 
limitation of musculoskeletal functioning must be medically 
documented by one of the following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i));
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4), and a documented medical need 
(see 1.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of your other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii));
    c. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
work-related activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
1.00E4).
    4. Fine and gross movements. Fine movements, for the purposes of 
these listings, involve use of your wrists, hands, and fingers; such 
movements include picking, pinching, manipulating, and fingering. 
Gross movements involve use of your shoulders, upper arms, forearms, 
and hands; such movements include handling, gripping, grasping, 
holding, turning, and reaching. Gross movements also include 
exertional abilities such as lifting, carrying, pushing, and 
pulling. Examples of performing fine and gross movements include, 
but are not limited to, taking care of personal hygiene, sorting and 
handling papers or files, and placing files in a file cabinet at or 
above waist level.
    F. What do we consider when we evaluate disorders of the 
skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s) (1.15)?
    1. General. We consider musculoskeletal disorders such as 
herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal osteoarthritis (spondylosis), 
vertebral slippage (spondylolisthesis), degenerative disc disease, 
facet arthritis, and vertebral fracture or dislocation. Spinal 
disorders may cause cervical or lumbar spine dysfunction when 
abnormalities of the skeletal spine compromise nerve roots of the 
cervical spine, a nerve root of the lumbar spine, or a nerve root of 
both cervical and lumbar spines. We consider spinal nerve disorders 
that originate in the nervous system (for example, spinal 
arachnoiditis), under the neurological disorders body system, 11.00.
    2. Compromise of a nerve root(s). Compromise of a nerve root, 
sometimes referred to as ``nerve root impingement,'' is a phrase 
used when a physical object, such as a tumor, herniated disc, 
foreign body, or arthritic spur, is pushing on the nerve root as 
seen on imaging or during surgery. It can occur when a 
musculoskeletal disorder produces irritation, inflammation, or 
compression of the nerve root(s) as it exits the skeletal spine 
between the vertebrae. Related symptoms must be associated with, or 
follow the path of, the affected nerve root(s).
    a. Compromise of unilateral nerve root of the cervical spine. 
Compromise of a nerve root as it exits the cervical spine between 
the vertebrae may affect the functioning of the associated upper 
extremity. The physical examination reproduces the related symptoms 
based on radicular signs and clinical tests appropriate to the 
specific cervical nerve root (for example, a positive Spurling 
test).
    b. Compromise of bilateral nerve roots of the cervical spine. 
Although uncommon, if compromise of a nerve root occurs on both 
sides of the cervical spinal column, functioning of both upper 
extremities may be limited.
    c. Compromise of a nerve root(s) of the lumbar spine. Compromise 
of a nerve root as it exits the lumbar spine between the vertebrae 
may limit the functioning of the associated lower extremity. The 
physical examination reproduces the related symptoms based on 
radicular signs and clinical tests. When a nerve root of the lumbar 
spine is compromised, we require a positive straight-leg raising 
test (also known as a Las[egrave]gue test) in both supine and 
sitting positions appropriate to the specific lumbar nerve root that 
is compromised.
    G. What do we consider when we evaluate lumbar spinal stenosis 
resulting in compromise of the cauda equina (1.16)?
    1. General. We consider how pain, sensory changes, and muscle 
weakness caused by compromise of the cauda equina due to lumbar 
spinal stenosis affect your functioning. The cauda equina is a 
bundle of nerve roots that descends from the lower part of the 
spinal cord. Lumbar spinal stenosis can compress the nerves of the 
cauda equina, causing sensory changes and muscle weakness that may 
affect your ability to stand or walk. Pain related to compromise of 
the cauda equina is nonradicular because it is not typically 
associated with a specific nerve root (as is radicular pain in the 
cervical or lumbar spine).
    2. Compromise of the cauda equina due to lumbar spinal stenosis 
can affect your ability

[[Page 78178]]

to walk or stand because of neurogenic claudication (also known as 
pseudoclaudication), a condition usually causing nonradicular pain 
that starts in the low back and radiates bilaterally (or less 
commonly, unilaterally) into the buttocks and lower extremities (or 
extremity). Extension of the lumbar spine, which occurs when you 
walk or stand, may provoke the pain of neurogenic claudication. The 
pain may be relieved by forward flexion of the lumbar spine or by 
sitting. In contrast, the leg pain associated with peripheral 
vascular claudication results from inadequate arterial blood flow to 
a lower extremity. It occurs repeatedly and consistently when a 
person walks a certain distance and is relieved when the person 
rests.
    H. What do we consider when we evaluate reconstructive surgery 
or surgical arthrodesis of a major weight-bearing joint (1.17)?
    1. General. We consider reconstructive surgery or surgical 
arthrodesis when an acceptable medical source(s) documents the 
surgical procedure(s) and associated medical treatments to restore 
function of, or eliminate motion in, the affected major weight-
bearing joint. Reconstructive surgery may be done in a single 
procedure or a series of procedures directed toward the salvage or 
restoration of functional use of the affected joint.
    2. Major weight-bearing joints are the hip, knee, and ankle-
foot. The ankle and foot are considered together as one major joint.
    3. Surgical arthrodesis is the artificial fusion of the bones 
that form a joint, essentially eliminating the joint.
    I. What do we consider when we evaluate abnormality of a major 
joint(s) in any extremity (1.18)?
    1. General. We consider musculoskeletal disorders that produce 
anatomical abnormalities of major joints of the extremities, which 
result in functional abnormalities in the upper or lower extremities 
(for example, osteoarthritis, chronic infections of bones and 
joints, and surgical arthrodesis of a joint). Abnormalities of the 
joints include ligamentous laxity or rupture, soft tissue 
contracture, or tendon rupture, and can cause muscle weakness of the 
affected joint(s).
    a. An anatomical abnormality is one that is readily observable 
by a medical source during a physical examination (for example, 
subluxation or contracture), or is present on imaging (for example, 
joint space narrowing, bony destruction, ankylosis, or deformity).
    b. A functional abnormality is abnormal motion or instability of 
the affected joint(s), including limitation of motion, excessive 
motion (hypermobility), movement outside the normal plane of motion 
for the joint (for example, lateral deviation), or fixation of the 
affected joint(s).
    2. Major joint of an upper extremity refers to the shoulder, 
elbow, and wrist-hand. We consider the wrist and hand together as 
one major joint.
    3. Major joint of a lower extremity refers to the hip, knee, and 
ankle-foot. We consider the ankle and hindfoot together as one major 
joint.
    J. What do we consider when we evaluate pathologic fractures due 
to any cause (1.19)? We consider pathologic fractures of the bones 
in the skeletal spine, extremities, or other parts of the skeletal 
system. Pathologic fractures result from disorders that weaken the 
bones, making them vulnerable to breakage. Pathologic fractures may 
occur with osteoporosis, osteogenesis imperfecta or any other 
skeletal dysplasias, side effects of medications, and disorders of 
the endocrine or other body systems. Under 1.19, the fractures must 
have occurred on separate, distinct occasions, rather than multiple 
fractures occurring at the same time, but the fractures may affect 
the same bone(s) multiple times. There is no required time that must 
elapse between the fractures, but all three must occur within a 12-
month period; for example, separate incidents may occur within hours 
or days of each other. We evaluate non-healing or complex traumatic 
fractures without accompanying pathology under 1.22 or 1.23.
    K. What do we consider when we evaluate amputation due to any 
cause (1.20)?
    1. General. We consider amputation (the full or partial loss or 
absence of any extremity) due to any cause including trauma, 
congenital abnormality or absence, surgery for treatment of 
conditions such as cancer or infection, or complications of 
peripheral vascular disease or diabetes mellitus.
    2. Amputation of both upper extremities (1.20A). Under 1.20A, we 
consider upper extremity amputations that occur at any level at or 
above the wrists (carpal joints), up to and including 
disarticulation of the shoulder (glenohumeral) joint. If you have 
had both upper extremities amputated at any level at or above the 
wrists up to and including the shoulder, your impairment satisfies 
the duration requirement in Sec. Sec.  404.1509 and 416.909 of this 
chapter. For amputations below the wrist, we will follow the rules 
described in 1.00S. We do not evaluate amputations below the wrist 
under 1.20A because the resulting limitation of function of the 
thumb(s), finger(s), or hand(s) will vary, depending on the extent 
of loss and corresponding effect on fine and gross movements.
    3. Hemipelvectomy or hip disarticulation (1.20B). Under 1.20B, 
we consider hemipelvectomy, which involves amputation of an entire 
lower extremity through the sacroiliac joint, and hip 
disarticulation, which involves amputation of an entire lower 
extremity through the hip joint capsule and closure of the remaining 
musculature over the exposed acetabular bone. If you have had a 
hemipelvectomy or hip disarticulation, your impairment satisfies the 
duration requirement in Sec. Sec.  404.1509 and 416.909 of this 
chapter.
    4. Amputation of one upper extremity and one lower extremity 
(1.20C). Under 1.20C, we consider the amputation of one upper 
extremity at any level at or above the wrist and one lower extremity 
at or above the ankle. If you have a documented medical need for a 
one-handed, hand-held assistive device (such as a cane) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand (such as a 
motorized wheelchair), then you must use your remaining upper 
extremity to hold the device, making the extremity unavailable to 
perform other fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4).
    5. Amputation of one lower extremity or both lower extremities 
with complications of the residual limb(s) (1.20D). Under 1.20D, we 
consider the amputation of one lower extremity or both lower 
extremities at or above the ankle. We also consider the condition of 
your residual limb(s), whether you can wear a prosthesis(es) (see 
1.00C6b), and whether you have a documented medical need (see 
1.00C6a) for a hand-held assistive device(s) (see 1.00C6d) or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device (see 1.00C6e). If you have a non-
healing residual limb(s) and are receiving ongoing surgical 
treatment expected to re-establish or improve function, and that 
ongoing surgical treatment has not ended, or is not expected to end, 
within at least 12 months of the initiation of the surgical 
management (see 1.00L), we evaluate your musculoskeletal disorder 
under 1.21.
    L. What do we consider when we evaluate soft tissue injuries or 
abnormalities under continuing surgical management (1.21)?
    1. General.
    a. We consider any soft tissue injury or abnormality involving 
the soft tissues of the body, whether congenital or acquired, when 
an acceptable medical source(s) documents the need for ongoing 
surgical procedures and associated medical treatments to restore 
function of the affected body part(s) (see 1.00O1). Surgical 
management includes the surgery(ies) itself, as well as various 
post-surgical procedures, surgical complications, infections or 
other medical complications, related illnesses, or related 
treatments that delay your attainment of maximum benefit from 
therapy (see 1.00O2).
    b. Surgical procedures and associated treatments typically take 
place over extended periods, which may render you unable to perform 
work-related activity on a sustained basis. To document such 
inability, we must have evidence from an acceptable medical 
source(s) confirming that the surgical management has continued, or 
is expected to continue, for at least 12 months from the date of the 
first surgical intervention. These procedures and treatments must be 
directed toward saving, reconstructing, or replacing the affected 
part of the body to re-establish or improve its function, and not 
for cosmetic appearances alone.
    c. Examples include malformations, third- and fourth-degree 
burns, crush injuries, craniofacial injuries, avulsive injuries, and 
amputations with complications of the residual limb(s).
    d. We evaluate skeletal spine abnormalities or injuries under 
1.15 or 1.16, as appropriate. We evaluate abnormalities or injuries 
of bones in the lower extremities under 1.17, 1.18, or 1.22. We 
evaluate abnormalities or injuries of bones in the upper extremities 
under 1.18 or 1.23.
    2. Documentation. In addition to the objective medical evidence 
we need to establish your soft tissue injury or abnormality, we also 
need all of the following medically documented evidence about your 
continuing surgical management:
    a. Operative reports and related laboratory findings;
    b. Records of post-surgical procedures;
    c. Records of any surgical or medical complications (for 
example, related infections or systemic illnesses);

[[Page 78179]]

    d. Records of any prolonged post-operative recovery periods and 
related treatments (for example, surgeries and treatments for 
burns);
    e. An acceptable medical source's plans for additional 
surgeries; and
    f. Records detailing any other factors that have delayed, or 
that an acceptable medical source expects to delay, the saving, 
restoring, or replacing of the involved part for a continuous period 
of at least 12 months following the initiation of the surgical 
management.
    3. Burns. Third- and fourth-degree burns damage or destroy nerve 
tissue, reducing or preventing transmission of signals through those 
nerves. Such burns frequently require multiple surgical procedures 
and related therapies to re-establish or improve function, which we 
evaluate under 1.21. When burns are no longer under continuing 
surgical management (see 1.00O1), we evaluate the residual 
impairment(s). When the residual impairment(s) affects the 
musculoskeletal system, as often occurs in third- and fourth-degree 
burns, it can result in permanent musculoskeletal tissue loss, joint 
contractures, or loss of extremities. We will evaluate such 
impairments under the relevant musculoskeletal disorders listing, 
for example, 1.18 or 1.20. When the residual impairment(s) involves 
another body system, we will evaluate the impairment(s) under the 
listings in the relevant body system(s).
    4. Craniofacial injuries. Surgeons may treat craniofacial 
injuries with multiple surgical procedures. These injuries may 
affect vision, hearing, speech, and the initiation of the digestive 
process, including mastication. When the craniofacial injury-related 
residual impairment(s) involves another body system(s), we will 
evaluate the impairment(s) under the listings in the relevant body 
system(s).
    M. What do we consider when we evaluate non-healing or complex 
fractures of the femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the 
talocrural bones (1.22)?
    1. Non-healing fracture. A non-healing (nonunion) fracture is a 
fracture that has failed to unite completely. Nonunion is usually 
established when a minimum of 9 months has elapsed since the injury 
and the fracture site has shown no, or minimal, progressive signs of 
healing for a minimum of 3 months.
    2. Complex fracture. A complex fracture is a fracture with one 
or more of the following:
    a. Comminuted (broken into many pieces) bone fragments;
    b. Multiple fractures in a single bone;
    c. Bone loss due to severe trauma;
    d. Damage to the surrounding soft tissue;
    e. Severe cartilage damage to the associated joint; or
    f. Dislocation of the associated joint.
    3. When a complex fracture involves soft tissue damage, the 
treatment may involve continuing surgical management to restore or 
improve functioning. In such cases, we may evaluate the fracture(s) 
under 1.21.
    N. What do we consider when we evaluate non-healing or complex 
fracture of an upper extremity (1.23)?
    1. Non-healing fracture. A non-healing (nonunion) fracture is a 
fracture that has failed to unite completely. Nonunion is usually 
established when a minimum of 9 months has elapsed since the injury 
and the fracture site has shown no, or minimal, progressive signs of 
healing for a minimum of 3 months.
    2. Complex fracture. A complex fracture is a fracture with one 
or more of the following:
    a. Comminuted (broken into many pieces) bone fragments;
    b. Multiple fractures in a single bone;
    c. Bone loss due to severe trauma;
    d. Damage to the surrounding soft tissue;
    e. Severe cartilage damage to the associated joint; or
    f. Dislocation of the associated joint.
    3. When a complex fracture involves soft tissue damage, the 
treatment may involve continuing surgical management to restore or 
improve functioning. In such cases, we may evaluate the fracture(s) 
under 1.21.
    O. How will we determine whether your soft tissue injury or 
abnormality or your upper extremity fracture is no longer under 
continuing surgical management or you have received maximum benefit 
from therapy?
    1. We will determine that your soft tissue injury or 
abnormality, or your upper extremity fracture, is no longer under 
continuing surgical management, as used in 1.21 and 1.23, when the 
last surgical procedure or medical treatment directed toward the re-
establishment or improvement of function of the involved part has 
occurred.
    2. We will determine that you have received maximum benefit from 
therapy, as used in 1.21, if there are no significant changes in 
physical findings or on appropriate imaging for any 6-month period 
after the last surgical procedure or medical treatment. We may also 
determine that you have received maximum benefit from therapy if 
your medical source(s) indicates that further improvement is not 
expected after the last surgical procedure or medical treatment.
    3. When you have received maximum benefit from therapy, we will 
evaluate any impairment-related residual symptoms, signs, and 
laboratory findings (including those on imaging), any complications 
associated with your surgical procedures or medical treatments, and 
any residual limitations in your functioning (see 1.00S).
    P. How do we evaluate your musculoskeletal disorder if there is 
no record of ongoing treatment?
    1. Despite having a musculoskeletal disorder, you may not have 
received ongoing treatment, may have just begun treatment, may not 
have access to prescribed medical treatment, or may not have an 
ongoing relationship with the medical community. In any of these 
situations, you will not have a longitudinal medical record for us 
to review when we evaluate your disorder and we may ask you to 
attend a consultative examination to determine the severity and 
potential duration of your disorder. See Sec. Sec.  404.1519a(b) and 
416.919a(b) of this chapter.
    2. In some instances, we may be able to assess the severity and 
duration of your musculoskeletal disorder based on your medical 
record and current evidence alone. If the information in your case 
record is not sufficient to show that you have a musculoskeletal 
disorder that meets the criteria of one of the musculoskeletal 
disorders listings, we will follow the rules described in 1.00S.
    Q. How do we consider the effects of obesity when we evaluate 
your musculoskeletal disorder? Obesity is a medically determinable 
impairment that is often associated with musculoskeletal disorders. 
Obesity increases stress on weight-bearing joints and may contribute 
to limitation of the range of motion of the skeletal spine and 
extremities. The combined effects of obesity with a musculoskeletal 
disorder can be greater than the effects of each of the impairments 
considered separately. We consider the additional and cumulative 
effects of your obesity when we determine whether you have a severe 
musculoskeletal disorder, a listing-level musculoskeletal disorder, 
a combination of impairments that medically equals the severity of a 
listed impairment, and when we assess your residual functional 
capacity.
    R. How do we evaluate your musculoskeletal disorder if there is 
evidence establishing a substance use disorder? If we find that you 
are disabled and there is medical evidence in your case record 
establishing that you have a substance use disorder, we will 
determine whether your substance use disorder is a contributing 
factor material to the determination of disability. See Sec. Sec.  
404.1535 and 416.935 of this chapter.
    S. How do we evaluate musculoskeletal disorders that do not meet 
one of these listings?
    1. These listings are only examples of musculoskeletal disorders 
that we consider severe enough to prevent you from doing any gainful 
activity. If your impairment(s) does not meet the criteria of any of 
these listings, we must also consider whether you have an 
impairment(s) that meets the criteria of a listing in another body 
system.
    2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) 
that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your 
impairment(s) medically equals a listing. See Sec. Sec.  404.1526 
and 416.926 of this chapter. If your impairment(s) does not meet or 
medically equal a listing, you may or may not have the residual 
functional capacity to engage in substantial gainful activity. We 
proceed to the fourth step and, if necessary, the fifth step of the 
sequential evaluation process in Sec. Sec.  404.1520 and 416.920 of 
this chapter.
    3. We use the rules in Sec. Sec.  404.1594 and 416.994 of this 
chapter, as appropriate, when we decide whether you continue to be 
disabled.

1.01 Category of Impairments, Musculoskeletal Disorders

    1.15 Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in compromise of 
a nerve root(s) (see 1.00F), documented by A, B, C, and D:
    A. Neuro-anatomic (radicular) distribution of one or more of the 
following symptoms consistent with compromise of the affected nerve 
root(s):
    1. Pain; or
    2. Paresthesia; or
    3. Muscle fatigue.

AND


[[Page 78180]]


    B. Radicular distribution of neurological signs present during 
physical examination (see 1.00C2) or on a diagnostic test (see 
1.00C3) and evidenced by 1, 2, and either 3 or 4:
    1. Muscle weakness; and
    2. Sign(s) of nerve root irritation, tension, or compression, 
consistent with compromise of the affected nerve root (see 1.00F2); 
and
    3. Sensory changes evidenced by:
    a. Decreased sensation; or
    b. Sensory nerve deficit (abnormal sensory nerve latency) on 
electrodiagnostic testing; or
    4. Decreased deep tendon reflexes.

AND

    C. Findings on imaging (see 1.00C3) consistent with compromise 
of a nerve root(s) in the cervical or lumbosacral spine.

AND

    D. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4), and a documented medical need 
(see 1.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
work-related activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
1.00E4).
    1.16 Lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in compromise of the cauda 
equina (see 1.00G), documented by A, B, C, and D:
    A. Symptom(s) of neurological compromise manifested as:
    1. Nonradicular distribution of pain in one or both lower 
extremities; or
    2. Nonradicular distribution of sensory loss in one or both 
lower extremities; or
    3. Neurogenic claudication.

AND

    B. Nonradicular neurological signs present during physical 
examination (see 1.00C2) or on a diagnostic test (see 1.00C3) and 
evidenced by 1 and either 2 or 3:
    1. Muscle weakness.
    2. Sensory changes evidenced by:
    a. Decreased sensation; or
    b. Sensory nerve deficit (abnormal sensory nerve latency) on 
electrodiagnostic testing; or
    c. Areflexia, trophic ulceration, or bladder or bowel 
incontinence.
    3. Decreased deep tendon reflexes in one or both lower 
extremities.

AND

    C. Findings on imaging (see 1.00C3) or in an operative report 
(see 1.00C4) consistent with compromise of the cauda equina with 
lumbar spinal stenosis.

AND

    D. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4), and a documented medical need 
(see 1.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)).
    1.17 Reconstructive surgery or surgical arthrodesis of a major 
weight-bearing joint (see 1.00H), documented by A, B, and C:
    A. History of reconstructive surgery or surgical arthrodesis of 
a major weight-bearing joint.

AND

    B. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months.

AND

    C. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)).
    1.18 Abnormality of a major joint(s) in any extremity (see 
1.00I), documented by A, B, C, and D:
    A. Chronic joint pain or stiffness.

AND

    B. Abnormal motion, instability, or immobility of the affected 
joint(s).

AND

    C. Anatomical abnormality of the affected joint(s) noted on:
    1. Physical examination (for example, subluxation, contracture, 
or bony or fibrous ankylosis); or
    2. Imaging (for example, joint space narrowing, bony 
destruction, or ankylosis or arthrodesis of the affected joint).

AND

    D. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4), and a documented medical need 
(see 1.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
work-related activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
1.00E4).
    1.19 Pathologic fractures due to any cause (see 1.00J), 
documented by A and B:
    A. Pathologic fractures occurring on three separate occasions 
within a 12-month period.

AND

    B. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4), and a documented medical need 
(see 1.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
work-related activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
1.00E4).
    1.20 Amputation due to any cause (see 1.00K), documented by A, 
B, C, or D:
    A. Amputation of both upper extremities, occurring at any level 
at or above the wrists (carpal joints), up to and including the 
shoulder (glenohumeral) joint.

OR

    B. Hemipelvectomy or hip disarticulation.

OR

    C. Amputation of one upper extremity, occurring at any level at 
or above the wrist (carpal joints), and amputation of one lower 
extremity, occurring at or above the ankle (talocrural joint), and 
medical documentation of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    2. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a one-handed, 
hand-held assistive device (see 1.00C6d) requiring the use of the 
other upper extremity or a wheeled and seated mobility device 
involving the use of one hand (see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. The inability to use the remaining upper extremity to 
independently initiate, sustain, and complete work-related 
activities involving fine and gross movements (1.00E4).

OR

    D. Amputation of one or both lower extremities, occurring at or 
above the ankle (talocrural joint), with complications of the 
residual limb(s) that have lasted, or are

[[Page 78181]]

expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months, and 
medical documentation of 1 and 2:
    1. The inability to use a prosthesis(es); and
    2. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)).
    1.21 Soft tissue injury or abnormality under continuing surgical 
management (see 1.00L), documented by A, B, and C:
    A. Evidence confirms continuing surgical management (see 1.00O1) 
directed toward saving, reconstructing, or replacing the affected 
part of the body.

AND

    B. The surgical management has been, or is expected to be, 
ongoing for a continuous period of at least 12 months.

AND

    C. Maximum benefit from therapy (see 1.00O2) has not yet been 
achieved.
    1.22 Non-healing or complex fracture of the femur, tibia, 
pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural bones (see 1.00M), 
documented by A, B, and C:
    A. Solid union not evident on imaging (see 1.00C3) and not 
clinically solid.

AND

    B. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months.

AND

    C. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)).
    1.23 Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper extremity (see 
1.00N), documented by A and B:
    A. Nonunion or complex fracture of the shaft of the humerus, 
radius, or ulna, under continuing surgical management (see 1.00O1) 
directed toward restoration of functional use of the extremity.

AND

    B. Medical documentation of an inability to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4) that has lasted, or is 
expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
* * * * *

4.00 Cardiovascular System

* * * * *
    G. Evaluating Peripheral Vascular Disease
* * * * *
    4. What is lymphedema and how will we evaluate it?
* * * * *
    b. Lymphedema does not meet the requirements of 4.11, although 
it may medically equal the severity of that listing. We will 
evaluate lymphedema by considering whether the underlying cause 
meets or medically equals any listing or whether the lymphedema 
medically equals a cardiovascular listing, such as 4.11, or a 
musculoskeletal disorders listing, such as 1.18. If no listing is 
met or medically equaled, we will evaluate any functional 
limitations imposed by your lymphedema when we assess your residual 
functional capacity.
* * * * *

14.00 Immune System Disorders

* * * * *
    C. Definitions
* * * * *
    6. Documented medical need has the same meaning as in 1.00C6a.
    7. Fine and gross movements has the same meaning as in 1.00E4.
    8. Major joint of an upper or a lower extremity has the same 
meaning as in 1.00I2 and 1.00I3.
* * * * *
    12. Severe means medical severity as used by the medical 
community. The term does not have the same meaning as it does when 
we use it in connection with a finding at the second step of the 
sequential evaluation process in Sec. Sec.  404.1520 and 416.920 of 
this chapter.
    D. How do we document and evaluate the listed autoimmune 
disorders?
* * * * *
    4. Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (14.05).
* * * * *
    c. * * *
    (i) Weakness of your pelvic girdle muscles that results in your 
inability to rise independently from a squatting or sitting position 
or to climb stairs may be an indication that you are unable to walk 
without assistance. Weakness of your shoulder girdle muscles may 
result in your inability to perform lifting, carrying, and reaching 
overhead, and also may seriously affect your ability to perform 
activities requiring fine movements. We evaluate these limitations 
under 14.05A.
* * * * *
    6. * * *
    a. General. The spectrum of inflammatory arthritis includes a 
vast array of disorders that differ in cause, course, and outcome. 
Clinically, inflammation of major joints in an upper or a lower 
extremity may be the dominant manifestation causing difficulties 
with walking or fine and gross movements; there may be joint pain, 
swelling, and tenderness. The arthritis may affect other joints, or 
cause less limitation in walking or fine and gross movements. 
However, in combination with extra-articular features, including 
constitutional symptoms or signs (severe fatigue, fever, malaise, 
and involuntary weight loss), inflammatory arthritis may result in 
an extreme limitation.
* * * * *
    e. * * *
    (i) Listing-level severity in 14.09A and 14.09C1 is shown by the 
presence of an impairment-related physical limitation of 
functioning. In 14.09C1, if you have the required ankylosis 
(fixation) of your cervical or dorsolumbar spine, we will find that 
you have a listing-level impairment-related physical limitation in 
your ability to see in front of you, above you, and to the side, 
even though you might not require bilateral upper limb assistance.
    (ii) Listing-level severity in 14.09B, 14.09C2, and 14.09D is 
shown by inflammatory arthritis that involves various combinations 
of complications (such as inflammation or deformity, extra-articular 
features, repeated manifestations, and constitutional symptoms and 
signs) of one or more major joints in an upper or a lower extremity 
(see 14.00C8) or other joints. Extra-articular impairments may also 
meet listings in other body systems.
* * * * *

14.01 Category of Impairments, Immune System Disorders

* * * * *
    14.04 Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). As described in 14.00D3. 
With:
* * * * *
    B. One of the following:
    1. Toe contractures or fixed deformity of one or both feet and 
medical documentation of at least one of the following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 14.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 14.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 14.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    2. Finger contractures or fixed deformity in both hands and 
medical documentation of an inability to use both upper extremities 
to the extent that neither can be used to independently initiate, 
sustain, and complete work-related activities involving fine and 
gross movements (see 14.00C7); or
    3. Atrophy with irreversible damage in one or both lower 
extremities and medical documentation of at least one of the 
following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 14.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 14.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 14.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    4. Atrophy with irreversible damage in both upper extremities 
and medical documentation of an inability to use both upper 
extremities to the extent that neither can be used to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 14.00C7); or

[[Page 78182]]

    C. Raynaud's phenomenon, characterized by:
* * * * *
    2. Ischemia with ulcerations of toes or fingers and medical 
documentation of at least one of the following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 14.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 14.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 14.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    c. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
work-related activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
14.00C7); or
* * * * *
    14.05 Polymyositis and dermatomyositis. As described in 14.00D4. 
With:
    A. Proximal limb-girdle (pelvic or shoulder) muscle weakness and 
medical documentation of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 14.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 14.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 14.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
work-related activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
14.00C7); or
* * * * *
    14.09 Inflammatory arthritis. As described in 14.00D6. With:
    A. Persistent inflammation or persistent deformity of:
    1. One or more major joints in a lower extremity (see 14.00C8) 
and medical documentation of at least one of the following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 14.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
1.00C6e(i)); or
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 14.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 14.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device (see 
1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand 
(see 1.00C6e(ii)); or
    2. One or more major joints in each upper extremity (see 
14.00C8) and medical documentation of an inability to use both upper 
extremities to the extent that neither can be used to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 14.00C7); or
    B. Inflammation or deformity in one or more major joints of an 
upper or a lower extremity (see 14.00C8) with:
* * * * *

Part B

* * * * *

101.00 Musculoskeletal Disorders

* * * * *

101.00 Musculoskeletal Disorders

    A. Which musculoskeletal disorders do we evaluate under these 
listings?
    1. We evaluate disorders of the skeletal spine (vertebral 
column) or of the upper or lower extremities that affect 
musculoskeletal functioning under these listings. We use the term 
``skeletal'' when we are referring to the structure of the bony 
skeleton. The skeletal spine refers to the bony structures, 
ligaments, and discs making up the spine. We refer to the skeletal 
spine in some musculoskeletal listings to differentiate it from the 
neurological spine (see 101.00B1). Musculoskeletal disorders may be 
congenital or acquired, and may include deformities, amputations, or 
other abnormalities. These disorders may involve the bones or major 
joints; or the tendons, ligaments, muscles, or other soft tissues.
    2. We evaluate soft tissue injuries (including burns) or 
abnormalities that are under continuing surgical management (see 
101.00P1). The injuries or abnormalities may affect any part of the 
body, including the face and skull.
    3. We evaluate curvatures of the skeletal spine that affect 
musculoskeletal functioning under 101.15. If a curvature of the 
skeletal spine is under continuing surgical management (see 
101.00P1), we will evaluate it under 101.21 using our rules for 
determining medical equivalence. See Sec.  416.926 of this chapter.
    B. Which related disorders do we evaluate under other listings?
    1. We evaluate a disorder or injury of the skeletal spine that 
results in damage to, and neurological dysfunction of, the spinal 
cord and its associated nerves (for example, paraplegia or 
quadriplegia) under the listings in 111.00.
    2. We evaluate inflammatory arthritis (for example, rheumatoid 
arthritis) under the listings in 114.00.
    3. We evaluate curvatures of the skeletal spine that interfere 
with your ability to breathe under the listings in 103.00, impair 
myocardial function under the listings in 104.00, or result in 
social withdrawal or depression under the listings in 112.00.
    4. We evaluate non-healing or pathological fractures due to 
cancer, whether it is a primary site or metastases, under the 
listings in 113.00.
    5. We evaluate the leg pain associated with peripheral vascular 
claudication under the listings in 104.00.
    6. We evaluate burns that do not require continuing surgical 
management under the listings in 108.00.
    C. What evidence do we need to evaluate your musculoskeletal 
disorder?
    1. General. We need objective medical evidence from an 
acceptable medical source to establish that you have a medically 
determinable musculoskeletal disorder. We also need evidence from 
both medical and nonmedical sources, who can describe how you 
function, to assess the severity and duration of your 
musculoskeletal disorder. We will determine the extent and kinds of 
evidence we need from medical and nonmedical sources based on the 
individual facts about your disorder. For our basic rules on 
evidence, see Sec. Sec.  416.912, 416.913, and 416.920b of this 
chapter. For our rules on evidence about your symptoms, see Sec.  
416.929 of this chapter.
    2. Physical examination report(s). In the report(s) of your 
physical examination, we require a medical source's detailed 
description of the orthopedic, neurologic, or other objective 
clinical findings appropriate to your specific musculoskeletal 
disorder from his or her direct observations during your physical 
examination. We will not accept a report of your statements about 
your symptoms and limitations in place of the medical source's 
report of objective clinical findings. We will not use findings on 
imaging or other diagnostic tests (see 101.00C3) as a substitute for 
findings on physical examination.
    a. When the medical source reports that a clinical test sign(s) 
is positive, unless we have evidence to the contrary, we will assume 
that he or she performed the test properly and accept the medical 
source's interpretation of the test. For example, we will assume a 
straight-leg raising test was conducted properly (that is, in 
sitting and supine positions), even if the medical source does not 
specify the positions in which the test was performed.
    b. If you use an assistive device (see 101.00C6), the report 
must support the medical need for the device.
    c. If your musculoskeletal disorder causes a reduction in muscle 
strength, the report must document measurement of the strength of 
the muscle(s) in question. The measurement should be based on a 
muscle strength grading system that is considered medically 
acceptable based on your age and impairments. For example, a grading 
system of 0 to 5, with 0 indicating complete loss of strength and 5 
indicating maximum strength or equivalent medically acceptable scale 
(see Table 1). Reduction in muscle strength is demonstrated by 
evidence that your muscle strength is less than active range of 
motion (ROM) against gravity with maximum resistance. If the 
reduction in muscle strength involves one or both of your hands, the 
report must also document measurements of grip and pinch strength.

[[Page 78183]]



               Table 1--Grading System of Muscle Function
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Grade                       Function of the muscle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0--None...........................  No visible or palpable contraction.
1--Trace..........................  Visible or palpable contraction with
                                     no motion.
2--Poor...........................  Active ROM with gravity eliminated.
3--Fair...........................  Active ROM against gravity only,
                                     without resistance.
4--Good...........................  Active ROM against gravity, moderate
                                     resistance.
5--Normal.........................  Active ROM against gravity, maximum
                                     resistance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Imaging and other diagnostic tests.
    a. Imaging refers to medical imaging techniques, such as x-ray, 
computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and 
radionuclide scanning. For the purpose of these listings, the 
imaging must be consistent with the prevailing state of medical 
knowledge and clinical practice as the proper technique to support 
the evaluation of the disorder.
    b. Findings on imaging must have lasted, or be expected to last, 
for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
    c. Imaging and other diagnostic tests can provide evidence of 
physical abnormalities; however, these abnormalities may correlate 
poorly with your symptoms, including pain, or with your 
musculoskeletal functioning. Accordingly, we will not use findings 
on imaging or other diagnostic tests as a substitute for findings on 
physical examination about your ability to function, nor can we 
infer severity or functional limitations based solely on such tests.
    d. For our rules on purchasing imaging and other diagnostic 
tests, see Sec. Sec.  416.919k and 416.919m of this chapter.
    4. Operative reports. If you have had a surgical procedure, we 
need a copy of the operative report, including details of the 
findings at surgery and information about any medical complications 
that may have occurred. If we do not have the operative report, we 
need confirmatory evidence of the surgical procedure from a medical 
source (for example, detailed follow-up reports or notations in the 
medical records concerning the surgical procedure in your medical 
history).
    5. Effects of treatment.
    a. General. Treatments for musculoskeletal disorders may have 
beneficial or adverse effects, and responses to treatment vary from 
person to person. We will evaluate all of the effects of treatment 
(including surgical treatment, medications, and therapy) on the 
symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings of your musculoskeletal 
disorder, and on your musculoskeletal functioning.
    b. Response to treatment. To evaluate your musculoskeletal 
functioning in response to treatment, we need the following: A 
description, including the frequency of the administration, of your 
medications; the type and frequency of therapy you receive; and a 
description of your response to treatment and any complications you 
experience related to your musculoskeletal disorder. The effects of 
treatment may be temporary or long-term. We need information over a 
sufficient period to determine the effects of treatment on your 
current musculoskeletal functioning and permit reasonable 
projections about your future functioning. We will determine the 
amount of time that constitutes a sufficient period in consultation 
with a medical consultant on a case by case basis. In some cases, we 
will need additional evidence to make an assessment about your 
response to treatment. Your musculoskeletal disorder may meet or 
medically equal one of these listings regardless of whether you were 
prescribed opioid medication, or whether you were prescribed opioid 
medication and did not follow this prescribed treatment.
    6. Assistive devices.
    a. General. An assistive device, for the purposes of these 
listings, is any device that you use to improve your stability, 
dexterity, or mobility. An assistive device can be worn (see 
101.00C6b and 101.00C6c), hand-held (see 101.00C6d), or used in a 
seated position (see 101.00C6e). When we use the phrase ``documented 
medical need,'' we mean that there is evidence from a medical source 
that supports your medical need for an assistive device (see 
101.00C2b) for a continuous period of at least 12 months (see 
101.00c2a). This evidence must describe any limitation(s) in your 
upper or lower extremity functioning and the circumstances for which 
you need to use the assistive device. We do not require that you 
have a specific prescription for the assistive device.
    b. Prosthesis(es). A prosthesis is a wearable device, such as an 
artificial limb, that takes the place of an absent body part. If you 
have a prosthesis(es), we need evidence from a medical source 
documenting your ability to walk, or perform fine and gross 
movements (see 101.00E4), with the prosthesis(es) in place. When 
amputation(s) involves one or both lower extremities, it is not 
necessary for the medical source to evaluate your ability to walk 
without the prosthesis(es) in place. If you cannot use your 
prosthesis(es) due to complications affecting your residual limb(s), 
we need evidence from a medical source documenting the condition of 
your residual limb(s) and the medical basis for your inability to 
use the device(s).
    c. Orthosis(es). An orthosis is a wearable device, such as a 
brace, that prevents or corrects a dysfunction or deformity by 
aligning or supporting the affected body part. If you have an 
orthosis(es), we need evidence from a medical source documenting 
your ability to walk, or perform fine and gross movements (see 
101.00E4), with the orthosis(es) in place. If you cannot use your 
orthosis(es), we need evidence from a medical source documenting the 
medical basis for your inability to use the device(s).
    d. Hand-held assistive devices. Hand-held assistive devices 
include walkers, canes, or crutches, which you hold onto with your 
hand(s) to support or aid you in walking. When you use a one-handed, 
hand-held assistive device (such as a cane) with one upper extremity 
to walk and you cannot use your other upper extremity for fine or 
gross movements (see 101.00E4), the need for the assistive device 
limits the use of both upper extremities. If you use a hand-held 
assistive device, we need evidence from a medical source describing 
how you walk with the device.
    e. Wheeled and seated mobility devices. Wheeled and seated 
mobility devices are assistive devices that you use in a seated 
position, such as manual wheelchairs, motorized wheelchairs, 
rollators, and power operated vehicles. If you use a wheeled and 
seated mobility device, we need evidence from a medical source 
describing the type of wheeled and seated mobility device that you 
use and how you use the assistive device, including any 
customizations or modifications to the assistive device itself or 
for your use of the assistive device. For example, if you use a 
wheelchair that typically requires the use of both hands but has 
been customized for your use with one hand, then we will evaluate 
your use of the assistive device using the criteria in 101.00E3b and 
not 101.00E3a.
    (i) Wheeled and seated mobility devices involving the use of 
both hands. Some wheeled and seated mobility devices involve the use 
of both hands to use the assistive device (for example, most manual 
wheelchairs). If you use a wheeled and seated mobility device that 
involves the use of both hands, then the need for the assistive 
device limits the use of both upper extremities.
    (ii) Wheeled and seated devices involving the use of one hand. 
Some wheeled and seated mobility devices involve the use of one hand 
to use the assistive device (for example, most motorized 
wheelchairs). If you use a wheeled and seated mobility device that 
involves the use of one upper extremity and you cannot use your 
other upper extremity for fine or gross movements (see 101.00E4), 
then the need for the assistive device limits the use of both upper 
extremities.
    7. Longitudinal evidence.
    a. We generally need a longitudinal medical record to assess the 
severity and duration of your musculoskeletal disorder because the 
severity of symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings related to most 
musculoskeletal disorders may improve over time or respond to 
treatment. Evidence over an extended period will show whether your 
musculoskeletal functioning is improving, worsening, or unchanging.

[[Page 78184]]

    b. For 101.15, 101.16, 101.17, 101.18, 101.20C, 101.20D, 101.22, 
and 101.23, all of the required criteria must be present 
simultaneously, or within a close proximity of time, to satisfy the 
level of severity needed to meet the listing. The phrase ``within a 
close proximity of time'' means that all of the relevant criteria 
must appear in the medical record within a consecutive 4-month 
period. When the criterion is imaging, we mean that we could 
reasonably expect the findings on imaging to have been present at 
the date of impairment or date of onset. For listings that use the 
word ``and'' to link the elements of the required criteria, the 
medical record must establish the simultaneous presence, or presence 
within a close proximity of time, of all the required medical 
criteria. Once this level of severity is established, the medical 
record must also show that this level of severity has continued, or 
is expected to continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 
months.
    8. Surgical treatment or physical therapy. For some 
musculoskeletal disorders, a medical source may recommend surgery, 
or physical therapy (PT). If you have not yet had the recommended 
surgery or PT, we will not assume that these interventions will 
resolve your disorder or improve your functioning. We will assess 
each case on an individual basis. Depending on your response to 
treatment, or your medical sources' treatment plans, we may defer 
our findings regarding the effect of surgery or PT, until a 
sufficient period has passed to permit proper consideration or 
judgment about your future functioning. When necessary, we will 
follow the rules on following prescribed treatment in Sec.  416.930 
of this chapter, including consideration of your reasons for failure 
to follow prescribed treatment.
    D. How do we consider symptoms, including pain, under these 
listings?
    1. Musculoskeletal disorders may cause pain or other symptoms; 
however, your statements about your pain or other symptoms will not 
alone establish that you are disabled. We will not substitute an 
alleged or a reported increase in the intensity of a symptom, such 
as pain, no matter how severe, for a medical sign or diagnostic 
finding present in the listing criteria. Pain is included as just 
one consideration in 101.15A, 101.16A, and 101.18A, but it is not 
required to satisfy the criteria in 101.15, 101.16, and 101.18.
    2. To consider your symptom(s), we require objective medical 
evidence from an acceptable medical source showing the existence of 
a medically determinable musculoskeletal impairment that we could 
reasonably expect to produce the symptom(s). See Sec.  416.929 of 
this chapter for how we evaluate symptoms, including pain, related 
to your musculoskeletal disorder.
    E. How do we use the functional criteria to evaluate your 
musculoskeletal disorder under these listings?
    1. General. The functional criteria for children age 3 and older 
are based on impairment-related physical limitations in your ability 
to use both upper extremities, one or both lower extremities, or a 
combination of one upper and one lower extremity. We will use the 
relevant evidence that we have to compare your musculoskeletal 
functioning to the functioning of children your age who do not have 
impairments. The required impairment-related physical limitation of 
musculoskeletal functioning must have lasted, or be expected to 
last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. We do not use 
the functional criteria in 101.20A, 101.20B, 101.21, or 101.24.
    2. Medical and functional criteria, birth to attainment of age 
3. The medical and functional criteria for children in this age 
group are in 101.24.
    3. Functional criteria, age 3 to attainment of age 18. The 
functional criteria are based on impairment-related physical 
limitations in your ability to use both upper extremities, one or 
both lower extremities, or a combination of one upper and one lower 
extremity. A musculoskeletal disorder satisfies the functional 
criteria of a listing when the medical documentation shows the 
presence of at least one of the impairment-related limitations cited 
in the listing. The functional criteria require impairment-related 
physical limitation of musculoskeletal functioning that has lasted, 
or can be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 
months, medically documented by one of the following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i));
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 101.00E4), and a documented medical 
need (see 101.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of your other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii));
    c. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
age-appropriate activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
101.00E4).
    4. Fine and gross movements. Fine movements, for the purposes of 
these listings, involve use of your wrists, hands, and fingers; such 
movements include picking, pinching, manipulating, and fingering. 
Gross movements involve use of your shoulders, upper arms, forearms, 
and hands; such movements include handling, gripping, grasping, 
holding, turning, and reaching. Gross movements also include 
exertional abilities such as lifting, carrying, pushing, and 
pulling.
    F. What do we consider when we evaluate disorders of the 
skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root(s) (101.15)?
    1. General. We consider musculoskeletal disorders such as 
skeletal dysplasias, caudal regression syndrome, tethered spinal 
cord syndrome, vertebral slippage (spondylolisthesis), scoliosis, 
and vertebral fracture or dislocation. Spinal disorders may cause 
cervical or lumbar spine dysfunction when abnormalities of the 
skeletal spine compromise nerve roots of the cervical spine, a nerve 
root of the lumbar spine, or a nerve root of both cervical and 
lumbar spines. We consider spinal nerve disorders that originate in 
the nervous system (for example, spinal arachnoiditis), under the 
neurological disorders body system, 111.00.
    2. Compromise of a nerve root(s). Compromise of a nerve root, 
sometimes referred to as ``nerve root impingement,'' is a phrase 
used when a physical object, such as a tumor, herniated disc, 
foreign body, or arthritic spur, is pushing on the nerve root as 
seen on imaging or during surgery. It can occur when a 
musculoskeletal disorder produces irritation, inflammation, or 
compression of the nerve root(s) as it exits the skeletal spine 
between the vertebrae. Related symptoms must be associated with, or 
follow the path of, the affected nerve root(s).
    a. Compromise of unilateral nerve root of the cervical spine. 
Compromise of a nerve root as it exits the cervical spine between 
the vertebrae may affect the functioning of the associated upper 
extremity. The physical examination reproduces the related symptoms 
based on radicular signs and clinical tests appropriate to the 
specific cervical nerve root (for example, a positive Spurling 
test).
    b. Compromise of bilateral nerve roots of the cervical spine. 
Although uncommon, if compromise of a nerve root occurs on both 
sides of the cervical spinal column, functioning of both upper 
extremities may be limited.
    c. Compromise of a nerve root(s) of the lumbar spine. Compromise 
of a nerve root as it exits the lumbar spine between the vertebrae 
may limit the functioning of the associated lower extremity. The 
physical examination reproduces the related symptoms based on 
radicular signs and clinical tests. When a nerve root of the lumbar 
spine is compromised, we require a positive straight-leg raising 
test (also known as a Las[egrave]gue test) in both supine and 
sitting positions appropriate to the specific lumbar nerve root that 
is compromised.
    G. What do we consider when we evaluate lumbar spinal stenosis 
resulting in compromise of the cauda equina (101.16)?
    1. General. We consider how pain, sensory changes, and muscle 
weakness caused by compromise of the cauda equina due to lumbar 
spinal stenosis affect your functioning. The cauda equina is a 
bundle of nerve roots that descends from the lower part of the 
spinal cord. Lumbar spinal stenosis can compress the nerves of the 
cauda equina, causing sensory changes and muscle weakness that may 
affect your ability to stand or walk. Pain related to compromise of 
the cauda equina is nonradicular because it is not typically 
associated with a specific nerve root (as is radicular pain in the 
cervical or lumbar spine).
    2. Compromise of the cauda equina due to lumbar spinal stenosis 
can affect your ability to walk or stand because of neurogenic 
claudication (also known as pseudoclaudication), a condition usually 
causing nonradicular pain that starts in the low back and radiates 
bilaterally (or less commonly, unilaterally) into the buttocks

[[Page 78185]]

and lower extremities (or extremity). Extension of the lumbar spine, 
which occurs when you walk or stand, may provoke the pain of 
neurogenic claudication. The pain may be relieved by forward flexion 
of the lumbar spine or by sitting. In contrast, the leg pain 
associated with peripheral vascular claudication results from 
inadequate arterial blood flow to a lower extremity. It occurs 
repeatedly and consistently when a person walks a certain distance 
and is relieved when the person rests.
    H. What do we consider when we evaluate reconstructive surgery 
or surgical arthrodesis of a major weight-bearing joint (101.17)?
    1. General. We consider reconstructive surgery or surgical 
arthrodesis when an acceptable medical source(s) documents the 
surgical procedure(s) and associated medical treatments to restore 
function of, or eliminate motion in, the affected major weight-
bearing joint(s). Reconstructive surgery may be done in a single 
procedure or a series of procedures directed toward the salvage or 
restoration of functional use of the affected joint.
    2. Major weight-bearing joints are the hip, knee, and ankle-
foot. The ankle and foot are considered together as one major joint.
    3. Surgical arthrodesis is the artificial fusion of the bones 
that form a joint, essentially eliminating the joint.
    I. What do we consider when we evaluate abnormality of a major 
joint(s) in any extremity (101.18)?
    1. General. We consider musculoskeletal disorders that produce 
anatomical abnormalities of major joints of the extremities, which 
result in functional abnormalities in the upper or lower extremities 
(for example, chronic infections of bones and joints, and surgical 
arthrodesis of a joint). Abnormalities of the joints include 
ligamentous laxity or rupture, soft tissue contracture, or tendon 
rupture, and can cause muscle weakness of the affected joint(s).
    a. An anatomical abnormality is one that is readily observable 
by a medical source during a physical examination (for example, 
subluxation or contracture), or is present on imaging (for example, 
joint space narrowing, bony destruction, ankylosis, or deformity).
    b. A functional abnormality is abnormal motion or instability of 
the affected joint(s), including limitation of motion, excessive 
motion (hypermobility), movement outside the normal plane of motion 
for the joint (for example, lateral deviation), or fixation of the 
affected joint(s).
    2. Major joint of an upper extremity refers to the shoulder, 
elbow, and wrist-hand. We consider the wrist and hand together as 
one major joint.
    3. Major joint of a lower extremity refers to the hip, knee, and 
ankle-foot. We consider the ankle and hindfoot together as one major 
joint.
    J. What do we consider when we evaluate pathologic fractures due 
to any cause (101.19)? We consider pathologic fractures of the bones 
in the skeletal spine, extremities, or other parts of the skeletal 
system. Pathologic fractures result from disorders that weaken the 
bones, making them vulnerable to breakage. Pathologic fractures may 
occur with osteoporosis, osteogenesis imperfecta or any other 
skeletal dysplasias, side effects of medications, and disorders of 
the endocrine or other body systems. Under 101.19, the fractures 
must have occurred on separate, distinct occasions, rather than 
multiple fractures occurring at the same time, but the fractures may 
affect the same bone(s) multiple times. There is no required time 
that must elapse between the fractures, but all three must occur 
within a 12-month period; for example, separate incidents may occur 
within hours or days of each other. We evaluate non-healing or 
complex traumatic fractures without accompanying pathology under 
101.22 or 101.23.
    K. What do we consider when we evaluate amputation due to any 
cause (101.20)?
    1. General. We consider amputation (the full or partial loss or 
absence of any extremity) due to any cause including trauma, 
congenital abnormality or absence, surgery for treatment of 
conditions such as cancer or infection, or complications of 
peripheral vascular disease or diabetes mellitus.
    2. Amputation of both upper extremities (101.20A). Under 
101.20A, we consider upper extremity amputations that occur at any 
level at or above the wrists (carpal joints), up to and including 
disarticulation of the shoulder (glenohumeral) joint. If you have 
had both upper extremities amputated at any level at or above the 
wrists up to and including the shoulder, your impairment satisfies 
the duration requirement in Sec.  416.909 of this chapter. For 
amputations below the wrist, we will follow the rules described in 
101.00R. We do not evaluate amputations below the wrists under 
101.20A because the resulting limitation of function of the 
thumb(s), finger(s), or hand(s) will vary, depending on the extent 
of loss and corresponding effect on fine and gross movements.
    3. Hemipelvectomy or hip disarticulation (101.20B). Under 
101.20B, we consider hemipelvectomy, which involves amputation of an 
entire lower extremity through the sacroiliac joint, and hip 
disarticulation, which involves amputation of an entire lower 
extremity through the hip joint capsule and closure of the remaining 
musculature over the exposed acetabular bone. If you have had a 
hemipelvectomy or hip disarticulation, your impairment satisfies the 
duration requirement in Sec.  416.909 of this chapter.
    4. Amputation of one upper extremity and one lower extremity 
(101.20C). Under 101.20C, we consider the amputation of one upper 
extremity at any level at or above the wrist and one lower extremity 
at or above the ankle. If you have a documented medical need for a 
one-handed, hand-held assistive device (such as a cane) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand (such as a 
motorized wheelchair), then you must use your remaining upper 
extremity to hold the device, making the extremity unavailable to 
perform other fine and gross movements (see 101.00E4).
    5. Amputation of one lower extremity or both lower extremities 
with complications of the residual limb(s) (101.20D). Under 101.20D, 
we consider the amputation of one lower extremity or both lower 
extremities at or above the ankle. We also consider the condition of 
your residual limb(s), whether you can wear a prosthesis(es) (see 
101.00C6b), and whether you have a documented medical need (see 
101.00C6a) for a hand-held assistive device(s) (see 101.00C6d) or a 
wheeled and seated mobility device (see 101.00C6e). If you have a 
non-healing residual limb(s) and are receiving ongoing surgical 
treatment expected to re-establish or improve function, and that 
ongoing surgical treatment has not ended, or is not expected to end, 
within at least 12 months of the initiation of the surgical 
management (see 101.00L), we evaluate your musculoskeletal disorder 
under 101.21.
    L. What do we consider when we evaluate soft tissue injury or 
abnormality under continuing surgical management (101.21)?
    1. General.
    a. We consider any soft tissue injury or abnormality involving 
the soft tissues of the body, whether congenital or acquired, when 
an acceptable medical source(s) documents the need for ongoing 
surgical procedures and associated medical treatments to restore 
function of the affected body part(s) (see 101.00P1). Surgical 
management includes the surgery(ies) itself, as well as various 
post-surgical procedures, surgical complications, infections or 
other medical complications, related illnesses, or related 
treatments that delay your attainment of maximum benefit from 
therapy (see 101.00P2).
    b. Surgical procedures and associated treatments typically take 
place over extended periods, which may render you unable to perform 
age-appropriate activity on a sustained basis. To document such 
inability, we must have evidence from an acceptable medical 
source(s) confirming that the surgical management has continued, or 
is expected to continue, for at least 12 months from the date of the 
first surgical intervention. These procedures and treatments must be 
directed toward saving, reconstructing, or replacing the affected 
part of the body to re-establish or improve its function, and not 
for cosmetic appearances alone.
    c. Examples include malformations, third- and fourth-degree 
burns, crush injuries, craniofacial injuries, avulsive injuries, and 
amputations with complications of the residual limb(s).
    d. We evaluate skeletal spine abnormalities or injuries under 
101.15 or 101.16, as appropriate. We evaluate abnormalities or 
injuries of bones in the lower extremities under 101.17, 101.18, or 
101.22. We evaluate abnormalities or injuries of bones in the upper 
extremities under 101.18 or 101.23.
    2. Documentation. In addition to the objective medical evidence 
we need to establish your soft tissue injury or abnormality, we also 
need all of the following medically documented evidence about your 
continuing surgical management:
    a. Operative reports and related laboratory findings;
    b. Records of post-surgical procedures;
    c. Records of any surgical or medical complications (for 
example, related infections or systemic illnesses);
    d. Records of any prolonged post-operative recovery periods and 
related treatments (for example, surgeries and treatments for 
burns);

[[Page 78186]]

    e. An acceptable medical source's plans for additional 
surgeries; and
    f. Records detailing any other factors that have delayed, or 
that an acceptable medical source expects to delay, the saving, 
restoring, or replacing of the involved part for a continuous period 
of at least 12 months following the initiation of the surgical 
management.
    3. Burns. Third- and fourth-degree burns damage or destroy nerve 
tissue, reducing or preventing transmission of signals through those 
nerves. Such burns frequently require multiple surgical procedures 
and related therapies to re-establish or improve function, which we 
evaluate under 101.21. When burns are no longer under continuing 
surgical management (see 101.00P1), we evaluate the residual 
impairment(s). When the residual impairment(s) affects the 
musculoskeletal system, as often occurs in third- and fourth-degree 
burns, it can result in permanent musculoskeletal tissue loss, joint 
contractures, or loss of extremities. We will evaluate such 
impairments under the relevant musculoskeletal disorders listing, 
for example, 101.18 or 101.20. When the residual impairment(s) 
involves another body system, we will evaluate the impairment(s) 
under the listings in the relevant body system(s).
    4. Craniofacial injuries or congenital abnormalities. Surgeons 
may treat craniofacial injuries or congenital abnormalities with 
multiple surgical procedures. These injuries or abnormalities may 
affect vision, hearing, speech, and the initiation of the digestive 
process, including mastication. When the craniofacial injury-related 
or congenital abnormality-related residual impairment(s) involves 
another body system(s), we will evaluate the impairment(s) under the 
listings in the relevant body system(s).
    M. What do we consider when we evaluate non-healing or complex 
fractures of the femur, tibia, pelvis, or one or more of the 
talocrural bones (101.22)?
    1. Non-healing fracture. A non-healing (nonunion) fracture is a 
fracture that has failed to unite completely. Nonunion is usually 
established when a minimum of 9 months has elapsed since the injury 
and the fracture site has shown no, or minimal, progressive signs of 
healing for a minimum of 3 months.
    2. Complex fracture. A complex fracture is a fracture with one 
or more of the following:
    a. Comminuted (broken into many pieces) bone fragments;
    b. Multiple fractures in a single bone;
    c. Bone loss due to severe trauma;
    d. Damage to the surrounding soft tissue;
    e. Severe cartilage damage to the associated joint; or
    f. Dislocation of the associated joint.
    3. When a complex fracture involves soft tissue damage, the 
treatment may involve continuing surgical management to restore or 
improve functioning. In such cases, we may evaluate the fracture(s) 
under 101.21.
    N. What do we consider when we evaluate non-healing or complex 
fractures of an upper extremity (101.23)?
    1. Non-healing fracture. A non-healing (nonunion) fracture is a 
fracture that has failed to unite completely. Nonunion is usually 
established when a minimum of 9 months has elapsed since the injury 
and the fracture site has shown no, or minimal, progressive signs of 
healing for a minimum of 3 months.
    2. Complex fracture. A complex fracture is a fracture with one 
or more of the following:
    a. Comminuted (broken into many pieces) bone fragments;
    b. Multiple fractures in a single bone;
    c. Bone loss due to severe trauma;
    d. Damage to the surrounding soft tissue;
    e. Severe cartilage damage to the associated joint; or
    f. Dislocation of the associated joint.
    3. When a complex fracture involves soft tissue damage, the 
treatment may involve continuing surgical management to restore or 
improve functioning. In such cases, we may evaluate the fracture(s) 
under 101.21.
    O. What do we consider when we evaluate musculoskeletal 
disorders of infants and toddlers from birth to attainment of age 3 
with developmental motor delay (101.24)?
    1. General. Under 101.24, we require reports from an acceptable 
medical source(s) to establish a delay in your motor development as 
a medically determinable impairment. Examples of disorders we 
evaluate under this listing include arthrogryposis, clubfoot, 
osteogenesis imperfecta, caudal regression syndrome, fracture 
complications, disorders affecting the hip and pelvis, and 
complications associated with your musculoskeletal disorder or its 
treatment. Some medical records may simply document your condition 
as ``developmental motor delay.''
    2. Severity of developmental motor delay. To evaluate the 
severity of your developmental motor delay, we need developmental 
test reports from an acceptable medical source, or from early 
intervention specialists, physical and occupational therapists, and 
other sources.
    a. If there is a standardized developmental assessment in your 
medical record, we will use the results to evaluate your 
developmental motor delay under 101.24A. Such an assessment compares 
your level of development to the level typically expected for 
children of your chronological age. If you were born prematurely, we 
use your corrected chronological age for comparison. See Sec.  
416.924b(b) of this chapter.
    b. If there is no standardized developmental assessment in your 
medical record, we will use narrative developmental reports from a 
medical source(s) to evaluate your developmental motor delay under 
101.24B. These reports must provide detailed information sufficient 
for us to assess the severity of your motor delay. If we cannot 
obtain sufficient detail from narrative reports, we may purchase 
standardized developmental assessments.
    (i) A narrative developmental report is based on clinical 
observations, progress notes, and well-baby check-ups, and must 
include your developmental history, examination findings (with 
abnormal findings noted on repeated examinations), and an overall 
assessment of your development (that is, more than one or two 
isolated skills) by the medical source.
    (ii) Some narrative developmental reports may include results 
from developmental screening tests, which can show that you are not 
developing or achieving skills within expected timeframes. Although 
medical sources may refer to screening test results as supporting 
evidence in the narrative developmental report, screening test 
results alone cannot establish a medically determinable impairment 
or the severity of developmental motor delay.
    P. How will we determine whether your soft tissue injury or 
abnormality or your upper extremity fracture is no longer under 
continuing surgical management or you have received maximum benefit 
from therapy?
    1. We will determine that your soft tissue injury or 
abnormality, or your upper extremity fracture, is no longer under 
continuing surgical management, as used in 101.21 and 101.23, when 
the last surgical procedure or medical treatment directed toward the 
re-establishment or improvement of function of the involved part has 
occurred.
    2. We will determine that you have received maximum benefit from 
therapy, as used in 101.21, if there are no significant changes in 
physical findings or on appropriate imaging for any 6-month period 
after the last surgical procedure or medical treatment. We may also 
determine that you have received maximum benefit from therapy if 
your medical source(s) indicates that further improvement is not 
expected after the last surgical procedure or medical treatment.
    3. When you have received maximum benefit from therapy, we will 
evaluate any impairment-related residual symptoms, signs, and 
laboratory findings (including those on imaging), any complications 
associated with your surgical procedures or medical treatments, and 
any residual limitations in your functioning (see 101.00R).
    Q. How do we evaluate your musculoskeletal disorder if there is 
no record of ongoing treatment?
    1. Despite having a musculoskeletal disorder, you may not have 
received ongoing treatment, may have just begun treatment, may not 
have access to prescribed medical treatment, or may not have an 
ongoing relationship with the medical community. In any of these 
situations, you will not have a longitudinal medical record for us 
to review when we evaluate your disorder and we may ask you to 
attend a consultative examination to determine the severity and 
potential duration of your disorder. See Sec.  416.919a(b) of this 
chapter.
    2. In some instances, we may be able to assess the severity and 
duration of your musculoskeletal disorder based on your medical 
record and current evidence alone. If the information in your case 
record is not sufficient to show that you have a musculoskeletal 
disorder that meets the criteria of one of the musculoskeletal 
disorders listings, we will follow the rules described in 101.00R.
    R. How do we evaluate musculoskeletal disorders that do not meet 
one of these listings?
    1. These listings are only examples of musculoskeletal disorders 
that we consider severe enough to result in marked and severe 
functional limitations. If your impairment(s)

[[Page 78187]]

does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must also 
consider whether you have an impairment(s) that meets the criteria 
of a listing in another body system.
    2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) 
that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your 
impairment(s) medically equals a listing. See Sec.  416.926 of this 
chapter. If your impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a 
listing, we will determine whether it functionally equals the 
listings. See Sec.  416.926a of this chapter.
    3. We use the rules in Sec.  416.994a of this chapter when we 
decide whether you continue to be disabled.

101.01 Category of Impairments, Musculoskeletal Disorders

    101.15 Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in compromise 
of a nerve root(s) (see 101.00F), documented by A, B, C, and D:
    A. Neuro-anatomic (radicular) distribution of one or more of the 
following symptoms consistent with compromise of the affected nerve 
root(s):
    1. Pain; or
    2. Paresthesia; or
    3. Muscle fatigue.

AND

    B. Radicular distribution of neurological signs present during 
physical examination (see 101.00C2) or on a diagnostic test (see 
101.00C3) and evidenced by 1, 2, and either 3 or 4:
    1. Muscle weakness; and
    2. Sign(s) of nerve root irritation, tension, or compression, 
consistent with compromise of the affected nerve root (see 101.00F2)
    3. Sensory changes evidenced by:
    a. Decreased sensation; or
    b. Sensory nerve deficit (abnormal sensory nerve latency) on 
electrodiagnostic testing; or
    4. Decreased deep tendon reflexes.

AND

    C. Findings on imaging (see 101.00C3) consistent with compromise 
of a nerve root(s) in the cervical or lumbosacral spine.

AND

    D. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 101.C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 101.00E4), and a documented medical 
need (see 101.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
age-appropriate activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
101.00E4).
    101.16 Lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in compromise of the 
cauda equina (see 101.00G), documented by A, B, C, and D:
    A. Symptom(s) of neurological compromise manifested as:
    1. Nonradicular distribution of pain in one or both lower 
extremities; or
    2. Nonradicular distribution of sensory loss in one or both 
lower extremities; or
    3. Neurogenic claudication.

AND

    B. Nonradicular neurological signs present during physical 
examination (see 101.00C2) or on a diagnostic test (see 101.00C3) 
and evidenced by 1 and either 2 or 3:
    1. Muscle weakness.
    2. Sensory changes evidenced by:
    a. Decreased sensation; or
    b. Sensory nerve deficit (abnormal sensory nerve latency) on 
electrodiagnostic testing; or
    c. Areflexia, trophic ulceration, or bladder or bowel 
incontinence.
    3. Decreased deep tendon reflexes in one or both lower 
extremities.

AND

    C. Findings on imaging (see 101.00C3) or in an operative report 
(see 101.00C4) consistent with compromise of the cauda equina with 
lumbar spinal stenosis.

AND

    D. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 101.00E4), and a documented medical 
need (see 101.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)).
    101.17 Reconstructive surgery or surgical arthrodesis of a major 
weight-bearing joint (see 101.00H), documented by A, B, and C:
    A. History of reconstructive surgery or surgical arthrodesis of 
a major weight-bearing joint.

AND

    B. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months.

AND

    C. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)).
    101.18 Abnormality of a major joint(s) in any extremity (see 
101.00I), documented by A, B, C, and D:
    A. Chronic joint pain or stiffness.

AND

    B. Abnormal motion, instability, or immobility of the affected 
joint(s).

AND

    C. Anatomical abnormality of the affected joint(s) noted on:
    1. Physical examination (for example, subluxation, contracture, 
or bony or fibrous ankylosis); or
    2. Imaging (for example, joint space narrowing, bony 
destruction, or ankylosis or arthrodesis of the affected joint).

AND

    D. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 101.00E4), and a documented medical 
need (see 101.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
age-appropriate activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
101.00E4).
    101.19 Pathologic fractures due to any cause (see 101.00J), 
documented by A and B:
    A. Pathologic fractures occurring on three separate occasions 
within a 12-month period.

AND

    B. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 101.00E4), and a documented medical 
need (see 101.00C6a) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be

[[Page 78188]]

used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete age-
appropriate activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
101.00E4).
    101.20 Amputation due to any cause (see 101.00K), documented by 
A, B, C, or D:
    A. Amputation of both upper extremities, occurring at any level 
at or above the wrists (carpal joints), up to and including the 
shoulder (glenohumeral) joint.

OR

    B. Hemipelvectomy or hip disarticulation.

OR

    C. Amputation of one upper extremity, occurring at any level at 
or above the wrist (carpal joints), and amputation of one lower 
extremity, occurring at or above the ankle (talocrural joint), and 
medical documentation of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    2. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a one-handed, 
hand-held assistive device (see 101.00C6d) requiring the use of the 
other upper extremity or a wheeled and seated mobility device 
involving the use of one hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. The inability to use the remaining upper extremity to 
independently initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate 
activities involving fine and gross movements (101.00E4).
OR

    D. Amputation of one or both lower extremities, occurring at or 
above the ankle (talocrural joint), with complications of the 
residual limb(s) that have lasted, or are expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation 
of 1 and 2:
    1. The inability to use a prosthesis(es); and
    2. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)).
    101.21 Soft tissue injury or abnormality under continuing 
surgical management (see 101.00L), documented by A, B, and C:
    A. Evidence confirms continuing surgical management (see 
101.00P1) directed toward saving, reconstructing, or replacing the 
affected part of the body.

AND

    B. The surgical management has been, or is expected to be, 
ongoing for a continuous period of at least 12 months.

AND

    C. Maximum benefit from therapy (see 101.00P2) has not yet been 
achieved.
    101.22 Non-healing or complex fracture of the femur, tibia, 
pelvis, or one or more of the talocrural bones (see 101.00M), 
documented by A, B, and C:
    A. Solid union not evident on imaging (see 101.00C3) and not 
clinically solid.

AND

    B. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal 
functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a 
continuous period of at least 12 months.

AND

    C. A documented medical need (see 101.00C6a) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)).
    101.23 Non-healing or complex fracture of an upper extremity 
(see 101.00N), documented by A and B:
    A. Nonunion or complex fracture, of the shaft of the humerus, 
radius, or ulna, under continuing surgical management (see 101.00P1) 
directed toward restoration of functional use of the extremity.

AND

    B. Medical documentation of an inability to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 101.00E4) that has lasted, or is 
expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
    101.24 Musculoskeletal disorders of infants and toddlers, from 
birth to attainment of age 3, with developmental motor delay (see 
101.00O), documented by A or B:
    A. A standardized developmental motor assessment that:
    1. Shows motor development not more than one-half of the level 
typically expected for the child's age; or
    2. Results in a valid score that is at least three standard 
deviations below the mean.

OR

    B. Two narrative developmental reports that:
    1. Are dated at least 120 days apart; and
    2. Indicate current motor development not more than one-half of 
the level typically expected for the child's age.
* * * * *

104.00 Cardiovascular System

* * * * *
    F. Evaluating Other Cardiovascular Impairments
* * * * *
    9. What is lymphedema and how will we evaluate it?
* * * * *
    b. Lymphedema does not meet the requirements of 4.11 in part A, 
although it may medically equal the severity of that listing. We 
will evaluate lymphedema by considering whether the underlying cause 
meets or medically equals any listing or whether the lymphedema 
medically equals a cardiovascular listing, such as 4.11, or a 
musculoskeletal disorders listing, such as 101.18. If no listing is 
met or medically equaled, we will evaluate any functional 
limitations imposed by your lymphedema when we consider whether you 
have an impairment that functionally equals the listings.
* * * * *

109.00 Endocrine Disorders

* * * * *
    C. How do we evaluate DM in children? Listing 109.08 is only for 
children with DM who have not attained age 6 and who require daily 
insulin. For all other children (that is, children with DM who are 
age 6 or older and require daily insulin, and children of any age 
with DM who do not require daily insulin), we follow our rules for 
determining whether the DM is severe, alone or in combination with 
another impairment, whether it meets or medically equals the 
criteria of a listing in another body system, or functionally equals 
the listings under the criteria in Sec.  416.926a of this chapter, 
considering the factors in Sec.  416.924a of this chapter. The 
management of DM in children can be complex and variable from day to 
day, and all children with DM require some level of adult 
supervision. For example, if a child age 6 or older has a medical 
need for 24-hour-a-day adult supervision of insulin treatment, food 
intake, and physical activity to ensure survival, we will find that 
the child's impairment functionally equals the listings based on the 
example in Sec.  416.926a(m)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *

114.00 Immune System Disorders

* * * * *
    C. Definitions
* * * * *
    6. Documented medical need has the same meaning as in 101.00C6a.
    7. Fine and gross movements has the same meaning as in 101.00E4.
    8. Major joint of an upper or a lower extremity has the same 
meaning as in 101.00I2 and 101.00I3.
    9. * * *
* * * * *
    12. Severe means medical severity as used by the medical 
community. The term does not have the same meaning as it does when 
we use it in connection with a finding at the second step of the 
sequential evaluation process in Sec.  416.920 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    D. How do we document and evaluate the listed autoimmune 
disorders?
* * * * *
    4. Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (114.05).
* * * * *
    c. Additional information about how we evaluate polymyositis and 
dermatomyositis under the listings.
* * * * *
    (ii) If you are of preschool age through adolescence (age 3 to 
attainment of age 18), weakness of your pelvic girdle muscles that 
results in your inability to rise independently from a squatting or 
sitting position or to climb stairs may be an indication that you 
are unable to walk without assistance. Weakness of your shoulder 
girdle muscles may result in your inability to perform lifting, 
carrying, and reaching overhead, and also may seriously affect your 
ability to perform activities requiring fine movements. We evaluate 
these limitations under 114.05A.
* * * * *
    6. * * *
    a. General. The spectrum of inflammatory arthritis includes a 
vast array of disorders that differ in cause, course, and outcome. 
Clinically, inflammation of major joints in an

[[Page 78189]]

upper or a lower extremity may be the dominant manifestation causing 
difficulties with walking or fine and gross movements; there may be 
joint pain, swelling, and tenderness. The arthritis may affect other 
joints, or cause less limitation in walking or fine and gross 
movements. However, in combination with extra-articular features, 
including constitutional symptoms or signs (severe fatigue, fever, 
malaise, and involuntary weight loss), inflammatory arthritis may 
result in an extreme limitation.
* * * * *
    e. * * *
    (i) Listing-level severity in 114.09A and 114.09C1 is shown by 
the presence of an impairment-related physical limitation of 
functioning. In 114.09C1, if you have the required ankylosis 
(fixation) of your cervical or dorsolumbar spine, we will find that 
you have a listing-level impairment-related physical limitation in 
your ability to see in front of you, above you, and to the side, 
even though you might not require bilateral upper limb assistance.
    (ii) Listing-level severity in 114.09B and 114.09C2 is shown by 
inflammatory arthritis that involves various combinations of 
complications (such as inflammation or deformity, extra-articular 
features, repeated manifestations, and constitutional symptoms and 
signs) of one or more major joints in an upper or a lower extremity 
(see 114.00C8) or other joints. Extra-articular impairments may also 
meet listings in other body systems.
* * * * *
    114.04 Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). As described in 
114.00D3. With:
* * * * *
    B. One of the following:
    1. Toe contractures or fixed deformity of one or both feet and 
medical documentation of at least one of the following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 114.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 114.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 114.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    2. Finger contractures or fixed deformity in both hands and 
medical documentation of an inability to use both upper extremities 
to the extent that neither can be used to independently initiate, 
sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving fine and 
gross movements (see 114.00C7); or
    3. Atrophy with irreversible damage in one or both lower 
extremities and medical documentation of at least one of the 
following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 114.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 114.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 114.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    4. Atrophy with irreversible damage in both upper extremities 
and medical documentation of an inability to use both upper 
extremities to the extent that neither can be used to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 114.00C7); or
    C. Raynaud's phenomenon, characterized by:
* * * * *
    2. Ischemia with ulcerations of toes or fingers and medical 
documentation of at least one of the following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 114.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 114.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 114.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    c. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
age-appropriate activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
114.00C7).
* * * * *
    114.05 Polymyositis and dermatomyositis. As described in 
114.00D4. With:
    A. Proximal limb-girdle (pelvic or shoulder) muscle weakness and 
medical documentation of at least one of the following:
    1. A documented medical need (see 114.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 114.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 114.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that 
neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete 
age-appropriate activities involving fine and gross movements (see 
114.00C7); or
* * * * *
    114.09 Inflammatory arthritis. As described in 114.00D6. With:
    A. Persistent inflammation or persistent deformity of:
    1. One or more major joints in a lower extremity (see 114.00C8) 
and medical documentation of at least one of the following:
    a. A documented medical need (see 114.00C6) for a walker, 
bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 101.00C6d) or a wheeled 
and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 
101.00C6e(i)); or
    b. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently 
initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate activities involving 
fine and gross movements (see 114.00C7), and a documented medical 
need (see 114.00C6) for a one-handed, hand-held assistive device 
(see 101.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity 
or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one 
hand (see 101.00C6e(ii)); or
    2. One or more major joints in each upper extremity (see 
114.00C8) and medical documentation of an inability to use both 
upper extremities to the extent that neither can be used to 
independently initiate, sustain, and complete age-appropriate 
activities involving fine and gross movements (see 114.00C7); or
    B. Inflammation or deformity in one or more major joints of an 
upper or lower extremity (see 114.00C8) with:
* * * * *

PART 416--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND 
DISABLED

Subpart I--Determining Disability and Blindness

0
3. 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 1383(b)); 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).


Sec.  416.926a   [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  416.926a by removing paragraphs (m)(1) and (2) and 
redesignating paragraphs (m)(3) through (5) as (m)(1) through (3).

[FR Doc. 2020-25250 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P