|
Post by BagLady on Jan 3, 2014 14:31:11 GMT -5
I hate to be obvious, but skydiving, bungee jumping and dog sledding seem to me very credible signs and symptoms of a listing level medically determinable mental impairment. Enough work- I just discovered "Game of Thrones." Uh-oh, I'm two for three . . .
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 13, 2014 12:53:01 GMT -5
... Any Agency that says it has a five step process and then later mentions the importance of step three and one-half must be questioned for their overall integrity.. I love this post. Clicking the thumbs up symbol was insufficient to express the improvement in my mood reading it provided.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Jan 13, 2014 13:27:35 GMT -5
The problem is that the Rules, Regulations, Policies, Hallex, etc, are so contradictory and oblique that they are impossible to follow blindly. Each case has individual nuances that are not considered by the Agency and it's writings. I feel one must apply the writings (short for Rules, Regulations, Policies, Hallex, etc) as fairly as possible considering the individual nuances of the case. Any Agency that says it has a five step process and then later mentions the importance of step three and one-half must be questioned for their overall integrity.. In my opinion this post grossly overstates the degree to which the law and policy are "contradictory and oblique," as well as the magnitude and impact of "nuances" in the great majority of cases. Also, I'm pretty certain three and one-half comes between 3 and 4. Unclear why that should bring anyone's integrity into question. IMO inflammatory statements as to an entity's integrity are of little value.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 13, 2014 16:37:43 GMT -5
For those outside the process, by the way, what is called step 3.5 is not a step in the sequential evaluation at all, but a necessary (and most would say, central) finding called "residual functional capacity" that applies to both steps 4 and 5. When it was included in the instructions for step 4, it apparently confused some people (reviewers, possibly? I'm not clear on this) about whether the finding only applied to step 4 and then needed to be made again, in a different context, for step 5. By moving it to step 3.5, even though it isn't really a "step," because it cannot lead to the outcome of the case loike every real step in the sequential evaluation, the agency was emphasizing the fact that the finding is made once, and then used for the remaining 2 steps.
Or I could be completely incorrect on that history, but that's my understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 13, 2014 16:43:34 GMT -5
This part of the discussion reminds me of my favorite bit of legal advice. As background, you need to know that POMS is the program operating manual system, essentially the lowest level of official agency policy-making that is given no deference in courts; equivalent to the IRS Manual. The nuts and bolts of some elements of the program are clarified in there, whereas in the regulations it may just say that something "will be done," without specifics. In the instances where an ALJ is called upon to determine the correctness of the actions taken by the agency under the POMS provisions (which is what agency field staff generally use as a first resource for procedure and policy), there may be no specifics in the regulations. The legal advice given was:
"POMS is not binding on an ALJ, but he or she has to do what it says."
It still tickles me.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Jan 14, 2014 12:00:07 GMT -5
A total disregard for POMS is not a good thing. This is where an ALJ can find out what the SGA limits are for various years because that info is not in the regs or HALLEX. I have found it useful for its examples of what constitutes good cause. There are guidelines for evaluating severity of speech impairments which include a dandy little chart for examples of marked and extreme limitations. No such animal in HALLEX. There is also guidance there involving some resource issues such as whether or not an interest in real property is counted as a resource. The answer: sometimes yes, and sometimes no. When you are determining if that SSI recipient who inherited a partial interest in some land is eligible or not, POMS is quite useful in the disposition whereas the regulations and HALLEX are not.
|
|