PRW Calculation - new reg?

[pumpkin]

Any fellow policy wonks out there catch this coming attraction (to be published tomorrow 4/18/24)?

www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-08150/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

[rmspringfield]

Interesting. Certainly has an impact on considerations at Step 4.

Of course there are arguments pro and con. I always hated going into a hearing pretty much ok with a Grid rule allowance only to find that no, there was one sedentary job that may just meet the threshold 14 years ago and now things just got complicated.

Also considering the job doesn't even have to exist anymore for a step 4 denial it makes sense that we really shouldn't consider jobs 10-15 years remote in time that may have changed drastically or even been outsourced and eliminated from the national economy.

It certainly streamlines things if we only have to look back 5 years. If the Work history report is incomplete or not filled out at all (like it usually is) it can be a real time suck in a hearing to pull the detailed earnings query and go back in time line by line, employer by employer. The farther back you go you can always see the claimant's eyes glaze over right as you hit the 7 year mark.

[workdrone]

A rational improvement to the Step 4 process. As rmspringfield above noted, it's really a pain to identify a SGA job from a long time ago when the claimant doesn't remember it at the hearing. This definitely streamline the adjudication process and I think it is more fair and equitable as well given the economic changes over the last decade.

Only question I have is whether the June 8, 2024 effective date is for all cases decided that day forward or for all cases filed that day forward. No doubt OCALJ will provide the guidance on this issue shortly.

Overall, a step in the right direction.

[arkstfan]

Five seems short but it’s an improvement.

[nylawyer]

I dont have strong feelings one way or the other (although I'm pretty anti step 4 and trans skills denials as a matter of policy, so I guess that means I favor this).

But, the roll out concerns me.

As I understand it, it will apply to any case where a decision is issued after June 2024, regardless of when filed.

So, if I'm a rep, I am sending in letters right now for any case I have where the claimant is 50 years old or older, and requesting an adjournment. Or, if it's post hearing awaiting additional medical records from the rep, I'm sitting on those for sure.

Moreover, what about cases currently sitting in POST where for whatever reason the ALJ didn't bother getting Step 5 jobs from the VE at the hearing. Or didn't bother asking alternate, less restrictive hypos because the one hypo was consistent with what was at the time past work.

Going to be needing a bunch of supplemental hearings.

Otoh, a lot of remands over the next couple of years are going to be a lot easier to decide.

Especially for claimants who are now over 55 YO and have a limited education.

And, the trust fund is going to take a beating, but I suppose there is a bipartisan consensus at this point to stick our heads in the sand.

[hopefalj]

IIRC, when the mental listings and B criteria were changed, they made a big push to apply the new rules in the month or so prior to effectuation and to move cases decided months earlier as fast as possible before the effectuation date. There were cases that didn’t make it, of course, but most of them got done. I am fairly curtain that there are going to be far fewer cases that the PRW is material to the decision than there were cases where the mental impairment listings impacted the decision. I think they’ll be able to segregate PRW cases beyond 5 years and get them drafted before the effectuation date.

Also, it’s probably a good practice tip to start tracking PRW within 5 years and 15 years in case things push past the effectuation date (or in case you’d like them to get pushed past that date).

[christina]

Oh wow. I think 5 years is too short but I’m not involved in these big shot decisions. Certainly will make step 4 easier

[billsmafia]

Any direction as to whether the June 8, 2024 effective date applied to claims adjudicated on or after June 8, 2024 or just for claims filed after June 8, 2024?

[nylawyer]

May 28, 2024 16:33:26 GMT -5 billsmafia said:

Any direction as to whether the June 8, 2024 effective date applied to claims adjudicated on or after June 8, 2024 or just for claims filed after June 8, 2024?

The June 8 date is supposedly being moved a couple of weeks.

My understanding is it's for cases adjudicated after the date.

[jagvet]

Now June 22. It is for determinations signed on that date and after, not hearing date or filing date.

[legaleyejd]

I don’t understand how SSA can push the effective date back when the federal register specifies an effective date of June 8, 2024. There is no ambiguity here.

[hopefalj]

May 29, 2024 20:44:35 GMT -5 legaleyejd said:

I don’t understand how SSA can push the effective date back when the federal register specifies an effective date of June 8, 2024. There is no ambiguity here.

I don’t know how they derived the new date, either, and I’d bet that anyone denying at step 4 on older PRW between 6/8 and 6/21 will get to hear the case again with the new rule courtesy of the courts. I believe the first day we got actual guidance on the rule was 5/22, and it was probably a pure coincidence that the new effective date was exactly a month later.

I don’t typically have a lot of step 4 denials anyway, but I’ve stopped going back 15 years at this point given the turnaround time from UNWR to EDIT these days. I’m sure I could request a decision jump the line, but I’m not that into denying cases to push that hard.

[nylawyer]

May 29, 2024 20:44:35 GMT -5 legaleyejd said:

I don’t understand how SSA can push the effective date back when the federal register specifies an effective date of June 8, 2024. There is no ambiguity here.

I dont get it either, and I also don't really see the need.

I get that they probably want to throw together a quick training but unless there is something I'm missing this doesn't seem complicated. It may significantly change decisions going forward, but there doesn't seem to be any particular nuance to the change.

[bettrlatethannevr]

Only an agency head can change any part of a regulation. There is no indication that the Commissioner made or authorized this change.