Thursday, April 3, 2014

SSR 14-1p rescinds and replaces SSR 99-2p

From the document- "This Social Security Ruling (SSR) rescinds and
replaces SSR 99-2p: "Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).""

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

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/03/2014-07465/social-security-ruling-ssr-14-1p-titles-ii-and-xvi-evaluating-claims-involving-chronic-fatigue

Social Security Ruling, SSR 14-1p; Titles II and XVI: Evaluating
Claims Involving Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)

A Notice by the Social Security Administration on 04/03/2014

Action: Notice Of Social Security Ruling (Ssr).

Summary: We are providing notice of SSR 14-1p. This SSR provides guidance on how we develop evidence to establish that a person has a medically determinable impairment of chronic fatigue syndrome and how we evaluate chronic fatigue syndrome in disability claims and
continuing disability reviews under titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act.

Table of Contents:

DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING
TITLES II AND XVI: EVALUATING CASES INVOLVING CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS)
POLICY INTERPRETATION
I. What is CFS?
II. How does a person establish an MDI of CFS?
A. General.
III. How do we document CFS?
V. How do we find a person disabled based on an MDI of CFS?
VI. How do we consider CFS in the sequential evaluation process?
Footnotes

DATES: Effective Date: April 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Medical
Listings Improvement, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do
not require us to publish this SSR, we are doing so in accordance with
20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).

Through SSRs, we convey to the public, precedential decisions relating
to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security
income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs on
determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative
adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions,
opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, or other
interpretations of the law and regulations.

Although SSRs do not have the same force and effect as statutes or
regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security
Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).

This SSR will remain in effect until we publish a notice inthe Federal
Register that rescinds it, or we publish a new SSR that replaces or
modifies it.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Programs Nos. 96.001, Social
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security--Retirement
Insurance; 96.004, Social Security--Survivors Insurance;
96.006--Supplemental Security Income.)

Dated: March 27, 2014.

Carolyn W. Colvin,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING

TITLES II AND XVI: EVALUATING CASES INVOLVING CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS)

This Social Security Ruling (SSR) rescinds and replaces SSR 99-2p:
"Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome (CFS)."

PURPOSE: This SSR clarifies our policy on how we develop evidence to
establish that a person has a medically determinable impairment (MDI)
of CFS and how we evaluate this impairment in disability claims and
continuing disability reviews under titles II and XVI the Social
Security Act (Act). [1]

CITATIONS: Sections 216(i), 223(d), 223(f), 1614(a)(3) and 1614(a)(4)
of the Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart P,
sections 404.1502, 404.1505, 404.1508-404.1513, 404.1519a, 404.1520,
404.1520a, 404.1521, 404.1523, 404.1526-404.1529, 404.1545,
404.1560-404.1569a, 404.1593, 404.1594, appendices 1 and 2; and
Regulations No. 16, subpart I, sections 416.902, 416.905, 416.906,
416.908-416.913, 416.919a, 416.920, 416.920a, 416.921, 416.923,
416.924, 416.924a, 416.926, 416.926a, 416.927-416.929, 416.945,
416.960-416-969a, 416.987, 416.993, 416.994, and 416.994a.

INTRODUCTION:

CFS is a systemic disorder consisting of a complex of symptoms that
may vary in frequency, duration, and severity. In 1994, an
international panel convened by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) developed a case definition for CFS that serves as an
identification tool and research definition. [2] In 2003, an expert
subcommittee of Health Canada, the Canadian health agency, convened a
consensus workshop that developed a clinical case definition for CFS,
known as the Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC). [3] In 2011, a private
international group developed guidelines, known as the International
Consensus Criteria (ICC), [4] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis
(ME). [5] Members of this international group and other medical
experts consider ME to be a subtype of CFS. [6] We adapted the CDC
criteria, and to some extent the CCC and ICC, when we formulated the
criteria in this SSR. [7]

We consider a person to be "disabled" [8] if he or she is unable to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment(s) [9] which can be
expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. We require
that an MDI result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological
abnormalities, as shown by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques. [10] The Act and our regulations
further require that the impairment be established by medical evidence
that consists of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings; therefore,
a claimant may not be found disabled on the basis of a person's
statement of symptoms alone. [11] In this SSR, we explain that CFS,
when accompanied by appropriate medical signs or laboratory findings,
is an MDI that can be the basis for a finding of "disability." We also
explain how we evaluate CFS claims.

POLICY INTERPRETATION

CFS constitutes an MDI when accompanied by medical signs or laboratory
findings, as discussed below. CFS may be a disabling impairment. This
policy interpretation clarifies how our adjudicators should apply our
regulations in determining whether a person claiming benefits based on
CFS is disabled under titles II and XVI the Act. Adults and children
may claim these benefits. As mentioned, we include ME as a subtype of
CFS. When we refer to CFS in this SSR, we include ME.

I. What is CFS?

CFS is a systemic disorder that may vary in frequency, duration, and
severity.
CFS can occur in children, [12] particularly adolescents, as
well as in adults.

The CDC and other medical experts characterize CFS, in part, as a
syndrome that causes prolonged fatigue lasting 6 months or more,
resulting in a substantial reduction in previous levels of
occupational, educational, social, or personal activities. In
accordance with the CDC case definition of CFS, a physician should
make a diagnosis of CFS "only after alternative medical and
psychiatric causes of chronic fatiguing illness have been excluded."
[13]

A. General. Under the CDC case definition, the hallmark of CFS is the
presence of clinically evaluated, persistent or relapsing chronic
fatigue that:

1. Is of new or definite onset (that is, has not been lifelong);
2. Cannot be explained by another physical or mental disorder;
3. Is not the result of ongoing exertion;
4. Is not substantially alleviated by rest; and
5. Results in substantial reduction in previous levels of
occupational, educational, social, or personal activities.

B. Additional indications of CFS. CFS results in additional symptoms,
some more common than others.

1. Diagnostic Symptoms. The CDC case definition requires the
concurrence of 4 or more specific symptoms that persisted or recurred
during 6 or more consecutive months of illness and did not pre-date
the fatigue:

  - Postexertional malaise lasting more than 24 hours (which may be
the most common secondary symptom);
  - Self-reported impairment(s) in short-term memory or concentration
severe enough to cause substantial reduction in previouslevels of
occupational, educational, social, or personal activities; [14]
  - Sore throat;
  - Tender cervical or axillary lymph nodes;
  - Muscle pain;
  - Multi-joint pain without joint swelling or redness;
  - Headaches of a new type, pattern, or severity; and
  - Waking unrefreshed. [15]

2. Other Symptoms. Within these parameters, the CDC case definition,
CCC, and ICC describe a wide range of other symptoms a person with CFS
may exhibit: [16]

  - Muscle weakness;
  - Disturbed sleep patterns (for example, insomnia, prolonged
sleeping, frequent awakenings, or vivid dreams or nightmares);
  - Visual difficulties (for example, trouble focusing, impaired depth
perception, severe photosensitivity, or eye pain);
  - Orthostatic intolerance (for example, lightheadedness, fainting,
dizziness, or increased fatigue with prolonged standing);
  - Respiratory difficulties (for example, labored breathing or sudden
breathlessness);
  - Cardiovascular abnormalities (for example, palpitations with or
without cardiac arrhythmias);
  - Gastrointestinal discomfort (for example, nausea, bloating, or
abdominal pain); and
  - Urinary or bladder problems (for example, urinary frequency,
nocturia, dysuria, or pain in the bladder region).

3. Co-occurring Conditions. People with CFS may have co-occurring
conditions, such as fibromyalgia (FM), [17] myofascial pain syndrome,
temporomandibular joint syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome,
interstitial cystitis, [18] Raynaud's phenomenon, migraines, chronic
lymphocytic thyroiditis, or Sjogren's syndrome. Co-occurring
conditions may also include new allergies or sensitivities to foods,
odors, chemicals, medications, noise, vibrations, or touch, or the
loss of thermostatic stability (for example, chills, night sweats, or
intolerance of extreme temperatures).

II. How does a person establish an MDI of CFS?

A. General.

1. A person can establish that he or she has an MDI of CFS by
providing appropriate evidence from an acceptable medical source. [19]
A licensed physician (a medical or osteopathic doctor) is the only
acceptable medical source who can provide such evidence. We cannot
rely upon the physician's diagnosis alone. The evidence must document
that the physician reviewed the person's medical history and conducted
a physical exam. We will review the physician's treatment notes to see
if they are consistent with the diagnosis of CFS; determine whether
the person's symptoms have improved, worsened, or remained stable; and
establish the physician's assessment of the person's physical strength
and functional abilities.

2. We will find that a person has an MDI of CFS if a licensed
physician diagnosed CFS, and this diagnosis is not inconsistent with
the other evidence in the person's case record. Under the CDC case
definition, a physician can make the diagnosis of CFS based on a
person's reported symptoms alone after ruling out other possible
causes for the person's symptoms. [20] However, as mentioned,
statutory and regulatory provisions require that, for evaluation of
claims of disability under the Act, there must also be medical signs
or laboratory findings before we may find that a person has an MDI of
CFS. If we cannot find that the person has an MDI of CFS but there is
evidence of another MDI, we will not evaluate the impairment under
this SSR. Instead, we will evaluate it under the rules that apply for
that impairment.

B. Medical signs. For the purposes of Social Security disability
evaluation, one or more of the following medical signs clinically
documented over a period of at least 6 consecutive months help
establish the existence of an MDI of CFS:

  - Palpably swollen or tender lymph nodes on physical examination;
  - Nonexudative pharyngitis;
  - Persistent, reproducible muscle tenderness on repeated
examinations, including the presence of positive tender points; [21]
or
  - Any other medical signs that are consistent with medically
accepted clinical practice and are consistent with the other evidence
in the case record. For example, the CCC and ICC explain that an acute
infectious inflammatory event may precede the onset of CFS, and that
other medical signs may be present, including the following:

- Frequent viral infections with prolonged recovery;
-  Sinusitis;
- Ataxia;
- Extreme pallor; and
-  Pronounced weight change.

C. Laboratory findings. At this time, we cannot identify specific
laboratory findings that are widely accepted as being associated with
CFS. However, the absence of a definitive test does not preclude our
reliance upon certain laboratory findings to establish the existence
of an MDI in people with CFS.
While standard laboratory test results
in the normal range are characteristic for many people with CFS, and
they should not be relied upon to the exclusion of all other clinical
evidence in decisions regarding the presence and severity of an MDI,
the following laboratory findings establish the existence of an MDI in
people with CFS:

  - An elevated antibody titer to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) capsid
antigen equal to or greater than 1:5120, or early antigen equal to or
greater than 1:640;
  - An abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scan;
  - Neurally mediated hypotension as shown by tilt table testing or
another clinically accepted form of testing; or
  - Any other laboratory findings that are consistent with medically
accepted clinical practice and are consistent with the other evidence
in the case record (for example, an abnormal exercise stress test or
abnormal sleep studies, appropriately evaluated and consistent with
the other evidence in the case record).

D. Additional signs and laboratory findings. Because of the ongoing
research into the etiology and manifestations of CFS, the medical
criteria discussed above are only examples of physical and mental
signs and laboratory findings that can help us establish the existence
of an MDI; they are not all-inclusive.
As medical research advances
regarding CFS, we may discover additional signs and laboratory
findings to establish that people have an MDI of CFS. For example,
scientific studies now suggest there may be subsets of CFS with
different causes, including viruses such as Human Herpesvirus 6. Thus,
we may document the existence of CFS with medical signs and laboratory
findings other than those listed above provided such evidence is
consistent with medically accepted clinical practice, and is
consistent with the other evidence in the case record.

E. Mental limitations. Some people with CFS report ongoing problems
with short-term memory, information processing, visual-spatial
difficulties, comprehension, concentration, speech, word-finding,
calculation, and other symptoms suggesting persistent neurocognitive
impairment. When ongoing deficits in these areas have been documented
by mental status examination orpsychological testing, such findings
may constitute medical signs or (in the case of psychological testing)
laboratory findings that establish the presence of an MDI. [22] When
medical signs or laboratory findings suggest a persistent neurological
impairment or other mental problems, and these signs or findings are
appropriately documented in the medical record, we may find that the
person has an MDI.

III. How do we document CFS?

A. General. In cases in which CFS is alleged, we generally need
longitudinal evidence because medical signs, symptoms, and laboratory
findings of CFS fluctuate in frequency and severity and often continue
over a period of many months or years.

1. Longitudinal clinical records reflecting ongoing medical evaluation
and treatment from the person's medical sources, especially treating
sources, are extremely helpful in documenting the presence of any
medical signs or laboratory findings, as well as the person's
functional status over time. The longitudinal record should contain
detailed medical observations, information about treatment, the
person's response to treatment, and a detailed description of how the
impairment limits the person's ability to function.

2. In addition to obtaining evidence from a physician, we may request
evidence from other acceptable medical sources, such as psychologists,
both to determine whether the person has another MDI(s) and to
evaluate the severity and functional effects of CFS or any of the
person's other impairments. Under our regulations and SSR 06-03p, we
also may consider evidence from medical sources we do not consider
"acceptable medical sources" to help us evaluate the severity and
functional effects of the impairment(s). [23]

3. We may also consider information from nonmedical sources. [24] This
information may also help us assess the person's ability to function
day-to-day and over time. It may also assist us in assessing the
person's allegations about symptoms and their effects (see section IV
below). Examples of nonmedical sources include:

  - Spouses, parents, siblings, other relatives, neighbors, friends, and clergy;
  - Past employers, rehabilitation counselors, and teachers; and
  - Statements from SSA personnel who interviewed the person.

4. Before we make a determination that you are not disabled, we will
make every reasonable effort to develop your complete medical history
and help you get medical reports from your own medical sources.
Generally, we will request evidence from your medical sources for the
12-month period preceding the month of application unless there is
reason to believe that development of an earlier period is necessary,
or unless the alleged onset of disability is less than 12 months
before the date of application. [25]

5. When the alleged onset of disability secondary to CFS occurred less
than 12 months before adjudication, we must evaluate the medical
evidence and project the degree of impairment severity that is likely
to exist at the end of 12 months. [26] Information about the person's
treatment and response to treatment, as well as any medical source
opinions about the person's prognosis at the end of 12 months, helps
us decide whether to expect the MDI to be of disabling severity for at
least 12 consecutive months.

B. How do we consider medical opinions about a person's impairment? We
consider the nature of the treatment relationship between the medical
source [27] and the claimant when we evaluate the source's medical
opinions about a person's impairment(s). If we find that a treating
source's medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a
person's impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and the opinion is not
inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record,
we will give it controlling weight. [28] If a medical source states
that a person is "disabled" or "unable to work," or provides an
opinion on issues such as whether an impairment(s) meets or is
equivalent in severity to the requirements of a listing, a person's
residual functional capacity (RFC), or the application of vocational
factors, we consider these statements to be opinions on issues
reserved to the Commissioner. We must still consider such opinions in
adjudicating a disability claim; however, we will not give any special
significance to such an opinion because of its source.
[29]

C. Resolving conflicts. Conflicting evidence in the medical record is
not unusual in cases of CFS due to the complicated diagnostic process
involved. We may seek clarification of any such conflicts in the
medical evidence first from the person's treating or other medical
sources, in accordance with our rules.

D. What do we do if there is insufficient evidence to determine
whether the person has an MDI of CFS or is disabled?

1. When there is insufficient evidence for us to determine whether the
person has an MDI of CFS or is disabled, we may take one or more
actions to try to resolve the insufficiency: [30]

  - We may recontact the person's treating or other source(s) to see
if the information we need is available;
  - We may request additional existing records;
  - We may ask the person or others for more information; or
  - We may purchase a consultative examination (CE) at our expense. [31]

2. When we are unable to resolve an insufficiency in the evidence, and
we need to determine whether the person has an MDI of CFS or is
disabled, we may make a determination or decision based on the
evidence we have. [32]

IV. How do we evaluate a person's statements about his or her symptoms
and functional limitations?

Generally, we follow a two-step process:

A. First step of the symptom-evaluation process. There must be medical
signs and findings that show the person has an MDI(s) which we could
reasonably expect to produce the fatigue or other symptoms alleged.
[33] If we find that a person has an MDI that we could reasonably
expect to produce the alleged symptoms, the first step of our two-step
process for evaluating symptoms is satisfied.

B. Second step of the symptom-evaluation process. After finding that
the MDI could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms,
we evaluate the intensity and persistence of the person's symptoms and
determine the extent to which they limit the person's capacity for
work. If objective medical evidence does not substantiate the person's
statements about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting
effects of symptoms, we consider all of the evidence in the case
record, including the person's daily activities; medications or other
treatments the person uses, or has used, to alleviate symptoms; the
nature and frequency of the person's attempts to obtain medical
treatment for symptoms; and statements by other people about the
person's symptoms. We will make a finding about the credibility of the
person's statements regarding the effects of his or her symptoms on
functioning. [34] When we need additionalinformation to assess the
credibility of the individual's statements about symptoms and their
effects, we will make every reasonable effort to obtain available
information that could shed light on the credibility of the person's
statements.

V. How do we find a person disabled based on an MDI of CFS?

Once we establish that a person has an MDI of CFS, we will consider
this MDI in the sequential evaluation process to determine whether the
person is disabled. [35] As we explain in section VI below, we
consider the severity of the impairment, whether the impairment
medically equals the requirements of a listed impairment, and whether
the impairment prevents the person from doing his or her past relevant
work or other work that exists in significant numbers in the national
economy.

VI. How do we consider CFS in the sequential evaluation process?

We adjudicate claims involving CFS using the sequential evaluation
process, just as we do for any impairment. Once we find that an MDI(s)
exists (see section II), we must establish the severity of the
impairment(s). We determine the severity of a person's impairment(s)
based on the totality of medical signs, symptoms, and laboratory
findings, and the effects of the impairment(s), including any related
symptoms, on the person's ability to function. Additionally, several
other disorders (including, but not limited to FM, multiple chemical
sensitivity, and Gulf War Syndrome, as well as various forms of
depression, and some neurological and psychological disorders) may
share characteristics similar to those of CFS. When there is evidence
of the potential presence of another disorder that may adequately
explain the person's symptoms, it may be necessary to pursue
additional medical or other development. As mentioned, if we cannot
find that the person has an MDI of CFS but there is evidence of
another MDI, we will not evaluate the impairment under this SSR.
Instead, we will evaluate it under the rules that apply for that
impairment.

A. Step 1. We consider the person's work activity. If a person with
CFS is doing substantial gainful activity, we find that he or she is
not disabled.

B. Step 2. If we establish that a person has an MDI that meets the
duration requirement, [36] and the person alleges fatigue, pain,
symptoms of neurocognitive problems, or other symptoms consistent with
CFS, we must consider these symptoms in deciding whether the person's
impairment is "severe" in step 2 of the sequential evaluation process,
and at any later steps reached in the sequential evaluation process.
If we find fatigue, pain, neurocognitive symptoms, or other symptoms
cause a limitation or restriction, and they have more than a minimal
effect on a person's ability to perform basic work activities, we must
find that the person has a "severe" impairment. [37]

C. Step 3. When we find that a person has a severe MDI, we must
proceed with the sequential evaluation process and next consider
whether the person's impairment is of the severity contemplated by the
Listing of Impairments. [38] CFS is not a listed impairment;
therefore, we cannot find that a person with CFS alone has an
impairment that meets the requirements of a listed impairment.
However, we will compare the specific findings in each case to any
pertinent listing (for example, listing 14.06B in the listing for
repeated manifestations of undifferentiated or mixed connective tissue
disease) to determine whether medical equivalence may exist. [39]
Further, in cases in which a person with CFS has psychological
manifestations related to CFS, we must consider whether the person's
impairment meets or equals the severity of any impairment in the
mental disorders listings. [40]

D. Steps 4 and 5. For those impairments that do not meet or equal the
severity of a listing, we must make an assessment of the person's RFC.
After we make our RFC assessment, our evaluation must proceed to the
fourth step of the sequential evaluation process, if we do not use an
expedited process. [41] If necessary, we then proceed to the fifth
step of the sequential evaluation process. [42] In assessing RFC, we
must consider all of the person's impairment-related symptoms in
deciding how such symptoms may affect functional capacities. [43] The
RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant evidence in the
record. [44] If we do not use an expedited process, we must determine
that the person's impairment(s) precludes the performance of past
relevant work (or if there was no past relevant work). If we determine
that the person's impairment precludes performance of past relevant
work, we must make a finding about the person's ability to perform
other work. [45] We must apply the usual vocational considerations in
determining the person's ability to perform other work. [46]

E. Continuing disability reviews. In those cases in which we find that
a person is disabled based on CFS, we will schedule an appropriate
continuing disability review. [47] For this review, we take into
account relevant individual case facts, such as the combined severity
of other chronic or static impairments and the person's vocational
factors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This SSR is effective on April 3, 2014.

CROSS-REFERENCES: SSR 82-63: Titles II and XVI: Medical-Vocational
Profiles Showing an Inability To Make an Adjustment to Other Work; SSR
83-12: Title II and XVI: Capability To Do Other Work--The
Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating Exertional
Limitations Within a Range of Work or Between Ranges of Work; SSR
83-14: Titles II and XVI: Capability To Do Other Work--The
Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a Combination
of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments; SSR 85-15: Titles II and
XVI: Capability To Do Other Work--The Medical-Vocational Rules as a
Framework for Evaluating Solely Nonexertional Impairments; SSR 96-2p,
Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source
Medical Opinions; SSR 96-3p, Titles II and XVI: Considering
Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in Determining Whether a
Medically Determinable Impairment is Severe; SSR 96-4p, Titles II and
XVI: Symptoms, Medically Determinable Physical and Mental Impairments,
and Exertional and Nonexertional Limitations; SSR 96-5p, Titles II and
XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner;
SSR 96-7p, Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability
Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements; SSR
96-8p, Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in
Initial Claims; SSR 96-9p, Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability
to Do Other Work--Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for
Less Than a Full Range of Sedentary Work; SSR 02-2p, Titles II and
XVI: Evaluation of Interstitial Cystitis; SSR 06-03p, Titles II and
XVI: Considering Opinions and Other Evidence from Sources Who Are Not
"Acceptable Medical Sources" in Disability Claims; Considering
Decisions on Disability by Other Governmental and Nongovernmental
Agencies; SSR 11-2p, Titles II and XVI: Documenting and Evaluating
Disability in Young Adults; SSR 12-2p, Titles II and XVI: Evaluation
of Fibromyalgia; and Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI
22505.001, DI 22505.003, DI 24505.003, DI 24510.057, DI 24515.012, DI
24515.061-DI 24515.063, DI 24515.066-DI 24515.067, DI 24515.075, DI
24555.001, DI 25010.001, and DI 25025.001.

[FR Doc. 2014-07465 Filed 4-2-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P

Footnotes Back to Top

1. For simplicity, we refer in this SSR only to initial adult claims
for disability benefits under titles II and XVI of the Act and to the
steps of the sequential evaluation process we use to determine
disability in those claims. 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920. The policy
interpretations in this SSR apply to all cases in which we must make
determinations about disability, including claims of children (that
is, people who have not attained age 18) who apply for benefits based
on disability under title XVI of the Act, disability redeterminations
for children who became eligible for Supplemental Security Income
under title XVI as a child and who were eligible for such benefits for
the month before the month in which they attained age 18, and to
continuing disability reviews of adults and children under titles II
and XVI of the Act. 20 CFR 404.1594, 416.924, 416.987, 416.994, and
416.994a.
2. See Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome (CFS)," available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cfs.
3. See Carruthers, B.M., et al. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome: Clinical Working Case Definition, Diagnostic and
Treatment Protocols, Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Jan; 11(1),
7-36 (2003); see also, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical
Practitioners, Canada: Carruthers & van de Sande, 2005 (available at:
http://sacfs.asn.au/download/consensus_overview_me_cfs.pdf).
4. See Carruthers, B.M., et al. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis:
International Consensus Criteria, Journal of Internal Medicine, Apr;
270(4), 327-338 (2011); also, Carruthers, B.M. & van de Sande,
M.I.,eds., Myalgic Encephalomyelitis--Adult & Pediatric: International
Consensus Primer for Medical Practitioners, Canada: Carruthers & van
de Sande, 2012 (available at:
http://sacfs.asn.au/download/me_international_consensus_primer_for_medical_practitioners.pdf).
5. Although the panel that developed the ICC considers its criteria
appropriate for diagnosing only ME, we consider the ICC helpful in
establishing an MDI of CFS because of the similarities between CFS and
ME. For example, ME also is a systemic disorder that manifests many of
the same symptoms as CFS, including prolonged fatigue.
6. Medical experts who consider ME to be a subtype of CFS may use
hybrid terms to describe the syndrome, such as CFS/ME and ME/CFS.
7. We adapted the CDC criteria, CCC, and ICC because the Act and our
regulations require a claimant to establish by objective medical
evidence that he or she has a medically determinable impairment. See
223(d)(5)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(D) of the Act, 20 CFR 404.1058 and
416.908, and SSR 96-4p: Titles II and XVI: Symptoms, Medically
Determinable Physical and Mental Impairments, and Exertional and
Nonexertional Limitations, 61 FR 34488 (1996) (also available at
http://www.ba.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-04-di-01.html.
8. Except for statutory blindness.
9. We use the term "impairment(s)" in this SSR to refer to an
"impairment or a combination of impairments."
10. See sections 223(d)(3) and 1614(a)(3)(D) of the Act, and 20 CFR
404.1508 and 416.908.
11. See sections 223(d)(5)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(D) of the Act; 20 CFR
404.1508 and 416.908; and SSR 96-4p.
12. In children, symptoms may progress more gradually than in
adolescents or adults.
13. See Fukuda, K. et al. The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A
Comprehensive Approach to a Definition and Study, Annals of Internal
Medicine, Dec. 121(12), 953-9596 (1994).
14. We may consider self-reported impairments in short-term memory or
concentration to be symptoms of CFS. As we explain in section IIE,
when these impairments are documented by mental status examination or
psychological testing, we may also consider them to be medical signs
or laboratory findings.
15. "Waking unrefreshed" may be shown in the case record by a person's
reports that describe a history of non-restorative sleep, such as
statements about waking up tired or having difficulty remaining awake
during the day, or other statements or evidence in the record
reflecting that the person has a history of non-restorative sleep.
16. In addition, generalized pain and neurological symptoms (for
example, headaches, cognitive impairments, sleep disturbance, and
dyslexia evident when fatigued) may be common in children and
adolescents. Episodes of intense postexertional weakness may occur,
eventually causing a previously active child to reduce or avoid
physical activity.
17. See SSR 12-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Fibromyalgia, 77
FR 43640(2012)(also available at:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2012-02-di-01.html).
18. See SSR 02-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Interstitial
Cystitis, 67 FR 67436 (2002) (also available at:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2002-02-di-01.html).
19. See 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a).
20. Some examples of other disorders that may have symptoms that are
the same or similar to those resulting from CFS include Addison's
disease, Cushing's syndrome, hypothyroidism, iron deficiency, B12
deficiency, iron overload syndrome, diabetes mellitus, cancer, upper
airway resistance syndrome, sleep apnea, rheumatologic disorders,
multiple sclerosis, Parkinsonism, myasthenia gravis, Lyme disease, and
chronic hepatitis.
21. There is considerable overlap of symptoms between CFS and FM, but
people with CFS who also have tender points have an MDI. People with
impairments that fulfill the American College of Rheumatology criteria
for FM (which includes a minimum number of tender points) may also
fulfill the criteria for CFS. See SSR 12-2p. However, we may still
find that a person with CFS has an MDI if he or she does not have the
specified number of tender points to establish FM.
22. See 20 CFR 404.1528 and 416.928.
23. See 20 CFR 404.1513(d)(4), 416.913(d)(4); and SSR 06-03p: Titles
II and XVI: Considering Opinions and Other Evidence from Sources Who
Are Not "Acceptable Medical Sources" in Disability Claims, 71 FR 45593
(2006) (also available at:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2006-03-di-01.html).
24. See SSR 06-03p.
25. See 20 CFR 404.1512(d)(2) and 416.912(d) concerning situations in
which we would develop an earlier period.
26. To meet the statutory requirement for "disability," a person must
have been unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by
reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
which is expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
See 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1) and 1382c(a)(3)(A). Thus, the existence of an
impairment(s) for 12 continuous months is not controlling; rather, it
is the existence of a disabling impairment which has lasted or can be
expected to last for at least 12 months that meets the duration
requirement of the Act.
27. See 20 CFR 404.1502 and 416.902 for the definitions of "medical
source" and "treating source."
28. See 20 CFR 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2); SSR 96-2p, Titles II
and XVI: Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source/Medical
Opinions, 61 FR 34492 (2006) (also available at:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-02-di-01.html)
29. See SSR 96-5p, Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on
Issues Reserved to the Commissioner, 61 FR 34471 (1996) (also
available at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-05-di-01.html).
30. See 20 CFR 404.1520b(c) and 416.920b(c).
31. See 20 CFR 404.1520b(c)(3) and 416.920b(c)(3). The type of CE we
purchase will depend on the nature of the person's symptoms and the
extent of the evidence already in the case record. We may purchase a
CE without recontacting a person's treating or other source if the
source cannot provide the necessary information, or the information is
not available from the source. See 20 CFR 404.1519a(b) and
416.919a(b).
32. See 20 CFR 404.1520b(d) and 416.920b(d).
33. See 20 CFR 404.1529(b) and 416.929(b).
34. See SSR 96-7p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in
Disability Claims: Assessing theCredibility of an Individual's
Statements, 61 FR 34483 (1996) (also available at:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-07-di-01.html).
35. See 20 CFR 404.1520, 416.920 and 416.924.
36. See 20 CFR 404.1509 and 416.909.
37. See SSR 96-3p: Titles II and XVI: Considering Allegations of Pain
and Other Symptoms in Determining Whether a Medically Determinable
Impairment Is Severe, 61 FR 34468 (1996) (also available at:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-03-di-01.html).
38. See 20 CFR 404, subpart P, appendix 1.
39. In evaluating title XVI claims for disability benefits for people
under age 18, we will consider whether the impairment(s) functionally
equals the listings. See 20 CFR 416.926a.
40. See sections 12.00 and 112.00 of 20 CFR part 404, subpart P, appendix 1.
41. See 404.1520(h) and 416.920(h).
42. The fourth and fifth steps of the sequential evaluation process
are not applicable to claims for benefits under title XVI for people
under age 18. See 20 CFR 416.924.
43. See 404.1529(d) and 416.929(d), and SSR 96-7p.
44. See 20 CFR 404.1545(a) and 416.945(a).
45. See SSR 96-8p: Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional
Capacity in Initial claims, 61 FR 34474 (1996) (also available at
http://www.ba.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-08-di-01.html.
46. See 20 CFR 404.1560-404.1569a and 416.960-416.969a, and SSR 11-2p:
Titles II and XVI: Documenting and Evaluating Disability in Young
Adults, 76 FR 56263 (2011) (also available at
http://www.ba.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2011-02-di-01.html).
47. See 20 CFR 404.1593, 404.1594, 404.1579, 416.993, 416.994 and 416.994a.

1 comment:

max said...

I WAS DIAGNOSED 30 YEARS AGO WITH KOTSAKIE VIRUS> which is ME.> years later after a horrendous car smash, damaged nerves> Drs refer to it as CFS> 18months ago, I was diagnosed with 'FMS'
PASSING OUT, LOOSING THE POWER TO HOLD AND CARY THINGS> falling and tripping, hurting myself badly..
But, for some reason, in this country, U.K. IS CLASSIFIED AS BEING A MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION. REALLY! a mental health problem...
''WHO'' REALLY NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED WITH THIS> AS WE ARE SEVERELY DISABLED> and basically have no support or help with this condition. AND THE IDIOTS, WHO THINK 'CBT' HELPS, MUST BE COMPLETE AND UTTER MONEY MAKING RACKATEERS, PRAYING ON THE LONG SUFFERING, WITH THIS CONDITION.

SHAME ON THE ''WHO'' YOU ARE NOT DOING RIGHT BY US. REALLY, WHERE IS THE EMPATHY,THE COMPASSION, AND WHAT ABOUT OUR HUMAN RIGHTS. for me, I feel as if, the lack of awareness, does nothing to empower no-one.... and suffer daily, it's like my own private war, with no troops on board, to help fight this daily onslaught of symptoms '' What about us'' WORLD '' what about us!