Social Security Ruling, 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, 45593-45597 [E6-12951]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices
Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury
Loans Only):
Ohio: Cuyahoga, Portage, Summit,
Trumbull.
Pennsylvania: Crawford, Erie.
The Interest Rates are:
Percent
For Physical Damage:
Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere ......................
Homeowners without Credit
Available Elsewhere ..............
Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere ......................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere ......................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit
Available Elsewhere ..............
For Economic Injury:
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without
Credit Available Elsewhere
6.250
3.125
7.934
5.000
4.000
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Small Business Size Standards:
Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule
Small Business Administration.
Notice of intent to waive the
Nonmanufacturer Rule for Plastics
Pallets (Twin Sheet Thermoformed).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The U.S Small Business
Administration (SBA) is considering
granting a request for a waiver of the
Nonmanufacturer Rule for Plastics
Pallets (Twin Sheet Thermoformed). If
granted, the waiver would allow
otherwise qualified regular dealers to
supply the products of any domestic
manufacturer on a Federal contract set
aside for small businesses; servicedisabled veteran-owned small business
or SBA’s 8(a) Business Development
Program.
Comments and source
information must be submitted August
4.000
24, 2006.
The number assigned to this disaster for ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
physical damage is 10557 B and for economic and source information to Edith Butler,
injury is 10558 0.
Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Administration, Office of Government
Numbers 59002 and 59008)
Contracting, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite
8800, Washington, DC 20416.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATI0N CONTACT:
Associate Administrator for Disaster
Edith Butler, Program Analyst, by
Assistance.
telephone at (202) 619–0422; by FAX at
[FR Doc. E6–12917 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am]
(202) 481–1788; or by e-mail at
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
edith.butler@sba.gov.
DATES:
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Advisory Committee on Veterans
Business Affairs; Public Meeting
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA), pursuant to the
Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Development Act of 1999 (Pub.
L. 106–50), SBA Advisory Committee on
Veterans Business Affairs will host a
public meeting on September 12–13,
2006, starting at 9 a.m. until 5p.m. The
meeting will take place at the U.S. Small
Business Administration, 409 3rd Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20416, Office of
Advocacy’s Conference Room, located
on the 7th Floor.
The purpose of this meeting is to
focus on finalizing the annual report to
the President and Congress.
Anyone wishing to attend must
contact Cheryl Clark, Program Liaison,
in the Office of Veterans Business
Development, at (202) 205–6773, or email Cheryl.Clark@sba.gov.
Thomas M. Dryer,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6–12930 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Aug 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
Section
8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act),
15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that
recipients of Federal contracts set aside
for small businesses, service-disabled
veteran-owned small businesses, or
SBA’s 8(a) Business Development
Program provide the product of a small
business manufacturer or processor, if
the recipient is other than the actual
manufacturer or processor of the
product. This requirement is commonly
referred to as the Nonmanufacturer
Rule. The SBA regulations imposing
this requirement are found at 13 CFR
121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the
Act authorizes SBA to waive the
Nonmanufacturer Rule for any ‘‘class of
products’’ for which there are no small
business manufacturers or processors
available to participate in the Federal
market.
As implemented in SBA’s regulations
at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be
considered available to participate in
the Federal market for a class of
products, a small business manufacturer
must have submitted a proposal for a
contract solicitation or received a
contract from the Federal government
within the last 24 months. The SBA
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45593
defines ‘‘class of products’’ based on a
six digit coding system. The coding
system is the Office of Management and
Budget North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).
The SBA is currently processing a
request to waive the Nonmanufacturer
Rule for Plastics Pallets (Twin Sheet
Thermoformed) North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
326199 product number 4141. The
public is invited to comment or provide
source information to SBA on the
proposed waiver of the
Nonmanufacturer Rule for this class of
NAICS code within 15 days after date of
publication in the Federal Register.
Dated: August 3, 2006.
Karen C. Hontz,
Associate Administrator for Government
Contracting.
[FR Doc. E6–12916 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Social Security Ruling, 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
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Social Security Ruling.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR
402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social
Security gives notice of Social Security
Ruling, SSR 06–03p. This Ruling
clarifies how we consider opinions from
sources who are not ‘‘acceptable
medical sources’’ and how we consider
decisions made by other governmental
and nongovernmental agencies on the
issue of disability or blindness.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike O’Connor, Office of Disability
Programs, Social Security
Administration, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401,
(410) 965–1952.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not
require us to publish this Social
Security Ruling, we are doing so in
accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Social Security Rulings make
available to the public precedential
decisions relating to the Federal old-age,
survivors, disability, supplemental
security income, special veterans
benefits, and black lung benefits
programs. Social Security Rulings may
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
45594
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices
be based on case decisions made at all
administrative levels of adjudication,
Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s
decisions, opinions of the Office of the
General Counsel, and other
interpretations of the law and
regulations.
Although Social Security Rulings do
not have the same force and effect as the
statute or regulations, they are binding
on all components of the Social Security
Administration, in accordance with 20
CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are binding as
precedents in adjudicating cases.
If this Social Security Ruling is later
superseded, modified, or rescinded, we
will publish a notice in the Federal
Register to that effect.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
Programs Nos. 96.001 Social SecurityDisability Insurance; 96.004 Social SecuritySurvivors Insurance; 96.006 Supplemental
Security Income.)
Dated: August 2, 2006.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner of Social Security.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Policy Interpretation Ruling
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
Purpose: To clarify how we consider
opinions from sources who are not
‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ and how
we consider decisions by other
governmental and nongovernmental
agencies on the issue of disability or
blindness.
Citations: Sections 205(a), 216(i), 221,
223(d), 1614(a)(3), 1631(d), and 1633 of
the Social Security Act (the Act), as
amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart P,
sections 404.1502, 404.1503, 404.1504,
404.1512(b), 404.1513(a), (d), and (e),
404.1520(a), 404.1527, and subpart Q,
section 404.1613, and Regulations No.
16, subpart I, sections 416.902, 416.903,
416.904, 416.912(b), 416.913(a), (d), and
(e), 416.920(a), 416.927 and subpart J,
section 416.1013.
Introduction: We use medical and
other evidence to reach conclusions
about an individual’s impairment(s) to
make a disability determination or
decision as described in 20 CFR
404.1512, 404.1513, 416.912 and
416.913. In accordance with sections
223(d)(5) and 1614(a)(3)(H) of the Act,
when we make a determination or
decision of disability, we will consider
all of the available evidence in the
individual’s case record. This includes,
but is not limited to, objective medical
evidence; other evidence from medical
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Aug 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
sources, including their opinions;
statements by the individual and others
about the impairment(s) and how it
affects the individual’s functioning;
information from other ‘‘non-medical
sources’’ and decisions by other
governmental and nongovernmental
agencies about whether an individual is
disabled or blind. See 20 CFR 404.1512
and 416.912.
Medical Sources
The term ‘‘medical sources’’ refers to
both ‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ and
other health care providers who are not
‘‘acceptable medical sources.’’ See 20
CFR 404.1502 and 416.902.
Under our current regulations,
‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ are:
• Licensed physicians (medical or
osteopathic doctors);
• Licensed or certified psychologists.
Included are school psychologists, or
other licensed or certified individuals
with other titles who perform the same
function as a school psychologist in a
school setting, for purposes of
establishing mental retardation, learning
disabilities, and borderline intellectual
functioning only;
• Licensed optometrists, for the
measurement of visual acuity and visual
fields (for claims under title II, we may
need a report from a physician to
determine other aspects of eye disease);
• Licensed podiatrists, for purposes
of establishing impairments of the foot,
or foot and ankle only, depending on
whether the State in which the
podiatrist practices permits the practice
of podiatry on the foot only, or the foot
and ankle; and
• Qualified speech-language
pathologists, for purposes of
establishing speech or language
impairments only.
See 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a).
Medical Source Distinction
The distinction between ‘‘acceptable
medical sources’’ and other health care
providers who are not ‘‘acceptable
medical sources’’ is necessary for three
reasons. First, we need evidence from
‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ to
establish the existence of a medically
determinable impairment. See 20 CFR
404.1513(a) and 416.913(a). Second,
only ‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ can
give us medical opinions. See 20 CFR
404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2). Third,
only ‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ can
be considered treating sources, as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1502 and
416.902, whose medical opinions may
be entitled to controlling weight. See 20
CFR 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).
Making a distinction between
‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ and
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
medical sources who are not
‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ facilitates
the application of our rules on
establishing the existence of an
impairment, evaluating medical
opinions, and who can be considered a
treating source.
’’Other Sources’’
In addition to evidence from
‘‘acceptable medical sources,’’ we may
use evidence from ‘‘other sources,’’ as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1513(d) and
416.913(d), to show the severity of the
individual’s impairment(s) and how it
affects the individual’s ability to
function. These sources include, but are
not limited to:
• Medical sources who are not
‘‘acceptable medical sources,’’ such as
nurse practitioners, physician assistants,
licensed clinical social workers,
naturopaths, chiropractors, audiologists,
and therapists; and
• ‘‘Non-medical Sources’’ including,
but not limited to:
• Educational personnel, such as
school teachers, counselors, early
intervention team members,
developmental center workers, and
daycare center workers;
• Public and private social welfare
agency personnel, rehabilitation
counselors; and
• Spouses, parents and other
caregivers, siblings, other relatives,
friends, neighbors, clergy, and
employers.
Information from these ‘‘other
sources’’ cannot establish the existence
of a medically determinable
impairment. Instead, there must be
evidence from an ‘‘acceptable medical
source’’ for this purpose. However,
information from such ‘‘other sources’’
may be based on special knowledge of
the individual and may provide insight
into the severity of the impairment(s)
and how it affects the individual’s
ability to function.
Evaluating Opinions and Other
Evidence
Sections 404.1527 and 416.927 of our
regulations provide general guidance for
evaluating all relevant evidence in a
case record and provide detailed rules
for evaluating medical opinions from
‘‘acceptable medical sources.’’ 1 Medical
1 As explained in SSR 96–6p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:
Consideration of Administrative Findings of Fact by
State Agency Medical and Psychological
Consultants and Other Program Physicians and
Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and
Appeals Council Levels of Administrative Review;
Medical Equivalence,’’ paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)
of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 provide general
rules for evaluating the record, with particular
attention to medical opinions from ‘‘acceptable
medical sources.’’
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices
opinions are statements from physicians
and psychologists or other ‘‘acceptable
medical sources’’ that reflect judgments
about the nature and severity of an
individual’s impairment(s), including
symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis,
what the individual can still do despite
the impairment(s), and physical and
mental restrictions. See 20 CFR
404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2). The
regulations set out factors we consider
in weighing medical opinions from
treating sources, nontreating sources,
and nonexamining sources. See 20 CFR
404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). These
factors include:
• The examining relationship
between the individual and the
‘‘acceptable medical source’’;
• The treatment relationship between
the individual and a treating source,
including its length, nature, and extent
as well as frequency of examination;
• The degree to which the
‘‘acceptable medical source’’ presents an
explanation and relevant evidence to
support an opinion, particularly
medical signs and laboratory findings;
• How consistent the medical opinion
is with the record as a whole;
• Whether the opinion is from an
‘‘acceptable medical source’’ who is a
specialist and is about medical issues
related to his or her area of specialty;
and
• Any other factors brought to our
attention, or of which we are aware,
which tend to support or contradict the
opinion. For example, the amount of
understanding of our disability
programs and their evidentiary
requirements that an ‘‘acceptable
medical source’’ has, regardless of the
source of that understanding, and the
extent to which an ‘‘acceptable medical
source’’ is familiar with the other
information in the case record, are all
relevant factors that we will consider in
deciding the weight to give to a medical
opinion.
In addition, these regulations provide
that the final responsibility for deciding
certain issues, such as whether an
individual is disabled under the Act, is
reserved to the Commissioner.
These regulations provide specific
criteria for evaluating medical opinions
from ‘‘acceptable medical sources’’;
however, they do not explicitly address
how to consider relevant opinions and
other evidence from ‘‘other sources’’
listed in 20 CFR 404.1513(d) and
416.913(d). With the growth of managed
health care in recent years and the
emphasis on containing medical costs,
medical sources who are not
‘‘acceptable medical sources,’’ such as
nurse practitioners, physician assistants,
and licensed clinical social workers,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Aug 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
have increasingly assumed a greater
percentage of the treatment and
evaluation functions previously handled
primarily by physicians and
psychologists. Opinions from these
medical sources, who are not
technically deemed ‘‘acceptable medical
sources’’ under our rules, are important
and should be evaluated on key issues
such as impairment severity and
functional effects, along with the other
relevant evidence in the file.
‘‘Non-medical sources’’ who have had
contact with the individual in their
professional capacity, such as teachers,
school counselors, and social welfare
agency personnel who are not health
care providers, are also valuable sources
of evidence for assessing impairment
severity and functioning. Often, these
sources have close contact with the
individuals and have personal
knowledge and expertise to make
judgments about their impairment(s),
activities, and level of functioning over
a period of time. Consistent with 20 CFR
404.1513(d)(4) and 416.913(d)(4), we
also consider evidence provided by
other ‘‘non-medical sources’’ such as
spouses, other relatives, friends,
employers, and neighbors.
Although 20 CFR 404.1527 and
416.927 do not address explicitly how
to evaluate evidence (including
opinions) from ‘‘other sources,’’ they do
require consideration of such evidence
when evaluating an ‘‘acceptable medical
source’s’’ opinion. For example, SSA’s
regulations include a provision that
requires adjudicators to consider any
other factors brought to our attention, or
of which we are aware, which tend to
support or contradict a medical opinion.
Information, including opinions, from
‘‘other sources’’—both medical sources
and ‘‘non-medical sources’’—can be
important in this regard. In addition,
and as already noted, the Act requires
us to consider all of the available
evidence in the individual’s case record
in every case.
Accordingly, this ruling clarifies how
we consider opinions and other
evidence from medical sources who are
not ‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ and
from ‘‘non-medical sources,’’ such as
teachers, school counselors, social
workers, and others who have seen the
individual in their professional
capacity, as well as evidence from
employers, spouses, relatives, and
friends. This ruling also explains how
we consider decisions on disability
made by other governmental and
nongovernmental agencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45595
Policy Interpretation
I. Evidence From ‘‘Other Sources’’
As set forth in regulations at 20 CFR
404.1527(b) and 416.927(b), we consider
all relevant evidence in the case record
when we make a determination or
decision about whether the individual is
disabled. Evidence includes, but is not
limited to, opinion evidence from
‘‘acceptable medical sources,’’ medical
sources who are not ‘‘acceptable
medical sources,’’ and ‘‘non-medical
sources’’ who have seen the individual
in their professional capacity. The
weight to which such evidence may be
entitled will vary according to the
particular facts of the case, the source of
the opinion, including that source’s
qualifications, the issue(s) that the
opinion is about, and many other
factors, as described below.
Factors for Considering Opinion
Evidence
Although the factors in 20 CFR
404.1527(d) and 416.927(d) explicitly
apply only to the evaluation of medical
opinions from ‘‘acceptable medical
sources,’’ these same factors can be
applied to opinion evidence from ‘‘other
sources.’’ These factors represent basic
principles that apply to the
consideration of all opinions from
medical sources who are not
‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ as well as
from ‘‘other sources,’’ such as teachers
and school counselors, who have seen
the individual in their professional
capacity. These factors include:
• How long the source has known
and how frequently the source has seen
the individual;
• How consistent the opinion is with
other evidence;
• The degree to which the source
presents relevant evidence to support an
opinion;
• How well the source explains the
opinion;
• Whether the source has a specialty
or area of expertise related to the
individual’s impairment(s); and
• Any other factors that tend to
support or refute the opinion.
Opinions From Medical Sources Who
Are Not ‘‘Acceptable Medical Sources’’
Opinions from ‘‘other medical
sources’’ may reflect the source’s
judgment about some of the same issues
addressed in medical opinions from
‘‘acceptable medical sources,’’ including
symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis,
what the individual can still do despite
the impairment(s), and physical and
mental restrictions.
Not every factor for weighing opinion
evidence will apply in every case. The
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
45596
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
evaluation of an opinion from a medical
source who is not an ‘‘acceptable
medical source’’ depends on the
particular facts in each case. Each case
must be adjudicated on its own merits
based on a consideration of the
probative value of the opinions and a
weighing of all the evidence in that
particular case.
The fact that a medical opinion is
from an ‘‘acceptable medical source’’ is
a factor that may justify giving that
opinion greater weight than an opinion
from a medical source who is not an
‘‘acceptable medical source’’ because, as
we previously indicated in the preamble
to our regulations at 65 FR 34955, dated
June 1, 2000, ‘‘acceptable medical
sources’’ ‘‘are the most qualified health
care professionals.’’ However,
depending on the particular facts in a
case, and after applying the factors for
weighing opinion evidence, an opinion
from a medical source who is not an
‘‘acceptable medical source’’ may
outweigh the opinion of an ‘‘acceptable
medical source,’’ including the medical
opinion of a treating source. For
example, it may be appropriate to give
more weight to the opinion of a medical
source who is not an ‘‘acceptable
medical source’’ if he or she has seen
the individual more often than the
treating source and has provided better
supporting evidence and a better
explanation for his or her opinion.
Giving more weight to the opinion from
a medical source who is not an
‘‘acceptable medical source’’ than to the
opinion from a treating source does not
conflict with the treating source rules in
20 CFR 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2)
and SSR 96–2p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:
Giving Controlling Weight To Treating
Source Medical Opinions.’’
Evidence From ‘‘Non-Medical Sources’’
Opinions from ‘‘non-medical sources’’
who have seen the individual in their
professional capacity should be
evaluated by using the applicable
factors listed above in the section
‘‘Factors for Weighing Opinion
Evidence.’’ Not every factor for
weighing opinion evidence will apply
in every case. The evaluation of an
opinion from a ‘‘non-medical source’’
who has seen the individual in his or
her professional capacity depends on
the particular facts in each case. Each
case must be adjudicated on its own
merits based on a consideration of the
probative value of the opinions and a
weighing of all the evidence in that
particular case.
For opinions from sources such as
teachers, counselors, and social workers
who are not medical sources, and other
non-medical professionals, it would be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Aug 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
appropriate to consider such factors as
the nature and extent of the relationship
between the source and the individual,
the source’s qualifications, the source’s
area of specialty or expertise, the degree
to which the source presents relevant
evidence to support his or her opinion,
whether the opinion is consistent with
other evidence, and any other factors
that tend to support or refute the
opinion.
An opinion from a ‘‘non-medical
source’’ who has seen the claimant in
his or her professional capacity may,
under certain circumstances, properly
be determined to outweigh the opinion
from a medical source, including a
treating source. For example, this could
occur if the ‘‘non-medical source’’ has
seen the individual more often and has
greater knowledge of the individual’s
functioning over time and if the ‘‘nonmedical source’s’’ opinion has better
supporting evidence and is more
consistent with the evidence as a whole.
In considering evidence from ‘‘nonmedical sources’’ who have not seen the
individual in a professional capacity in
connection with their impairments,
such as spouses, parents, friends, and
neighbors, it would be appropriate to
consider such factors as the nature and
extent of the relationship, whether the
evidence is consistent with other
evidence, and any other factors that
tend to support or refute the evidence.
Explanation of the Consideration Given
to Opinions From ‘‘Other Sources’’
Since there is a requirement to
consider all relevant evidence in an
individual’s case record, the case record
should reflect the consideration of
opinions from medical sources who are
not ‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ and
from ‘‘non-medical sources’’ who have
seen the claimant in their professional
capacity. Although there is a distinction
between what an adjudicator must
consider and what the adjudicator must
explain in the disability determination
or decision, the adjudicator generally
should explain the weight given to
opinions from these ‘‘other sources,’’ or
otherwise ensure that the discussion of
the evidence in the determination or
decision allows a claimant or
subsequent reviewer to follow the
adjudicator’s reasoning, when such
opinions may have an effect on the
outcome of the case. In addition, when
an adjudicator determines that an
opinion from such a source is entitled
to greater weight than a medical opinion
from a treating source, the adjudicator
must explain the reasons in the notice
of decision in hearing cases and in the
notice of determination (that is, in the
personalized disability notice) at the
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
initial and reconsideration levels, if the
determination is less than fully
favorable.
II. Decisions on Disability by Other
Governmental and Nongovernmental
Agencies
The regulations at 20 CFR 404.1504
and 416.904 provide that:
[a] decision by any nongovernmental
agency or any other governmental agency
about whether you are disabled or blind is
based on its rules and is not our decision
about whether you are disabled or blind. We
must make a disability or blindness
determination based on social security law.
Therefore, a determination made by another
agency [e.g., Workers’ Compensation, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, or an
insurance company] that you are disabled or
blind is not binding on us.
Under sections 221 and 1633 of the
Act, only a State agency or the
Commissioner can make a
determination based on Social Security
law that you are blind or disabled. Our
regulations at 20 CFR 404.1527(e) and
416.927(e) make clear that the final
responsibility for deciding certain
issues, such as whether you are
disabled, is reserved to the
Commissioner (see also SSR 96–5p,
‘‘Titles II and XVI: Medical Source
Opinions on Issues Reserved to the
Commissioner’’). However, we are
required to evaluate all the evidence in
the case record that may have a bearing
on our determination or decision of
disability, including decisions by other
governmental and nongovernmental
agencies (20 CFR 404.1512(b)(5) and
416.912(b)(5)). Therefore, evidence of a
disability decision by another
governmental or nongovernmental
agency cannot be ignored and must be
considered.
These decisions, and the evidence
used to make these decisions, may
provide insight into the individual’s
mental and physical impairment(s) and
show the degree of disability
determined by these agencies based on
their rules. We will evaluate the opinion
evidence from medical sources, as well
as ‘‘non-medical sources’’ who have had
contact with the individual in their
professional capacity, used by other
agencies, that are in our case record, in
accordance with 20 CFR 404.1527,
416.927, Social Security Rulings 96–2p
and 96–5p, and the applicable factors
listed above in the section ‘‘Factors for
Weighing Opinion Evidence.’’
Because the ultimate responsibility
for determining whether an individual
is disabled under Social Security law
rests with the Commissioner, we are not
bound by disability decisions by other
governmental and nongovernmental
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices
agencies. In addition, because other
agencies may apply different rules and
standards than we do for determining
whether an individual is disabled, this
may limit the relevance of a
determination of disability made by
another agency. However, the
adjudicator should explain the
consideration given to these decisions
in the notice of decision for hearing
cases and in the case record for initial
and reconsideration cases.
Effective Date: This SSR is effective
upon publication in the Federal
Register.
Cross-References: Social Security
Rulings 96–2p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:
Giving Controlling Weight to Treating
Source Medical Opinions,’’ SSR 96–5p,
‘‘Titles II and XVI: Medical Source
Opinions on Issues Reserved to the
Commissioner’’; Program Operations
Manual System sections DI 22505.003,
DI 24515.001, DI 24515.002, DI
24515.011, and DI 24515.012.
[FR Doc. E6–12951 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence
and Research chairs the advisory
committee for the Secretary of State.
The committee meets at least once
annually to recommend grant policies
and recipients.
For further information, please call
Susie Baker, INR/RES, U.S. Department
of State, (202) 647–0243.
Dated: July 31, 2006.
Susan H. Nelson,
Executive Director, Acting Advisory
Committee for Study of Eastern Europe and
the Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E6–12981 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–32–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 5486]
Determination To Waive the
Certification Requirement That the
Government of Afghanistan Is
Cooperating Fully With U.S.-Funded
Poppy Eradication and Interdiction
Efforts in Afghanistan
[Public Notice 5455]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Bureau of Intelligence and Research;
Advisory Committee for the Study of
Eastern Europe and the Independent
States of the Former Soviet Union;
Notice of Committee Renewal
I. Renewal of Advisory Committee
The Department of State has renewed
the Charter of the Advisory Committee
for the Study of Eastern Europe and the
Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union. This advisory committee makes
recommendations to the Secretary of
State on funding for applications
submitted for the Research and Training
Program on Eastern Europe and the
Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union (Title VIII). These applications
are submitted in response to an annual
open competition among U.S. national
organizations with interest and
expertise administering research and
training programs in the Russian,
Eurasian, and Central and East
European fields. The program seeks to
build and sustain U.S. expertise on
these regions through support for
advanced graduate training, language
training, and postdoctoral research.
The committee includes
representatives of the Secretaries of
Defense and Education, the Librarian of
Congress, and the Presidents of the
American Association for the
Advancement of Slavic Studies and the
Association of American Universities.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Aug 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
Pursuant to the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Pub. L. 109–102) (‘‘the Act’’) under the
heading Economic Support Fund,
provisos 11 through 13, and the May 8,
2006 Assignment of Function from the
President to the Secretary of State, I
hereby determine that it is vital to the
national security interests of the United
States to waive the requirement that the
Secretary of State certify to the
Committees on Appropriations that the
Government of Afghanistan at both the
national and local level is cooperating
fully with the United States-funded
poppy eradication and interdiction
efforts in Afghanistan.
This determination shall be reported
to the Congress, accompanied by a
report in accordance with the Act, and
published in the Federal Register.
Dated: May 22, 2006.
Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E6–12980 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–17–P
PO 00000
45597
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 5487]
Certification Related to Aerial
Eradication in Colombia Under the
Andean Counterdrug Initiative Section
of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, Division D,
Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2006, (Pub. L. 109–102)
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
as Secretary of State, including under
the Andean Counterdrug Initiative
section of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, Division D,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2006,
(Pub. L. 109–102) (the ‘‘FOAA’’), I
hereby determine and certify that: (1)
The herbicide mixture used for
fumigation of illicit crops in Colombia
is being used in accordance with EPA
label requirements for comparable use
in the United States and in accordance
with Colombian laws; and (2) the
herbicide mixture, in the manner it is
being used, does not pose unreasonable
risks or adverse effects to humans or the
environment, including endemic
species; (3) that complaints of harm to
health or licit crops caused by such
fumigation are evaluated and fair
compensation is being paid for
meritorious claims; and (4) that
programs are being implemented by the
United States Agency for International
Development, the Government of
Colombia, or other organizations, in
consultation with local communities, to
provide alternative sources of income in
areas where security permits for smallacreage growers whose illicit crops are
targeted for fumigation.
This Certification shall be published
in the Federal Register and copies shall
be transmitted to the appropriate
committees of Congress.
Dated: July 20, 2006.
Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E6–12979 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–17–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
Financial Management Service; Senior
Executive Service; Financial
Management Performance Review
Board (PRB)
Financial Management Service,
Fiscal Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45593-45597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12951]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Social Security Ruling, 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
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR 06-03p.
This Ruling clarifies how we consider opinions from sources who are not
``acceptable medical sources'' and how we consider decisions made by
other governmental and nongovernmental agencies on the issue of
disability or blindness.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike O'Connor, Office of Disability
Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-1952.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do
not require us to publish this Social Security Ruling, we are doing so
in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential
decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability,
supplemental security income, special veterans benefits, and black lung
benefits programs. Social Security Rulings may
[[Page 45594]]
be based on case decisions made at all administrative levels of
adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions,
opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, and other
interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although Social Security Rulings do not have the same force and
effect as the statute or regulations, they are binding on all
components of the Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20
CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are binding as precedents in adjudicating cases.
If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or
rescinded, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that
effect.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Programs Nos. 96.001 Social
Security-Disability Insurance; 96.004 Social Security-Survivors
Insurance; 96.006 Supplemental Security Income.)
Dated: August 2, 2006.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Policy Interpretation Ruling
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
Purpose: To clarify how we consider opinions from sources who are
not ``acceptable medical sources'' and how we consider decisions by
other governmental and nongovernmental agencies on the issue of
disability or blindness.
Citations: Sections 205(a), 216(i), 221, 223(d), 1614(a)(3),
1631(d), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended;
Regulations No. 4, subpart P, sections 404.1502, 404.1503, 404.1504,
404.1512(b), 404.1513(a), (d), and (e), 404.1520(a), 404.1527, and
subpart Q, section 404.1613, and Regulations No. 16, subpart I,
sections 416.902, 416.903, 416.904, 416.912(b), 416.913(a), (d), and
(e), 416.920(a), 416.927 and subpart J, section 416.1013.
Introduction: We use medical and other evidence to reach
conclusions about an individual's impairment(s) to make a disability
determination or decision as described in 20 CFR 404.1512, 404.1513,
416.912 and 416.913. In accordance with sections 223(d)(5) and
1614(a)(3)(H) of the Act, when we make a determination or decision of
disability, we will consider all of the available evidence in the
individual's case record. This includes, but is not limited to,
objective medical evidence; other evidence from medical sources,
including their opinions; statements by the individual and others about
the impairment(s) and how it affects the individual's functioning;
information from other ``non-medical sources'' and decisions by other
governmental and nongovernmental agencies about whether an individual
is disabled or blind. See 20 CFR 404.1512 and 416.912.
Medical Sources
The term ``medical sources'' refers to both ``acceptable medical
sources'' and other health care providers who are not ``acceptable
medical sources.'' See 20 CFR 404.1502 and 416.902.
Under our current regulations, ``acceptable medical sources'' are:
Licensed physicians (medical or osteopathic doctors);
Licensed or certified psychologists. Included are school
psychologists, or other licensed or certified individuals with other
titles who perform the same function as a school psychologist in a
school setting, for purposes of establishing mental retardation,
learning disabilities, and borderline intellectual functioning only;
Licensed optometrists, for the measurement of visual
acuity and visual fields (for claims under title II, we may need a
report from a physician to determine other aspects of eye disease);
Licensed podiatrists, for purposes of establishing
impairments of the foot, or foot and ankle only, depending on whether
the State in which the podiatrist practices permits the practice of
podiatry on the foot only, or the foot and ankle; and
Qualified speech-language pathologists, for purposes of
establishing speech or language impairments only.
See 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a).
Medical Source Distinction
The distinction between ``acceptable medical sources'' and other
health care providers who are not ``acceptable medical sources'' is
necessary for three reasons. First, we need evidence from ``acceptable
medical sources'' to establish the existence of a medically
determinable impairment. See 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a). Second,
only ``acceptable medical sources'' can give us medical opinions. See
20 CFR 404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2). Third, only ``acceptable
medical sources'' can be considered treating sources, as defined in 20
CFR 404.1502 and 416.902, whose medical opinions may be entitled to
controlling weight. See 20 CFR 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).
Making a distinction between ``acceptable medical sources'' and
medical sources who are not ``acceptable medical sources'' facilitates
the application of our rules on establishing the existence of an
impairment, evaluating medical opinions, and who can be considered a
treating source.
''Other Sources''
In addition to evidence from ``acceptable medical sources,'' we may
use evidence from ``other sources,'' as defined in 20 CFR 404.1513(d)
and 416.913(d), to show the severity of the individual's impairment(s)
and how it affects the individual's ability to function. These sources
include, but are not limited to:
Medical sources who are not ``acceptable medical
sources,'' such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, licensed
clinical social workers, naturopaths, chiropractors, audiologists, and
therapists; and
``Non-medical Sources'' including, but not limited to:
Educational personnel, such as school teachers,
counselors, early intervention team members, developmental center
workers, and daycare center workers;
Public and private social welfare agency personnel,
rehabilitation counselors; and
Spouses, parents and other caregivers, siblings, other
relatives, friends, neighbors, clergy, and employers.
Information from these ``other sources'' cannot establish the
existence of a medically determinable impairment. Instead, there must
be evidence from an ``acceptable medical source'' for this purpose.
However, information from such ``other sources'' may be based on
special knowledge of the individual and may provide insight into the
severity of the impairment(s) and how it affects the individual's
ability to function.
Evaluating Opinions and Other Evidence
Sections 404.1527 and 416.927 of our regulations provide general
guidance for evaluating all relevant evidence in a case record and
provide detailed rules for evaluating medical opinions from
``acceptable medical sources.'' \1\ Medical
[[Page 45595]]
opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other
``acceptable medical sources'' that reflect judgments about the nature
and severity of an individual's impairment(s), including symptoms,
diagnosis and prognosis, what the individual can still do despite the
impairment(s), and physical and mental restrictions. See 20 CFR
404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2). The regulations set out factors we
consider in weighing medical opinions from treating sources,
nontreating sources, and nonexamining sources. See 20 CFR 404.1527(d)
and 416.927(d). These factors include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As explained in SSR 96-6p, ``Titles II and XVI:
Consideration of Administrative Findings of Fact by State Agency
Medical and Psychological Consultants and Other Program Physicians
and Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals
Council Levels of Administrative Review; Medical Equivalence,''
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 provide
general rules for evaluating the record, with particular attention
to medical opinions from ``acceptable medical sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The examining relationship between the individual and the
``acceptable medical source'';
The treatment relationship between the individual and a
treating source, including its length, nature, and extent as well as
frequency of examination;
The degree to which the ``acceptable medical source''
presents an explanation and relevant evidence to support an opinion,
particularly medical signs and laboratory findings;
How consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a
whole;
Whether the opinion is from an ``acceptable medical
source'' who is a specialist and is about medical issues related to his
or her area of specialty; and
Any other factors brought to our attention, or of which we
are aware, which tend to support or contradict the opinion. For
example, the amount of understanding of our disability programs and
their evidentiary requirements that an ``acceptable medical source''
has, regardless of the source of that understanding, and the extent to
which an ``acceptable medical source'' is familiar with the other
information in the case record, are all relevant factors that we will
consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.
In addition, these regulations provide that the final
responsibility for deciding certain issues, such as whether an
individual is disabled under the Act, is reserved to the Commissioner.
These regulations provide specific criteria for evaluating medical
opinions from ``acceptable medical sources''; however, they do not
explicitly address how to consider relevant opinions and other evidence
from ``other sources'' listed in 20 CFR 404.1513(d) and 416.913(d).
With the growth of managed health care in recent years and the emphasis
on containing medical costs, medical sources who are not ``acceptable
medical sources,'' such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants,
and licensed clinical social workers, have increasingly assumed a
greater percentage of the treatment and evaluation functions previously
handled primarily by physicians and psychologists. Opinions from these
medical sources, who are not technically deemed ``acceptable medical
sources'' under our rules, are important and should be evaluated on key
issues such as impairment severity and functional effects, along with
the other relevant evidence in the file.
``Non-medical sources'' who have had contact with the individual in
their professional capacity, such as teachers, school counselors, and
social welfare agency personnel who are not health care providers, are
also valuable sources of evidence for assessing impairment severity and
functioning. Often, these sources have close contact with the
individuals and have personal knowledge and expertise to make judgments
about their impairment(s), activities, and level of functioning over a
period of time. Consistent with 20 CFR 404.1513(d)(4) and
416.913(d)(4), we also consider evidence provided by other ``non-
medical sources'' such as spouses, other relatives, friends, employers,
and neighbors.
Although 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 do not address explicitly how
to evaluate evidence (including opinions) from ``other sources,'' they
do require consideration of such evidence when evaluating an
``acceptable medical source's'' opinion. For example, SSA's regulations
include a provision that requires adjudicators to consider any other
factors brought to our attention, or of which we are aware, which tend
to support or contradict a medical opinion. Information, including
opinions, from ``other sources''--both medical sources and ``non-
medical sources''--can be important in this regard. In addition, and as
already noted, the Act requires us to consider all of the available
evidence in the individual's case record in every case.
Accordingly, this ruling clarifies how we consider opinions and
other evidence from medical sources who are not ``acceptable medical
sources'' and from ``non-medical sources,'' such as teachers, school
counselors, social workers, and others who have seen the individual in
their professional capacity, as well as evidence from employers,
spouses, relatives, and friends. This ruling also explains how we
consider decisions on disability made by other governmental and
nongovernmental agencies.
Policy Interpretation
I. Evidence From ``Other Sources''
As set forth in regulations at 20 CFR 404.1527(b) and 416.927(b),
we consider all relevant evidence in the case record when we make a
determination or decision about whether the individual is disabled.
Evidence includes, but is not limited to, opinion evidence from
``acceptable medical sources,'' medical sources who are not
``acceptable medical sources,'' and ``non-medical sources'' who have
seen the individual in their professional capacity. The weight to which
such evidence may be entitled will vary according to the particular
facts of the case, the source of the opinion, including that source's
qualifications, the issue(s) that the opinion is about, and many other
factors, as described below.
Factors for Considering Opinion Evidence
Although the factors in 20 CFR 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d)
explicitly apply only to the evaluation of medical opinions from
``acceptable medical sources,'' these same factors can be applied to
opinion evidence from ``other sources.'' These factors represent basic
principles that apply to the consideration of all opinions from medical
sources who are not ``acceptable medical sources'' as well as from
``other sources,'' such as teachers and school counselors, who have
seen the individual in their professional capacity. These factors
include:
How long the source has known and how frequently the
source has seen the individual;
How consistent the opinion is with other evidence;
The degree to which the source presents relevant evidence
to support an opinion;
How well the source explains the opinion;
Whether the source has a specialty or area of expertise
related to the individual's impairment(s); and
Any other factors that tend to support or refute the
opinion.
Opinions From Medical Sources Who Are Not ``Acceptable Medical
Sources''
Opinions from ``other medical sources'' may reflect the source's
judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions
from ``acceptable medical sources,'' including symptoms, diagnosis and
prognosis, what the individual can still do despite the impairment(s),
and physical and mental restrictions.
Not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every
case. The
[[Page 45596]]
evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an
``acceptable medical source'' depends on the particular facts in each
case. Each case must be adjudicated on its own merits based on a
consideration of the probative value of the opinions and a weighing of
all the evidence in that particular case.
The fact that a medical opinion is from an ``acceptable medical
source'' is a factor that may justify giving that opinion greater
weight than an opinion from a medical source who is not an ``acceptable
medical source'' because, as we previously indicated in the preamble to
our regulations at 65 FR 34955, dated June 1, 2000, ``acceptable
medical sources'' ``are the most qualified health care professionals.''
However, depending on the particular facts in a case, and after
applying the factors for weighing opinion evidence, an opinion from a
medical source who is not an ``acceptable medical source'' may outweigh
the opinion of an ``acceptable medical source,'' including the medical
opinion of a treating source. For example, it may be appropriate to
give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an
``acceptable medical source'' if he or she has seen the individual more
often than the treating source and has provided better supporting
evidence and a better explanation for his or her opinion. Giving more
weight to the opinion from a medical source who is not an ``acceptable
medical source'' than to the opinion from a treating source does not
conflict with the treating source rules in 20 CFR 404.1527(d)(2) and
416.927(d)(2) and SSR 96-2p, ``Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling
Weight To Treating Source Medical Opinions.''
Evidence From ``Non-Medical Sources''
Opinions from ``non-medical sources'' who have seen the individual
in their professional capacity should be evaluated by using the
applicable factors listed above in the section ``Factors for Weighing
Opinion Evidence.'' Not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will
apply in every case. The evaluation of an opinion from a ``non-medical
source'' who has seen the individual in his or her professional
capacity depends on the particular facts in each case. Each case must
be adjudicated on its own merits based on a consideration of the
probative value of the opinions and a weighing of all the evidence in
that particular case.
For opinions from sources such as teachers, counselors, and social
workers who are not medical sources, and other non-medical
professionals, it would be appropriate to consider such factors as the
nature and extent of the relationship between the source and the
individual, the source's qualifications, the source's area of specialty
or expertise, the degree to which the source presents relevant evidence
to support his or her opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with
other evidence, and any other factors that tend to support or refute
the opinion.
An opinion from a ``non-medical source'' who has seen the claimant
in his or her professional capacity may, under certain circumstances,
properly be determined to outweigh the opinion from a medical source,
including a treating source. For example, this could occur if the
``non-medical source'' has seen the individual more often and has
greater knowledge of the individual's functioning over time and if the
``non-medical source's'' opinion has better supporting evidence and is
more consistent with the evidence as a whole.
In considering evidence from ``non-medical sources'' who have not
seen the individual in a professional capacity in connection with their
impairments, such as spouses, parents, friends, and neighbors, it would
be appropriate to consider such factors as the nature and extent of the
relationship, whether the evidence is consistent with other evidence,
and any other factors that tend to support or refute the evidence.
Explanation of the Consideration Given to Opinions From ``Other
Sources''
Since there is a requirement to consider all relevant evidence in
an individual's case record, the case record should reflect the
consideration of opinions from medical sources who are not ``acceptable
medical sources'' and from ``non-medical sources'' who have seen the
claimant in their professional capacity. Although there is a
distinction between what an adjudicator must consider and what the
adjudicator must explain in the disability determination or decision,
the adjudicator generally should explain the weight given to opinions
from these ``other sources,'' or otherwise ensure that the discussion
of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or
subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator's reasoning, when such
opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case. In addition,
when an adjudicator determines that an opinion from such a source is
entitled to greater weight than a medical opinion from a treating
source, the adjudicator must explain the reasons in the notice of
decision in hearing cases and in the notice of determination (that is,
in the personalized disability notice) at the initial and
reconsideration levels, if the determination is less than fully
favorable.
II. Decisions on Disability by Other Governmental and Nongovernmental
Agencies
The regulations at 20 CFR 404.1504 and 416.904 provide that:
[a] decision by any nongovernmental agency or any other
governmental agency about whether you are disabled or blind is based
on its rules and is not our decision about whether you are disabled
or blind. We must make a disability or blindness determination based
on social security law. Therefore, a determination made by another
agency [e.g., Workers' Compensation, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or an insurance company] that you are disabled or blind is
not binding on us.
Under sections 221 and 1633 of the Act, only a State agency or the
Commissioner can make a determination based on Social Security law that
you are blind or disabled. Our regulations at 20 CFR 404.1527(e) and
416.927(e) make clear that the final responsibility for deciding
certain issues, such as whether you are disabled, is reserved to the
Commissioner (see also SSR 96-5p, ``Titles II and XVI: Medical Source
Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner''). However, we are
required to evaluate all the evidence in the case record that may have
a bearing on our determination or decision of disability, including
decisions by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies (20 CFR
404.1512(b)(5) and 416.912(b)(5)). Therefore, evidence of a disability
decision by another governmental or nongovernmental agency cannot be
ignored and must be considered.
These decisions, and the evidence used to make these decisions, may
provide insight into the individual's mental and physical impairment(s)
and show the degree of disability determined by these agencies based on
their rules. We will evaluate the opinion evidence from medical
sources, as well as ``non-medical sources'' who have had contact with
the individual in their professional capacity, used by other agencies,
that are in our case record, in accordance with 20 CFR 404.1527,
416.927, Social Security Rulings 96-2p and 96-5p, and the applicable
factors listed above in the section ``Factors for Weighing Opinion
Evidence.''
Because the ultimate responsibility for determining whether an
individual is disabled under Social Security law rests with the
Commissioner, we are not bound by disability decisions by other
governmental and nongovernmental
[[Page 45597]]
agencies. In addition, because other agencies may apply different rules
and standards than we do for determining whether an individual is
disabled, this may limit the relevance of a determination of disability
made by another agency. However, the adjudicator should explain the
consideration given to these decisions in the notice of decision for
hearing cases and in the case record for initial and reconsideration
cases.
Effective Date: This SSR is effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Cross-References: Social Security Rulings 96-2p, ``Titles II and
XVI: Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions,''
SSR 96-5p, ``Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues
Reserved to the Commissioner''; Program Operations Manual System
sections DI 22505.003, DI 24515.001, DI 24515.002, DI 24515.011, and DI
24515.012.
[FR Doc. E6-12951 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
