Submission of Evidence in Disability Claims, 9663-9670 [2014-03426]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
■
GROB–WERKE: Docket No. FAA–2014–0092;
Directorate Identifier 2014–CE–002–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments byApril 7,
2014.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to GROB-WERKE Model
G115E airplanes, all serial numbers, and
Model G120A airplanes, serial numbers
85001 through 85007, 85026 through 85056,
and 85058, certificated in any category.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association of America
(ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.
(e) Reason
This AD was prompted by mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as cracks in
the left hand elevator flange. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct cracks in the
left hand and right hand elevator flanges,
which could cause the elevator to fail and
could result in reduced control.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Feb 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
(f) Actions and Compliance
Unless already done, do the actions in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 30 days after the
effective date of this AD and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours
time-in-service (TIS), inspect the left hand
(LH) and the right hand (RH) elevator flanges,
part number (P/N) 115E–3761.06 and P/N
115E–3762.07, or P/N 120A–3561.20(A) and
P/N 120A–3562.20(A), as applicable, for
cracks. Do the inspections following GROB
Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–
194/1, dated December 3, 2013, or GROB
Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–140,
dated December 3, 2013, as applicable.
(2) If any crack is found during any
inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this
AD, before further flight, replace the affected
elevator flange with a serviceable part. Do the
replacement following GROB Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. MSB1078–194/1, dated
December 3, 2013, or GROB Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. MSB1121–140, dated December
3, 2013, as applicable.
(3) As of the effective date of this AD, only
install an elevator flange P/N 115E–3761.06,
P/N 115E–3762.07, P/N 120A–3561.20(A), or
P/N 120A–3562.20(A), if it has been
inspected following GROB Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. MSB1078–194/1, dated
December 3, 2013, or GROB Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. MSB1121–140, dated December
3, 2013, as applicable, and is free of any
cracks.
(g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in
Accordance With Previous Service
Information for Model G115E Airplanes
This paragraph provides credit for the
initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)
of this AD and any replacement required in
paragraph (f)(2) based on the result of the
initial inspection if already done before the
effective date of this AD following GROB
Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–194,
dated November 26, 2013.
(h) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone: (816) 329–4123; fax: (816)
329–4090; email: karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov.
Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, a federal
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9663
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, nor
shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of
information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current
valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information
collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to
be approximately 5 minutes per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of
information. All responses to this collection
of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and
suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer,
AES–200.
(i) Related Information
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2014–0004, dated
January 7, 2014; and GROB Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. MSB1078–194, dated November
26, 2013, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2014–0092.
For service information related to this AD,
contact Grob Aircraft AG, Customer Service,
Lettenbachstrasse 9, 86874 TussenhausenMattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268–
998–105; fax; + 49 (0) 8268–998–200; email:
productsupport@grob-aircraft.com; Internet:
grob-aircraft.com. You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
February 11, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–03606 Filed 2–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Parts 404, 405, and 416
[Docket No. SSA–2012–0068]
RIN 0960–AH53
Submission of Evidence in Disability
Claims
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
We propose to clarify our
regulations to require you to inform us
about or submit all evidence known to
you that relates to your disability claim,
subject to two exceptions for certain
privileged communications. This
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20FEP1.SGM
20FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9664
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
requirement would include the duty to
submit all evidence obtained from any
source in its entirety, unless subject to
one of these exceptions. We also
propose to require your representative
to help you obtain the information or
evidence that we would require you to
submit under our regulations. These
modifications to our regulations would
better describe your duty to submit all
evidence that relates to your disability
claim and enable us to have a more
complete case record on which to make
more accurate disability determinations
and decisions.
DATES: To ensure that your comments
are considered, we must receive them
by no later than April 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of three methods—Internet,
fax, or mail. Do not submit the same
comments multiple times or by more
than one method. Regardless of which
method you choose, please state that
your comments refer to Docket No.
SSA–2012–0068 so that we may
associate your comments with the
correct regulation.
Caution: You should be careful to
include in your comments only
information that you wish to make
publicly available. We strongly urge you
not to include in your comments any
personal information, such as Social
Security numbers or medical
information.
1. Internet: We strongly recommend
this method for submitting your
comments. Visit the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Use the Web
page’s Search function to find docket
number SSA–2012–0068 and then
submit your comment. Once you submit
your comment, the system will issue
you a tracking number to confirm your
submission. You will not be able to
view your comment immediately
because we must manually post each
comment. It may take up to a week for
your comment to be viewable.
2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966–
2830.
3. Mail: Address your comments to
the Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, Social Security
Administration, 3100 West High Rise
Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401.
Comments are available for public
viewing on the Federal eRulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov or
in person, during regular business
hours, by arranging with the contact
person identified below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet Truhe, Office of Disability
Programs, Social Security
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Feb 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
Administration, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–
6401, (410) 966–7203. For information
on eligibility or filing for benefits, call
our national toll-free number, 1–800–
772–1213, or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or
visit our Internet site, Social Security
Online, at https://
www.socialsecurity.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Social Security Act (Act) gives
the Commissioner of Social Security
broad rulemaking authority to issue
regulations governing the production of
evidence that we use to adjudicate
disability claims under title II and title
XVI.1 Additionally, the Act provides
that we will not find that an individual
is disabled ‘‘unless [he or she] furnishes
such medical and other evidence of the
existence thereof as the Commissioner
of Social Security may require.’’ 2
There has been recent public and
media interest in what our regulations
require regarding the submission of
evidence in disability claims,
particularly regarding the duty to
submit unfavorable evidence. There
have been allegations that when some
representatives submit evidence to us,
they deliberately withhold evidence
they deem unfavorable to the claimant.
We also know, based on our program
experience, that we do not always
receive complete evidence. This public
and media interest has drawn
congressional attention.3 In particular,
members of Congress have asked about
the relationship between the Social
Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA)
and the duty to submit potentially
unfavorable evidence in disability
claims. The SSPA authorized us to
penalize a person who withholds a fact,
which the person knows or should
1 See
42 U.S.C. 405(a) and 1383(d)(1).
U.S.C. 423(d)(5)(A). See also 42 U.S.C.
1382c(a)(3)(H)(i) (making the provisions of section
423(d)(5) applicable under title XVI).
3 See, e.g., The Social Security Administration: Is
It Meeting Its Responsibility to Save Taxpayer
Dollars and Serve the Public?: Hearing Before the
S. Comm. on Finance, 112th Cong. 18–19, 52–54
(2012), available at https://www.finance.senate.gov/
hearings/hearing/?id=35b30665-5056-a032-52b789db5b56d235; Fourth in a Hearing Series on
Securing the Future of the Social Security Disability
Insurance Program: Hearing Before the Subcomm.
on Social Security of the H. Comm. on Ways and
Means, 112th Cong. (2012), available at https://
waysandmeans.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=326594;
Minority Staff Report, S. Perm. Subcomm. on
Investigations, Social Security Disability Programs:
Improving the Quality of Benefit Award Decisions
5–6 (2012), available at https://
www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/report-psiminority-staff-report_-social-security-disabilityprograms-improving-the-quality-of-benefit-awarddecisions.
2 42
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
know is material to the determination of
any initial or continuing right to
benefits. In light of congressional
interest and our program experience, we
have again reviewed our regulations that
govern the submission of evidence.
Our current regulations describe a
claimant’s duty to submit medical and
non-medical evidence in several ways.
For example, in § 404.1512(a), we state
that you ‘‘must bring to our attention
everything that shows that you are blind
or disabled,’’ which may only include
evidence that is favorable to your
claim.4 In §§ 404.1512(c) and
416.912(c), however, we state that you
‘‘must provide evidence, without
redaction, showing how your
impairment(s) affects your functioning
during the time you say that you are
disabled,’’ which may include evidence
that is unfavorable to your claim.
Similarly, our current regulations
governing the conduct of claimants’
representatives describe their related
duty to submit evidence in several
ways. For example, in §§ 404.1740(b)(1)
and 416.1540(b)(1), we require
representatives to ‘‘obtain the
information and evidence that the
claimant wants to submit in support of
his or her claim,’’ which may only
include evidence that is favorable to the
disability claim. In §§ 404.1740(b)(2)
and 416.1540(b)(2), however, we require
representatives to assist the claimant in
complying ‘‘with our requests for
information or evidence,’’ which may
include evidence that is unfavorable to
the claim.
In reviewing our regulations on the
submission of evidence, we also
considered Congress’ actions in enacting
the SSPA. When it enacted the SSPA,
Congress authorized us to impose a civil
monetary penalty against any person
who omits from a statement or
representation or otherwise withholds
disclosure of a fact that is material to the
determination of any initial or
continuing right to benefits or
payments, if the person knows or
should know that omitting or
withholding the fact is misleading.5 The
sheer volume of disability claims we
decide each year makes the need for a
complete case record imperative. In
fiscal year 2012, for example, we
completed more than 3.2 million initial
disability claims and more than 820,000
hearing requests.6 Clarifying our rules
regarding a claimant’s duty to submit all
4 See
also 20 CFR 416.912(a).
Security Protection Act of 2004, § 201, 42
U.S.C. 1320a–8.
6 Social Security Administration, Performance
and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2012, at 56,
62, available at https://www.socialsecurity.gov/
finance/2012/Full%20FY%202012%20PAR.pdf.
5 Social
E:\FR\FM\20FEP1.SGM
20FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
evidence that relates to the disability
claim would enable us to obtain more
complete case records and adjudicate
claims more accurately.
As part of our reevaluation of the
regulations governing the duty to submit
evidence in disability claims, we also
consulted with the Administrative
Conference of the United States
(ACUS) 7 and requested
recommendations on how our
regulations could better articulate the
duty to submit all evidence that relates
to the disability claim. ACUS issued its
Final Report in October 2012.8 Although
the particular content of any regulation
was beyond the scope of ACUS’s Final
Report, ACUS did identify several
principles and options that have guided
our efforts in this area.
First, ACUS recommended that any
proposed regulation should place
disclosure obligations directly on
claimants rather than on their
representatives (if any), just as Federal
courts place discovery and other
evidence-production obligations on civil
litigants, not their counsel. Second,
ACUS recommended that any proposed
disclosure obligations should apply
both to attorney and non-attorney
representatives. Third, ACUS
recommended that we should write any
disclosure obligations so that they do
not intrude on any established legal
privileges, including the attorney-client
privilege or (assuming it is applicable in
this context) the work-product doctrine.
The obligations should not, among other
things, require a claimant (or his or her
representative) to disclose his or her
subjective opinions regarding the
evidence. Finally, ACUS recommended
that we should write any disclosure
obligations in a way that would
minimize the extent to which a claimant
and his or her representative must make
subjective judgments as to the legal
relevance of particular evidence. We
now propose to clarify our regulations
regarding the submission of evidence,
based in part on the recommendations
and principles in ACUS’s Final Report
and mindful of the concerns that
prompted Congress to amend section
7 ACUS is ‘‘an independent federal agency
dedicated to improving the administrative process
through consensus-driven applied research,
providing nonpartisan expert advice and
recommendations for improvement of federal
agency procedures.’’ About the Administrative
Conference of the United States (ACUS), available
at https://www.acus.gov/about-administrativeconference-united-states-acus.
8 Administrative Conference of the United States,
SSA Disability Benefits Programs: The Duty of
Candor and Submission of All Evidence (Oct. 15,
2012) (‘‘ACUS Final Report’’), available at https://
www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
ACUS_Final_Report_SSA_Duty_of_Candor.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Feb 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
1129 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1320a–8, as
part of the SSPA. The modifications we
propose to our regulations will provide
more certainty about the duty to submit
all evidence that relates to disability
claims.
Proposed Changes
The Claimant’s Duty To Submit
Evidence
We propose to revise §§ 404.1512(a)
and 416.912(a) to require you to inform
us about or submit all evidence known
to you that relates to whether or not you
are blind or disabled.9 This would
include evidence that may be either
favorable or unfavorable to your claim.
As part of this proposal, we would
remove our current requirement in
sections 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a) that
you ‘‘must furnish medical and other
evidence that we can use to reach
conclusions about your medical
impairment(s).’’ The duty to inform us
about or submit all evidence that relates
to your disability claim would include
all of the types of evidence we need to
determine disability under our
regulations and would remove the need
for you to determine what evidence is
‘‘material’’ to the disability
determination. In addition, by requiring
you to inform us about or submit all
evidence that relates to your disability
claim, we would clarify that we are not
shifting our responsibility for
developing the record to you. Our
disability system is non-adversarial, and
we assist claimants in developing the
medical and non-medical evidence we
need to determine whether or not they
are disabled.10
We also propose to add a new
paragraph to current §§ 404.1512(b) and
416.912(b), which would set forth two
exceptions to what we mean by
9 Under the Act, a claimant must prove to us that
he or she is blind or disabled. 42 U.S.C.
423(d)(5)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i). A claimant is
disabled only if he or she is unable to do any
substantial gainful activity because he or she has a
medically determinable impairment that can be
expected to result in death or which has lasted or
can be expected to last for a period of at least 12
continuous months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A) and
1382c(3)(A). To be found disabled, a claimant must
also be both ‘‘unable to do [his or her] previous
work’’ and unable to do ‘‘any other kind of
substantial gainful work which exists in the
national economy.’’ 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A) and
1382c(a)(3)(B).
10 For example, consistent with our duty under
the Act, we must develop a claimant’s ‘‘complete
medical history,’’ generally for at least the 12
months preceding the application date. 42 U.S.C.
423(d)(5)(B) and 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i); 20 CFR
404.1512(d) and 416.912(d). In addition, at the
hearings level, administrative law judges have a
duty ‘‘to investigate the facts and develop the
arguments both for and against granting benefits.’’
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 111 (2000).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9665
‘‘evidence.’’ 11 First, in proposed
§§ 404.1512(b)(2)(i) and 416.912(b)(2)(i),
we would exclude oral and written
communications between you and your
representative that are subject to the
attorney-client privilege, unless you
voluntarily disclose the communication
to us. The attorney-client privilege
protects confidential communications
between a client and his or her attorney
in order to obtain and provide sound
legal assistance.12 Its purpose is to
encourage attorneys and their clients to
communicate fully and frankly.13 This
privilege does not apply to
communications with non-attorney
representatives, but we would also
exclude from the definition of evidence
communications between claimants and
their non-attorney representatives that
would be subject to the attorney-client
privilege, if the non-attorney
representative were an attorney. As
recommended by ACUS in its Final
Report, we believe that any proposed
disclosure obligations ‘‘should apply
both to attorney and non-attorney
representatives.’’ 14
The attorney-client privilege ‘‘only
protects disclosure of communications;
it does not protect disclosure of the
underlying facts by those who
communicated with the attorney.’’ 15
For example, if you write a letter to your
representative disclosing the names of
your medical source(s), the privilege
would preclude disclosure of the letter,
but not the names of your medical
source(s).
Second, in proposed
§§ 404.1512(b)(2)(ii) and
416.912(b)(2)(ii), we propose to exclude
your representative’s analysis of your
claim, unless he or she voluntarily
discloses it to us. By ‘‘analysis of your
11 We describe what we mean by ‘‘evidence’’ in
current §§ 404.1512(b)(1)–(8) and 416.912(b)(1)–(8)
(proposed sections 404.1512(b)(1)(i)–(viii),
416.912(b)(1)(i)–(viii)). We do not propose any
changes to these sections other than to add the
phrase ‘‘and other program physicians,
psychologists, or other medical specialists’’ to
current §§ 404.1512(b)(6) and 416.912(b)(6)
(proposed sections 404.1512(b)(1)(vi),
416.912(b)(1)(vi)) in conformity with the crossreferences that appear in these sections. We
inadvertently omitted this phrase when we last
revised these sections.
12 See Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389
(1981).
13 Id.
14 ACUS Final Report at 38. ACUS made this
recommendation after consulting with the National
Organization of Social Security Claimants’
Representatives and the National Association of
Disability Representatives (whose members also
include non-attorney representatives). Both of these
advocate groups recommended that any proposed
changes to our evidence regulations apply to all
claimant representatives without distinction
between attorneys and non-attorneys. Id. at A–5 and
A–8.
15 Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 395.
E:\FR\FM\20FEP1.SGM
20FEP1
9666
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
claim,’’ we generally mean the
information that is subject to the
attorney work product doctrine.16 This
doctrine protects an attorney’s analysis,
theories, mental impressions, and
notes.17 Its purpose is to provide an
attorney with a degree of privacy within
which to carefully and thoroughly
prepare his or her client’s case.18
We do not intend, however, to
incorporate into these proposed rules
the full scope of the work product
doctrine under Rule 26(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather,
consistent with our broad authority
under the Act to ‘‘adopt reasonable and
proper rules and regulations to regulate
and provide for the nature and extent of
the proofs and evidence and the method
of taking and furnishing the same in
order to establish the right to
benefits,’’ 19 these proposed rules
incorporate a more limited version of
the work product doctrine than would
apply under the Federal Rules. Under
these proposed rules, your
representative’s ‘‘analysis of your
claim’’ does not include certain material
that we may consider in determining
whether or not you are entitled to or
eligible for the benefits for which you
have applied. For example, if your
representative takes notes during a
discussion with one of your medical
sources about your condition, we would
consider those notes your
representative’s analysis of your claim,
and they would be protected from
disclosure under these proposed rules.
However, if your medical source sends
your representative medical records or a
written opinion about your condition,
your representative could not withhold
those records and that opinion based on
the work product doctrine. Those
documents would be subject to the duty
of disclosure under these proposed
rules.
To clarify this point, we provide in
proposed §§ 404.1512(b)(2)(ii) and
416.912(b)(2)(ii) that your
representative’s ‘‘analysis of your
claim’’ means information that is subject
to the attorney work product doctrine,
but does not include medical evidence,
medical source opinions, or any other
factual matter that we may consider in
determining whether or not you are
entitled to or eligible for benefits. We
16 See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510–12
(1947).
17 Id. at 511.
18 Id. at 510–11.
19 42 U.S.C. 405(a) and 1383(d)(1); see Heckler v.
Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 466 (1983) (recognizing the
Commissioner’s ‘‘exceptionally broad authority’’
under section 405(a) ‘‘to prescribe standards for
applying certain sections of the [Social Security]
Act.’’ (Alteration in original)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Feb 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
then provide a cross-reference to new
paragraph (b)(2)(iv), where we further
explain the scope of the privileges
within the context of these proposed
rules.
Although the work product doctrine
applies only to attorneys, we also
exclude from the definition of evidence
documents that would be subject to the
work product privilege, if the nonattorney representative were an
attorney, to the same extent that we
have discussed above.
We also propose revising
§§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) to clarify
that it is your responsibility to inform us
about or submit all evidence known to
you that relates to whether or not you
are blind or disabled.20 In addition,
when you submit evidence to us from
another source, we would require you in
proposed §§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c)
to submit that evidence in its entirety.
For example, if you obtain your patient
file from one of your medical sources,
we would require you to submit all of
the medical records in that file. When
we last revised §§ 404.1512(c) and
416.912(c) to require that you provide
evidence ‘‘without redaction,’’ we
explained at the time that this means,
for example, you must not redact
evidence from a medical report you
submit to us.21 As ACUS pointed out in
its Final Report, however, we did not
define ‘‘without redaction’’ or fully
explain what we meant by this
requirement.22 Therefore, one could
interpret ‘‘without redaction’’ to mean
either within a document or among a
group of documents.23 We intend our
proposed requirement for submission of
evidence in its entirety to clarify that we
mean both types of redaction.
Finally, in proposed §§ 404.1512(c)(1)
and 416.912(c)(1), we would clarify that,
if we ask you, you must inform us about
your medical source(s). We currently
request the names and addresses of all
of your medical source(s) on the adult
and child disability applications; 24
such information is within the scope of
your current responsibility to submit
evidence that shows you are blind or
disabled.25 However, as part of our
clarification of your duty to inform us
20 In so doing, we would place the disclosure
obligation directly on claimants rather than on their
representatives ‘‘just as discovery and other
evidence-production obligations in federal courts
are placed on civil litigants, not their counsel.’’
ACUS Final Report at 38.
21 See 71 FR 16424, 16437 (2006).
22 See ACUS Final Report at 7.
23 Id.
24 These are the Form SSA–3368–BK, Disability
Report—Adult and the Form SSA–3820–BK,
Disability Report—Child.
25 See §§ 404.1512(a) and (c) and 416.912(a) and
(c).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
about or submit all evidence that relates
to your disability claim, we believe we
should expressly list this type of
evidence with the other types
referenced in current §§ 404.1512(c)(1)–
(6) and 416.912(c)(1)–(6).
The Representative’s Duty To Submit
Evidence
As stated above, we propose to place
the duty to submit evidence directly on
claimants, not their representatives, if
represented. Therefore, we propose to
revise §§ 404.1740(b)(1) and
416.1540(b)(1) to require that
representatives help obtain the
information or evidence that claimants
must submit under our proposed
regulations. By requiring representatives
to help obtain the information or
evidence that claimants must submit,
we would clarify that we are not shifting
our responsibility to develop the record
to claimants’ representatives.
Other Changes
We propose to make a number of
other non-substantive changes to the
current rules. We are proposing these
changes for clarity and consistency and
to correct minor grammatical errors. For
example, we propose to revise some
language from passive to active voice.
We would also make conforming
changes to §§ 404.900, 405.1, and
416.1400, which introduce and explain
the nature of the administrative review
process, and §§ 404.935, 405.331, and
416.1435, which pertain to a claimant’s
duty to submit evidence at the hearings
level.
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563, requires each agency to write all
rules in plain language. In addition to
your substantive comments on this
proposed rule, we invite your comments
on how to make it easier to understand.
For example:
• Would more, but shorter, sections
be better?
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to
suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the
rule easier to understand, e.g., grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing?
E:\FR\FM\20FEP1.SGM
20FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
When will we start to use this rule?
We will not use this rule until we
evaluate public comments and publish
a final rule in the Federal Register. All
final rules we issue include an effective
date. We will continue to use our
current rules until that date. If we
publish a final rule, we will include a
summary of relevant comments we
received, responses to them, and an
explanation of how we will apply the
new rule.
insurance, Public assistance programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Social Security,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Regulatory Procedures
Dated: February 11, 2014.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
Executive Order 12866, as
Supplemented by Executive Order
13563
We consulted with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
determined that this proposed rule
meets the criteria for a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, as supplemented by Executive
Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed
it.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because it affects individuals
only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM imposes no reporting or
recordkeeping requirements subject to
OMB clearance.
References
We consulted the references cited in
the footnotes when we developed these
proposed rules. We included these
references in the rulemaking record for
these proposed rules and will make
them available for inspection by
interested individuals who make
arrangements with the contact person
identified above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—
Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social
Security—Retirement Insurance; and 96.004,
Social Security—Survivors Insurance)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects
20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and
procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability
insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Social Security.
20 CFR Part 405
Administrative practice and
procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Feb 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
20 CFR Part 416
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability
benefits, Public assistance programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Supplemental Security
Income (SSI).
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, we propose to amend
subparts J, P, and R of part 404, subparts
A and D of part 405, and subparts I, N,
and O of part 416 as set forth below:
PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE,
SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY
INSURANCE (1950- )
Subpart J—[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart J
of part 404 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)–(b),
(d)–(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j),
404(f), 405(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (j), 421, 423(i),
425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97–455, 96
Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)–
(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42
U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203,
118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
2. Amend § 404.900 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
Introduction
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Nature of the administrative
review process. In making a
determination or decision in your case,
we conduct the administrative review
process in an informal, non-adversarial
manner. Subject to the limitations on
Appeals Council consideration of
additional evidence (see §§ 404.970(b)
and 404.976(b)), we will consider at
each step of the review process any
information you present as well as all
the information in our records. You may
present the information yourself or have
someone represent you, including an
attorney. If you are dissatisfied with our
decision in the review process, but do
not take the next step within the stated
time period, you will lose your right to
further administrative review and your
right to judicial review, unless you can
show us that there was good cause for
your failure to make a timely request for
review.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise § 404.935 to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 404.935 Submitting evidence prior to a
hearing before an administrative law judge.
You should submit information or
evidence as required by § 404.1512 or
any summary of the evidence to the
administrative law judge with the
request for hearing or within 10 days
after filing the request, if possible. Each
party shall make every effort to ensure
that the administrative law judge
receives all of the evidence (see
§ 404.1512) or all of the evidence is
available at the time and place set for
the hearing.
Subpart P—[Amended]
4. The authority citation for subpart P
of part 404 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a)–(b) and (d)–
(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223,
225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)–(b) and (d)–(h), 416(i),
421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and
902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, 110
Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203,
118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
5. In § 404.1512, revise paragraphs (a)
through (c) to read as follows:
■
■
§ 404.900
9667
§ 404.1512
Evidence.
(a) General. In general, you have to
prove to us that you are blind or
disabled. You must inform us about or
submit all evidence known to you that
relates to whether or not you are blind
or disabled. We will consider only
impairment(s) you say you have or
about which we receive evidence.
(b) What we mean by ‘‘evidence.’’
Evidence is anything you or anyone else
submits to us or that we obtain that
relates to your claim.
(1) Evidence includes, but is not
limited to:
(i) Objective medical evidence, that is,
medical signs and laboratory findings as
defined in § 404.1528(b) and (c);
(ii) Other evidence from medical
sources, such as medical history,
opinions, and statements about
treatment you have received;
(iii) Statements you or others make
about your impairment(s), your
restrictions, your daily activities, your
efforts to work, or any other statements
you make to medical sources during the
course of examination or treatment, or
to us during interviews, on applications,
in letters, and in testimony in our
administrative proceedings;
(iv) Information from other sources, as
described in § 404.1513(d);
(v) Decisions by any governmental or
nongovernmental agency about whether
or not you are disabled or blind (see
§ 404.1504);
(vi) At the initial level of the
administrative review process, when a
State agency disability examiner makes
E:\FR\FM\20FEP1.SGM
20FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9668
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the initial determination alone (see
§ 404.1615(c)(3)), opinions provided by
State agency medical and psychological
consultants and other program
physicians, psychologists, or other
medical specialists based on their
review of the evidence in your case
record (see § 404.1527(e)(1)(ii));
(vii) At the reconsideration level of
the administrative review process, when
a State agency disability examiner
makes the determination alone (see
§ 404.1615(c)(3)), findings, other than
the ultimate determination about
whether or not you are disabled, made
by the State agency medical or
psychological consultants and other
program physicians, psychologists, or
other medical specialists at the initial
level of the administrative review
process, and other opinions they
provide based on their review of the
evidence in your case record at the
initial and reconsideration levels (see
§ 404.1527(e)(1)(iii)); and
(viii) At the administrative law judge
and Appeals Council levels, findings,
other than the ultimate determination
about whether or not you are disabled,
made by State agency medical or
psychological consultants and other
program physicians or psychologists, or
other medical specialists, and opinions
expressed by medical experts or
psychological experts that we consult
based on their review of the evidence in
your case record (see §§ 404.1527(e)(2)–
(3)).
(2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding
paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
evidence does not include:
(i) Oral or written communications
between you and your representative
that are subject to the attorney-client
privilege, unless you voluntarily
disclose the communication to us; or
(ii) Your representative’s analysis of
your claim, unless he or she voluntarily
discloses it to us. Your representative’s
‘‘analysis of your claim,’’ means
information that is subject to the
attorney work product doctrine, but it
does not include medical evidence,
medical source opinions, or any other
factual matter that we may consider in
determining whether or not you are
entitled to benefits (see paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) of this section).
(iii) The provisions of paragraph
(b)(2)(i) apply to communications
between you and your non-attorney
representative only if the
communications would be subject to the
attorney-client privilege, if your nonattorney representative were an
attorney. The provisions of paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) apply to the analysis of your
claim by your non-attorney
representative only if the analysis of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Feb 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
your claim would be subject to the
attorney work product doctrine, if your
non-attorney representative were an
attorney.
(iv) The attorney-client privilege
generally protects confidential
communications between an attorney
and his or her client that are related to
providing or obtaining legal advice. The
attorney work product doctrine
generally protects an attorney’s analysis,
theories, mental impressions, and notes.
In the context of your disability claim,
neither the attorney-client privilege nor
the attorney work product doctrine
allows you to withhold factual
information, medical source opinions,
or other medical evidence that we may
consider in determining whether or not
you are entitled to benefits. For
example, if you tell your representative
about the medical sources you have
seen, your representative cannot refuse
to disclose the identity of those medical
sources to us based on the attorneyclient privilege. As another example, if
your representative asks a medical
source to complete an opinion form
related to your impairment(s),
symptoms, or limitations, your
representative cannot withhold the
completed opinion form from us based
on the attorney work product doctrine.
The attorney work product doctrine
would not protect the source’s opinions
on the completed form, regardless of
whether or not your representative used
the form in his or her analysis of your
claim or made handwritten notes on the
face of the report.
(c) Your responsibility. You must
inform us about or submit all evidence
known to you that relates to whether or
not you are blind or disabled. When you
submit evidence from another source,
you must submit that evidence in its
entirety. If we ask you, you must inform
us about:
(1) Your medical source(s);
(2) Your age;
(3) Your education and training;
(4) Your work experience;
(5) Your daily activities both before
and after the date you say that you
became disabled;
(6) Your efforts to work; and
(7) Any other factors showing how
your impairment(s) affects your ability
to work. In §§ 404.1560 through
404.1569a, we discuss in more detail the
evidence we need when we consider
vocational factors.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart R—[Amended]
6. The authority citation for subpart R
of part 404 continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority: Secs. 205(a), 206, 702(a)(5), and
1127 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
405(a), 406, 902(a)(5), and 1320a–6).
7. In § 404.1740, revise paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) through (vii) to read
as follows:
■
§ 404.1740 Rules of conduct and
standards of responsibility for
representatives.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Act with reasonable promptness to
help obtain the information or evidence
that the claimant must submit under our
regulations, and forward the
information or evidence to us for
consideration as soon as practicable.
(2) * * *
(i) The claimant’s medical source(s);
(ii) The claimant’s age;
(iii) The claimant’s education and
training;
(iv) The claimant’s work experience;
(v) The claimant’s daily activities both
before and after the date the claimant
alleges that he or she became disabled;
(vi) The claimant’s efforts to work;
and
(vii) Any other factors showing how
the claimant’s impairment(s) affects his
or her ability to work. In §§ 404.1560
through 404.1569a, we discuss in more
detail the evidence we need when we
consider vocational factors;
*
*
*
*
*
PART 405—ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
PROCESS FOR ADJUDICATING
INITIAL DISABILITY CLAIMS
8. The authority citation for part 405
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 201(j), 205(a)–(b), (d)–(h),
and (s), 221, 223(a)–(b), 702(a)(5), 1601, 1602,
1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401(j), 405(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (s), 421,
423(a)–(b), 902(a)(5), 1381, 1381a, 1383, and
1383b).
9. In § 405.1, revise the first sentence
of paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
■
Subpart A—[Amended]
§ 405.1
Introduction.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Evidence considered and right to
representation. Subject to §§ 405.331
and 405.430, you must submit evidence
and information to us (see §§ 404.1512
and 416.912). * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. In § 405.331, revise the first two
sentences of paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\20FEP1.SGM
20FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Subpart D—[Amended]
§ 405.331 Submitting evidence to an
administrative law judge.
(a) When you submit your request for
hearing, you should also submit
information or evidence as required by
§§ 404.1512 or 416.912 of this chapter or
any summary of the evidence to the
administrative law judge. You must
submit any written evidence no later
than 5 business days before the date of
the scheduled hearing. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL
SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED,
BLIND, AND DISABLED
Subpart I—[Amended]
11. The authority citation for subpart
I of part 416 continues to read as
follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611,
1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and
1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h,
1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs.
4(c) and 5, 6(c)–(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98–
460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42
U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note).
12. In § 416.912, revise paragraphs (a)
through (c) to read as follows:
■
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 416.912
Evidence.
(a) General. In general, you have to
prove to us that you are blind or
disabled. You must inform us about or
submit all evidence known to you that
relates to whether or not you are blind
or disabled. We will consider only
impairment(s) you say you have or
about which we receive evidence.
(b) What we mean by ‘‘evidence.’’
Evidence is anything you or anyone else
submits to us or that we obtain that
relates to your claim.
(1) Evidence includes, but is not
limited to:
(i) Objective medical evidence, that is,
medical signs and laboratory findings as
defined in § 416.928(b) and (c);
(ii) Other evidence from medical
sources, such as medical history,
opinions, and statements about
treatment you have received;
(iii) Statements you or others make
about your impairment(s), your
restrictions, your daily activities, your
efforts to work, or any other statements
you make to medical sources during the
course of examination or treatment, or
to us during interviews, on applications,
in letters, and in testimony in our
administrative proceedings;
(iv) Information from other sources, as
described in § 416.913(d);
(v) Decisions by any governmental or
nongovernmental agency about whether
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Feb 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
or not you are disabled or blind (see
§ 404.1504);
(vi) At the initial level of the
administrative review process, when a
State agency disability examiner makes
the initial determination alone (see
§ 416.1015(c)(3)), opinions provided by
State agency medical and psychological
consultants and other program
physicians, psychologists, or other
medical specialists based on their
review of the evidence in your case
record (see § 416.927(e)(1)(ii));
(vii) At the reconsideration level of
the administrative review process, when
a State agency disability examiner
makes the determination alone (see
§ 416.1015(c)(3)), findings, other than
the ultimate determination about
whether or not you are disabled, made
by the State agency medical or
psychological consultants and other
program physicians, psychologists, or
other medical specialists at the initial
level of the administrative review
process, and other opinions they
provide based on their review of the
evidence in your case record at the
initial and reconsideration levels (see
§ 416.927(e)(1)(iii)); and
(viii) At the administrative law judge
and Appeals Council levels, findings,
other than the ultimate determination
about whether or not you are disabled,
made by State agency medical or
psychological consultants and other
program physicians or psychologists, or
other medical specialists, and opinions
expressed by medical experts or
psychological experts that we consult
based on their review of the evidence in
your case record (see §§ 416.927(e)(2)–
(3)).
(2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding
paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
evidence does not include:
(i) Oral or written communications
between you and your representative
that are subject to the attorney-client
privilege, unless you voluntarily
disclose the communication to us; or
(ii) Your representative’s analysis of
your claim, unless he or she voluntarily
discloses it to us. Your representative’s
‘‘analysis of your claim,’’ means
information that is subject to the
attorney work product doctrine, but it
does not include medical evidence,
medical source opinions, or any other
factual matter that we may consider in
determining whether or not you are
eligible for benefits (see paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) of this section).
(iii) The provisions of paragraph
(b)(2)(i) apply to communications
between you and your non-attorney
representative only if the
communications would be subject to the
attorney-client privilege, if your non-
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9669
attorney representative were an
attorney. The provisions of paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) apply to the analysis of your
claim by your non-attorney
representative only if the analysis of
your claim would be subject to the
attorney work product doctrine, if your
non-attorney representative were an
attorney.
(iv) The attorney-client privilege
generally protects confidential
communications between an attorney
and his or her client that are related to
providing or obtaining legal advice. The
attorney work product doctrine
generally protects an attorney’s analysis,
theories, mental impressions, and notes.
In the context of your disability claim,
neither the attorney-client privilege nor
the attorney work product doctrine
allows you to withhold factual
information, medical source opinions,
or other medical evidence that we may
consider in determining whether or not
you are eligible for benefits. For
example, if you tell your representative
about the medical sources you have
seen, your representative cannot refuse
to disclose the identity of those medical
sources to us based on the attorneyclient privilege. As another example, if
your representative asks a medical
source to complete an opinion form
related to your impairment(s),
symptoms, or limitations, your
representative cannot withhold the
completed opinion form from us based
on the attorney work product doctrine.
The attorney work product doctrine
would not protect the source’s opinions
on the completed form, regardless of
whether or not your representative used
the form in his or her analysis of your
claim or made handwritten notes on the
face of the report.
(c) Your responsibility. You must
inform us about or submit all evidence
known to you that relates to whether or
not you are blind or disabled. When you
submit evidence from another source,
you must submit that evidence in its
entirety. If we ask you, you must inform
us about:
(1) Your medical source(s);
(2) Your age;
(3) Your education and training;
(4) Your work experience;
(5) Your daily activities both before
and after the date you say that you
became disabled;
(6) Your efforts to work; and
(7) Any other factors showing how
your impairment(s) affects your ability
to work. In §§ 416.960 through
416.969a, we discuss in more detail the
evidence we need when we consider
vocational factors.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\20FEP1.SGM
20FEP1
9670
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Subpart N—[Amended]
13. The authority citation for subpart
N of part 416 continues to read as
follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L.
108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
14. Amend § 416.1400 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 416.1400
Introduction
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Nature of the administrative
review process. In making a
determination or decision in your case,
we conduct the administrative review
process in an informal, non-adversarial
manner. Subject to the limitations on
Appeals Council consideration of
additional evidence (see §§ 416.1470(b)
and 416.1476(b)), we will consider at
each step of the review process any
information you present as well as all
the information in our records. You may
present the information yourself or have
someone represent you, including an
attorney. If you are dissatisfied with our
decision in the review process, but do
not take the next step within the stated
time period, you will lose your right to
further administrative review and your
right to judicial review, unless you can
show us that there was good cause for
your failure to make a timely request for
review.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. Revise § 416.1435 to read as
follows:
§ 416.1435 Submitting evidence prior to a
hearing before an administrative law judge.
You should submit information or
evidence as required by § 416.912 or any
summary of the evidence to the
administrative law judge with the
request for hearing or within 10 days
after filing the request, if possible. Each
party shall make every effort to ensure
that the administrative law judge
receives all of the evidence (see
§ 416.912) or all of the evidence is
available at the time and place set for
the hearing.
Subpart O—[Amended]
16. The authority citation for subpart
O of part 416 continues to read as
follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
■
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1127, and
1631(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
902(a)(5), 1320a–6, and 1383(d)).
17. In § 416.1540, revise paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) through (vii) to read
as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Feb 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
§ 416.1540 Rules of conduct and
standards of responsibility for
representatives.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Act with reasonable promptness to
help obtain the information or evidence
that the claimant must submit under our
regulations, and forward the
information or evidence to us for
consideration as soon as practicable.
(2) * * *
(i) The claimant’s medical source(s);
(ii) The claimant’s age;
(iii) The claimant’s education and
training;
(iv) The claimant’s work experience;
(v) The claimant’s daily activities both
before and after the date the claimant
alleges that he or she became disabled;
(vi) The claimant’s efforts to work;
and
(vii) Any other factors showing how
the claimant’s impairment(s) affects his
or her ability to work. In §§ 416.960
through 416.969a, we discuss in more
detail the evidence we need when we
consider vocational factors;
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–03426 Filed 2–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 890
[Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0378]
Physical Medicine Devices; Withdrawal
of Proposed Effective Date of
Requirement for Premarket Approval
for Shortwave Diathermy for All Other
Uses
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is withdrawing
the proposed rule the Agency issued in
the Federal Register of July 6, 2012. In
that document, FDA proposed to require
the filing of a premarket approval
application (PMA) or a notice of
completion of a product development
protocol (PDP) for the class III
preamendment device, shortwave
diathermy (SWD) for all other uses. In
response to the requirements issued in
the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA)
and new information received during a
panel meeting, FDA is withdrawing the
proposed rule and proposing a different
action.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The proposed rule is withdrawn
on February 20, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Burns, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1646, Silver Spring,
MD 20993, 301–796–5616, Melissa.
Burns@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. Background—Regulatory Authorities
In the Federal Register of July 6, 2012
(77 FR 39953), FDA issued a proposed
rule to require the filing of a PMA or a
notice of completion of a PDP for the
class III preamendments device, SWD
for all other uses. This device applies
electromagnetic energy to the body in
the radio frequency bands that are
currently identified as 13.56 megahertz
or 27.12 megahertz and is intended for
the treatment of medical conditions by
means other than the generation of deep
heat within body tissues (also referred
to as nonthermal SWD). It is not
intended for treatment of malignancies.
The Agency also summarized its
proposed findings regarding the degree
of risk of illness or injury designed to
be eliminated or reduced by requiring
the devices to meet the statute’s
approval requirements and the benefits
to the public from the use of the
devices. In addition, FDA announced
the opportunity for interested persons to
request that the Agency change the
classification of any of the
aforementioned devices based on new
information.
On July 9, 2012, FDASIA was enacted.
Section 608(a) of FDASIA (126 Stat.
1056) amended section 513(e) (U.S.C.
360c(e)) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) changing the
process for reclassifying a device from
rulemaking to an administrative order.
Subsequent to the publication of the
proposed rule, FDASIA’s amendments
to section 513 of the FD&C Act required
FDA to hold a classification panel (an
FDA advisory committee) meeting on
the classification of this device. On May
21, 2013, FDA held a meeting of the
Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices
Panel (the Panel), to discuss the
classification of nonthermal SWD
devices. There was panel consensus that
although the effectiveness data were
very limited, nonthermal SWD devices
did not fit the regulatory definition of a
class III device. Coupled with the
rationale that special controls could be
established to reasonably demonstrate
an assurance of safety and effectiveness,
the Panel recommended class II (special
controls) for nonthermal SWD devices
(Ref. 1).
E:\FR\FM\20FEP1.SGM
20FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9663-9670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03426]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Parts 404, 405, and 416
[Docket No. SSA-2012-0068]
RIN 0960-AH53
Submission of Evidence in Disability Claims
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to clarify our regulations to require you to inform
us about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to your
disability claim, subject to two exceptions for certain privileged
communications. This
[[Page 9664]]
requirement would include the duty to submit all evidence obtained from
any source in its entirety, unless subject to one of these exceptions.
We also propose to require your representative to help you obtain the
information or evidence that we would require you to submit under our
regulations. These modifications to our regulations would better
describe your duty to submit all evidence that relates to your
disability claim and enable us to have a more complete case record on
which to make more accurate disability determinations and decisions.
DATES: To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive
them by no later than April 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of three methods--
Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times
or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose,
please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2012-0068 so
that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only
information that you wish to make publicly available. We strongly urge
you not to include in your comments any personal information, such as
Social Security numbers or medical information.
1. Internet: We strongly recommend this method for submitting your
comments. Visit the Federal eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Use the Web page's Search function to find docket
number SSA-2012-0068 and then submit your comment. Once you submit your
comment, the system will issue you a tracking number to confirm your
submission. You will not be able to view your comment immediately
because we must manually post each comment. It may take up to a week
for your comment to be viewable.
2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966-2830.
3. Mail: Address your comments to the Office of Regulations and
Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, 3100 West High Rise
Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov or in person, during
regular business hours, by arranging with the contact person identified
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Truhe, Office of Disability
Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 966-7203. For information on
eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number,
1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site,
Social Security Online, at https://www.socialsecurity.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Social Security Act (Act) gives the Commissioner of Social
Security broad rulemaking authority to issue regulations governing the
production of evidence that we use to adjudicate disability claims
under title II and title XVI.\1\ Additionally, the Act provides that we
will not find that an individual is disabled ``unless [he or she]
furnishes such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as
the Commissioner of Social Security may require.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 42 U.S.C. 405(a) and 1383(d)(1).
\2\ 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(5)(A). See also 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i)
(making the provisions of section 423(d)(5) applicable under title
XVI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been recent public and media interest in what our
regulations require regarding the submission of evidence in disability
claims, particularly regarding the duty to submit unfavorable evidence.
There have been allegations that when some representatives submit
evidence to us, they deliberately withhold evidence they deem
unfavorable to the claimant. We also know, based on our program
experience, that we do not always receive complete evidence. This
public and media interest has drawn congressional attention.\3\ In
particular, members of Congress have asked about the relationship
between the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA) and the duty
to submit potentially unfavorable evidence in disability claims. The
SSPA authorized us to penalize a person who withholds a fact, which the
person knows or should know is material to the determination of any
initial or continuing right to benefits. In light of congressional
interest and our program experience, we have again reviewed our
regulations that govern the submission of evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., The Social Security Administration: Is It Meeting
Its Responsibility to Save Taxpayer Dollars and Serve the Public?:
Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Finance, 112th Cong. 18-19, 52-54
(2012), available at https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=35b30665-5056-a032-52b7-89db5b56d235; Fourth in a Hearing Series
on Securing the Future of the Social Security Disability Insurance
Program: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Social Security of the H.
Comm. on Ways and Means, 112th Cong. (2012), available at https://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=326594;
Minority Staff Report, S. Perm. Subcomm. on Investigations, Social
Security Disability Programs: Improving the Quality of Benefit Award
Decisions 5-6 (2012), available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/report-psi-minority-staff-report_-social-security-disability-programs-improving-the-quality-of-benefit-award-decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our current regulations describe a claimant's duty to submit
medical and non-medical evidence in several ways. For example, in Sec.
404.1512(a), we state that you ``must bring to our attention everything
that shows that you are blind or disabled,'' which may only include
evidence that is favorable to your claim.\4\ In Sec. Sec. 404.1512(c)
and 416.912(c), however, we state that you ``must provide evidence,
without redaction, showing how your impairment(s) affects your
functioning during the time you say that you are disabled,'' which may
include evidence that is unfavorable to your claim. Similarly, our
current regulations governing the conduct of claimants' representatives
describe their related duty to submit evidence in several ways. For
example, in Sec. Sec. 404.1740(b)(1) and 416.1540(b)(1), we require
representatives to ``obtain the information and evidence that the
claimant wants to submit in support of his or her claim,'' which may
only include evidence that is favorable to the disability claim. In
Sec. Sec. 404.1740(b)(2) and 416.1540(b)(2), however, we require
representatives to assist the claimant in complying ``with our requests
for information or evidence,'' which may include evidence that is
unfavorable to the claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See also 20 CFR 416.912(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing our regulations on the submission of evidence, we also
considered Congress' actions in enacting the SSPA. When it enacted the
SSPA, Congress authorized us to impose a civil monetary penalty against
any person who omits from a statement or representation or otherwise
withholds disclosure of a fact that is material to the determination of
any initial or continuing right to benefits or payments, if the person
knows or should know that omitting or withholding the fact is
misleading.\5\ The sheer volume of disability claims we decide each
year makes the need for a complete case record imperative. In fiscal
year 2012, for example, we completed more than 3.2 million initial
disability claims and more than 820,000 hearing requests.\6\ Clarifying
our rules regarding a claimant's duty to submit all
[[Page 9665]]
evidence that relates to the disability claim would enable us to obtain
more complete case records and adjudicate claims more accurately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Social Security Protection Act of 2004, Sec. 201, 42 U.S.C.
1320a-8.
\6\ Social Security Administration, Performance and
Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2012, at 56, 62, available at
https://www.socialsecurity.gov/finance/2012/Full%20FY%202012%20PAR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of our reevaluation of the regulations governing the duty
to submit evidence in disability claims, we also consulted with the
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) \7\ and requested
recommendations on how our regulations could better articulate the duty
to submit all evidence that relates to the disability claim. ACUS
issued its Final Report in October 2012.\8\ Although the particular
content of any regulation was beyond the scope of ACUS's Final Report,
ACUS did identify several principles and options that have guided our
efforts in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ACUS is ``an independent federal agency dedicated to
improving the administrative process through consensus-driven
applied research, providing nonpartisan expert advice and
recommendations for improvement of federal agency procedures.''
About the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS),
available at https://www.acus.gov/about-administrative-conference-united-states-acus.
\8\ Administrative Conference of the United States, SSA
Disability Benefits Programs: The Duty of Candor and Submission of
All Evidence (Oct. 15, 2012) (``ACUS Final Report''), available at
https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ACUS_Final_Report_SSA_Duty_of_Candor.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, ACUS recommended that any proposed regulation should place
disclosure obligations directly on claimants rather than on their
representatives (if any), just as Federal courts place discovery and
other evidence-production obligations on civil litigants, not their
counsel. Second, ACUS recommended that any proposed disclosure
obligations should apply both to attorney and non-attorney
representatives. Third, ACUS recommended that we should write any
disclosure obligations so that they do not intrude on any established
legal privileges, including the attorney-client privilege or (assuming
it is applicable in this context) the work-product doctrine. The
obligations should not, among other things, require a claimant (or his
or her representative) to disclose his or her subjective opinions
regarding the evidence. Finally, ACUS recommended that we should write
any disclosure obligations in a way that would minimize the extent to
which a claimant and his or her representative must make subjective
judgments as to the legal relevance of particular evidence. We now
propose to clarify our regulations regarding the submission of
evidence, based in part on the recommendations and principles in ACUS's
Final Report and mindful of the concerns that prompted Congress to
amend section 1129 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8, as part of the SSPA.
The modifications we propose to our regulations will provide more
certainty about the duty to submit all evidence that relates to
disability claims.
Proposed Changes
The Claimant's Duty To Submit Evidence
We propose to revise Sec. Sec. 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a) to
require you to inform us about or submit all evidence known to you that
relates to whether or not you are blind or disabled.\9\ This would
include evidence that may be either favorable or unfavorable to your
claim. As part of this proposal, we would remove our current
requirement in sections 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a) that you ``must
furnish medical and other evidence that we can use to reach conclusions
about your medical impairment(s).'' The duty to inform us about or
submit all evidence that relates to your disability claim would include
all of the types of evidence we need to determine disability under our
regulations and would remove the need for you to determine what
evidence is ``material'' to the disability determination. In addition,
by requiring you to inform us about or submit all evidence that relates
to your disability claim, we would clarify that we are not shifting our
responsibility for developing the record to you. Our disability system
is non-adversarial, and we assist claimants in developing the medical
and non-medical evidence we need to determine whether or not they are
disabled.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Under the Act, a claimant must prove to us that he or she is
blind or disabled. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(5)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i). A
claimant is disabled only if he or she is unable to do any
substantial gainful activity because he or she has a medically
determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a period of at least
12 continuous months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(3)(A). To be
found disabled, a claimant must also be both ``unable to do [his or
her] previous work'' and unable to do ``any other kind of
substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.'' 42
U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(B).
\10\ For example, consistent with our duty under the Act, we
must develop a claimant's ``complete medical history,'' generally
for at least the 12 months preceding the application date. 42 U.S.C.
423(d)(5)(B) and 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i); 20 CFR 404.1512(d) and
416.912(d). In addition, at the hearings level, administrative law
judges have a duty ``to investigate the facts and develop the
arguments both for and against granting benefits.'' Sims v. Apfel,
530 U.S. 103, 111 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose to add a new paragraph to current Sec. Sec.
404.1512(b) and 416.912(b), which would set forth two exceptions to
what we mean by ``evidence.'' \11\ First, in proposed Sec. Sec.
404.1512(b)(2)(i) and 416.912(b)(2)(i), we would exclude oral and
written communications between you and your representative that are
subject to the attorney-client privilege, unless you voluntarily
disclose the communication to us. The attorney-client privilege
protects confidential communications between a client and his or her
attorney in order to obtain and provide sound legal assistance.\12\ Its
purpose is to encourage attorneys and their clients to communicate
fully and frankly.\13\ This privilege does not apply to communications
with non-attorney representatives, but we would also exclude from the
definition of evidence communications between claimants and their non-
attorney representatives that would be subject to the attorney-client
privilege, if the non-attorney representative were an attorney. As
recommended by ACUS in its Final Report, we believe that any proposed
disclosure obligations ``should apply both to attorney and non-attorney
representatives.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We describe what we mean by ``evidence'' in current
Sec. Sec. 404.1512(b)(1)-(8) and 416.912(b)(1)-(8) (proposed
sections 404.1512(b)(1)(i)-(viii), 416.912(b)(1)(i)-(viii)). We do
not propose any changes to these sections other than to add the
phrase ``and other program physicians, psychologists, or other
medical specialists'' to current Sec. Sec. 404.1512(b)(6) and
416.912(b)(6) (proposed sections 404.1512(b)(1)(vi),
416.912(b)(1)(vi)) in conformity with the cross-references that
appear in these sections. We inadvertently omitted this phrase when
we last revised these sections.
\12\ See Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981).
\13\ Id.
\14\ ACUS Final Report at 38. ACUS made this recommendation
after consulting with the National Organization of Social Security
Claimants' Representatives and the National Association of
Disability Representatives (whose members also include non-attorney
representatives). Both of these advocate groups recommended that any
proposed changes to our evidence regulations apply to all claimant
representatives without distinction between attorneys and non-
attorneys. Id. at A-5 and A-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attorney-client privilege ``only protects disclosure of
communications; it does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts
by those who communicated with the attorney.'' \15\ For example, if you
write a letter to your representative disclosing the names of your
medical source(s), the privilege would preclude disclosure of the
letter, but not the names of your medical source(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, in proposed Sec. Sec. 404.1512(b)(2)(ii) and
416.912(b)(2)(ii), we propose to exclude your representative's analysis
of your claim, unless he or she voluntarily discloses it to us. By
``analysis of your
[[Page 9666]]
claim,'' we generally mean the information that is subject to the
attorney work product doctrine.\16\ This doctrine protects an
attorney's analysis, theories, mental impressions, and notes.\17\ Its
purpose is to provide an attorney with a degree of privacy within which
to carefully and thoroughly prepare his or her client's case.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-12 (1947).
\17\ Id. at 511.
\18\ Id. at 510-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not intend, however, to incorporate into these proposed rules
the full scope of the work product doctrine under Rule 26(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, consistent with our broad
authority under the Act to ``adopt reasonable and proper rules and
regulations to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the
proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same in
order to establish the right to benefits,'' \19\ these proposed rules
incorporate a more limited version of the work product doctrine than
would apply under the Federal Rules. Under these proposed rules, your
representative's ``analysis of your claim'' does not include certain
material that we may consider in determining whether or not you are
entitled to or eligible for the benefits for which you have applied.
For example, if your representative takes notes during a discussion
with one of your medical sources about your condition, we would
consider those notes your representative's analysis of your claim, and
they would be protected from disclosure under these proposed rules.
However, if your medical source sends your representative medical
records or a written opinion about your condition, your representative
could not withhold those records and that opinion based on the work
product doctrine. Those documents would be subject to the duty of
disclosure under these proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 42 U.S.C. 405(a) and 1383(d)(1); see Heckler v. Campbell,
461 U.S. 458, 466 (1983) (recognizing the Commissioner's
``exceptionally broad authority'' under section 405(a) ``to
prescribe standards for applying certain sections of the [Social
Security] Act.'' (Alteration in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify this point, we provide in proposed Sec. Sec.
404.1512(b)(2)(ii) and 416.912(b)(2)(ii) that your representative's
``analysis of your claim'' means information that is subject to the
attorney work product doctrine, but does not include medical evidence,
medical source opinions, or any other factual matter that we may
consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to or eligible
for benefits. We then provide a cross-reference to new paragraph
(b)(2)(iv), where we further explain the scope of the privileges within
the context of these proposed rules.
Although the work product doctrine applies only to attorneys, we
also exclude from the definition of evidence documents that would be
subject to the work product privilege, if the non-attorney
representative were an attorney, to the same extent that we have
discussed above.
We also propose revising Sec. Sec. 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) to
clarify that it is your responsibility to inform us about or submit all
evidence known to you that relates to whether or not you are blind or
disabled.\20\ In addition, when you submit evidence to us from another
source, we would require you in proposed Sec. Sec. 404.1512(c) and
416.912(c) to submit that evidence in its entirety. For example, if you
obtain your patient file from one of your medical sources, we would
require you to submit all of the medical records in that file. When we
last revised Sec. Sec. 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) to require that you
provide evidence ``without redaction,'' we explained at the time that
this means, for example, you must not redact evidence from a medical
report you submit to us.\21\ As ACUS pointed out in its Final Report,
however, we did not define ``without redaction'' or fully explain what
we meant by this requirement.\22\ Therefore, one could interpret
``without redaction'' to mean either within a document or among a group
of documents.\23\ We intend our proposed requirement for submission of
evidence in its entirety to clarify that we mean both types of
redaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In so doing, we would place the disclosure obligation
directly on claimants rather than on their representatives ``just as
discovery and other evidence-production obligations in federal
courts are placed on civil litigants, not their counsel.'' ACUS
Final Report at 38.
\21\ See 71 FR 16424, 16437 (2006).
\22\ See ACUS Final Report at 7.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in proposed Sec. Sec. 404.1512(c)(1) and 416.912(c)(1),
we would clarify that, if we ask you, you must inform us about your
medical source(s). We currently request the names and addresses of all
of your medical source(s) on the adult and child disability
applications; \24\ such information is within the scope of your current
responsibility to submit evidence that shows you are blind or
disabled.\25\ However, as part of our clarification of your duty to
inform us about or submit all evidence that relates to your disability
claim, we believe we should expressly list this type of evidence with
the other types referenced in current Sec. Sec. 404.1512(c)(1)-(6) and
416.912(c)(1)-(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ These are the Form SSA-3368-BK, Disability Report--Adult
and the Form SSA-3820-BK, Disability Report--Child.
\25\ See Sec. Sec. 404.1512(a) and (c) and 416.912(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Representative's Duty To Submit Evidence
As stated above, we propose to place the duty to submit evidence
directly on claimants, not their representatives, if represented.
Therefore, we propose to revise Sec. Sec. 404.1740(b)(1) and
416.1540(b)(1) to require that representatives help obtain the
information or evidence that claimants must submit under our proposed
regulations. By requiring representatives to help obtain the
information or evidence that claimants must submit, we would clarify
that we are not shifting our responsibility to develop the record to
claimants' representatives.
Other Changes
We propose to make a number of other non-substantive changes to the
current rules. We are proposing these changes for clarity and
consistency and to correct minor grammatical errors. For example, we
propose to revise some language from passive to active voice. We would
also make conforming changes to Sec. Sec. 404.900, 405.1, and
416.1400, which introduce and explain the nature of the administrative
review process, and Sec. Sec. 404.935, 405.331, and 416.1435, which
pertain to a claimant's duty to submit evidence at the hearings level.
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition
to your substantive comments on this proposed rule, we invite your
comments on how to make it easier to understand.
For example:
Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
Would a different format make the rule easier to
understand, e.g., grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing?
[[Page 9667]]
When will we start to use this rule?
We will not use this rule until we evaluate public comments and
publish a final rule in the Federal Register. All final rules we issue
include an effective date. We will continue to use our current rules
until that date. If we publish a final rule, we will include a summary
of relevant comments we received, responses to them, and an explanation
of how we will apply the new rule.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
determined that this proposed rule meets the criteria for a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by
Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed it.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it
affects individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM imposes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements
subject to OMB clearance.
References
We consulted the references cited in the footnotes when we
developed these proposed rules. We included these references in the
rulemaking record for these proposed rules and will make them available
for inspection by interested individuals who make arrangements with the
contact person identified above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security--Retirement
Insurance; and 96.004, Social Security--Survivors Insurance)
List of Subjects
20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability insurance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
20 CFR Part 405
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability insurance, Public assistance
programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
20 CFR Part 416
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability
benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Dated: February 11, 2014.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend
subparts J, P, and R of part 404, subparts A and D of part 405, and
subparts I, N, and O of part 416 as set forth below:
PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
(1950- )
Subpart J--[Amended]
0
1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j),
221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i),
425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42
U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98
Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118
Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
0
2. Amend Sec. 404.900 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 404.900 Introduction
* * * * *
(b) Nature of the administrative review process. In making a
determination or decision in your case, we conduct the administrative
review process in an informal, non-adversarial manner. Subject to the
limitations on Appeals Council consideration of additional evidence
(see Sec. Sec. 404.970(b) and 404.976(b)), we will consider at each
step of the review process any information you present as well as all
the information in our records. You may present the information
yourself or have someone represent you, including an attorney. If you
are dissatisfied with our decision in the review process, but do not
take the next step within the stated time period, you will lose your
right to further administrative review and your right to judicial
review, unless you can show us that there was good cause for your
failure to make a timely request for review.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 404.935 to read as follows:
Sec. 404.935 Submitting evidence prior to a hearing before an
administrative law judge.
You should submit information or evidence as required by Sec.
404.1512 or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge
with the request for hearing or within 10 days after filing the
request, if possible. Each party shall make every effort to ensure that
the administrative law judge receives all of the evidence (see Sec.
404.1512) or all of the evidence is available at the time and place set
for the hearing.
Subpart P--[Amended]
0
4. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a),
(i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and
(j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193,
110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42
U.S.C. 902 note).
0
5. In Sec. 404.1512, revise paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 404.1512 Evidence.
(a) General. In general, you have to prove to us that you are blind
or disabled. You must inform us about or submit all evidence known to
you that relates to whether or not you are blind or disabled. We will
consider only impairment(s) you say you have or about which we receive
evidence.
(b) What we mean by ``evidence.'' Evidence is anything you or
anyone else submits to us or that we obtain that relates to your claim.
(1) Evidence includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Objective medical evidence, that is, medical signs and
laboratory findings as defined in Sec. 404.1528(b) and (c);
(ii) Other evidence from medical sources, such as medical history,
opinions, and statements about treatment you have received;
(iii) Statements you or others make about your impairment(s), your
restrictions, your daily activities, your efforts to work, or any other
statements you make to medical sources during the course of examination
or treatment, or to us during interviews, on applications, in letters,
and in testimony in our administrative proceedings;
(iv) Information from other sources, as described in Sec.
404.1513(d);
(v) Decisions by any governmental or nongovernmental agency about
whether or not you are disabled or blind (see Sec. 404.1504);
(vi) At the initial level of the administrative review process,
when a State agency disability examiner makes
[[Page 9668]]
the initial determination alone (see Sec. 404.1615(c)(3)), opinions
provided by State agency medical and psychological consultants and
other program physicians, psychologists, or other medical specialists
based on their review of the evidence in your case record (see Sec.
404.1527(e)(1)(ii));
(vii) At the reconsideration level of the administrative review
process, when a State agency disability examiner makes the
determination alone (see Sec. 404.1615(c)(3)), findings, other than
the ultimate determination about whether or not you are disabled, made
by the State agency medical or psychological consultants and other
program physicians, psychologists, or other medical specialists at the
initial level of the administrative review process, and other opinions
they provide based on their review of the evidence in your case record
at the initial and reconsideration levels (see Sec.
404.1527(e)(1)(iii)); and
(viii) At the administrative law judge and Appeals Council levels,
findings, other than the ultimate determination about whether or not
you are disabled, made by State agency medical or psychological
consultants and other program physicians or psychologists, or other
medical specialists, and opinions expressed by medical experts or
psychological experts that we consult based on their review of the
evidence in your case record (see Sec. Sec. 404.1527(e)(2)-(3)).
(2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
evidence does not include:
(i) Oral or written communications between you and your
representative that are subject to the attorney-client privilege,
unless you voluntarily disclose the communication to us; or
(ii) Your representative's analysis of your claim, unless he or she
voluntarily discloses it to us. Your representative's ``analysis of
your claim,'' means information that is subject to the attorney work
product doctrine, but it does not include medical evidence, medical
source opinions, or any other factual matter that we may consider in
determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits (see paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) of this section).
(iii) The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) apply to communications
between you and your non-attorney representative only if the
communications would be subject to the attorney-client privilege, if
your non-attorney representative were an attorney. The provisions of
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) apply to the analysis of your claim by your non-
attorney representative only if the analysis of your claim would be
subject to the attorney work product doctrine, if your non-attorney
representative were an attorney.
(iv) The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential
communications between an attorney and his or her client that are
related to providing or obtaining legal advice. The attorney work
product doctrine generally protects an attorney's analysis, theories,
mental impressions, and notes. In the context of your disability claim,
neither the attorney-client privilege nor the attorney work product
doctrine allows you to withhold factual information, medical source
opinions, or other medical evidence that we may consider in determining
whether or not you are entitled to benefits. For example, if you tell
your representative about the medical sources you have seen, your
representative cannot refuse to disclose the identity of those medical
sources to us based on the attorney-client privilege. As another
example, if your representative asks a medical source to complete an
opinion form related to your impairment(s), symptoms, or limitations,
your representative cannot withhold the completed opinion form from us
based on the attorney work product doctrine. The attorney work product
doctrine would not protect the source's opinions on the completed form,
regardless of whether or not your representative used the form in his
or her analysis of your claim or made handwritten notes on the face of
the report.
(c) Your responsibility. You must inform us about or submit all
evidence known to you that relates to whether or not you are blind or
disabled. When you submit evidence from another source, you must submit
that evidence in its entirety. If we ask you, you must inform us about:
(1) Your medical source(s);
(2) Your age;
(3) Your education and training;
(4) Your work experience;
(5) Your daily activities both before and after the date you say
that you became disabled;
(6) Your efforts to work; and
(7) Any other factors showing how your impairment(s) affects your
ability to work. In Sec. Sec. 404.1560 through 404.1569a, we discuss
in more detail the evidence we need when we consider vocational
factors.
* * * * *
Subpart R--[Amended]
0
6. The authority citation for subpart R of part 404 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 205(a), 206, 702(a)(5), and 1127 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), 406, 902(a)(5), and 1320a-6).
0
7. In Sec. 404.1740, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) through
(vii) to read as follows:
Sec. 404.1740 Rules of conduct and standards of responsibility for
representatives.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Act with reasonable promptness to help obtain the information
or evidence that the claimant must submit under our regulations, and
forward the information or evidence to us for consideration as soon as
practicable.
(2) * * *
(i) The claimant's medical source(s);
(ii) The claimant's age;
(iii) The claimant's education and training;
(iv) The claimant's work experience;
(v) The claimant's daily activities both before and after the date
the claimant alleges that he or she became disabled;
(vi) The claimant's efforts to work; and
(vii) Any other factors showing how the claimant's impairment(s)
affects his or her ability to work. In Sec. Sec. 404.1560 through
404.1569a, we discuss in more detail the evidence we need when we
consider vocational factors;
* * * * *
PART 405--ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS FOR ADJUDICATING INITIAL
DISABILITY CLAIMS
0
8. The authority citation for part 405 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 201(j), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (s), 221,
223(a)-(b), 702(a)(5), 1601, 1602, 1631, and 1633 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (s), 421,
423(a)-(b), 902(a)(5), 1381, 1381a, 1383, and 1383b).
0
9. In Sec. 405.1, revise the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2) to
read as follows:
Subpart A--[Amended]
Sec. 405.1 Introduction.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Evidence considered and right to representation. Subject to
Sec. Sec. 405.331 and 405.430, you must submit evidence and
information to us (see Sec. Sec. 404.1512 and 416.912). * * *
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 405.331, revise the first two sentences of paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
[[Page 9669]]
Subpart D--[Amended]
Sec. 405.331 Submitting evidence to an administrative law judge.
(a) When you submit your request for hearing, you should also
submit information or evidence as required by Sec. Sec. 404.1512 or
416.912 of this chapter or any summary of the evidence to the
administrative law judge. You must submit any written evidence no later
than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing. * * *
* * * * *
PART 416--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND
DISABLED
Subpart I--[Amended]
0
11. The authority citation for subpart I of part 416 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a),
(c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and
(p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L.
98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423
note, and 1382h note).
0
12. In Sec. 416.912, revise paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 416.912 Evidence.
(a) General. In general, you have to prove to us that you are blind
or disabled. You must inform us about or submit all evidence known to
you that relates to whether or not you are blind or disabled. We will
consider only impairment(s) you say you have or about which we receive
evidence.
(b) What we mean by ``evidence.'' Evidence is anything you or
anyone else submits to us or that we obtain that relates to your claim.
(1) Evidence includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Objective medical evidence, that is, medical signs and
laboratory findings as defined in Sec. 416.928(b) and (c);
(ii) Other evidence from medical sources, such as medical history,
opinions, and statements about treatment you have received;
(iii) Statements you or others make about your impairment(s), your
restrictions, your daily activities, your efforts to work, or any other
statements you make to medical sources during the course of examination
or treatment, or to us during interviews, on applications, in letters,
and in testimony in our administrative proceedings;
(iv) Information from other sources, as described in Sec.
416.913(d);
(v) Decisions by any governmental or nongovernmental agency about
whether or not you are disabled or blind (see Sec. 404.1504);
(vi) At the initial level of the administrative review process,
when a State agency disability examiner makes the initial determination
alone (see Sec. 416.1015(c)(3)), opinions provided by State agency
medical and psychological consultants and other program physicians,
psychologists, or other medical specialists based on their review of
the evidence in your case record (see Sec. 416.927(e)(1)(ii));
(vii) At the reconsideration level of the administrative review
process, when a State agency disability examiner makes the
determination alone (see Sec. 416.1015(c)(3)), findings, other than
the ultimate determination about whether or not you are disabled, made
by the State agency medical or psychological consultants and other
program physicians, psychologists, or other medical specialists at the
initial level of the administrative review process, and other opinions
they provide based on their review of the evidence in your case record
at the initial and reconsideration levels (see Sec.
416.927(e)(1)(iii)); and
(viii) At the administrative law judge and Appeals Council levels,
findings, other than the ultimate determination about whether or not
you are disabled, made by State agency medical or psychological
consultants and other program physicians or psychologists, or other
medical specialists, and opinions expressed by medical experts or
psychological experts that we consult based on their review of the
evidence in your case record (see Sec. Sec. 416.927(e)(2)-(3)).
(2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
evidence does not include:
(i) Oral or written communications between you and your
representative that are subject to the attorney-client privilege,
unless you voluntarily disclose the communication to us; or
(ii) Your representative's analysis of your claim, unless he or she
voluntarily discloses it to us. Your representative's ``analysis of
your claim,'' means information that is subject to the attorney work
product doctrine, but it does not include medical evidence, medical
source opinions, or any other factual matter that we may consider in
determining whether or not you are eligible for benefits (see paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) of this section).
(iii) The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) apply to communications
between you and your non-attorney representative only if the
communications would be subject to the attorney-client privilege, if
your non-attorney representative were an attorney. The provisions of
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) apply to the analysis of your claim by your non-
attorney representative only if the analysis of your claim would be
subject to the attorney work product doctrine, if your non-attorney
representative were an attorney.
(iv) The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential
communications between an attorney and his or her client that are
related to providing or obtaining legal advice. The attorney work
product doctrine generally protects an attorney's analysis, theories,
mental impressions, and notes. In the context of your disability claim,
neither the attorney-client privilege nor the attorney work product
doctrine allows you to withhold factual information, medical source
opinions, or other medical evidence that we may consider in determining
whether or not you are eligible for benefits. For example, if you tell
your representative about the medical sources you have seen, your
representative cannot refuse to disclose the identity of those medical
sources to us based on the attorney-client privilege. As another
example, if your representative asks a medical source to complete an
opinion form related to your impairment(s), symptoms, or limitations,
your representative cannot withhold the completed opinion form from us
based on the attorney work product doctrine. The attorney work product
doctrine would not protect the source's opinions on the completed form,
regardless of whether or not your representative used the form in his
or her analysis of your claim or made handwritten notes on the face of
the report.
(c) Your responsibility. You must inform us about or submit all
evidence known to you that relates to whether or not you are blind or
disabled. When you submit evidence from another source, you must submit
that evidence in its entirety. If we ask you, you must inform us about:
(1) Your medical source(s);
(2) Your age;
(3) Your education and training;
(4) Your work experience;
(5) Your daily activities both before and after the date you say
that you became disabled;
(6) Your efforts to work; and
(7) Any other factors showing how your impairment(s) affects your
ability to work. In Sec. Sec. 416.960 through 416.969a, we discuss in
more detail the evidence we need when we consider vocational factors.
* * * * *
[[Page 9670]]
Subpart N--[Amended]
0
13. The authority citation for subpart N of part 416 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub.
L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
0
14. Amend Sec. 416.1400 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.1400 Introduction
* * * * *
(b) Nature of the administrative review process. In making a
determination or decision in your case, we conduct the administrative
review process in an informal, non-adversarial manner. Subject to the
limitations on Appeals Council consideration of additional evidence
(see Sec. Sec. 416.1470(b) and 416.1476(b)), we will consider at each
step of the review process any information you present as well as all
the information in our records. You may present the information
yourself or have someone represent you, including an attorney. If you
are dissatisfied with our decision in the review process, but do not
take the next step within the stated time period, you will lose your
right to further administrative review and your right to judicial
review, unless you can show us that there was good cause for your
failure to make a timely request for review.
* * * * *
0
15. Revise Sec. 416.1435 to read as follows:
Sec. 416.1435 Submitting evidence prior to a hearing before an
administrative law judge.
You should submit information or evidence as required by Sec.
416.912 or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge
with the request for hearing or within 10 days after filing the
request, if possible. Each party shall make every effort to ensure that
the administrative law judge receives all of the evidence (see Sec.
416.912) or all of the evidence is available at the time and place set
for the hearing.
Subpart O--[Amended]
0
16. The authority citation for subpart O of part 416 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1127, and 1631(d) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1320a-6, and 1383(d)).
0
17. In Sec. 416.1540, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) through
(vii) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.1540 Rules of conduct and standards of responsibility for
representatives.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Act with reasonable promptness to help obtain the information
or evidence that the claimant must submit under our regulations, and
forward the information or evidence to us for consideration as soon as
practicable.
(2) * * *
(i) The claimant's medical source(s);
(ii) The claimant's age;
(iii) The claimant's education and training;
(iv) The claimant's work experience;
(v) The claimant's daily activities both before and after the date
the claimant alleges that he or she became disabled;
(vi) The claimant's efforts to work; and
(vii) Any other factors showing how the claimant's impairment(s)
affects his or her ability to work. In Sec. Sec. 416.960 through
416.969a, we discuss in more detail the evidence we need when we
consider vocational factors;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-03426 Filed 2-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P