Social Security Administration March 2017 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents
Results 1 - 11 of 11
Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence; Correction
We published a document in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017, that revises our rules. That document inadvertently contained technical errors. This document amends and corrects the final rules.
Social Security Ruling (SSR) 17-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evidence Needed by Adjudicators at the Hearings and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process To Make Findings About Medical Equivalence
We are providing notice of SSR 17-2p. This SSR provides guidance about how adjudicators at the hearings and Appeals Council (AC) levels of the administrative review process make findings about medical equivalence in disability claims under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
Rescission of Social Security Rulings 96-2p, 96-5p, and 06-3p
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of the rescission of Social Security Rulings (SSR) 96-2p, 96-5p, and 06-03p.
Rescission of Social Security Ruling 93-2p; Policy Interpretation Ruling; Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of the rescission of Social Security Ruling (SSR) 93-2p.
Rescission of Social Security Ruling 87-6; Policy Interpretation Ruling; Titles II and XVI: The Role of Prescribed Treatment in the Evaluation of Epilepsy
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of the rescission of Social Security Ruling (SSR) 87-6.
Social Security Ruling 17-1p; Titles II and XVI: Reopening Based on Error on the Face of the Evidence-Effect of a Decision by the Supreme Court of the United States Finding a Law That We Applied To Be Unconstitutional
We are giving notice of SSR 17-1p. This SSR explains how we apply our reopening rules when we have applied a Federal or State law to a claim for benefits that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional, and we find the application of that law was material to our determination or decision. We expect that this ruling will clarify our policy in light of recent questions that we have received on this issue.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
