[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34483-34488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-7p]
Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims:
Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Social Security ruling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 422.406(b)(1), the Commissioner of
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling 96-7p. This
Ruling clarifies when the evaluation of symptoms, including pain, under
20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 requires a finding about the credibility of
an individual's statements about pain or other symptom(s) and its
functional effects; explains the factors to be considered in assessing
the credibility of the individual's statements about symptoms; and
states the importance of explaining the reasons for the finding about
the credibility of the individual's statements in the disability
determination or decision. This Ruling also incorporates and elaborates
upon the policy interpretation and procedures in SSR 95-5p, ``Titles II
and XVI: Considering Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in Residual
Functional Capacity and Individualized Functional Assessments and
Explaining Conclusions Reached'' (published in the
[[Page 34484]]
Federal Register on October 31, 1995, at 60 FR 55406). Consequently,
this Ruling supersedes SSR 95-5p.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne K. Castello, Division of
Regulations and Rulings, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 965-1711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although we are not required to do so
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this
Social Security Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 422.406(b)(1).
Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential
decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability,
supplemental security income, and black lung benefits programs. Social
Security Rulings may be based on case decisions made at all
administrative levels of adjudication, Federal court decisions,
Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General
Counsel, and other policy interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although Social Security Rulings do not have the force and effect
of the law or regulations, they are binding on all components of the
Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20 CFR
422.406(b)(1), and are to be relied upon as precedents in adjudicating
cases.
If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or
rescinded, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that
effect.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Programs 96.001 Social
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security--Retirement
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security--Survivors Insurance; 96.005
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners; 96.006 Supplemental
Security Income.)
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Shirley S. Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Policy Interpretation Ruling--Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms
in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's
Statements
This Ruling supersedes Social Security Ruling (SSR) 95-5p, ``Titles
II and XVI: Considering Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in
Residual Functional Capacity and Individualized Functional Assessments
and Explaining Conclusions Reached.''
Purpose: The purpose of this Ruling is to clarify when the
evaluation of symptoms, including pain, under 20 CFR 404.1529 and
416.929 requires a finding about the credibility of an individual's
statements about pain or other symptom(s) and its functional effects;
to explain the factors to be considered in assessing the credibility of
the individual's statements about symptoms; and to state the importance
of explaining the reasons for the finding about the credibility of the
individual's statements in the disability determination or
decision.1 In particular, this Ruling emphasizes that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For clarity, the discussions in this Ruling refer only to
claims of individuals claiming disability benefits under title II
and individuals age 18 or older claiming disability benefits under
title XVI. However, the same basic principles with regard to
determining whether statements about symptoms are credible also
apply to claims of individuals under age 18 claiming disability
benefits under title XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. No symptom or combination of symptoms can be the basis for a
finding of disability, no matter how genuine the individual's
complaints may appear to be, unless there are medical signs and
laboratory findings demonstrating the existence of a medically
determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be
expected to produce the symptoms.
2. When the existence of a medically determinable physical or
mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the
symptoms has been established, the intensity, persistence, and
functionally limiting effects of the symptoms must be evaluated to
determine the extent to which the symptoms affect the individual's
ability to do basic work activities. This requires the adjudicator to
make a finding about the credibility of the individual's statements
about the symptom(s) and its functional effects.
3. Because symptoms, such as pain, sometimes suggest a greater
severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence
alone, the adjudicator must carefully consider the individual's
statements about symptoms with the rest of the relevant evidence in the
case record in reaching a conclusion about the credibility of the
individual's statements if a disability determination or decision that
is fully favorable to the individual cannot be made solely on the basis
of objective medical evidence.
4. In determining the credibility of the individual's statements,
the adjudicator must consider the entire case record, including the
objective medical evidence, the individual's own statements about
symptoms, statements and other information provided by treating or
examining physicians or psychologists and other persons about the
symptoms and how they affect the individual, and any other relevant
evidence in the case record. An individual's statements about the
intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms or about the effect
the symptoms have on his or her ability to work may not be disregarded
solely because they are not substantiated by objective medical
evidence.
5. It is not sufficient for the adjudicator to make a single,
conclusory statement that ``the individual's allegations have been
considered'' or that ``the allegations are (or are not) credible.'' It
is also not enough for the adjudicator simply to recite the factors
that are described in the regulations for evaluating symptoms. The
determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the finding
on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record, and must
be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any
subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the
individual's statements and the reasons for that weight.
Citations (Authority): Sections 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a)(3) of
the Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, sections
404.1528(a), 404.1529, and 404.1569a; and Regulations No. 16, sections
416.928(a), 416.929, and 416.969a.
Introduction: A symptom is an individual's own description of his
or her physical or mental impairment(s).2 Under the regulations,
an individual's statement(s) about his or her symptoms is not enough in
itself to establish the existence of a physical or mental impairment or
that the individual is disabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For an individual under age 18 claiming disability benefits
under title XVI who is unable to adequately describe his or her
symptom(s), the adjudicator will accept as a statement of this
symptom(s) the description given by the person most familiar with
the individual, such as a parent, other relative, or guardian. 20
CFR 416.928(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulations describe a two-step process for evaluating
symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness, or
nervousness:
First, the adjudicator must consider whether there is an
underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s)--
i.e., an impairment(s) that can be shown by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques--that could reasonably be
expected to produce the individual's pain or other symptoms.3 The
finding that an
[[Page 34485]]
individual's impairment(s) could reasonably be expected to produce the
individual's pain or other symptoms does not involve a determination as
to the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of the
individual's symptoms. If there is no medically determinable physical
or mental impairment(s), or if there is a medically determinable
physical or mental impairment(s) but the impairment(s) could not
reasonably be expected to produce the individual's pain or other
symptoms, the symptoms cannot be found to affect the individual's
ability to do basic work activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The adjudicator must develop evidence regarding the
possibility of a medically determinable mental impairment when the
record contains information to suggest that such an impairment
exists, and the individual alleges pain or other symptoms, but the
medical signs and laboratory findings do not substantiate any
physical impairment(s) capable of producing the pain or other
symptoms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, once an underlying physical or mental
impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the
individual's pain or other symptoms has been shown, the adjudicator
must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the
individual's symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms
limit the individual's ability to do basic work activities. For this
purpose, whenever the individual's statements about the intensity,
persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms
are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the adjudicator
must make a finding on the credibility of the individual's statements
based on a consideration of the entire case record. This includes the
medical signs and laboratory findings, the individual's own statements
about the symptoms, any statements and other information provided by
treating or examining physicians or psychologists and other persons
about the symptoms and how they affect the individual, and any other
relevant evidence in the case record. This requirement for a finding on
the credibility of the individual's statements about symptoms and their
effects is reflected in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4). These
provisions of the regulations provide that an individual's symptoms,
including pain, will be determined to diminish the individual's
capacity for basic work activities to the extent that the individual's
alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms can
reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical
evidence and other evidence in the case record.
When additional information is needed to assess the credibility of
the individual's statements about symptoms and their effects, the
adjudicator must make every reasonable effort to obtain available
information that could shed light on the credibility of the
individual's statements. In recognition of the fact that an
individual's symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity
of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence
alone, 20 CFR 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of
evidence, including the factors below, that the adjudicator must
consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing
the credibility of an individual's statements:
1. The individual's daily activities;
2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the
individual's pain or other symptoms;
3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms;
4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any
medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other
symptoms;
5. Treatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has
received for relief of pain or other symptoms;
6. Any measures other than treatment the individual uses or has
used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her
back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a
board); and
7. Any other factors concerning the individual's functional
limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.
Once the adjudicator has determined the extent to which the
individual's symptoms limit the individual's ability to do basic work
activities by making a finding on the credibility of the individual's
statements, the impact of the symptoms on the individual's ability to
function must be considered along with the objective medical and other
evidence, first in determining whether the individual's impairment or
combination of impairments is ``severe'' at step 2 of the sequential
evaluation process for determining disability and, as necessary, at
each subsequent step of the process.4 (See SSR 96-3p, ``Titles II
and XVI: Considering Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in
Determining Whether a Medically Determinable Impairment is Severe,''
and SSR 96-8p, ``Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional
Capacity in Initial Claims.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In determining whether the impairment(s) of an individual
claiming disability benefits under title II or an individual age 18
or older claiming disability benefits under title XVI is medically
equivalent to a listed impairment in appendix 1 of subpart P of 20
CFR Part 404, the adjudicator will not substitute allegations of
pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory
finding to raise the severity of the individual's impairment(s) to
that of a listed impairment. 20 CFR 404.1529(d)(3) and
416.929(d)(3). In determining whether the impairment(s) of an
individual under age 18 claiming disability benefits under title XVI
is equivalent to a listed impairment, if the adjudicator cannot find
equivalence based on medical evidence only, the adjudicator will
consider pain or another symptom(s) under 20 CFR 416.926a(b)(3) in
determining whether the individual has an impairment(s) that results
in overall functional limitations that are the same as the disabling
functional consequences of a listed impairment. 20 CFR
416.929(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Interpretation: A symptom is an individual's own description
of his or her physical or mental impairment(s). Once the existence of a
medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could
reasonably be expected to produce pain or other symptoms has been
established, adjudicators must recognize that individuals may
experience their symptoms differently and may be limited by their
symptoms to a greater or lesser extent than other individuals with the
same medical impairments and the same medical signs and laboratory
findings. Because symptoms, such as pain, sometimes suggest a greater
severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence
alone, any statements of the individual concerning his or her symptoms
must be carefully considered if a fully favorable determination or
decision cannot be made solely on the basis of objective medical
evidence.
If an individual's statements about pain or other symptoms are not
substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the adjudicator must
consider all of the evidence in the case record, including any
statements by the individual and other persons concerning the
individual's symptoms. The adjudicator must then make a finding on the
credibility of the individual's statements about symptoms and their
functional effects.
Credibility
In general, the extent to which an individual's statements about
symptoms can be relied upon as probative evidence in determining
whether the individual is disabled depends on the credibility of the
statements. In basic terms, the credibility of an individual's
statements about pain or other symptoms and their functional effects is
the degree to which the statements can be believed and accepted as
true. When evaluating the credibility of an individual's statements,
the adjudicator must consider the entire case record and give specific
reasons for the weight given to the individual's statements.
The finding on the credibility of the individual's statements
cannot be based on an intangible or intuitive notion about an
individual's credibility. The reasons for the credibility finding must
be grounded in the evidence and articulated in the determination or
[[Page 34486]]
decision. It is not sufficient to make a conclusory statement that
``the individual's allegations have been considered'' or that ``the
allegations are (or are not) credible.'' It is also not enough for the
adjudicator simply to recite the factors that are described in the
regulations for evaluating symptoms. The determination or decision must
contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by
the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to
make clear to the individual and to any subsequent reviewers the weight
the adjudicator gave to the individual's statements and the reasons for
that weight. This documentation is necessary in order to give the
individual a full and fair review of his or her claim, and in order to
ensure a well-reasoned determination or decision.
In making a finding about the credibility of an individual's
statements, the adjudicator need not totally accept or totally reject
the individual's statements. Based on a consideration of all of the
evidence in the case record, the adjudicator may find all, only some,
or none of an individual's allegations to be credible. The adjudicator
may also find an individual's statements, such as statements about the
extent of functional limitations or restrictions due to pain or other
symptoms, to be credible to a certain degree. For example, an
adjudicator may find credible an individual's statement that the
abilities to lift and carry are affected by symptoms, but find only
partially credible the individual's statements as to the extent of the
functional limitations or restrictions due to symptoms; i.e., that the
individual's abilities to lift and carry are compromised, but not to
the degree alleged. Conversely, an adjudicator may find credible an
individual's statement that symptoms limit his or her ability to
concentrate, but find that the limitation is greater than that stated
by the individual.
Moreover, a finding that an individual's statements are not
credible, or not wholly credible, is not in itself sufficient to
establish that the individual is not disabled. All of the evidence in
the case record, including the individual's statements, must be
considered before a conclusion can be made about disability.
Factors in Evaluating Credibility
Assessment of the credibility of an individual's statements about
pain or other symptoms and about the effect the symptoms have on his or
her ability to function must be based on a consideration of all of the
evidence in the case record. This includes, but is not limited to:
The medical signs and laboratory findings;
Diagnosis, prognosis, and other medical opinions provided
by treating or examining physicians or psychologists and other medical
sources; and
Statements and reports from the individual and from
treating or examining physicians or psychologists and other persons
about the individual's medical history, treatment and response, prior
work record and efforts to work, daily activities, and other
information concerning the individual's symptoms and how the symptoms
affect the individual's ability to work.
The adjudicator must also consider any observations about the
individual recorded by Social Security Administration (SSA) employees
during interviews, whether in person or by telephone. In instances
where the individual attends an administrative proceeding conducted by
the adjudicator, the adjudicator may also consider his or her own
recorded observations of the individual as part of the overall
evaluation of the credibility of the individual's statements.
Consideration of the individual's statements and the statements and
reports of medical sources and other persons with regard to the seven
factors listed in the regulations,5 along with any other relevant
information in the case record, including the information described
above, will provide the adjudicator with an overview of the
individual's subjective complaints. The adjudicator must then evaluate
all of this information and draw appropriate inferences and conclusions
about the credibility of the individual's statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The seven factors are also set out in the ``Introduction,''
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections provide additional guidelines for the
adjudicator to consider when evaluating the credibility of an
individual's statements.
Consistency
One strong indication of the credibility of an individual's
statements is their consistency, both internally and with other
information in the case record. The adjudicator must consider such
factors as:
The degree to which the individual's statements are
consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other
information provided by medical sources, including information about
medical history and treatment.
The consistency of the individual's own statements. The
adjudicator must compare statements made by the individual in
connection with his or her claim for disability benefits with
statements he or she made under other circumstances, when such
information is in the case record. Especially important are statements
made to treating or examining medical sources and to the ``other
sources'' defined in 20 CFR 404.1513(e) and 416.913(e). The adjudicator
must also look at statements the individual made to SSA at each prior
step of the administrative review process and in connection with any
concurrent claim or, when available, prior claims for disability
benefits under titles II and XVI. Likewise, the case record may contain
statements the individual made in connection with claims for other
types of disability benefits, such as workers' compensation, benefits
under programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, or private
insurance benefits. However, the lack of consistency between an
individual's statements and other statements that he or she has made at
other times does not necessarily mean that the individual's statements
are not credible. Symptoms may vary in their intensity, persistence,
and functional effects, or may worsen or improve with time, and this
may explain why the individual does not always allege the same
intensity, persistence, or functional effects of his or her symptoms.
Therefore, the adjudicator will need to review the case record to
determine whether there are any explanations for any variations in the
individual's statements about symptoms and their effects.
The consistency of the individual's statements with other
information in the case record, including reports and observations by
other persons concerning the individual's daily activities, behavior,
and efforts to work. This includes any observations recorded by SSA
employees in interviews and observations recorded by the adjudicator in
administrative proceedings.
Medical Evidence
Symptoms cannot be measured objectively through clinical or
laboratory diagnostic techniques; however, their effects can often be
clinically observed. The regulations at 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(2) and
416.929(c)(2) provide that objective medical evidence ``is a useful
indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the
intensity and persistence of'' an individual's symptoms and the effects
those symptoms may have on the
[[Page 34487]]
individual's ability to function. The examples in the regulations
(reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, and motor
disruption) illustrate findings that may result from, or be associated
with, the symptom of pain. When present, these findings tend to lend
credibility to an individual's allegations about pain or other symptoms
and their functional effects.
When there are medical signs and laboratory findings demonstrating
the existence of a medically determinable physical or mental
impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or
other symptoms, the adjudicator must always attempt to obtain any
available objective medical evidence concerning the intensity and
persistence of the pain or other symptoms, and, when such evidence is
obtained, must consider it in evaluating the individual's statements.
However, allegations concerning the intensity and persistence of pain
or other symptoms may not be disregarded solely because they are not
substantiated by objective medical evidence. A report of negative
findings from the application of medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques is one of the many factors that
appropriately are to be considered in the overall assessment of
credibility. However, the absence of objective medical evidence
supporting an individual's statements about the intensity and
persistence of pain or other symptoms is only one factor that the
adjudicator must consider in assessing an individual's credibility and
must be considered in the context of all the evidence.
Over time, there may also be medical signs and laboratory findings
that, though not directly supporting or refuting statements about the
intensity or persistence of pain or other symptoms, demonstrate
worsening or improvement of the underlying medical condition. Such
signs and findings may also help an adjudicator to draw appropriate
inferences about the credibility of an individual's statements.
Apart from the medical signs and laboratory findings, the medical
evidence, especially a longitudinal medical record, can be extremely
valuable in the adjudicator's evaluation of an individual's statements
about pain or other symptoms.
Important information about symptoms recorded by medical sources
and reported in the medical evidence may include:
Onset, description of the character and location of the
symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, frequency and
duration, course over time (e.g., whether worsening, improving, or
static), and daily activities. Very often, this information will have
been obtained by the medical source from the individual and may be
compared with the individual's other statements in the case record.
However, the evidence provided by a medical source may also contain
medical opinions of the source about the individual's symptoms and
their effects, and such opinions must be weighed applying the factors
in 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927.
A longitudinal record of any treatment and its success or
failure, including any side effects of medication.
Indications of other impairments, such as potential mental
impairments, that could account for the allegations.
Although longitudinal records showing regular contact with a
treating source are the most desirable, longitudinal medical records
can be valuable even when they are not treating source records. For
example, an individual may receive treatment at a clinic and see
different physicians, but the clinic records may still show a
longitudinal history of complaints and attempts at relief.
Medical Treatment History
In general, a longitudinal medical record demonstrating an
individual's attempts to seek medical treatment for pain or other
symptoms and to follow that treatment once it is prescribed lends
support to an individual's allegations of intense and persistent pain
or other symptoms for the purposes of judging the credibility of the
individual's statements. Persistent attempts by the individual to
obtain relief of pain or other symptoms, such as by increasing
medications, trials of a variety of treatment modalities in an attempt
to find one that works or that does not have side effects, referrals to
specialists, or changing treatment sources may be a strong indication
that the symptoms are a source of distress to the individual and
generally lend support to an individual's allegations of intense and
persistent symptoms.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The adjudicator must also remember that medical treatment
need not always be specifically for the relief of a symptom. Often,
treatment will be aimed at ameliorating the underlying medical
condition which, in turn, may result in improvement in symptoms. The
treatment may also cause symptoms as a side effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the individual's statements may be less credible
if the level or frequency of treatment is inconsistent with the level
of complaints, or if the medical reports or records show that the
individual is not following the treatment as prescribed and there are
no good reasons for this failure. However, the adjudicator must not
draw any inferences about an individual's symptoms and their functional
effects from a failure to seek or pursue regular medical treatment
without first considering any explanations that the individual may
provide, or other information in the case record, that may explain
infrequent or irregular medical visits or failure to seek medical
treatment. The adjudicator may need to recontact the individual or
question the individual at the administrative proceeding in order to
determine whether there are good reasons the individual does not seek
medical treatment or does not pursue treatment in a consistent manner.
The explanations provided by the individual may provide insight into
the individual's credibility. For example:
The individual's daily activities may be structured so as
to minimize symptoms to a tolerable level or eliminate them entirely,
avoiding physical or mental stressors that would exacerbate the
symptoms. The individual may be living with the symptoms, seeing a
medical source only as needed for periodic evaluation and renewal of
medications.
The individual's symptoms may not be severe enough to
prompt the individual to seek ongoing medical attention or may be
relieved with over-the-counter medications.
The individual may not take prescription medication
because the side effects are less tolerable than the symptoms.
The individual may be unable to afford treatment and may
not have access to free or low-cost medical services.
The individual may have been advised by a medical source
that there is no further, effective treatment that can be prescribed
and undertaken that would benefit the individual.
Medical treatment may be contrary to the teaching and
tenets of the individual's religion.
Other Sources of Information
Other sources may provide information from which inferences and
conclusions may be drawn about the credibility of the individual's
statements. Such sources may provide information about the seven
factors listed in the regulations and may be especially helpful in
establishing a longitudinal record. Examples of such sources include
public and private agencies, other practitioners, and nonmedical
sources such as family and friends.
[[Page 34488]]
Observations of the Individual
In instances in which the adjudicator has observed the individual,
the adjudicator is not free to accept or reject the individual's
complaints solely on the basis of such personal observations, but
should consider any personal observations in the overall evaluation of
the credibility of the individual's statements.
In evaluating the credibility of the individual's statements, the
adjudicator must also consider any observations recorded by SSA
personnel who previously interviewed the individual, whether in person
or by telephone.
Consideration of Findings by State Agency and Other Program Physicians
and Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council
Levels of Administrative Review
Under 20 CFR 404.1527(f) and 416.927(f), administrative law judges
and the Appeals Council are required to consider findings of fact by
State agency medical and psychological consultants and other program
physicians and psychologists about the existence and severity of an
individual's impairment(s), including the existence and severity of any
symptoms, as opinions of nonexamining physicians and psychologists.
Administrative law judges and the Appeals Council are not bound by any
State agency findings, but they may not ignore these opinions and must
explain the weight given to the opinions in their decisions. Therefore,
if the case record includes a finding by a State agency medical or
psychological consultant or other program physician or psychologist on
the credibility of the individual's statements about limitations or
restrictions due to symptoms, the adjudicator at the administrative law
judge or Appeals Council level of administrative review must consider
and weigh this opinion of a nonexamining source under the applicable
rules in 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 and must explain the weight given
to the opinion in the decision. (See SSR 96-6p, ``Titles II and XVI:
Consideration of Administrative Findings of Fact by State Agency
Medical and Psychological Consultants and Other Program Physicians and
Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council
Levels of Administrative Review; Medical Equivalence.'')
Effective Date: This Ruling is effective on July 2, 1996.
Cross-References: SSR 96-3p, ``Titles II and XVI: Considering
Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in Determining Whether a
Medically Determinable Impairment is Severe,'' SSR 96-8p, ``Titles II
and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims,''
SSR 96-6p, ``Titles II and XVI: Consideration of Administrative
Findings of Fact by State Agency Medical and Psychological Consultants
and Other Program Physicians and Psychologists at the Administrative
Law Judge and Appeals Council Levels of Administrative Review; Medical
Equivalence;'' and Program Operations Manual System, sections DI
24515.061 and DI 24515.064.B.3.
[FR Doc. 96-16690 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P