Welcome! This site is written for Social Security disability claimants, for their legal representatives, and for the network of people involved in the Social Security disability claim process. I hope you find it helpful.
Free Claim Review

Social Security has issued Ruling 24-3p, entitled: Titles II and XVI: Use of Occupational Information and Vocational Specialist and Vocational Expert Evidence in Disability Determinations and Decisions. The Ruling became effective January 6, 2025.

The new Ruling rescinds and replaces Ruling 00-4p. The new Ruling follows two emergency messages from last year, addressing certain outdated occupations in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

The HALLEX has also been updated. See “Testimony of a Vocational Expert” HALLEX I-2-6-74.

Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) is the amount of money that one can earn monthly and still qualify for Social Security disability benefits. The amount is adjusted each year for cost of living, as shown by this table. In 2024, the amount was $1,550 per month. This year, it rises to $1,620. SGA is based on gross pay, before payroll taxes are withheld.

The SGA amount is important for two groups of people:

  • A person applying for disability benefits must have (or be expected to have) a period of 12 consecutive months with wages below SGA (subject, of course, to the rules for unsuccessful work attempts and Impairment Related Work Expenses).
  • A person receiving Title II disability benefits can earn up to the SGA amount and still receive benefits (be sure to also take a look at the trial work rules).

For those receiving Title II disability benefits and working part-time, it is your responsibility to keep track of your monthly earnings and make sure they remain below the level of SGA.

Here in Maine and New Hampshire, where I attend Social Security disability hearings with administrative law judges, the hearing offices have caught up. Hearings are being scheduled promptly, with 75+ days notice, after the hearing request is processed. Many years ago, when I started handling these cases, the hearing offices had a large backlog of cases, and hearing delays were well over a year, sometimes 2 years. That was a long time to wait for a person unable to work to earn an income.

Social Security committed resources to improve the situation. Technology and the electronic claim file have certainly helped. It is terrific to see these cases move expeditiously now at the hearing level.

At the initial and reconsideration levels of review, however, delays have gotten worse. There seem to be enough disability adjudicators making determinations. And again, technology and the electronic claim file have helped, because claims can easily be transmitted to offices that have available capacity.

The problem is that each disability claim must go through a medical review, and there are simply not enough doctors reviewing these claims. After a disability adjudicator has gathered the medical records, a completed Work History Report, and an Adult Function Report, the claim goes into a queue for medical review. And it may sit in the queue for months before it is assigned to a doctor to review the claim and assess a residual functional capacity. Sometimes that in-house doctor will not have sufficient evidence, and a consultative exam is scheduled. That can add another 1-2 months to a claim, because there are a limited number of doctors conducting those examinations. As a result, some initial claims are taking 8-9 months for a determination. That is longer than it should be.

On this day in 2008, I published a post on this blog titled “Disability is Functionality.” All these years later, it remains true.

Claimants often are surprised to learn that their disability applications were denied even though their doctors provided a letter stating that their patient is disabled, or their medical records show that they have a severe medical condition. However, disability decisions are primarily based upon an individual’s functional capacity rather than a diagnosis.

To establish disability, a person must establish the functional limitations they experience due their diagnosed conditions, and that those limitations prevent ongoing work. Social Security will not connect the dots between a particular diagnosis and the ability to work. It is the claimant’s burden to prove.

The new fee cap, announced back in March, is now in effect. The relevant date for the fee cap is the date of the approval fee agreement. So if the fee agreement was approved prior to November 30, 2024 but is still unpaid, the previous cap of $7,200 applies. Social Security has announced that, in the future, the cap will be adjusted annually for inflation/cost of living.

Social Security has a new form 1693 reflecting the change. The new form does not reflect the specific cap amount (since it will be adjusted annually), but just limits the fee to “25 percent of your past-due (retroactive) benefits or a maximum dollar amount we set, whichever is less.”

The fee cap applies to fees approved via a fee agreement. It does not apply to fees charged via a fee petition.

Updated: 12/09/2024

Social Security is now using an updated version of its Work History Report, form SSA-3369-BK.

Of course, a new Work History form was necessary when the period of time for past relevant work was changed from 15 years to 5 years, streamlining the disability process. But Social Security took the opportunity to redesign the form as well, and to me the new form is much better than the previous version, and much more intuitive to complete.

A person’s mental health is often the basis of a disability claim. That person’s past relevant work (PRW) is often precluded by their mental health symptoms at Step 4 of the Social Security’s sequential evaluation. Frequently assessed functional limitations due to mental health symptoms, such as a limitations to “simple tasks” or “no interaction with the general public” are enough to eliminate that person’s ability to perform their PRW.

However, those limitations do not help much when considering the person’s ability to perform other work at Step 5 of the sequential evaluation. Limitations to “simple tasks” or “no interaction with the general public” do not prevent application of the Medical-Vocational guidelines at Step 5. A person with those mental health limitations alone will not be found disabled at Step 5 in the absence of physical impairments.

That is why I always explore physical issues in mental health claims, even when the client says that the reason they can’t work is their mental health. Their physical limitations can have an oversized effect in proving that they can’t perform other work at Step 5, due the the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, which use physical limitations and age as the primary vocational factors.

For those over the age of 55, that means a limitations to Light exertional work will direct a finding of “disabled.” The limitation to “simple tasks” due to mental health symptoms plays a role here as well, because a limitations to simple tasks precludes the transfer of acquired job skills. That combination of impairments is a winning combination for those over 55.

I had an in-person hearing at the Portland Hearing office last week, on September 10th. When I signed in, I noticed that no one had signed in to the hearing office since August 22nd, 3 weeks before. Sign-ins before that were similarly sparse.

The hearing offices used to have busy public spaces. Back in the day, there would be a full waiting room of people waiting for their hearings. Sometimes all four hearing rooms were occupied with judges holding hearings in disability cases. Today, the hearing offices are like ghost towns, and usually the only hearing room in use is the one for your hearing.

This is not because there are fewer hearings. Rather, video hearings (and to a lesser extent, telephone hearings) have taken over. Claimants and their Representatives do not need to travel to the hearing office for their hearing. They can stay at home and have the hearing on their laptop via Microsoft Teams, which operates like a Zoom call. The technology works great. Video hearings are a great benefit to claimants, to Representatives, and to ALJs.

When video hearings started years ago, I was skeptical due to a perceived “empathy gap.” I felt that there was a benefit for the client to be in person, in front of the judge, to give testimony. I was getting better outcomes with in-person hearings. But now that the judges are holding most of their hearings this way, I am no longer seeing the empathy gap. Everyone has gotten used to the technology.

Sometimes my client wants to go in person, and that is always fine. But I no longer tell my clients that an in-person hearing is strongly preferred. The video hearings get the same results.

There is one drawback. Once a claimant opts in for a video or telephone hearing, that hearing can then be conducted by a judge in an out-of-state hearing office. I have had video hearings assigned to judges in New Hampshire, upstate New York, and most recently, Rhode Island. Now all these hearings had great outcomes. But I know the judges here at home pretty well, and having the case heard by a new judge adds additional uncertainty to the hearing process.