Aspects of Disability Decision Making: Data and Materials

1980 In response to rapid growth of the Disability Insurance and SSI disability programs in the 1970s,Congress passed The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96‐265), which modifiedthe DI benefit computation and included provisions that required the government to:■■issue regulations defining performance standards for State disability determination services(DDSs), the State agencies that make disability decision for SSA;■■review a specified percentage of DDS allowances before paying benefits;■■assume the disability determination function from a DDS if the DDS substantially fails tofollow Federal regulations and guidelines or if the State no longer wishes to make the determinations;■■implement a program to review decisions made by SSA administrative law judges (ALJs) andreport to Congress on the progress of the program; and■■review the status of disabled individuals with non-permanent disabilities at least every threeyears (by conducting continuing disability reviews, or CDRs).The amendments also contained a number of provisions designed to encourage DI and/or SSI disabilitybeneficiaries to return to work, including:■■continuation of benefits while a beneficiary is in vocational rehabilitation;■■disregard of certain impairment-related work expenses when determining whether the individualis engaging in substantial gainful activity;■■re‐entitlement to benefits for individuals whose attempts to return to work prove unsuccessful;and■■extension of Medicare coverage for individuals after benefits cease due to work activity.The amendments also included temporary authority for return-to-work demonstration projectsand administrative provisions that limited the circumstances under which a case may be remandedby a court.1981 In Finnegan v. Mathews, 641 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.1981), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals restrictedthe government’s ability to terminate SSI payments to beneficiaries who had been grandfatheredinto the SSI program from the former State‐run assistance programs. SSA issued a rulingof “non-acquiescence,” i.e., a statement that it would not apply the decision beyond the case athand on the grounds that the court’s standard would be impossible to administer.A bipartisan National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the GreenspanCommission) was appointed by the President and Congressional leaders to study Social Security’sshort-term financing crisis and make recommendations for how to deal with the crisis.1982 SSA issued the first of a series of new Social Security Rulings (SSRs) that had a significant impacton agency disability policy. (SSRs are a series of precedential decisions relating to the programsadministrated by SSA and are published under the authority of the Commissioner of Social Security.Although SSRs do not have the weight as laws or regulations, they are binding on all decisionmakers within the agency.) The new rulings addressed a number of complex and sometimescontroversial program issues, including what constitutes a “severe” impairment, use of the Listingof Impairments, evaluation of residual functional capacity, consideration of past relevant work,and the use of SSA’s “grid” rules.In Patti v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 582 (9 th Cir. 1982), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that thegovernment could not terminate SSI disability benefits after a CDR unless it showed that the beneficiary’scondition had improved. SSA issued a ruling stating that it would not apply the court’sdecision to other cases (SSR 82-49c). Over the next two years, similar circuit court rulings followedin most of the other circuits, and the government faced numerous class actions across thecountry challenging its policy. In addition to these court challenges, there was increasing publicand Congressional criticism throughout 1981 and 1982 about SSA’s implementation of the CDRrequirements of the 1980 amendments.Aspects of Disability Decision Making: Data and Materials 91