In the autumn of 2016, People With Disabilities Foundation (PWDF) submitted public comments and recommendations on two SSA NPRMs, one related to the evaluation of medical evidence in disability cases and the other related to the rules of conduct for appointed representatives. PWDF is a § 501(c)(3) nonprofit agency with expertise in medical (psychiatric and/or developmental)-legal issues and based these comments on its 16‑year history of providing legal representation for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) issues for people with psychiatric and/or developmental disabilities.

PWDF submitted commentary on SSA Docket 2012-0035, “Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence.” In PWDF’s commentary, we addressed the importance of ensuring that evidence of claimants’ impairments is properly considered and weighed, especially when the evidence derives from multiple sources or is inconsistent. We are particularly concerned about the SSA’s attempt to circumvent the “Treating Source Rule” by proposing that evidence from chart readers (SSA’s contractor, Disability Determination Services doctors and analysts) who have never seen the patient be given equal or controlling weight over that of claimants’ treating medical sources, who know their patients over longer periods of time and are; therefore, in a position to give the most accurate evidence.

This is particularly critical for people with mental impairments, for whom the treating source relationship is likely to be more important than that for people with physical disabilities. Many of the proposed regulations appear to be attempts by the SSA to circumvent federal appeals court rulings that provide such protections to claimants. You can read our full comments here.

PWDF also submitted public comments to the SSA with recommendations regarding Docket SSA-2013-0044, “Revisions to Rules of Conduct and Standards of Responsibility for Appointed Representatives.” PWDF is concerned that some SSA rules create barriers for people with mental and/or developmental disabilities. People with impairments due to these types of disabilities may need more flexibility in the disability adjudication and review process because of communication issues. You can read our full comments here.