POMS: about POMS & ALJs

JOA · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 2021

After an Administrative Law Judge issues a decision finding that in individual is disabled, the case travels to what's normally called the "effectuating component." That's the part of SSA responsible for seeing that payments are issued. There's a mechanism available for effectuating components to point out that a particular decision has really serious problems. One example—a situation that comes up quite regularly although not all that frequently—is a decision that finds onset of disability after the point at which the applicant last met the earnings requirements of the Social Security Act (the "date last insured").

The solution for these kinds of very serious problems in most instances is to ask the Appeals Council to invoke its authority to do something about it. The instructions for how to go about doing this for SSI hearing decisions can be found at POMS SI 04030.060. Some of the language for this POMS section is likely to interest at least some part of the Connect audience. I'll let you pick out the interesting language for yourself (emphasis in the original):

catherine g. ratliff · Joined: 12 May 2004 Posts: 20 Location: Hot Springs, SD

The 8th circuit considers POMS to be the Commissioner's interpretations. As such, the ALJ must show s/he considered the applicable POMS.

See Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418, 424 (8th Cir. 2003)
Although POMS guidelines do not have legal force, and do not bind the Commissioner, this court has instructed that an ALJ should consider the POMS guidelines. Berger v. Apfel, 200 F.3d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir.2000); List v. Apfel, 169 F.3d 1148, 1150 (8th Cir.1999).

jayteef · Joined: 21 Jun 2009 Posts: 270

If a POMS guideline is incorporated in an SSR, then is POMS binding under GN 01010.800? "…SSRs are precedents of general applicability and are binding on all components of SSA in determining other cases where the issue is the same and the facts are similar until the ruling is superseded, modified or revoked by later legislation, regulations, court decisions or rulings."

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0201010800

Of course, this is also from POMS (which is not binding....)

MikeWalters · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1315 Location: Cincinnati OH

A couple of things about rulings: 1) Once incorporated in a ruling, the source of the language is irrelevant. The language could come from the Weekly World News. Once published in a ruling, the only question is whether rulings are binding. 2) I have occasionally heard an ALJ question the binding affect of a particular ruling (Judgmental comes to mind) but it really isn't controversial that rulings are binding on all administrative components of SSA, including ALJs. The language you quoted from POMS is (I think) also used elsewhere in the regs. Further, the first sentence of the preface to the rulings on SSA's website says:

Guest · Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 05:07 am Post subject:

Thanks for the clarification! The link you provided also answered another question that came up for me recently.

It says "All references to individuals or specific businesses involved have been avoided so as not to disclose confidential information, unless already a matter of public record, as in a Federal court decision."

The other day I was looking at PR 01215.016 Illinois https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/1501215016

I was surprised to see that they mentioned the man's full name three times, especially as they are discussing children involved. It certainly seemed to be violating their privacy.

As they deleted the last name (except for the initial) in most of the references, I would assume the times they left the full name in were most likely errors. But still, it seems like someone would have noticed at some point and corrected the error.

Guest · Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 08:15 pm Post subject:

I have another question about POMS and the ALJ. Can the ALJ selectively apply POMS?

For instance, if there is one portion of the claim in which the POMS interpretation is more favorable to the claimant and another portion of the claim in which the POMS interpretation is less favorable to the claimant - can the ALJ use the less favorable POMS interpretation to deny one part of the claim, yet still remain "not bound" by POMS in respect to the portion of the claim in which POMS is more favorable?

Or if the ALJ uses a POMS interpretation in any part of the decision, would that make POMS interpretations valid arguments for other parts of the decision?