20 C.F.R. Subpart O—Continuing or Stopping Disability Due to Substantial Gainful Activity or Medical Improvement
Title 20 - Employees' Benefits
If the annuitant is entitled to a disability annuity because he or she is disabled for any regular employment, the annuitant should promptly tell the Board if— (a) His or her impairment(s) improves; (b) He or she returns to work; (c) He or she increases the amount of work; or (d) His or her earnings increase. There is a statutory requirement that, if an annuitant is entitled to a disability annuity, the annuitant's continued entitlement to such an annuity must be reviewed periodically until the employee or child annuitant reaches full retirement age and the widow(er) annuitant reaches age 60. When the annuitant is entitled to a disability annuity as a disabled employee, disabled widow(er) or as a person disabled since childhood, there are a number of factors to be considered in deciding whether his or her disability continues. The Board must first consider whether the annuitant has worked and, by doing so, demonstrated the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. If so, the disability will end. If the annuitant has not demonstrated the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity, then the Board must determine if there has been any medical improvement in the annuitant's impairment(s) and, if so, whether this medical improvement is related to the annuitant's ability to work. If an impairment(s) has not medically improved, the Board must consider whether one or more of the exceptions to medical improvement applies. If medical improvement related to ability to work has not occurred and no exception applies, the disability will continue. Even the medical improvement related to ability to work has occurred or an exception applies (see §220.179 for exceptions), in most cases the Board must also show that the annuitant is currently able to engage in substantial gainful activity before it can find that the annuitant is no longer disabled. [56 FR 12980, Mar. 28, 1991, as amended at 68 FR 39010, July 1, 2003] There are several terms and definitions which are important to know in order to understand how the Board reviews whether a disability for any regular employment continues: (a) Medical improvement. Medical improvement is any decrease in the medical severity of an impairment(s) which was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision that the annuitant was disabled or continued to be disabled. A determination that there has been a decrease in medical severity must be based on a comparison of prior and current medical evidence showing changes (improvement) in the symptoms, signs or laboratory findings associated with the impairment(s). Example 1: The claimant was awarded a disability annuity due to a herniated disc. At the time of the Board's prior decision granting the claimant an annuity he had had a laminectomy.
Postoperatively, a myelogram still shows evidence of a persistant deficit in his lumbar spine. He had pain in his back, and pain and a burning sensation in his right foot and leg. There were no muscle weakness or neurological changes and a modest decrease in motion in his back and leg. When the Board reviewed the annuitant's claim to determine whether his disability should be continued, his treating physician reported that he had seen the annuitant regularly every 2 to 3 months for the past 2 years. No further myelograms had been done, complaints of pain in the back and right leg continued especially on sitting or standing for more than a short period of time. The annuitant's doctor further reported a moderately decreased range of motion in the annuitant's back and right leg, but again no muscle atrophy or neurological changes were reported. Medical improvement has not occurred because there has been no decrease in the severity of the annuitant's back impairment as shown by changes in symptoms, signs or laboratory findings. Example 2: The claimant was awarded a disability annuity due to rheumatoid arthritis. At the time, laboratory findings were positive for this impairment. The claimant's doctor reported persistent swelling and tenderness of the claimant's fingers and wrists and that he complained of joint pain. Current medical evidence shows that while laboratory tests are still positive for rheumatoid arthritis, the annuitant's impairment has responded favorably to therapy so that for the last year his fingers and wrists have not been significantly swollen or painful. Medical improvement has occurred because there has been a decrease in the severity of the annuitant's impairment as documented by the current symptoms and signs reported by his physician. Although the annuitant's impairment is subject to temporary remission and exacerbations, the improvement that has occurred has been sustained long enough to permit a finding of medical improvement. The Board would then determine if this medical improvement is related to the annuitant's ability to work. (b) Medical improvement not related to ability to do work. Medical improvement is not related to the annuitant's ability to work if there has been a decrease in the severity of the impairment(s) (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision, but no increase in that annuitant's functional capacity to do basic work activities as defined in paragraph (d) of this section. If there has been any medical improvement in an annuitant's impairment(s), but it is not related to the annuitant's ability to do work and none of the exceptions applies, the annuity will be continued. Example: An annuitant was 65 inches tall and weighed 246 pounds at the time his disability was established. He had venous insufficiency and persistent edema in his legs. At the time, the annuitant's ability to do basic work activities was affected because he was able to sit for 6 hours, but was able to stand or walk only occasionally. At the time of the Board's continuing disability review, the annuitant had undergone a vein stripping operation. He now weighed 220 pounds and had intermittent edema. He is still able to sit for 6 hours at a time and to stand or walk only occasionally although he reports less discomfort on walking. Medical improvement has occurred because there has been a decrease in the severity of the existing impairment as shown by his weight loss and the improvement in his edema. This medical improvement is not related to his ability to work, however, because his functional capacity to do basic work activities (i.e., the ability to sit, stand and walk) has not increased. (c) Medical improvement that is related to ability to do work. Medical improvement is related to an annuitant's ability to work if there has been a decrease in the severity (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) of the impairment(s) present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision and an increase in the annuitant's functional capacity to do basic work activities as discussed in paragraph (d) of this section. A determination that medical improvement related to an annuitant's ability to do work has occurred does not, necessarily, mean that such annuitant's disability will be found to have ended unless it is also shown that the annuitant is currently able to engage in substantial gainful activity as discussed in paragraph (e) of this section. Example 1: The annuitant has a back impairment and has had a laminectomy to relieve the nerve root impingement and weakness in his left leg. At the time of the Board's prior decision, basic work activities were affected because he was able to stand less than 6 hours, and sit no more than Example 2: The annuitant was injured in an automobile accident receiving a compound fracture to his right femur and a fractured pelvis. When he applied for disability annuity 10 months after the accident his doctor reported that neither fracture had yet achieved solid union based on his clinical examination. X-rays supported this finding. The annuitant's doctor estimated that solid union and a subsequent return to full weight bearing would not occur for at least 3 more months. At the time of the Board's review 6 months later, solid union had occurred and the annuitant had been returned to full weight-bearing for over a month. His doctor reported this and the fact that his prior fractures no longer placed any limitation on his ability to walk, stand, and lift, and, that in fact, he could return to full-time work if he so desired.
Medical improvement has occurred because there has been a decrease in the severity of the annuitant's impairments as shown by x-ray and clinical evidence of solid union and his return to full weight-bearing. This medical improvement is related to his ability to work because he no longer meets the same listed impairment in appendix 1 of this part (see §220.178(c)(1)). Whether or not the annuitant's disability is found to have ended will depend on the Board's determination as to whether he can currently engage in substantial gainful activity. (d) Functional capacity to do basic work activities. (1) Under the law, disability is defined, in part, as the inability to do any regular employment by reason of a physical or mental impairment(s). “Regular employment” is defined in this part as “substantial gainful activity.” In determining whether the annuitant is disabled under the law, the Board will measure, therefore, how and to what extent the annuitant's impairment(s) has affected his or her ability to do work. The Board does this by looking at how the annuitant's functional capacity for doing basic work activities has been affected. Basic work activities means the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs. Included are exertional abilities such as walking, standing, pushing, pulling, reaching and carrying, and nonexertional abilities and aptitudes such as seeing, hearing, speaking, remembering, using judgment, dealing with changes in a work setting and dealing with both supervisors and fellow workers. The annuitant who has no impairment(s) would be able to do all basic work activities at normal levels; he or she would have an unlimited functional capacity to do basic work activities. Depending on its nature and severity, an impairment(s) will result in some limitation to the functional capacity to do one or more of these basic work activities. Diabetes, for example, can result in circulatory problems which could limit the length of time the annuitant could stand or walk and can result in damage to his or her eyes as well, so that the annuitant also had limited vision. What the annuitant can still do, despite his or her impairment(s), is called his or her residual functional capacity. How the residual functional capacity is assessed is discussed in more detail in §220.120. Unless an impairment is so severe that it is deemed to prevent the annuitant from doing substantial gainful activity (i.e., the impairment(s) meets or equals the severity of a listed impairment in appendix 1 of this part), it is this residual functional capacity that is used to determine whether the annuitant can still do his or her past work or, in conjunction with his or her age, education and work experience, do any other work. (2) A decrease in the severity of an impairment as measured by changes (improvement) in symptoms, signs or laboratory findings can, if great enough, result in an increase in the functional capacity to do work activities. Vascular surgery (e.g., femoropopliteal bypass) may sometimes reduce the severity of the circulatory complications of diabetes so that better circulation results and the annuitant can stand or walk for longer periods. When new evidence showing a change in medical findings establishes that both medical improvement has occurred and the annuitant's functional capacity to perform basic work activities, or residual functional capacity, has increased, the Board will find that medical improvement which is related to the annuitant's ability to do work has occurred. A residual functional capacity assessment is also used to determine whether an annuitant can engage in substantial gainful activity and, thus, whether he or she continues to be disabled (see paragraph (e) of this section). (3) Many impairment-related factors must be considered in assessing an annuitant's functional capacity for basic work activities. Age is one key factor. Medical literature shows that there is a gradual decrease in organ function with age; that major losses and deficits become irreversible over time and that maximum exercise performance diminishes with age. Other changes related to sustained periods of inactivity and the aging process include muscle atrophy, degenerative joint changes, decrease in range of motion, and changes in the cardiac and respiratory systems which limit the exertional range. (4) Studies have also shown that the longer the annuitant is away from the workplace and is inactive, the more difficult it becomes to return to ongoing gainful employment. In addition, a gradual change occurs in most jobs so that after about 15 years, it is no longer realistic to expect that skills and abilities acquired in these jobs will continue to apply to the current workplace. Thus, if the annuitant is age 50 or over and had been receiving a disability annuity for a considerable period of time, the Board will consider this factor along with his or her age in assessing the residual functional capacity. This will ensure that the disadvantages resulting from inactivity and the aging process during a longer period of disability will be considered. In some instances where available evidence does not resolve what the annuitant can or cannot do on a sustained basis, the Board may provide special work evaluations or other appropriate testing. (e) Ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. In most instances, the Board must show that the annuitant is able to engage in substantial gainful activity before stopping his or her annuity. When doing this, the Board will consider all of the annuitant's current impairments not just that impairment(s) present at the time of the most recent favorable determination. If the Board cannot determine that the annuitant is still disabled based on medical considerations alone (as discussed in §§220.110 through 220.115), it will use the new symptoms, signs and laboratory findings to make an objective assessment of functional capacity to do basic work activities (or residual functional capacity) and will consider vocational factors. See §§220.120 through 220.134. (f) Evidence and basis for the Board's decision. The Board's decisions under this section will be made on a neutral basis without any initial inference as to the presence or absence of disability being drawn from the fact that the annuitant had previously been determined to be disabled. The Board will consider all of the evidence the annuitant submits. An annuitant must give the Board reports from his or her physician, psychologist, or others who have treated or evaluated him or her, as well as any other evidence that will help the board determine if he or she is still disabled (see §220.45). The annuitant must have a good reason for not giving the Board this information or the Board may find that his or her disability has ended (see §220.178(b)(2)). If the Board asks the annuitant, he or she must contact his or her medical sources to help the Board get the medical reports. The Board will make every reasonable effort to help the annuitant in getting medical reports when he or she gives the Board permission to request them from his or her physician, psychologist, or other medical sources, Every reasonable effort means that the Board will make an initial request and, after 20 days, one follow-up request to the annuitant's medical source to obtain the medical evidence necessary to make a determination before the Board evaluates medical evidence obtained from another source on a consultative basis. The medical source will have 10 days from the follow-up to reply (unless experience indicates that a longer period is advisable in a particular case). In some instances the Board may order a consultative examination while awaiting receipt of medical source evidence. Before deciding that an annuitant's disability has ended, the Board will develop a complete medical history covering at least the preceding 12 months (See §220.45(b)). A consultative examination may be purchased when the Board needs additional evidence to determine whether or not an annuitant's disability continues. As a result, the Board may ask the annuitant, upon the Board request and reasonable notice, to undergo consultative examinations and tests to help the Board determine whether the annuitant is still disabled (see §220.50). The Board will decide whether or not to purchase a consultative examination in accordance with the standards in §§220.53 through 220.54. (g) Point of comparison. For purposes of determining whether medical improvement has occurred, the Board will compare the current medical severity of that impairment(s), which was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision that the annuitant was disabled or continued to be disabled, to the medical severity of that impairment(s) at that time. If medical improvement has occurred, the Board will compare the annuitant's current functional capacity to do basic work activities (i.e., his or her residual functional capacity) based on this previously existing impairment(s) with the annuitant's prior residual functional capacity in order to determine whether the medical improvement is related to his or her ability to do work. The most recent favorable medical decision is the latest decision involving a consideration of the medical evidence and the issue of whether the annuitant was disabled or continued to be disabled which became final. (a) General. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of §220.177 discuss what is meant by medical improvement, medical improvement not related to the ability to work and medical improvement that is related to the ability to work. How the Board will arrive at the decision that medical improvement has occurred and its relationship to the ability to do work, is discussed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. (b) Determining if medical improvement is related to ability to work. If there is a decrease in medical severity as shown by the symptoms, signs and laboratory findings, the Board then must determine if it is related to the annuitant's ability to do work. In §220.177(d) the relationship between medical severity and limitation on functional capacity to do basic work activities (or residual functional capacity) and how changes in medical severity can affect the annuitant's residual functional capacity is explained. In determining whether medical improvement that has occurred is related to the annuitant's ability to do work, the Board will assess the annuitant's residual functional capacity (in accordance with §220.177(d)) based on the current severity of the impairment(s) which was present at that annuitant's last favorable medical decision. The annuitant's new residual functional capacity will then be compared to the annuitant's residual functional capcity at the time of the Board's most recent favorable medical decision. Unless an increase in the current residual functional capacity is based on changes in the signs, symptoms, or laboratory findings, any medical improvement that has occurred will not be considered to be related to the annuitant's ability to do work. (c) Additional factors and considerations. The Board will also apply the following in its determinations of medical improvement and its relationship to the annuitant's ability to do work: (1) Previous impairment met or equaled listings. If the Board's most recent favorable decision was based on the fact that the annuitant's impairment(s) at the time met or equaled the severity contemplated by the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 of this part, an assessment of his or her residual functional capacity would not have been made. If medical improvement has occurred and the severity of the prior impairment(s) no longer meets or equals the same listing, the Board will find that the medical improvement was related to the annuitant's ability to work. Appendix 1 of this part describes impairments which, if severe enough, affect the annuitant's ability to work. If the Listing level of severity is met or equaled, the annuitant is deemed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. If there has been medical improvement to the degree that the requirement of the listing is no longer met or equaled, then the medical improvement is related to the annuitant's ability to work. The Board must, of course, also establish that the annuitant can currenlty engage in gainful activity before finding that his or her disability has ended. (2) Prior residual functional capacity assessment made. The residual functional capacity assessment used in making the most recent favorable medical decision will be compared to the residual functional capacity assessment based on current evidence in order to determine if an annuitant's functional capacity for basic work activities has increased. There will be no attempt made to reassess the prior residual functional capacity. (3) Prior residual functional capacity assessment should have been made, but was not. If the most recent favorable medical decision should have contained an assessment of the annuitant's residual functional capacity (i.e., his or her impairment(s) did not meet or equal the level of severity contemplated by the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 of this part) but does not, either because this assessment is missing from the annuitant's file or because it was not done, the Board will reconstruct the residual functional capacity. This reconstructed residual functional capacity will accurately and objectively assess the annuitant's functional capacity to do basic work activities. The Board will assign the maximum functional capacity consistent with an allowance. Example: The annuitant was previously found to be disabled on the basis that while his impairment did not meet or equal a listing, it did prevent him from doing his past or any other work. The prior adjudicator did not, however, include a residual functional capacity assessment in the rationale of that decision and a review of the prior evidence does not show that such an assessment was ever made. If a decrease in medical severity, i.e., medical improvement, has occurred, the residual functional capacity based on the current level of severity of the annuitant's impairment will have to be compared with his residual functional capacity based on its prior severity in order to determine if the medical improvement is related to his ability to do work. In order to make this comparison, the Board will review the prior evidence and make an objective assessment of the annuitant's residual functional capacity at the time of its most recent favorable medical determination, based on the symptoms, signs and laboratory findings as they then existed. (4) Impairment subject to temporary remission. In some cases the evidence shows that the annuitant's impairment(s) are subject to temporary remission. In assessing whether medical improvement has occurred in annuitants with this type of impairment(s), the Board will be careful to consider the longitudinal history of the impairment(s), including the occurrence of prior remission, and prospects for future worsenings. Improvement in such impairment(s) that is only temporary, i.e., less than 1 year, will not warrant a finding of medical improvement. (5) Prior file cannot be located. If the prior file cannot be located, the Board will first determine whether the annuitant is able to now engage in substantial gainful activity based on all of his or her current impairments. (In this way, the Board will be able to determine that his or her disability continues at the earliest point without addressing the often lengthy process of reconstructing prior evidence.) If the annuitant cannot engage in substantial gainful activity currently, his or her disability will continue unless one of the second group of exceptions applies (see §220.179(b)). (a) First group of exceptions to medical improvement. The law provides for certain limited situations when the annuitant's disability can be found to have ended even though medical improvement has not occurred, if he or she can engage in substantial gainful activity. These exceptions to medical improvement are intended to provide a way of finding that the annuitant is no longer disabled in those limited situations where, even though there has been no decrease in severity of the impairment(s), evidence shows that the annuitant should no longer be considered disabled or never should have been considered disabled. If one of these exceptions applies, the Board must also show that, taking all of the annuitant's current impairment(s) into account, not just those that existed at the time of the Board's most recent favorable medical decision, the annuitant is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity before his or her disability can be found to have ended. As part of the review process, the annuitant will be asked about any medical or vocational therapy that he or she has received or is receiving. Those answers and the evidence gathered as a result as well as all other evidence, will serve as the basis for the finding that an exception applies. (1) Substantial evidence shows that the annuitant is the beneficiary of advances in medical or vocational therapy or technology (related to his or her ability to work). Advances in medical or vocational therapy or technology are improvements in treatment or rehabilitative methods which have increased the annuitant's ability to do basic work activities. The Board will apply this exception when substantial evidence shows that the annuitant has been the beneficiary of services which reflect these advances and they have favorably affected the severity of his or her impairment(s) or ability to do basic work activities. This decision will be based on new medical evidence and a new residual functional capacity assessment. In many instances, an advanced medical therapy or technology will result in a decrease in severity as shown by symptoms, signs and laboratory findings which will meet the definition of medical improvement. This exception will, therefore, see very limited application. (2) Substantial evidence shows that the annuitant has undergone vocational therapy (related to his or her ability to work). Vocational therapy (related to the annuitant's ability to work) may include, but is not limited to, additional education, training, or work experience that improves his or her ability to meet the vocational requirements of more jobs. This decision will be based on substantial evidence which includes new medical evidence and a new residual functional capacity assessment. If, at the time of the Board's review the annuitant has not completed vocational therapy which could affect the continuance of his or her disability, the Board will review such annuitant's claim upon completion of the therapy. Example 1: The annuitant was found to be disabled because the limitations imposed on him by his impairment(s) allowed him to only do work that was at a sedentary level of exertion. The annuitant's prior work experience was work that required a medium level of exertion with no acquired skills that could be transferred to sedentary work. His age, education, and past work experience at the time did not qualify him for work that was below this medium level of exertion. The annuitant enrolled in and completed a specialized training course which qualifies him for a job in data processing as a computer programmer in the period since he was awarded a disability annuity. On review of his claim, current evidence shows that there is no medical improvement and that he can still do only sedentary work. As the work of a computer programmer is sedentary in nature, he is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity when his new skills are considered. Example 2: The annuitant was previously entitled to a disability annuity because the medical evidence and assessment of his residual functional capacity showed he could only do light work. His prior work was considered to be of a heavy exertional level with no acquired skills that could be transferred to light work. His age, education, and past work experience did not qualify him for work that was below the heavy level of exertion. The current evidence and residual functional capacity show there has been no medical improvement and that he can still do only light work. Since he was originally entitled to a disability annuity, his vocational rehabilitation agency enrolled him in and he successfully completed a trade school course so that he is now qualified to do small appliance repair. This work is light in nature, so when his new skills are considered, he is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity even though there has been no change in his residual functional capacity. (3) Substantial evidence shows that based on new or improved diagnostic or evaluative techniques the annuitant's impairment(s) is not as disabling as it was considered to be at the time of the most recent favorable decision. Changing methodologies and advances in medical and other diagnostic or evaluative techniques have given, and will continue to give, rise to improved methods for measuring and documenting the effect of various impairments on the ability to do work. Where, by such new or improved methods, substantial evidence shows that the annuitant's impairment(s) is not as severe as was determined at the time of the Board's most recent favorable medical decision, such evidence may serve as a basis for finding that the annuitant can engage in substantial gainful activity and is no longer disabled. In order to be used under this exception, however, the new or improved techniques must have become generally available after the date of the Board's most recent favorable medical decision. (i) How the Board will determine which methods are new or improved techniques and when they become generally available. New or improved diagnostic techniques or evalutions will come to the Board's attention by several methods. In reviewing cases, the Board often becomes aware of new techniques when their results are presented as evidence. Such techniques and evalutions are also discussed and acknowledged in medical literature by medical professional groups and other governmental entities. Through these sources, the Board develops listings of new techniques and when they become generally available. (ii) How the annuitant will know which methods are new or improved techniques and when they become generally available. The Board will let annuitants know which methods it considers to be new or improved techniques and when they become available. Some of the future changes in the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 of this part will be based on new or improved diagnostic or evaluative techniques. Such listings changes will clearly state this fact as they are published as Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and the new or improved techniques will be considered generally available as of the date of the final publication of that particular listing in the Example: The electrocardiographic exercise test has replaced the Master's 2-step test as a measurement of heart function since the time of the annuitant's last favorable medical decision. Current evidence shows that the annuitant's impairment, which was previously evaluated based on the Master's 2-step test, is not now as disabling as was previously thought. If, taking all his current impairments into account, the annuitant is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity, this exception would be used to find that he is no longer disabled even if medical improvement has not occurred. (4) Substantial evidence demonstrates that any prior disability decision was in error. The Board will apply the exception to medical improvement based on error if substantial evidence (which may be evidence on the record at the time any prior determination of the entitlement to an annuity based on disability was made, or newly obtained evidence which relates to that determination) demonstrates that a prior determination was in error. A prior determination will be found in error only if: (i) Substantial evidence shows on its face that the decision in question should not have been made (e.g., the evidence in file such as pulmonary function study values was misread or an adjudicative standard such as a listing in appendix 1 of this part or a medical/vocational rule in appendix 2 of this part was misapplied). Example 1: The annuitant was granted a disability annuity when it was determined that his epilepsy met Listing 11.02. This listing calls for a finding of major motor seizures more frequently than once a month as documented by EEG evidence and by a detailed description of a typical seizure pattern. As history of either diurnal episodes or nocturnal episodes with residuals interfering with daily activities is also required. On review, it is found that a history of the frequency of his seizures showed that they occurred only once or twice a year. The prior decision would be found to be in error, and whether the annuitant was still considered to be disabled would be based on whether he could currently engage in substantial gainful activity. Example 2: The annuitant's prior award of a disability annuity was based on vocational rule 201.14 in appendix 2 of this part. This rule applies to a person age 50–54 who has at least a high school education, whose previous work was entirely at semiskilled level, and who can do only sedentary work. On review it is found that at the time of the prior determination the annuitant was actually only age 46 and vocational rule 201.21 should have been used. This rule would have called for a denial of his claim and the prior decision is found to have been in error. Continuation of his disability would depend on a finding of his current inability to engage in substantial gainful activity. (ii) At the time of the prior evaluation, required and material evidence of the severity of the annuitant's impairment(s) was missing. That evidence becomes available upon review, and substantial evidence demonstrates that had such evidence been present at the time of the prior determination, disability would not have been found. Example: The annuitant was found disabled on the basis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The severity of his impairment was documented primarily by pulmonary function testing results. The evidence showed that he could do only light work. Spirometric tracings of this testing, although required, were not obtained, however. On review, the original report is resubmitted by the consultative examining physician along with the corresponding spirometric tracings. A review of the tracings shows that the test was invalid. Current pulmonary function testing supported by spirometric tracings reveals that the annuitant's impairment does not limit his ability to perform basic work activities in any way. Error is found based on the fact that required material evidence, which was originally missing, now becomes available and shows that if it had been available at the time of the prior determination, disability would not have been found. (iii) Substantial evidence which is new evidence relating to the prior determination (of allowance or continuance) refutes the conclusions that were based upon the prior evidence (e.g., a tumor thought to be malignant was later shown to have actually been benign). Substantial evidence must show that had the new evidence (which relates to the prior determination) been considered at the time of the prior decision, the disability would not have been allowed or continued. A substitution of current judgment for that used in the prior favorable decision will not be the basis for applying this exception. Example: The annuitant was previously found entitled to a disability annuity on the basis of diabetes mellitus which the prior adjudicator believed was equivalent to the level of severity contemplated in the Listing of Impairments. The prior record shows that the annuitant has “brittle” diabetes for which he was taking insulin. The annuitant's urine was 3+ for sugar, and he alleged occasional hypoglycemic attacks caused by exertion. His doctor felt the diabetes was never really controlled because he was not following his diet or taking his medication regularly. On review, symptoms, signs and laboratory findings are unchanged. The current adjudicator feels, however, that the annuitant's impairment clearly does not equal the severity contemplated by the listings. Error cannot be found because it would represent a substitution of current judgement for that of the prior adjudicator that the annuitant's impairment equaled a listing. The exception for error will not be applied retroactively under the conditions set out above unless the conditions for reopening the prior decision are met. (5) The annuitant is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity. If the annuitant is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity, before the Board determines whether he or she is no longer disabled because of his or her work activity, the Board will consider whether he or she is entitled to a trial work period as set out in §220.170. The Board will find that the annuitant's disability has ended in the month in which he or she demonstrated the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity (following completion of a trial work period, where it applies). This exception does not apply in determining whether the annuitant continues to have a disabling impairment(s) for purposes of deciding his or her eligibility for a reentitlement period. (b) Second group of exceptions to medical improvement. In addition to the first group of exceptions to medical improvement, the following exceptions may result in a determination that the annuitant is no longer disabled. In these situations the decision will be made without a determination that the annuitant has medically improved or can engage in substantial gainful activity. (1) A prior determination was fraudulently obtained. If the Board finds that any prior favorable determination was obtained by fraud, it may find that the annuitant is not disabled. In addition, the Board may reopen the claim. (2) Failure to cooperate with the Board. If there is a question about whether the annuitant continues to be disabled and the Board requests that he or she submit medical or other evidence or go for a physical or mental examination by a certain date, the Board will find that the annuitant's disability has ended if he or she fails (without good cause) to do what is requested. The month in which the annuitant's disability ends will be the first month in which he or she failed to do what was requested. (3) Inability of the Board to locate the annuitant. If there is question about whether the annuitant continues to be disabled and the Board is unable to find him or her to resolve the question, the Board will suspend annuity payments. If, after a suitable investigation, the Board is still unable to locate the annuitant, the Board will determine that the annuitant's disability has ended. The month such annuitant's disability ends will be the first month in which the question arose and the annuitant could not be found. (4) Failure of the annuitant to follow prescribed treatment which would be expected to restore the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. If treatment has been prescribed for the annuitant which would be expected to restore his or her ability to work, he or she must follow that treatment in order to be paid a disability annuity. If the annuitant is not following that treatment and he or she does not have good cause for failing to follow the treatment, the Board will find that his or her disability has ended. The month such annuitant's disability ends will be the first month in which he or she failed to follow the prescribed treatment. Evaluation steps. To assure that disability reviews are carried out in a uniform manner, that decisions of continuing disability can be made in the most expeditious and administratively efficient way, and that any decisions to stop a disability annuity are made objectively, neutrally and are fully documented, the Board will follow specific steps in reviewing the question of whether an annuitant's disability continues. The Board's review may cease and the disability may be continued at any point if the Board determines that there is sufficient evidence to find that the annuitant is still unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. The steps are— (a) Is the annuitant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If he or she is (and any applicable trial work period has been completed), the Board will find disability to have ended (see §220.179(a)(5)); (b) If the annuitant is not engaging in substantial gainful activity, does he or she have an impairment or combination of impairments which meets or equals the severity of an impairment listed in appendix 1 of this part? If the annuitant's impairment(s) does meet or equal the level of severity of an impairment listed in appendix 1 of this part, his or her disability will be found to continue; (c) If the annuitant's impairment(s) does not meet or equal the level of severity of an impairment listed in appendix 1 of this part, has there been medical improvement as defined in §220.177(a)? If there has been medical improvement as shown by a decrease in medical severity, see step (d). If there has been no decrease in medical severity, then there has been no medical improvement; (See step (e)); (d) If there has been medical improvement, the Board must determine whether it is related to the annuitant's ability to do work in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of §220.177, (i.e., whether or not there has been an increase in the residual functional capacity based on the impairment(s) that was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical determination). If medical improvement is not related to the annuitant's ability to do work, see step (e). If medical improvement is related to the annuitant's ability to do work, see step (f); (e) If the Board found at step (c) that there has been no medical improvement or if it found at step (d) that the medical improvement is not related to the annuitant's ability to work, the Board considers whether any of the exceptions in §220.178 apply. If none of them apply, disability will be found to continue. If one of the first group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, see step (f). If an exception from the second group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, disability will be found to have ended. The second group of exceptions to medical improvement may be considered at any point in this process; (f) If medical improvement is shown to be related to the annuitant's ability to do work or if one of the first group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, the Board will determine whether all of the annuitant's current impairments in combination are severe. This determination will consider all current impairments and the impact of the combination of those impairments on the ability to function. If the residual functional capacity assessment in step (d) above shows significant limitation of ability to do basic work activities, see step (g). When the evidence shows that all current impairments in combination do not significantly limit physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities, these impairments will not be considered severe in nature, and the annuitant will no longer be consider to be disabled; (g) If the annuitant's impairment(s) is severe, the Board will assess his or her current ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. That is, the Board will assess the annuitant's residual functional capacity based on all of his or her current impairments and consider whether he or she can still do work that was done in the past. If he or she can do such work, disability will be found to have ended; and (h) If the annuitant is not able to do work he or she has done in the past, the Board will consider one final step. Given the residual functional capacity assessment and considering the annuitant's age, education and past work experience, can he or she do other work? If the annuitant can do other work, disability will be found to have ended. If he or she cannot do other work, disability will be found to continue. If the evidence shows that the annuitant is no longer disabled, the Board will find that his or her disability ended in the earliest of the following months— (a) The month the Board mails the annuitant a notice saying that the Board finds that he or she is no longer disabled based on evidence showing: (1) There has been medical improvement in the annuitant's impairments related to the ability to work and the annuitant has the capacity to engage in substantial gainful work under the rules set out in §§220.177 and 220.178; or (2) There has been no medical improvement in the annuitant's impairments related to the ability to work but the annuitant has the capacity to engage in substantial gainful work and one of the exceptions to medical improvement set out in §220.179(a)(1), (2), (3) or (4) applies. (b) The month in which the annuitant demonstrated his or her ability to engage in substantial gainful activity (following completion of a trial work period); (c) The month in which the annuitant actually does substantical gainful activity where such annuitant is not entitled to a trial work period; (d) The month in which the annuitant returns to full-time work, with no significant medical restrictions and acknowledges that medical improvement has occurred, and the Board expected the annuitant's impairment(s) to improve; (e) The first month in which the annuitant failed without good cause to do what the Board asked, when the rule set out in paragraph (b)(2) of §220.179 applies; (f) The first month in which the question of continuing disability arose and the Board could not locate the annuitant after a suitable investigation (see §220.179(b)(3)); (g) The first month in which the annuitant failed without good cause to follow prescribed treatment, when the rule set out in paragraph (b)(4) of §220.179 applies; or (h) The first month the annuitant was told by his or her physician that he or she could return to work provided there is no substantial conflict between the physician's and the annuitant's statements regarding that annuitant's awareness of his or her capacity for work and the earlier date is supported by the medical evidence. (i) The month the evidence shows that the annuitant is not longer disabled under the rules set out in §§220.177 through 220.180, and he or she was disabled only for a specified period of time in the past as discussed in §220.21 or §220.105; Before the Board stops a disability annuity, it will give the annuitant a chance to explain why it should not do so. (a) General. If the Board determines that the annuitant does not meet the disability requirements of the law, the disability annuity will generally stop. Except in the circumstance described in paragraph (d) of this section, the Board will give the annuitant advance written notice when the Board has determined that he or she is not now disabled. (b) What the advance written notice will tell the annuitant. The advance written notice will provide— (1) A summary of the information the Board has and an explanation of why the Board believes the annuitant is no longer disabled. If it is because of medical reasons, the notice will tell the annuitant what the medical information in his or her file shows. If it is because of the annuitant's work activity, the notice will tell the annuitant what information the Board has about the work he or she is doing or has done, and why this work shows that he or she is not disabled. If it is because of the annuitant's failure to give the Board information the Board needs or failure to do what the Board asks, the notice will tell the annuitant what information the Board needs and why, or what the annuitant has to do and why; (2) The date the disability annuity will stop; (3) An opportunity for the annuitant to submit evidence within a specified period to support continuance of disability before the decision becomes final; and (4) An explanation of the annuitant's rights to reconsideration and appeal after the decision becomes final. (c) What the annuitant should do if he or she receives an advance written notice. If the annuitant agrees with the advance written notice, he or she does not need to take any action. If the annuitant desires further information or disagrees with what the Board has told him or her, the annuitant should immediately write or visit a Board office. If the annuitant believes he or she is now disabled, the annuitant should tell the Board why. The annuitant may give the Board any additional or new information, including reports from doctors, hospitals, railroad or non-railroad employers, or others that he or she believes the Board should have. The annuitant should send these as soon as possible to a Board office. (d) When the Board will not give the annuitant advance written notice. The Board will not give the annuitant advance written notice when the Board determines that he or she is not now disabled if the Board recently told the annuitant that— (1) The information the Board has shows that he or she is not disabled; (2) The Board was gathering more information; and (3) The disability annuity would stop. If a new severe impairment(s) begins in or before the month in which the last impairment(s) ends, the Board will find that disability is continuing. The impairment(s) need not be expected to last 12 months or to result in death, but it must be severe enough to keep the annuitant from doing substantial gainful activity, or severe enough so that he or she is still disabled. After the Board finds that the annuitant is disabled, the Board must evaluate the annuitant's impairment(s) from time to time to determine if the annuitant is still eligible for disability cash benefits. The Board calls this evaluation a continuing disability review. The Board may begin a continuing disability review for any number of reasons including the annuitant's failure to follow the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act or these regulations. When the Board begins such a review, the Board will notify the annuitant that the Board is reviewing the annuitant's eligibility for disability benefits, why the Board is reviewing the annuitant's eligibility, that in medical reviews the medical improvement review standard will apply, that the Board's review could result in the termination of the annuitant's benefits, and that the annuitant has the right to submit medical and other evidence for the Board's consideration during the continuing disability review. In doing a medical review the Board will develop a complete medical history of at least the preceding 12 months in any case in which a determination is made that the annuitant is no longer under a disability. If this review shows that the Board should stop payment of cash benefits, the Board will notify the annuitant in writing and give the annuitant an opportunity to appeal. In §220.186 the Board describes those events that may prompt it to review whether the annuitant continues to be disabled. (a) General. The Board conducts continuing disability reviews to determine whether or not the annuitant continues to meet the disability requirements of the law. Payment of cash benefits or a period of disability ends if the medical or other evidence shows that the annuitant is not disabled under the standards set out in section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act or section 223(f) of the Social Security Act. (b) When the Board will conduct a continuing disability review. A continuing disability review will be started if— (1) The annuitant has been scheduled for a medical improvement expected diary review; (2) The annuitant has been scheduled for a periodic review in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section; (3) The Board needs a current medical or other report to see if the annuitant's disability continues. (This could happen when, for example, an advance in medical technology, such as improved treatment for Alzheimer's disease or a change in vocational therapy or technology raises a disability issue.); (4) The annuitant returns to work and successfully completes a period of trial work; (5) Substantial earnings are reported to the annuitant's wage record; (6) The annuitant tells the Board that he or she has recovered from his or her disability or that he or she has returned to work; (7) A State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency tells the Board that— (i) The services have been completed; or (ii) The annuitant is now working; or (iii) The annuitant is able to work; (8) Someone in a position to know of the annuitant's physical or mental condition tells the Board that the annuitant is not disabled, that the annuitant in not following prescribed treatment, that the annuitant has returned to work, or that the annuitant is failing to follow the provisions of the Social Security Act, the Railroad Retirement Act, or these regulations, and it appears that the report could be substantially correct; or (9) Evidence the Board receives raises a question as to whether the annuitant's disability continues. (c) Definitions. As used in this section— Medical improvement expected diary— refers to a case which is scheduled for review at a later date because the individual's impairment(s) is expected to improve. Generally, the diary period is set for not less than 6 months or for not more than 18 months. Examples of cases likely to be scheduled for a medical improvement excepted diary are fractures and cases in which corrective surgery is planned and recovery can be anticipated. The term “medical improvement expected diary” also includes a case which is scheduled for a review at a later date because the individual is undergoing vocational therapy, training or an educational program which may improve his or her ability to work so that the disability requirement of the law is no longer met. Generally, the diary period will be the length of the training, therapy, or program of education. Permanent impairment medical improvement not expected—refers to a case in which any medical improvement in the person's impairment(s) is not expected. This means an extremely severe condition determined on the basis of our experience in administering the disability program to be at least static, but more likely to be progressively disabling either by itself or by reason of impairment complications, and unlikely to improve so as to permit the individual to engage in substantial gainful activity. The interaction of the individual's age, impairment consequences and lack of recent attachment to the labor market may also be considered in determining whether an impairment is permanent. Improvement which is considered temporary under §220.178(c)(4), will not be considered in deciding if an impairment is permanent. Examples of permanent impairments are as follows and are not intended to be all inclusive: (1) Parkinsonian Syndrome which has reached the level of severity necessary to meet the Listing in appendix 1. (2) Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis which has reached the level of severity necessary to meet the Listing in appendix 1. (3) Diffuse pulmonary fibrosis in an individual age 55 or over which has reached the level of severity necessary to meet the Listing in appendix 1. (4) Amputation of leg at hip. Nonpermanent impairment refers to a case in which any medical improvement in the person's impairment(s) is possible. This means an impairment for which improvement cannot be predicted based on current experience and the facts of the particular case but which is not at the level of severity of an impairment that is considered permanent. Examples of nonpermanent impairments are: regional enteritis, hyperthyroidism, and chronic ulcerative colitis. (d) Frequency of review. If an annuitant's impairment is expected to improve, generally the Board will review the annuitant's continuing eligibility for disability benefits at intervals from 6 months to 18 months following the Board's most recent decision. The Board's notice to the annuitant about the review of the annuitant's case will tell the annuitant more precisely when the review will be conducted. If the annuitant's disability is not considered permanent but is such that any medical improvement in the annuitant's impairment(s) cannot be accurately predicted, the Board will review the annuitant's continuing eligibility for disability benefits at least once every 3 years. If no medical improvement is expected in the annuitant's impairment(s), the Board will not routinely review the annuitant's continuing eligibility. Regardless of the annuitant's classification, the Board will conduct an immediate continuing disability review if a question of continuing disability is raised pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. (e) Change in classification of impairment. If the evidence developed during a continuing disability review demonstrates that the annuitant's impairment has improved, is expected to improve, or has worsened since the last review, the Board may reclassify the annuitant's impairment to reflect this change in severity. A change in the classification of the annuitant's impairment will change the frequency with which the Board will review the case. The Board may also reclassify certain impairments because of improved tests, treatment, and other technical advances concerning those impairments. (f) Review after administrative appeal. If the annuitant was found eligible to receive or to continue to receive disability benefits on the basis of a decision by a hearings officer, the three-member Board or a Federal court, the agency will not conduct a continuing disability review earlier than 3 years after that decision unless the annuitant's case should be scheduled for a medical improvement expected or vocational reexamination diary review or a question of continuing disability is raised pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. (g) Waiver of timeframes. All cases involving a nonpermanent impairment will be reviewed by the Board at least once every 3 years unless the Board determines that the requirements should be waived to ensure that only the appropriate number of cases are reviewed. The appropriate number of cases to be reviewed is to be based on such considerations as the backlog of pending reviews, the projected number of new applications, and projected staffing levels. Therefore, an annuitant's continuing disability review may be delayed longer than 3 years following the Board's original decision or other review under certain circumstances. Such a delay would be based on the Board's need to ensure that backlogs, and new disability claims workloads are accomplished within available medical and other resources and that such reviews are done carefully and accurately. [56 FR 12980, Mar. 28, 1991, as amended at 65 FR 20372, Apr. 17, 2000] If the annuitant's impairment was expected to improve and the annuitant returned to full-time work with no significant medical limitations and acknowledges that medical improvement has occurred, the Board may find that the annuitant's disability ended in the month he or she returned to work. Unless there is evidence showing that the annuitant's disability has not ended, the Board will use the medical and other evidence already in the annuitant's file and the fact that he or she has returned to full-time work without significant limitations to determine that the annuitant is no longer disabled. (If the annuitant's impairment is not expected to improve, the Board will not ordinarily review his or her claim until the end of the trial work period, as described in §220.170.) Example: Evidence obtained during the processing of the annuitant's claim showed that the annuitant had an impairment that was expected to improve about 18 months after the annuitant's disability began. The Board, therefore, told the annuitant that his or her claim would be reviewed again at that time. However, before the time arrived for the annuitant's scheduled medical reexamination, the annuitant told the Board that he or she had returned to work and the annuitant's impairment had improved. The Board investigated immediately and found that, in the 16th month after the annuitant's began, the annuitant returned to full-time work without any significant medical restrictions. Therefore, the Board would find that the annuitant's disability ended in the first month the annuitant returned to full-time work. In the Listing of Impairments, the listings under each separate body system in both Part A and Part B will be effective for periods ranging from 4 to 8 years unless extended or revised and promulgated again. Specifically, the body system listings in the Listing of Impairments will be subject to the following termination dates: Musculoskeletal system (1.00) within 5 years. Consequently, the listings in this body system will no longer be effective on June 6, 1992. Respiratory system (3.00) within 6 years. Consequently, the listings in this body system will no longer be effective on December 6, 1991. The cardiovascular system (4.00) will no longer be effective on June 6, 1991. The listings under the other body systems in Part A and Part B will expire in 8 years. Consequently, the listing in these body systems will no longer be effective on December 6, 1993. The mental disorders listings in Part A will no longer be effective on August 28, 1991, unless extended by the Board or revised and promulgated again. Part A Criteria applicable to individuals age 18 and over and to children under age 18 where criteria are appropriate. Sec. 1.00 Musculoskeletal System. 2.00 Special Senses and Speech. 3.00 Respiratory System. 4.00 Cardiovascular System. 5.00 Digestive System. 6.00 Genito-Urinary System. 7.00 Hemic and Lymphatic System. 8.00 Skin. 9.00 Endocrine System. 10.00 Multiple Body Systems. 11.00 Neurological. 12.00 Mental Disorders. 13.00 Neoplastic Diseases, Malignant. 1.00 Musculoskeletal System A. Loss of function may be due to amputation or deformity. Pain may be an important factor in causing functional loss, but it must be associated with relevant abnormal signs or laboratory findings. Evaluations of musculoskeletal impairments should be supported where applicable by detailed descriptions of the joints, including ranges of motion, condition of the musculature, sensory or reflex changes, circulatory deficits, and X-ray abnormalities. B. Disorders of the spine, associated with vertebrogenic disorders as in 1.05C, result in impairment because of distortion of the bony and ligamentous architecture of the spine or impingement of a herniated nucleus pulposus or bulging annulus on a nerve root. Impairment caused by such abnormalities usually improves with time or responds to treatment. Appropriate abnormal physical findings must be shown to persist on repeated examinations despite therapy for a reasonable presumption to be made that severe impairment will last for a continuous period of 12 months. This may occur in cases with unsuccessful prior surgical treatment. Evaluation of the impairment caused by disorders of the spine requires that a clinical diagnosis of the entity to be evaluated first must be established on the basis of adequate history, physical examination, and roentgenograms. The specific findings stated in 1.05C represent the level required for that impairment; these findings, by themselves, are not intended to represent the basis for establishing the clinical diagnosis. Furthermore, while neurological examination findings are required, they are not to be interpreted as a basis for evaluating the magnitude of any neurological impairment. Neurological impairments are to be evaluated under 11.00–11.19. The history must include a detailed description of the character, location, and radiation of pain; mechanical factors which incite and relieve pain; prescribed treatment, including type, dose, and frequency of analgesic; and typical daily activities. Care must be taken to ascertain that the reported examination findings are consistent with the individual's daily activities. There must be a detailed description of the orthopedic and neurologic examination findings. The findings should include a description of gait, limitation of movement of the spine given quantitatively in degrees from the vertical position, motor and sensory abnormalities, muscle spasm, and deep tendon reflexes. Observations of the individual during the examination should be reported; e.g., how he or she gets on and off the examining table. Inability to walk on heels or toes, to squat, or to arise from a squatting position, where appropriate, may be considered evidence of significant motor loss. However, a report of atrophy is not acceptable as evidence of significant motor loss without circumferential measurements of both thighs and lower legs (or upper or lower arms) at a stated point above and below the knee or elbow given in inches or centimeters. A specific description of atrophy of hand muscles is acceptable without measurements of atrophy but should include measurements of grip strength. These physical examination findings must be determined on the basis of objective observations during the examination and not simply a report of the individual's allegation, e.g., he says his leg is week, numb, etc. Alternative testing methods should be used to verify the objectivity of the abnormal findings, e.g., a seated straight-leg raising test in addition to a supine straight-leg raising test. Since abnormal findings may be intermittent, their continuous presence over a period of time must be established by a record of ongoing treatment. Neurological abnormalities may not completely subside after surgical or nonsurgical treatment, or with the passage of time. Residual neurological abnormalities, which persist after it has been determined clinically or by direct surgical or other observation that the ongoing or progressive condition is no longer present, cannot be considered to satisfy the required findings in 1.05C. Where surgical procedures have been performed, documentation should include a copy of the operative note and available pathology reports. Electrodiagnostic procedures and myelography may be useful in establishing the clinical diagnosis, but do not constitute alternative criteria to the requirements in 1.05C. C. After maximum benefit from surgical therapy has been achieved in situations involving fractures of an upper extremity (see 1.12) or soft tissue injuries of a lower or upper extremity (see 1.13), i.e., there have been no significant changes in physical findings or X-ray findings for any 6-month period after the last definitive surgical procedure, evaluation should be made on the basis of demonstrable residuals. D. Major joints as used herein refer to hip, knee, ankle, shoulder, elbow, or wrist and hand. (Wrist and hand are considered together as one major joint.) E. The measurements of joint motion are based on the techniques described in the “Joint Motion Method of Measuring and Recording,” published by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons in 1965, or the “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment—The Extremities and Back” (Chapter I); American Medical Association, 1971. 1.01 Category of Impairments, Musculoskeletal 1.02 Active rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory arthritis. With both A and B. A. History of persistent joint pain, swelling, and tenderness involving multiple major joints (see 1.00D) and with signs of joint inflammation (swelling and tenderness) on current physical examination despite prescribed therapy for at least 3 months, resulting in significant restriction of function of the affected joints, and clinical activity expected to last at least 12 months; and B. Corroboration of diagnosis at some point in time by either. 1. Positive serologic test for rheumatoid factor; or 2. Antinuclear antibodies; or 3. Elevated sedimentation rate; or 4. Characteristic histologic changes in biopsy of synovial membrane or subcutaneous nodule (obtained independent of Social Security disability evaluation). 1.03 Arthritis of a major weight-bearing joint (due to any cause): With history of persistent joint pain and stiffness with signs of marked limitation of motion or abnormal motion of the affected joint on current physical examination. With: A. Gross anatomical deformity of hip or knee (e.g., subluxation, contracture, bony or fibrous ankylosis, instability) supported by X-ray evidence of either significant joint space narrowing or significant bony destruction and markedly limiting ability to walk and stand; or B. Reconstructive surgery or surgical arthrodesis of a major weight-bearing joint and return to full weight-bearing status did not occur, or is not expected to occur, within 12 months of onset. 1.04 Arthritis of one major joint in each of the upper extremities (due to any cause): With history of persistent joint pain and stiffness, signs of marked limitation of motion of the affected joints on current physical examination, and X-ray evidence of either significant joint space narrowing or significant bony destruction. With: A. Abduction and forward flexion (elevation) of both arms at the shoulders, including scapular motion, restricted to less than 90 degrees; or B. Gross anatomical deformity (e.g., subluxation, contracture, bony or fibrous ankylosis, instability, ulnar deviation) and enlargement or effusion of the affected joints. 1.05 Disorders of the spine: A. Arthritis manifested by ankylosis or fixation of the cervical or dorsolumbar spine at 30 1. Calcification of the anterior and lateral ligaments; or 2. Bilateral ankylosis of the sacroiliac joints with abnormal apophyseal articulations; or B. Osteoporosis, generalized (established by X-ray) manifested by pain and limitation of back motion and paravertebral muscle spasm with X-ray evidence of either: 1. Compression fracture of a vertebral body with loss of at least 50 percent of the estimated height of the vertebral body prior to the compression fracture, with no intervening direct traumatic episode; or 2. Multiple fractures of vertebrae with no intervening direct traumatic episode; or C. Other vertebrogenic disorders (e.g., herniated nucleus puplosus, spinal stenosis) with the following persisting for at least 3 months despite prescribed therapy and expected to last 12 months. With both 1 and 2: 1. Pain, muscle spasm, and significant limitation of motion in the spine; and 2. Appropriate radicular distribution of significant motor loss with muscle weakness and sensory and reflex loss. 1.08 Osteomyelitis or septic arthritis (established by X-ray): A. Located in the pelvis, vertebra, femur, tibia, or a major joint of an upper or lower extremity, with persistent activity or occurrence of at least two episodes of acute activity within a 5-month period prior to adjudication, manifested by local inflammatory, and systemic signs and laboratory findings (e.g., heat, redness, swelling, leucocytosis, or increased sedimentation rate) and expected to last at least 12 months despite prescribed therapy; or B. Multiple localizations and systemic manifestations as in A above. 1.09 Amputation or anatomical deformity of (i.e., loss of major function due to degenerative changes associated with vascular or neurological deficits, traumatic loss of muscle mass or tendons and X-ray evidence of bony ankylosis at an unfavorable angle, joint subluxation or instability): A. Both hands; or B. Both feet; or C. One hand and one foot. 1.10 Amputation of one lower extremity (at or above the tarsal region): A. Hemipelvectomy or hip disarticulation; or B. Amputation at or above the tarsal region due to peripheral vascular disease or diabetes mellitus; or C. Inability to use a prosthesis effectively, without obligatory assistive devices, due to one of the following: 1. Vascular disease; or 2. Neurological complications (e.g., loss of position sense); or 3. Stump too short or stump complications persistent, or are expected to persist, for at least 12 months from onset; or 4. Disorder of contralateral lower extremity which markedly limits ability to walk and stand. 1.11 Fracture of the femur, tibia, tarsal bone of pelvis with solid union not evident on X-ray and not clinically solid, when such determination is feasible, and return to full weight-bearing status did not occur or is not expected to occur within 12 months of onset. 1.12 Fractures of an upper extremity with non-union of a fracture of the shaft of the humerus, radius, or ulna under continuing surgical management directed toward restoration of functional use of the extremity and such function was not restored or expected to be restored within 12 months after onset. 1.13 Soft tissue injuries of an upper or lower extremity requiring a series of staged surgical procedures within 12 months after onset for salvage and/or restoration of major function of the extremity, and such major function was not restored or expected to be restored within 12 months after onset. 2.00 Special Senses and Speech A. Ophthalmology 1. Causes of impairment. Diseases or injury of the eyes may produce loss of central or peripheral vision. Loss of central vision results in inability to distinguish detail and prevents reading and fine work. Loss of peripheral vision restricts the ability of an individual to move about freely. The extent of impairment of sight should be determined by visual testing. 2. Central visual acuity. A loss of central visual acuity may be caused by impaired distant and/or near vision. However, for an individual to meet the level of severity described in 2.02 and 2.04, only the remaining central visual acuity for distance of the better eye with best correction based on the Snellen test chart measurement may be used. Correction obtained by special visual aids (e.g., contact lenses) will be considered if the individual has the ability to wear such aids. 3. Field of vision. Impairment of peripheral vision may result if there is contraction of the visual fields. The contraction may be either symmetrical or irregular. The extent of the remaining peripheral visual field will be determined by usual perimetric methods at a distance of 330 mm. under illumination of not less than 7-foot candles. For the phakic eye (the eye with a lens), a 3 mm. white disc target will be used, and for the aphakic eye (the eye without the lens), a 6 mm. white disc target will be used. In neither instance should corrective spectacle lenses be worn during the examination but if they have been used, this fact must be stated. Measurements obtained on comparable perimetric devices may be used; this does not include the use of tangent screen measurements. For measurements obtained using the Goldmann perimeter, the object size designation III and the illumination designation 4 should be used for the phakic eye, and the object size designation IV and illumination designation 4 for the aphakic eye. Field measurements must be accompanied by notated field charts, a description of the type and size of the target and the test distance. Tangent screen visual fields are not acceptable as a measurement of peripheral field loss. Where the loss is predominantly in the lower visual fields, a system such as the weighted grid scale for perimetric fields described by B. Esterman (see Grid for Scoring Visual Fields, II. Perimeter, Archives of Ophthalmology, 79:400, 1968) may be used for determining whether the visual field loss is comparable to that described in Table 2. 4. Muscle function. Paralysis of the third cranial nerve producing ptosis, paralysis of accommodation, and dilation and immobility of the pupil may cause significant visual impairment. When all the muscle of the eye are paralyzed including the iris and ciliary body (total ophthalmoplegia), the condition is considered a severe impairment provided it is bilateral. A finding of severe impairment based primarily on impaired muscle function must be supported by a report of an actual measurement of ocular motility. 5. Visual efficiency. Loss of visual efficiency may be caused by disease or injury resulting in a reduction of central visual acuity or visual field. The visual efficiency of one eye is the product of the percentage of central visual efficiency and the percentage of visual field efficiency. (See Tables No. 1 and 2, following 2.09.) 6. Special situations. Aphakia represents a visual handicap in addition to the loss of central visual acuity. The term monocular aphakia would apply to an individual who has had the lens removed from one eye, and who still retains the lens in his other eye, or to an individual who has only one eye which is aphakic. The term binocular aphakia would apply to an individual who has had both lenses removed. In cases of binocular aphakia, the central efficiency of the better eye will be accepted as 75 percent of its value. In cases of monocular aphakia, where the better eye is aphakic, the central visual efficiency will be accepted as 50 percent of the value. (If an individual has binocular aphakia, and the central visual acuity in the poorer eye can be corrected only to 20/200, or less, the central visual efficiency of the better eye will be accepted as 50 percent of its value.) Ocular symptoms of systemic disease may or may not produce a disabling visual impairement. These manifestations should be evaluated as part of the underlying disease entity by reference to the particular body system involved. 7. Statutory blindness. The term “statutory blindness” refers to the degree of visual impairment which defines the term “blindness” in the Social Security Act. Both 2.02 and 2.03 A and B denote statutory blindness. B. Otolaryngology 1. Hearing impairment. Hearing ability should be evaluated in terms of the person's ability to hear and distinguish speech. Loss of hearing can be quantitatively determined by an audiometer which meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for air and bone conducted stimuli (i.e., ANSI S 3.6–1969 and ANSI S 3.13–1972, or subsequent comparable revisions) and performing all hearing measurements in an environment which meets the ANSI standard for maximal permissible background sound (ANSI S 3.1–1977). Speech discrimination should be determined using a standardized measure of speech discrimination ability in quiet at a test presentation level sufficient to ascertain maximum discrimination ability. The speech discrimination measure (test) used, and the level at which testing was done, must be reported. Hearing tests should be preceded by an otolaryngologic examination and should be performed by or under the supervision of an otolaryngologist or audiologist qualified to perform such tests. In order to establish an independent medical judgment as to the level of impairment in a claimant alleging deafness, the following examinations should be reported: Otolaryngologic examination, pure tone air and bone audiometry, speech reception threshold (SRT), and speech discrimination testing. A copy of reports of medical examination and audiologic evaluations must be submitted. Cases of alleged “deaf mutism” should be documented by a hearing evaluation. Records obtained from a speech and hearing rehabilitation center or a special school for the deaf may be acceptable, but if these reports are not available, or are found to be inadequate, a current hearing evaluation should be submitted as outlined in the preceding paragraph. 2. Vertigo associated with disturbances of labyrinthine-vestibular function, including Meniere's disease. These disturbances of balance are characterized by an hallucination of motion or loss of position sense and a sensation of dizziness which may be constant or may occur in paroxysmal attacks. Nausea, vomiting, ataxia, and incapacitation are frequently observed, particularly during the acute attack. It is important to differentiate the report of rotary vertigo from that of “dizziness” which is described as lightheadedness, unsteadiness, confusion, or syncope. Meniere's disease is characterized by paroxysmal attacks of vertigo, tinnitus, and fluctuating hearing loss. Remissions are unpredictable and irregular, but may be longlasting; hence, the severity of impairment is best determined after prolonged observation and serial reexaminations. The diagnosis of a vestibular disorder requires a comprehensive neuro-otolaryngologic examination with a detailed description of the vertiginous episodes, including notation of frequency, severity, and duration of the attacks. Pure tone and speech audiometry with the appropriate special examinations, such as Bekesy audiometry, are necessary. Vestibular functions is assessed by positional and caloric testing, preferably by electronystagmography. When polytograms, contrast radiography, or other special tests have been performed, copies of the reports of these tests should be obtained in addition to reports of skull and temporal bone X-rays. 3. Organic loss of speech. Glossectomy or larynegectomy or cicatricial laryngeal stenosis due to injury or infection results in loss of voice production by normal means. In evaluating organic loss of speech (see 2.09), ability to produce speech by any means includes the use of mechanical or electronic devices. Impairment of speech due to neurologic disorders should be evaluated under 11.00–11.19. 2.01 Category of Impairments, Special Senses and Speech 2.02 Impairment of central visual acuity. Remaining vision in the better eye after best correction is 20/200 or less. 2.03 Contraction of peripheral visual fields in the better eye. A. To 10 B. So the widest diameter subtends an angle no greater than 20 C. To 20 percent or less visual field efficiency. 2.04 Loss of visual efficiency. Visual efficiency of better eye after best correction 20 percent or less. (The percent of remaining visual efficiency=the product of the percent of remaining central visual efficiency and the percent of remaining visual field efficiency.) 2.05 Complete homonymous hemianopsia (with or without macular sparing). Evaluate under 2.04. 2.06 Total bilateral ophthalmoplegia. 2.07 Disturbance of labyrinthine-vestibular function (including Meniere's disease), characterized by a history of frequent attacks of balance disturbance, tinnitus, and progressive loss of hearing. With both A and B: A. Disturbed function of vestibular labyrinth demonstrated by caloric or other vestibular tests; and B. Hearing loss established by audiometry. 2.08 Hearing impairments (hearing not restorable by a hearing aid) manifested by: A. Average hearing threshold sensitivity for air conduction of 90 decibels or greater and for bone conduction to corresponding maximal levels, in the better ear, determined by the simple average of hearing threshold levels at 500, 1000 and 2000 hz. (see 2.00B1); or B. Speech discrimination scores of 40 percent or less in the better ear; 2.09 Organic loss of speech due to any cause with inability to produce by any means speech which can be heard understood and sustained. 1. Diagram of right eye illustrates extent of normal visual field as tested on standard perimeter at 3/330 (3 mm. white disc at a distance of 330 mm.) under 7 foot-candles illumination. The sum of the eight principal meridians of this field total 500 2. The percent of visual field efficiency is obtained by adding the number of degrees of the eight principal meridians of the contracted field and dividing by 500. Diagram of left eye illustrates visual field contracted to 30 3.00 Respiratory System
Title 20: Employees' Benefits
PART 220—DETERMINING DISABILITY
Subpart O—Continuing or Stopping Disability Due to Substantial Gainful Activity or Medical Improvement
§ 220.175 Responsibility to notify the Board of events which affect disability.
§ 220.176 When disability continues or ends.
§ 220.177 Terms and definitions.
§ 220.178 Determining medical improvement and its relationship to the annuitant's ability to do work.
§ 220.179 Exceptions to medical improvement.
§ 220.180 Determining continuation or cessation of disability.
§ 220.181 The month in which the Board will find that the annuitant is no longer disabled.
§ 220.182 Before a disability annuity is stopped.
§ 220.183 Notice that the annuitant is not disabled.
§ 220.184 If the annuitant becomes disabled by another impairment(s).
§ 220.185 The Board may conduct a review to find out whether the annuitant continues to be disabled.
§ 220.186 When and how often the Board will conduct a continuing disability review.
§ 220.187 If the annuitant's medical recovery was expected and the annuitant returned to work.
Appendix 1 to Part 220—Listing of Impairments
Table No. 1_Percentage of Central Visual Efficiency Corresponding to Central Visual Acuity Notations for Distance in the Phakic and Aphakic Eye (Better Eye)------------------------------------------------------------------------ Snellen Percent central visual efficiency------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aphakic Aphakic English Metric Phakic \1\ monocular \2\ binocular \3\------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20/16 6/5 100 50 75 20/20 6/6 100 50 75 20/25 6/7.5 95 47 71 20/32 6/10 90 45 67 20/40 6/12 85 42 64 20/50 6/15 75 37 56 20/64 6/20 65 32 49 20/80 6/24 60 30 45 20/100 6/30 50 25 37 20/125 6/38 40 20 30 20/160 6/48 30 ............. 22 20/200 6/60 20 ............. .............------------------------------------------------------------------------Column and Use.\1\ Phakic._1. A lens is present in both eyes. 2. A lens is present in the better eye and absent in the poorer eye. 3. A lens is present in one eye and the other eye is enucleated.\2\ Monocular._1. A lens in absent in the better eye and present in the poorer eye. 2. The lenses are absent in both eyes; however, the central visual acuity in the poorer eye after best correction in 20/ 200 or less. 3. A lens is absent from one eye and the other eye is enucleated.\3\ Binocular._1. The lenses are absent from both eyes and the central visual acuity in the poorer eye after best correction is greater than 20/200.
