C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER III—SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION › PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) › Subpart P—Determining Disability and Blindness

20 C.F.R. § 404.1503

Who makes disability and blindness determinations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) State agencies. State agencies make disability and blindness determinations for the Commissioner for most persons living in the State. State agencies make these disability and blindness determinations under regulations containing performance standards and other administrative requirements relating to the disability and blindness determination function. States have the option of turning the function over to the Federal Government if they no longer want to make disability determinations. Also, the Commissioner may take the function away from any State which has substantially failed to make disability and blindness determinations in accordance with these regulations. Subpart Q of this part contains the rules the States must follow in making disability and blindness determinations.

(b) Social Security Administration. The Social Security Administration will make disability and blindness determinations for—

(1) Any person living in a State which is not making for the Commissioner any disability and blindness determinations or which is not making those determinations for the class of claimants to which that person belongs; and

(2) Any person living outside the United States.

(c) What determinations are authorized. The Commissioner has authorized the State agencies and the Social Security Administration to make determinations about—

(1) Whether you are disabled or blind;

(2) The date your disability or blindness began; and

(3) The date your disability or blindness stopped.

(d) Review of State Agency determinations. On review of a State agency determination or redetermination of disability or blindness we may find that—

(1) You are, or are not, disabled or blind, regardless of what the State agency found;

(2) Your disability or blindness began earlier or later than the date found by the State agency; and

(3) Your disability or blindness stopped earlier or later than the date found by the State agency.

[46 FR 29204, May 29, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 33926, Sept. 9, 1987; 62 FR 38451, July 18, 1997; 65 FR 34957, June 1, 2000; 71 FR 16443, Mar. 31, 2006; 72 FR 51177, Sept. 6, 2007; 82 FR 5864, Jan. 18, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (2014) ca9 · cites it 2× “§§ 405, 421; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 . If the Commissioner’s decision is unfavorable, it must “contain a statement of the case, in understandable language, setting forth a discussion of the evidence, and stating the Commissioner’s determination and the reason or reasons upon which…”
Bowen v. Yuckert (1987) scotus · cites it 2× “§§ 421 (a), 1383b(a); 20 CFR §§ 404.1503 , 416.903 (1986). If the state agency denies the disability claim, the claimant may pursue a three-stage administrative review process.”
Daniel P. Cotter v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981) ca3 · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 (e) (1980). Cotter’s response on the activity report regarding the demands of his prior employment also corroborates his testimony that welding involved heavy lifting.”
Albert Stratton v. Otis R. Bowen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services o (1987) ca11 · cites it 5× “Applying the Secretary's “sequential evaluation process,” formerly codified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 (1980), 1 the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter “AU”) on October 10, 1980, found, at step 2 of the process, that Stratton “does not have any impairment or impairments which…”
William Edward Goodermote v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1982) ca1 · cites it 2× “See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 (1980). In particular, the agency asks five questions in the following order: First, is the claimant currently employed? If he is, the claimant is automatically considered not disabled.”
Thomas A. BRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1984) ca11 · cites it 2× “’ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 (a) (1980). Specifically, the regulations provide that in making a determination of disability or no disability, the first inquiry shall be whether the individual is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity.”
Bowen v. City of New York (1986) scotus “§§ 421 (a), 1383b(a); 20 CFR §§404.1503 , 416.903 (1985); see Heckler v.”
Heckler v. Day (1984) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 421 (a); 20 CFR § 404.1503 (1983). Second, if the claimant is dissatisfied with that determination, he may request reconsideration of the determination.”
Roger Gagnon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981) ca1 · cites it 2× “In his opinion, the ALJ followed the sequential analysis required by Social Security regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 , and concluded that Gagnon was not currently working; that he suffered from a severe impairment; but that his impairment was not among or equal to those listed…”
Alva M. Hall v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981) ca4 “20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 (1980). If an individual is found not disabled at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary.”
Charles Livingston v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1980) ca3 · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 (a) (1979). If an individual’s impairment is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations, “a finding of disability shall be made without consideration of the vocational factors.”
George Dobrowolsky v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary, Health, Education, and Welfare (1979) ca3 “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 (d) (1979). Appendix 1 lists, among impairments to the cardiovascular system, “ischemic heart disease” accompanied by “chest pain of cardiac origin” supported by objective evidence from electrocardiograms, exercise testing, or angiographic evidence.”
Show all 124 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503(a) — 1 case
Billy M. Tucker v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981) ca5
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503(c) — 1 case
Sandeen v. Schweiker (1981) txsd
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.