I-5-4-17.Bailey, et al. v. Sullivan

Table of Contents
I Purpose
II Background
III Guiding Principles
IV Definition of Class
V Determination of Class Membership and Preadjudication Actions
VI Processing and Adjudication
VII Case Coding
VIII Inquiries
Attachment 1 - Bailey v. Sullivan Stipulation and Order Filed July 29, 1991.
Attachment 2 BAILEY COURT CASE FLAG/ALERTS
Attachment 3 Route Slip or Case Flag For Screening
Attachment 4 BAILEY SCREENING SHEET
Attachment 5 Route Slip For Routing Class Member Alert (and Prior Claim Foodless)) to ODIO In PSC — OHA No longer Has Correct Claim
Attachment 6 Non-Class Membership Notice
Attachment 7 Route Slip For Non-Class Membership Cases
Attachment 8 Acting Associate Commissioner's Memorandum Dated February 21, 1991, Entitled “The Standard for Evaluating 'Not Severe' Impairments.”
Attachment 9 Bailey Class Member Flag For Headquarters Use (DDS Readjudication)
Attachment 10 ALJ Dismissal to DDS
Attachment 11 Notice Transmitting ALJ Order of Dismissal
Attachment 12 Bailey Class Member Flag For HO Use (DDS Readjudication)

ISSUED: September 29, 1992; REVISED: June 26, 1996

I. Purpose

This Temporary Instruction (TI) sets forth procedures for implementing the July 29, 1991 stipulation and order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the Bailey, et al. v. Sullivan class action involving the “not severe” impairment issue.

Adjudicators throughout the country must be familiar with this TI because Bailey class members who now reside outside of Delaware and Pennsylvania must have their cases processed in accordance with the requirements of the court's order.

II. Background

By orders dated June 5, 1985, as amended July 31, 1985, and December 3, 1985, as amended March 11, 1986, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania certified a class and held that the Secretary's regulations, policies and practices for evaluating disability claims at step two of the sequential evaluation were invalid. On appeal of the district court's injunction preventing the Secretary from using the severity regulations and Social Security Ruling (SSR) 82-55, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stayed further consideration of the case to await the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987).

On August 21, 1987, after the Supreme Court upheld the facial validity of the severity regulations in Yuckert, the Third Circuit vacated the district court's order of December 3, 1985, as amended March 11, 1986. The circuit court lifted the injunction on using step two and remanded the case to the district court to determine “what issues, including those related to the permanent need for class certification, remain[ed] to be decided.”

On September 13, 1988, the district court upheld the validity of SSR 85-28 as the proper standard for adjudicating claims at step two of the sequential evaluation. However, the court recertified a class and found that the Secretary's pre-December 1, 1984 policy of not considering the combined effect of an individual's multiple “not severe” impairments violated the Social Security Act.

On September 6, 1989, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision but remanded the case to redefine the class and to reexamine other issues that were later resolved during settlement negotiations. On August 27, 1990, the district court redefined and certified a combined impairments class.

On July 29, 1991, the district court issued a stipulation and order that modified the class definition, set forth the terms for implementation of class relief and provided for the readjudication of class member claims (Attachment 1).

III. Guiding Principles

Under Bailey, the Secretary will redetermine the claims of those persons who (1) respond to notice informing them of the opportunity for review and (2) are determined to be class members after screening (see Part V. below). The Disability Determination Service (DDS), in either Delaware or Pennsylvania, that made the original determination that forms the basis of the Bailey class membership will, in most cases, screen for class membership and perform the court-ordered readjudications regardless of the level of administrative review that last decided the claim.

EXCEPTION:

The DDS servicing the claimant's current address will screen for class membership and perform the readjudication if a face-to-face review is appropriate; i.e., cessation cases.

OHA will screen cases and perform readjudications under limited circumstances (see Part V.B. below).

Cases readjudicated by the DDS will be processed at the reconsideration level regardless of the final level at which the case was previously decided. Class members who receive adverse readjudication determinations will have full appeal rights (i.e., Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing, Appeals Council and judicial review).

Bailey does not require any change in OHA's existing adjudicatory policies or practices because SSR 85-28 remains the proper standard for adjudicating claims at step two of the sequential evaluation.

IV. Definition of Class

Except as noted below, for purposes of implementing the 1991 order, the Bailey class includes all persons residing in Delaware or Pennsylvania:

  • whose claims for disability benefits under titles II and/or XVI were denied or terminated based on a finding of “no severe impairment” at step two of the sequential evaluation; and

  • who received a final adverse decision at any level of the administrative process between August 7, 1983, and November 30, 1984, inclusive.

    EXCEPTION:

    A person is not a class member if

    (1) the last administrative denial or termination the individual received on the potential Bailey claim was not based on step two of the sequential evaluation; or

    (2) the last administrative denial or termination the individual received on the potential Bailey claim was issued after November 30, 1984; or

    (3) the individual had a subsequent claim denied after November 30, 1984, and the onset date alleged in connection with the subsequent claim was the same as, or earlier than, the onset date alleged in connection with the potential Bailey claim, and the period covered by the potential Bailey claim was actually adjudicated on the merits in connection with that subsequent denial; or

    (4) a court entered a final judgment on the merits of the potential Bailey claim; or

    (5) the individual was notified subsequent to November 30, 1984, of his/her entitlement to readjudication of his/her claims pursuant to a court order in another class action; or

    (6) the individual received a subsequent administrative award of disability benefits with respect to the same period at issue in the potential Bailey claim.

In addition, readjudication will be granted to all individuals who received partially favorable decisions during the above-noted timeframe, and who otherwise fall within the class parameters as defined above, when such individuals affirmatively bring their claims to the attention of SSA in writing on or before July 29, 1993.

V. Determination of Class Membership and Preadjudication Actions

A. Non-OHA Actions

  1. Notification

    On February 3, 1992, SSA sent notices to all potential class members identified by computer run. Individuals had 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice to request that SSA readjudicate their claims under the terms of the Bailey court order. The computer run did not identify potential class members who received partially favorable decisions during the above-noted timeframe. Therefore, these individuals must self- identify, in writing, before July 29, 1993 (see Part IV. above). Notices returned as undeliverable will be mailed a second time if SSA obtains an updated address.

    The Office of Disability and International Operations (ODIO) and the Program Service Centers (PSCs) will send all untimely responses to the servicing Social Security field office (i.e., district office or branch office) to develop good cause for the untimely response. Good cause determinations will be based on the standards in 20 CFR §§ 404.911 and 416.1411.

  2. Alert and Folder Retrieval Process

    Litigation Staff in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Programs will track all response forms and send folder alerts to ODIO and the PSCs to use in locating claim folders. See Attachment 2 for a sample Bailey folder alert.

    In most instances, ODIO or the PSCs will associate the Bailey file alert and the claimant's response form with the claim file(s) and forward the file(s) to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) for screening and readjudication.

  3. Alerts Sent to OHA

    If ODIO or the PSCs determine that a current claim, i.e., either a potential class member claim or a subsequent claim, is pending appeal or stored at OHA, it will forward the alert to OHA, along with any prior claim file(s) not in OHA's possession, for screening, consolidation consideration and readjudication (if consolidated.)

    ODIO or the PSCs will forward all alerts potentially within OHA jurisdiction and related prior claim files, if any, to the Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) at the following address (case locator code 5007):

    Office of Hearings and Appeals
    Office of Appellate Operations
    One Skyline Tower, Suite 701
    5107 Leesburg Pike
    Fall Church, VA 22041-3200
    ATTN: OAO Class Action Coordinator

    NOTE:

    The OAO Class Action Coordinator is responsible for controlling and reconciling the disposition of class alerts shipped to OHA Headquarters for association with pending or stored claims. The OAO Class Action Coordinator will maintain a record of all alerts received and the location, if any, to which they are transferred. This information will be necessary to do the final class membership reconciliation.

  4. Folder Reconstruction

    In general, ODIO or the PSCs will coordinate any necessary reconstruction of prior claim files. OHA requests for reconstruction of potential Bailey cases should be rare. Prior to requesting reconstruction, OHA will determine whether available systems data or other information provides satisfactory proof that the claim would not confer class membership. OHA (the HO or the OAO branch) will direct any necessary reconstruction requests to the servicing FO. The request will be made by memorandum and will include the alert and any accompanying claim file(s) (if the claim file(s) is not needed for adjudication purposes) as attachments. The request will also include documentation of the attempts to locate the file. The memorandum will request the FO to send the reconstructed file to OHA after it completes its reconstruction action. HOs will route any reconstruction requests directly to the servicing FO. The OAO branch will route reconstruction requests through the OAO Class Action Coordinator. For Civil Action Tracking System purposes, HO personnel and the OAO Class Action Coordinator will forward a copy of the reconstruction request memorandum to Litigation Staff at the following address:

    Office of the Deputy Commissioner
    for Program, Policy, Evaluation and Communications
    Litigation Staff
    3-K-26 Operations Building
    6401 Security Boulevard
    Baltimore, MD 21235
    ATTN: Bailey Coordinator

    HO personnel or the OAO branch will identify in the reconstruction request the OHA location of any existing claim file(s) being retained for adjudication purposes, and the date(s) of the claim(s) involved.

    The HO or OAO will not delay action on a pending claim when a prior claim is being reconstructed for screening purposes, unless the prior claim is needed for the adjudication of the pending claim. If OHA completes action on the pending claim prior to receipt of the reconstructed folder, the HO or OAO, as appropriate, will forward the class action material, including the alert, unneeded claim files, if any, and the reconstruction request to the OAO Class Action Coordinator, along with a copy of the action on the pending claim. For additional information on reconstruction procedures, see the Class Action Implementation instructions in HALLEX I-1-7-5 C.

  5. Class Membership Denials

    The Sunbury, Pennsylvania district office, P.O. Box 266, located at Tenth and Market Streets, Second Floor, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801, will hold all non-class member claim folders pending review by class counsel.

    Upon review of the folders, class counsel will contact the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) directly to resolve class membership disputes.

B. OHA Actions

  1. Pre-Screening Actions

    1. Current Claim in OHA

      As provided in Part V.A.3. above, if there is a current claim pending or stored at OHA Headquarters, the OAO Class Action Coordinator will receive the Bailey alert and related claim file(s). The OAO Class Action Coordinator will determine OHA jurisdiction for screening and forward as follows.

      • If the current claim is in an HO, the Coordinator will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and any prior claim file(s) to the HO for screening. (Part V.B.2.a. below provides instructions to HOs regarding the action to be taken if they receive an alert package but no longer have a current claim pending.)

      • If the current claim is before the Appeals Council, or is located in an OAO branch mini- docket or in an OAO Docket and Files Branch, the Coordinator will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and prior claim file(s) to the appropriate OAO branch for screening. (Part V.B.2.a. below provides instructions to the OAO branches regarding the action to be taken if they receive an alert package from the OAO Class Action Coordinator but no longer have a current claim pending.)

      If the Coordinator (or designee) is unable to locate the current claim file within OHA, the Coordinator (or designee) will broaden the claim file search and arrange for alert transfer or folder reconstruction, as necessary.

    2. Current Claim Pending in Court

      If the OAO Class Action Coordinator receives an alert for a claimant who has a civil action pending, either on the alerted case or on a subsequent or prior claim, the Coordinator will forward the alert and any accompanying claim file(s) to the appropriate OAO Court Case Preparation and Review Branch (CCPRB) for screening, using Attachment 3. (See Part V.B.2.b. below for special screening instructions when a civil action is involved.)

  2. Screening

    1. General Instructions

      The screening component will associate the alert and any prior claim file(s) with the claim file(s) in its possession and complete the screening sheet (see Attachment 4) as follows:

      • consider all applications denied (including res judicata denials/dismissals) during the Bailey timeframe;

      • follow all instructions on the screening sheet;

      • sign and date the original screening sheet, place it in the claim folder (on the top right side of the folder); and

      • if the screening component is an OHA Headquarters component, forward a copy of the screening sheet to the OAO Class Action Coordinator at the address in Part V.A.3. above. (The Coordinator will enter information from the screening sheet into a database and forward a copy of the screening sheet to the Division of Litigation Analysis and Implementation (DLAI)). If the screening component is an HO, forward a copy of the screening sheet directly to DLAI at the following address:

        Office of Hearings and Appeals
        Division of Litigation Analysis and Implementation
        One Skyline Tower, Suite 702
        5107 Leesburg Pike
        Falls, Church, VA 22041-3255

        HO personnel may also forward material by telefax to DLAI at (703) 305-0655. (DLAI will retain a copy of each screening sheet and forward a copy to Litigation Staff.)

        If the HO receives an alert only, or an alert associated with a prior claim file(s), and the HO no longer has the current claim file, it will return or forward the alert and any prior claim file(s) to the OAO Class Action Coordinator (see address in Part V.A.3. above) and advise the Coordinator of the action taken on the current claim and its destination. The Coordinator will determine the current claim file location and, if it is located in OHA Headquarters, will forward the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the responsible OAO Branch for screening using Attachment 3. If the file(s) is no longer in OHA, the Coordinator will use Attachment 5 to send the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the non-OHA location and request that the file(s) be forwarded to the appropriate DDS for screening.

        If an OAO branch receives an alert only, or an alert associated with a prior claim file(s), and the branch no longer has the current claim file (and it is not located in an OAO branch mini-docket or an OAO Docket and Files Branch), it will determine the location of the current claim file. If the current claim file is located within OHA, the OAO branch will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the current OHA location. If the files are no longer in OHA, the OAO branch will use Attachment 5 to send the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the non-OHA location and request that the file(s) be forwarded to the appropriate DDS for screening. The OAO branch will also advise the OAO Class Action Coordinator of its actions.

        NOTE:

        Final determinations or decisions made after November 30, 1984, on a claim filed by a potential Bailey class member may adjudicate the same timeframe covered by the Bailey claim. Instead of applying the doctrine of administrative res judicata to the Bailey claim, these claims should be denied class membership.

    2. Special OAO Screening Instructions if a Civil Action Is Involved

      As noted in Part V.B.1. above, the CCPRB will screen for Bailey class membership when a civil action is involved. The CCPRB's class membership determination will dictate the appropriate post-screening action.

      • If the claim pending in court was adjudicated in accordance with SSR 85-28 and resolved all Bailey issues, the claimant is not a Bailey class member entitled to relief. The CCPRB will follow the instructions in Part V.B.3.a. below for processing non-class member claims.

      • If the claim pending in court was adjudicated in accordance with SSR 85-28, but did not resolve all Bailey issue(s), e.g., there is a prior (inactive) Bailey claim and the claim pending in court did not include the entire period covered by the Bailey claim, and the claimant elects to have the case remanded to the Secretary for a redetermination (instead of proceeding in court), the CCPRB will forward the Bailey claim to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) for separate review. The CCPRB will modify the case flag in Attachment 9 to indicate that the pending court case does not resolve all Bailey issues and that the Bailey class member claim is being forwarded for separate processing. The CCPRB will notify the Class Action Coordinator of this action.

      • If the final administrative decision on the claim pending in court was not adjudicated in accordance with SSR 85-28 or is legally insufficient for other reasons, the CCPRB will initiate voluntary remand proceedings and consolidate the claims.

        NOTE:

        The CCPRB will immediately notify OGC if the pending court case is a Bailey class member claim so that OGC can notify the claimant of the option to have the case remanded for readjudication.

  3. Post-Screening Actions

    1. Non-Class Member Cases

      If the screening component determines that the individual is not a class member, the component will:

      • notify the individual, and representative, if any, using Attachment 6, of the non-class membership determination and the right to contact or write class counsel for additional review (modify Attachment 6 as necessary to fit the circumstances and posture of the case when there is a current claim);

      • include a postage prepaid postcard (that OHA Headquarters will supply), addressed to class counsel, as an accompaniment to the non-class membership determination notice;

      • retain a copy of the notice in the claim folder;

      • send a copy of the notice to:

        Peter B. Macky, Esq.
        Susquehanna Legal Services
        206 Arch Street
        Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801
        Attn: Bailey
      • send the non-class member claim folder(s) to the Sunbury, Pennsylvania district office using the pre-addressed route slip in Attachment 7.

      NOTE:

      Photocopy any material in the prior folder that is relevant to the pending current claim and place it in the current claim folder before shipping the prior folder.

      An individual who wishes to appeal a determination of non-class membership may do so only through class counsel, as explained in the notice (Attachment 6).

    2. Cases Determined to be Class Members

      If the screening component determines that the individual is a class member, the component will proceed with processing and adjudication in accordance with the instructions in Part VI. below.

VI. Processing and Adjudication

A. Cases Reviewed by the DDS

The DDS will conduct the first Bailey review except for cases consolidated at the OHA level (see Part VI.D. below). The DDS determination will be a reconsideration determination, regardless of the administrative level at which the class member claim(s) was previously decided, with full appeal rights (i.e., ALJ hearing, Appeals Council and judicial review). Except as otherwise noted in this instruction, ALJs should process and adjudicate requests for hearing on Bailey DDS review cases in the same manner as for any other case.

B. OHA Adjudication of Class Member Claims

The following instruction applies to both consolidation cases in which the ALJ or Appeals Council conducts the Bailey readjudication and to DDS readjudication cases in which the claimant requests a hearing or Appeals Council review. Except as noted herein, HOs and Headquarters will process Bailey class member cases according to all other current practices and procedures including coding, scheduling, developing evidence, routing, etc.

  1. Type of Review and Period to be Considered

    1. Pursuant to the Bailey order, regardless of whether the claim under review is an initial claim or cessation case, the type of review to be conducted is a redetermination. The readjudication shall be a de novo reevaluation of the class member's eligibility for benefits based on evidence in his or her file, including newly obtained evidence, relevant to the period that was at issue in the administrative decision(s) that forms the basis of the Bailey class membership. Evidence will be reviewed:

      • in title II denial cases - from the seventeenth month prior to the date of the original application, or date of earliest alleged onset of disability, whichever is later, through the date of the latest administrative decision resulting in class membership;

      • in title XVI denial cases - from the original date of application for the earliest Bailey claim through the date of the latest administrative decision resulting in class membership; and

      • in title II/title XVI cessation cases - from the date of the termination of disability benefits through the date of the latest administrative decision resulting in class membership.

    2. If the readjudication results in a favorable decision, the adjudicator will determine, under the medical improvement standard, whether the class member's disability has continued through the date of the readjudication (or through the date of onset of disability established in any allowance on a subsequent application).

    3. If the evidence establishes that disability began only at some point after the administrative decision(s) that forms the basis of the Bailey class membership, the class member must file a new application to establish eligibility. Use the standards in 20 CFR §§ 404.621 and 416.335 in determining whether a new application is timely filed.

  2. Step Two of the Sequential Evaluation

    Bailey does not require any change in OHA's current adjudicatory policies or practices with respect to step two of the sequential evaluation. Effective with the enactment of the 1984 Amendments to the Social Security Act, OHA's adjudicators have considered the combined effect of individual “not severe” impairments in evaluating disability claims at step two. ALJs and the Appeals Council may, if appropriate, continue to deny or cease the disability claims of Delaware and Pennsylvania residents in accordance with 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521, 416.920(c) and 416.921, as well as SSR 85-28. The then Acting Associate Commissioner's memorandum, dated February 21, 1991 (Attachment 8), regarding the proper standard for adjudicating claims at step two, remains in effect.

  3. Class Member is Deceased

    If a class member is deceased, the usual survivor and substitute party provisions and existing procedures for determining distribution of any potential underpayment apply.

C. Claim at OHA But No Current Action Pending

If the claim folder (either a class member or a subsequent claim) is located in OHA Headquarters, but there is no claim actively pending administrative review, i.e., Headquarters is holding the folder awaiting potential receipt of a request for review or notification that a civil action has been filed, OAO will associate the alert with the folder and screen for class membership (the OAO Class Action Coordinator will coordinate the necessary actions, as explained above in Part V.) (See Part V. B. 3. above, for non-class member processing instructions.)

  • If the 120-day retention period for holding a claim folder after an ALJ decision or Appeals Council action has expired, OAO will attach a Bailey class member flag (see Attachment 9) to the outside of the folder and send the claim folder(s) to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) for review of the Bailey class member claim.

  • If fewer than 120 days have elapsed, OAO will attach a Bailey class member flag to the outside of the folder (see Attachment 9) to ensure that the case is routed to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) after expiration of the retention period. Pending expiration of the retention period, OAO will also:

    • return unappealed ALJ decisions and dismissals to DFB, OAO; and

    • return unappealed Appeals Council denials to the appropriate OAO minidocket.

  • The respective OAO components will monitor the retention period and, if the claimant does not seek further administrative or judicial review, route the folder(s) to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) in a timely manner.

D. Processing and Adjudicating Class Member Claims in Conjunction with Current Claims (Consolidation Procedures)

  1. General

    If a class member has a current claim pending at any administrative level and consolidation is warranted according to the guidelines below, the appropriate component will consolidate all Bailey class member claims with the current claim at the level at which the current claim is pending.

  2. Current Claim Pending in the Hearing Office

    1. Hearing Has Been Scheduled or Held, and All Remand Cases

      Except as noted below, if a Bailey class member has an initial request for hearing pending on a current claim, and the ALJ has either scheduled or held a hearing, and in all remand cases, the ALJ will consolidate the Bailey case with the appeal on the current claim.

      EXCEPTIONS:

      The ALJ will not consolidate the claims if

        • the current claim and the Bailey claim do not have any issue(s) in common. For example:

          • if the current claim is a title II retirement or survivor's insurance benefits claim or a title XVI claim involving only nondisability issues, e.g., income, resources or residency, it will not have any issue(s) in common with the Bailey claim; however, if the current claim is a disability claim, for consolidation purposes, it will have an issue in common with the Bailey claim, regardless of the period at issue or the title under which the current claim was filed;

            or

        • a court remand contains a court-ordered time limit and it will not be possible to meet the time limit if the claims are consolidated.

      If the claims are consolidated, follow Part VI.D.2.c. below. If the claims are not consolidated, follow Part VI.D.2.d. below.

    2. Hearing Not Scheduled

      Except as noted below, if a Bailey class member has an initial request for hearing pending on a current claim and the HO has not yet scheduled a hearing, the ALJ will not consolidate the Bailey claim and the current claim. Instead, the ALJ will dismiss the request for hearing on the current claim and forward both the Bailey claim and the current claim to the DDS for further action (see Part VI.D.2.d. below).

      EXCEPTION:

      If the hearing has not been scheduled because the claimant waived the right to an in-person hearing, and the ALJ is prepared to issue a fully favorable decision on the current claim, and this decision would also be fully favorable with respect to all issues raised by the application that makes the claimant a Bailey class member, the ALJ will consolidate the claims.

      If the claims are consolidated, follow Part VI.D.2.c. below. If the claims are not consolidated, follow Part VI.D.2.d. below.

    3. Action if Claims Consolidated

      If the ALJ decides to consolidate the current claim with the Bailey claim(s), the HO will:

      • give proper notice of any new issue(s) as required by 20 CFR §§ 404.946(b) and 416.1446(b), if the Bailey claim raises any additional issue(s) not raised by the current claim;

      • offer the claimant a supplemental hearing if the ALJ has already held a hearing and the Bailey claim raises any additional issue(s), unless the ALJ is prepared to issue a fully favorable decision with respect to the Bailey claim;

      • issue one decision that addresses both the issues raised by the current request for hearing and those raised by the Bailey claim (the ALJ's decision will clearly indicate that the ALJ considered the Bailey claim pursuant to the Bailey court order); and

      • send copies of the consolidated hearing decision to both:

        Office of Hearings and Appeals
        Division of Litigation Analysis and Implementation
        P.O. Box 10723
        Arlington, VA 22210
        ATTN: Bailey Coordinator
        Suite 702

        and

        Litigation Staff
        Office of the Deputy Commissioner
        for Programs, SSA
        P.O. Box 17729
        Baltimore, Maryland 21235
        ATTN: Bailey Coordinator
    4. Action if Claims Not Consolidated

      If common issues exist but the ALJ decides not to consolidate the current claim with the Bailey claim because a hearing has not yet been scheduled, the HO will:

      • dismiss the request for hearing on the current claim without prejudice, using the language in Attachment 10 and the covering notice in Attachment 11; and

      • send both the Bailey claim and the current claim to the appropriate DDS for consolidation and further action (see Part III. above).

      If the ALJ decides not to consolidate the current claim with the Bailey claim because: 1) the claims do not have any issue(s) in common, or 2) there is a court-ordered time limit, the ALJ will:

      • flag the Bailey claim for DDS review using Attachment 12; immediately route it to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) for adjudication; and retain a copy of Attachment 12 in the current claim folder; and

      • take the necessary action to complete the record and issue a decision on the current claim.

  3. Current Claim Pending at the Appeals Council

    The action the Appeals Council takes on the current claim determines the disposition of the Bailey claim. Therefore, OAO must keep the claim folders together until the Appeals Council completes its action on the current claim. The following sections identify the possible Appeals Council actions on the current claim and the appropriate corresponding action on the Bailey claim.

    1. Appeals Council Intends to Dismiss, Deny Review or Issue a Denial Decision on the Current Claim — No Bailey Issue(s) Will Remain Unresolved.

      This will usually arise when the current claim duplicates the Bailey review claim, i.e., the Bailey claim raises an issue of disability for a period covered by the current claim, and the current claim has been adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of SSR 85-28. In this instance, the Appeals Council will consolidate the claims and proceed with its intended action. The Appeals Council's order, decision or notice of action will clearly indicate that the ALJ's or Appeals Council's action resolved or resolves both the current claim and the Bailey claim.

    2. Appeals Council Intends to Dismiss, Deny Review or Issue a Denial Decision on the Current Claim — Bailey Issue(s) Will Remain Unresolved.

      This will usually arise when the current claim does not duplicate the Bailey claim, e.g., the Bailey claim raises an issue of potential entitlement to disability benefits for a period prior to the period adjudicated in the current claim. In this instance, the Appeals Council will proceed with its intended action on the current claim in accordance with the provisions of SSR 85-28.

      OAO staff will attach a Bailey case flag (Attachment 9) to the Bailey claim, immediately forward the Bailey claim to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) for adjudication, and retain a copy of Attachment 9 in the current claim file. OAO will modify Attachment 9 to indicate that the Appeals Council action on the current claim does not resolve all Bailey issues and that the Bailey class member claim is being forwarded for separate processing. OAO staff will include copies of the ALJ or Appeals Council decision or order on the current claim and the exhibit list used for the ALJ or Appeals Council decision.

    3. Appeals Council Intends to Issue a Favorable Decision on the Current Claim — No Bailey Issue(s) Will Remain Unresolved.

      If the Appeals Council intends to issue a fully favorable decision on a current claim, and this decision would be fully favorable with respect to all issues raised by the application that makes the claimant a Bailey class member, the Appeals Council will proceed with its intended action. In this instance, the Appeals Council will consolidate the claims, reopen the final determination or decision on the Bailey claim and issue a decision that adjudicates both applications. The Appeals Council's decision will clearly indicate that the Appeals Council considered the Bailey claim pursuant to the Bailey court order. For class action reporting purposes, the Appeals Council will send copies of its decision to the Bailey coordinators listed in Part VI.D.2.c. above.

    4. Appeals Council Intends to Issue a Favorable Decision on the Current Claim — Bailey Issue(s) Will Remain Unresolved.

      If the Appeals Council intends to issue a favorable decision on a current claim and this decision would not be fully favorable with respect to all issues raised by the Bailey claim, the Appeals Council will proceed with its intended action. In this instance, the Appeals Council will request the effectuating component to forward the claim folders to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) after the Appeals Council's decision is effectuated. OAO staff will include the following language on the transmittal sheet used to forward the case for effectuation: “Bailey court case review needed — following effectuation, forward the attached combined folders to (insert address of the DDS having jurisdiction for review of the Bailey class member claim).”

    5. Appeals Council Intends to Remand the Current Claim to an ALJ.

      If the Appeals Council intends to remand the current claim to an ALJ, it will proceed with its intended action, and include consolidation instructions, unless one of the exceptions below applies. In its remand order, the Appeals Council will direct the ALJ to consolidate the Bailey claim with the action on the current claim pursuant to the instructions in Part VI.D.2.a. above.

    EXCEPTIONS:

    The Appeals Council will not direct the ALJ to consolidate the claim if

    • the current claim and the Bailey claim do not have any issue(s) in common. For example:

      • if the current claim is a title II retirement or survivor's insurance benefits claim or a title XVI claim involving only nondisability issues, e.g., income, resources or residency, it will not have any issue(s) in common with the Bailey claim; however, if the current claim is a disability claim, for consolidation purposes, it will have an issue in common with the Bailey claim, regardless of the period at issue or the title under which the current claim was filed;

        or

    • a court remand contains a court-ordered time limit and it will not be possible to meet the time limit if the claims are consolidated.

    If the claims do not share a common issue or a court-ordered time limit makes consolidation impractical, OAO will forward the Bailey class member claim to the appropriate DDS (see Part III. above) for separate review. The case flag in Attachment 12 should be modified to indicate that the Appeals Council, rather than an ALJ, is forwarding the Bailey class member claim for separate processing.

E. Copy Requirements

For all cases in which OHA is the first level of review for the Bailey claim (i.e., the Appeals Council or an ALJ consolidates the Bailey claim with action on a current claim or a class member only claim is pending at OHA), HO, or OAO personnel, as appropriate, will send a copy of any OHA decision to the Bailey coordinators at the addresses listed in Part VI.D.2.c. above.

VII. Case Coding

HO personnel will code prior claims into the Hearing Office Tracking System (HOTS) and the OHA Case Control System (OHA CCS) as “reopenings.” If the prior claim is consolidated with a current claim already pending at the hearing level (see Part VI. above), HO personnel will not code the prior claim as a separate hearing request. Instead, HO personnel will change the hearing type on the current claim to a “reopening.”

To identify class member cases in HOTS, HO personnel must code “BA” in the “Class Action” field. No special identification codes will be used in the OHA CCS.

VIII. Inquiries

HO personnel should direct any questions to their Regional Office. Regional Office personnel should contact the Division of Field Practices and Procedures in the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge at (703) 305-0022.

Attachment 1. - Bailey v. Sullivan Stipulation and Order Filed July 29, 1991.

IRVIN BAILEY, on behalf of

himself and all others                                                [Filed July 29, 1991]

similarly situated,                                                       Civil Action No. 83-1797

Plaintiff,

v.

Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.

Secretary of Health and Human Services,

Defendant.

STIPULATION AND ORDERS

IT IS STIPULATED by plaintiff and defendant, through their respective counsel, that relief to the plaintiff class, as defined in footnote one herein, shall be implemented as follows:

  1. The Social Security Administration (SSA) shall, by means of its data processing systems, identify the name, Social Security numbers and last known addresses of potential class members, in accordance with the criteria set forth in the first paragraph of the definition of the class entitled to relief. This process of identification has begun, and shall be completed within 60 days of the Court's approval and entry of this Stipulation and Order.

  2. Within 60 days of the issuance of the instructions described in ¶ 8 of this Stipulation and Order, SSA shall send a notice by first class mail to each potential class member so identified, at his or her last known address. This notice will instruct potential class members of their possible entitlement to a redetermination of their claims, and will further inform such individuals that they must return an enclosed pre-addressed and postage prepaid postcard or form, within 30 days of receipt of the notice, in the event that such redetermination is desired.

  3. In the event that a notice mailed pursuant to the preceding paragraph is returned as undeliverable, SSA will attempt to obtain updated addresses by:

    1. checking its own records:

    2. providing, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a, computer tapes of potential class members' names and last known addresses to various Pennsylvania and Delaware State agencies such as Welfare, Child Welfare, Mental Health, Aging, Child Support Enforcement and Revenue, requesting that said agencies search their records to secure current addresses, provided that the defendant shall not be required to institute legal proceedings to gain access to State data system records or to reimburse or compensate States for searching such records:

    3. preparing and disseminating appropriate bilingual posters to all SSA district and field offices, SSA Offices of Hearings and Appeals and State welfare offices, in the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware, for posting in such offices, informing individuals of their potential right to review of their disability claims under appropriate standards, provided that the defendant shall not be required to institute legal proceedings to compel such posting by offices under State jurisdiction.

    SSA will thereafter mail a second notice to all potential class members for whom updated addresses are obtained.

  4. If a potential class member receives a notice referred to in ¶¶ 2 or 3 and does not respond within the required 30 days, he or she may be denied review under this Stipulation and Order absent a finding of “good cause” as set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.911, 416.1411.

  5. For those individuals who timely respond to the notice, SSA will screen the applicable claims files or other relevant SSA records to determine if they are class members entitled to relief. Those individuals who have been determined not to be class members entitled to relief will be notified in writing of such determination and will be further informed of their right to a review thereof, in accordance with the procedures set forth in ¶ 6 of this Stipulation and Order. Copies of said notices shall be sent contemporaneously to class counsel.

  6. Individuals who disagree with a finding that they do not meet the criteria for class members entitled to relief may contact or write class counsel for additional review. In an effort to facilitate such contact, SSA will provide postage prepaid postcards or forms, addressed to class counsel, as an accompaniment to the non-class membership determination notices referred to in the preceding paragraph of this Stipulation and Order. Class counsel may, within 60 days of the date of the non-class membership determination notice, in turn notify in writing an individual to be designated in the Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Division, Department of Health and Human Services, Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235 that review of the individual's claims file or other records relied upon by SSA in making the non-class membership determination is desired. Within 30 days of the receipt of class counsel's written request to review such records, SSA will make available that individual's records at a designated SSA field office location in Pennsylvania or Delaware, and will notify class counsel in writing. Such records will be available for review by class counsel for a period of 30 days. At the expiration of the 30 days, if class counsel has still not reviewed the records, it shall be assumed that review is no longer desired, and SSA's non-clam membership determination shall become final and not subject to further review.

  7. If class counsel's review of the relevant SSA records establishes that there is a dispute as to whether the individual is a class member entitled to relief, class counsel will notify the Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Division, Department of Health and Human Services, by telephone or in writing, within 30 days of such review. Both parties will then attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, class counsel may submit any unresolved dispute to the Court for final resolution, by proper motion made within 30 days of the date of written reaffirmation, by the Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Division, of the prior non-class membership determination, and the defendant shall have the opportunity to respond thereto consistent with federal and local court rules. Failure of class counsel to request a judicial determination within the aforesaid 30 day period shall render SSA's non-class membership determination final and not subject to further review.

  8. Within 120 days of the Court's approval and entry of this Stipulation and Order, SSA will issue instructions for its effectuation, including the notices referred to in ¶¶ 2 and 5, the posters referred to in ¶ 3(c), the cards or forms referred to in ¶ 6, and the proper standard for evaluating the eligibility of class members for disability benefits, to all adjudicators responsible for conducting adjudications hereunder. Copies of such instructions will be provided to class counsel for their comments prior to issuance. Should there be dispute as to the contents of the instructions, class counsel may file a written objection thereto with defendant's counsel within 10 days of their receipt, during which time the instructions will be held in abeyance, and the parties will thereafter attempt to resolve the dispute within 10 days of the receipt by defendant's counsel of such written objection. In the event the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, class counsel shall, within 5 days of the expiration of the 10 day period for settlement, submit the matter to the Court for resolution, and the defendant shall have the opportunity to respond to such submission consistent with federal and local court rules. Failure of class counsel to submit a written objection and/or request such a judicial resolution within the aforesaid periods shall render the instructions and notices proposed by SSA final and not subject to further review.

  9. The claims of class members whose denial or termination resulted in class membership will be reviewed from:

    1. the seventeenth month prior to the date of application or date of earliest alleged onset of disability, whichever is later, in cases where benefits under Title II were denied [Note: in those Title II cases where beginning review at the earlier point in time would benefit the class member consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements, review will be done from that earlier point):

    2. the date of application, in cases where benefits under Title XVI were denied; or

    3. the date of the termination of disability benefits;

    whichever is applicable. The review shall continue through the date of the latest denial or termination of benefits that made the class member entitled to relief under this Stipulation and Order.

  10. In evaluating the severity of an individual's impairment or impairments during the period referenced in ¶ 9 of this Stipulation, SSA will afford class members the opportunity to provide evidence not previously included in the claims file which is relevant thereto and SSA will attempt to secure and/or develop any further evidence necessary to adequately evaluate the severity of the individual's impairment or impairments during the referenced period.

  11. Where, upon the review referenced in ¶ 9 of this Stipulation and Order, an individual's impairment or impairments are considered to have been severe (either individually or in combination), SSA shall evaluate the individual's claim in accordance with the process of sequential evaluation set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (in cessation cases, §§ 404.1594 and 416.994). Should this review result in a finding of disability, the claim of such individual will be reopened, with the individual's claim of entitlement to benefits being determined through the date of the new determination rendered hereunder. Upon such reopening, SSA shall attempt to obtain updated medical records, and the individual shall cooperate in this regard in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512 et. seq., 416.912 et. seq.

  12. Except as noted in ¶¶ 15 and 16 of this Stipulation and Order, all reviews shall be conducted at the reconsideration level, with determinations being appealable to an Administrative Law Judge upon request made pursuant to the procedures set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.933, 416.1433. Appeal of an Administrative Law Judge decision will be to the Appeals Council, upon request made pursuant to the procedures set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.968, 416.1468. Class members will retain rights to judicial review as provided in 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(1) and (3).

  13. In cases where SSA determines that individuals were confused by the notices sent pursuant to the provisions of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.922, 404.953, 416.1422, and 416.1453, SSA shall extend the normal 60 day time limits for requesting administrative appeals upon a showing of good cause as set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.911 and 416.1411.

  14. SSA shall not reopen any subsequent application that has been decided favorably to a class member solely because review results in denial of the prior application under the appropriate standards.

  15. At the option of SSA, class members with subsequent disability claims active and simultaneously pending at any administrative level of review at the time the class claim is being evaluated may have all claims covered by this Stipulation and Order consolidated with the current claim.

  16. Class members having individual actions pending in federal court with respect to the unfavorable administrative decision resulting in class membership may elect either to seek a remand of their claim(s) for review by an Administrative Law Judge (with the Court retaining jurisdiction to review final decisions) or to have the action proceed in federal court pursuant to, and subject to the limitations contained in, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall be construed to avoid or preclude the res judicata of a final court decision where a class member decides to proceed with his or her individual action in federal court or to authorize the relitigation in such individual actions of issues previously determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the instant case.

  17. All individuals who received partially favorable decisions and who otherwise fall within the class parameters as defined above at footnote one shall receive the benefit of the provisions of this Stipulation and Order, where such claims are affirmatively brought to the attention of SSA and/or the Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Division, by such individuals or class counsel, in writing, within two years of the Court's approval and entry of this Stipulation.

  18. SSA shall provide class counsel with the following:

    1. an alphabetical list of the names, Social Security numbers and last known addresses of all potential class members identified pursuant to the procedures set forth in ¶ 1 of this Stipulation, within 90 days of the Court's approval hereof;

    2. a quarterly report, categorized by State and number, of allowances and denials, which reporting shall commence four months after the sending of the notices referred to in ¶ 2 of this Stipulation and shall continue for a period of two years, provided that the parties may agree to, or the Court may order, an extension thereof if circumstances warrant;

    3. an alphabetical list of class members denied at each stage of administrative review;

    4. an alphabetical list of potential class members whose notices were undeliverable despite the efforts undertaken in accordance with ¶ 3 of this Stipulation and Order; and

    5. the opportunity for a quarterly sampling of case files after administrative decisions have been rendered, at mutually acceptable times and locations and in accordance with procedures to be agreed upon by the parties.

  19. The resort by class counsel to the dispute resolution or written objection procedures set forth in ¶¶ 7 and 8 of this Stipulation and Order shall serve to stay SSA's duty to comply with any time limitations otherwise set forth herein. The stay shall be continued until resolution of such dispute or objection, at which time SSA shall have the benefit of the unexpired remainder of the time limitation or 10 additional days, whichever is, longer, subject to the Court's expansion or modification thereof.

  20. The time limitations set forth in this Stipulation and Order shall be subject to modification by mutual agreement of the parties at any time, or at the request of either of the parties hereto, by motion duly served, upon a showing of one or more of the following reasons:

    1. due to a material change in circumstances, compliance with the provisions(s) sought to be modified would impose an undue or unreasonable burden not reasonably contemplated by the party seeking such modification at the time this Stipulation was executed;

    2. despite good faith efforts by the party seeking such modification, the time limitation caught to be modified is impractical or unworkable in practice: or

    3. any other reason justifying relief from the operation thereof pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  21. Within 30 days of receipt by SSA of this Stipulation and Order following the Court's approval and entry thereof, defendant shall make good faith efforts to pay to class counsel attorney fees, expenses and costs in the amount of $104,240.70 in full and final settlement of any and all claims in this action for attorney fees, expenses or costs pursuant to any statute or other basis for services that have been performed or that will be performed in the future in this action or in any administrative or court proceeding arising thereunder or relating to this action or this Stipulation. No other claims for attorney fees, expenses or costs by any counsel for the plaintiffs or plaintiff class will be allowed in this action. This does not preclude requests for attorney fees by class members who subsequently purse appeals of benefit denials on their individual claims, for legal services rendered in the pursuit of such appeals.

  22. The defendant and his successors, and the United States of America and any department, agency or establishment thereof and any officers, employees, agents, successors or assigns of such department, agency or establishment (hereinafter referred to as the “releasees”) are released from any additional liability for attorney fees, expenses or costs based on any and all claims and causes of action which have been, could have been or will be asserted in this case by reason of, or with respect to, any of the matters alleged in this action, which the plaintiffs or the plaintiff class, or any of them, or their heirs, executors, successors or assigns had, now have, or may subsequently have against the releasees, including, without limitation, any and all claims for attorney fees, expenses or costs for services that will be performed in the future in this action or in any administrative or court proceeding arising under or related to this Stipulation and Order, except as provided in the preceding paragraph.

  23. The terms set forth in this Stipulation and Order shall be in full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims and demands, of whatever nature, the plaintiffs had or may hereafter acquire against the defendant, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and any of his agencies, agents, servants, employees or instrumentalities on account of and with respect to the incidents, claims or circumstances giving rise to and/or alleged in the pleadings filled herein. Upon the Court's approval and entry of this Stipulation and Order, the Complaint herein and any amendments thereto and claims included therein shall be dismissed with prejudice, and the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction of this matter solely for the purpose of interpreting and enforcing the terms of this Stipulation and Order.

  24. Since this Stipulation is entered by agreement of the parties, as a means of avoiding further litigation, the terms of this Stipulation and Order shall not be cited as precedent in any other case. This Stipulation and Order is not an admission or finding that the position of the defendant was not substantially justified or that the defendant is liable as a matter of law for the payment of any attorney fees, expenses or costs.

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR CLASS

/s/________________________
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
PETER B. MACKY
Susqehanna Legal Services
206 Arch Street
Sunbury, PA 17801
James J. West
United States Attorney
  By                   /s/
_________________________
BARBARA L. KOSIK
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Post Office Box 309
Scranton, PA 18501  
/s/
_________________________
Paul Welch
Susqehanna Legal Services
215 E. Water Street
Lock Haven, PA 17745
OF COUNSEL:

Donald A. Gonya

  Chief Counsel for Social Security

Randolph W. Gaines
  Deputy Chief Counsel for Social Security

A. George Lowe
Deputy Chief Counsel for Social Security
     Disability Litigation

Lawrence A. Levey Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Division
Department of Health and Human Services
Room 639 Altmeyer Building
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235

AFFIRMED AND SO ORDERED: /s/
_________________________________
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
  DATED:         7/29/91
_______________________________

_________________________

1The class entitled to relief is defined as follows: All Pennsylvania or Delaware applicants for or recipients of Social Security disability benefits or Supplemental Security Income benefits based upon disability who received unfavorable administrative decisions resulting in denial or termination of such benefits because their impairment or impairments were considered not were and who, between August 7, 1983 and November 30, 1984,

  1. had received a final decision of the Secretary: or

  2. had received an unfavorable administrative decision but had not exhausted administrative remedies.

The class shall exclude those individuals who subsequently received a final decision in federal court with respect to the unfavorable administrative decision or who have previously been notified of their entitlement to readjudication of their claims pursuant to court order in another class action, or who have received a subsequent administrative award of benefits with respect to the same period at issue.

Attachment 2. BAILEY COURT CASE FLAG/ALERTS



TITLE: CATEGORY:



REVIEW OFFICE PSC MFT DOC ALERT DATE


BOAN OR PAN NAME

CAN OR HUN RESP DTE TOE



FOLDER LOCATION INFORMATION
TITLE CFL CFL DATE ACN PAYEE ADDRESS

SCREENING OFFICE ADDRESS:

Office of Vocational Rehabilitation
Bureau of Disability Determination
1313 North Seventh Street
Harrisburg, PA 17120

OR

Appropriate DDS

ATTN: Bailey Screening Unit

IF CLAIM IS PENDING OR STORED IN OHA, THEN SHIP TO:


Office of Hearings and Appeals
Office of Appellate Operations (OAO)
One Skyline Tower, Suite 701
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3200

ATTN: OAO Class Action Coordinator
(Case locator code 5007)

Attachment 3. Route Slip or Case Flag For Screening

Bailey Class Action Case

SCREENING NECESSARY

Claimant's Name: __________________________________

SSN: __________________________________

This claimant may be a Bailey class member. The attached folder location information indicates that a current claim folder is pending in your office. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached alert [and prior claim folder(s)] for association, screening for class membership, consolidation consideration and possible readjudication.

Please refer to HALLEX Temporary Instruction 5-4-17 for additional information and instructions.

TO: _______________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________

Attachment 4. BAILEY SCREENING SHEET

1. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

   ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___

BIC

___ ___

2. NAME (First Name, Middle Initial, Last Name)

 

3. DATE (Month, Day, Year) Example: June 20, 1992 would be 06-20-92

___ ___ - ___ ___- ___ ___

4. a.

MEMBER (J)       NONMEMBER (F)

      ___                         ___

b. SCREENOUT CODE

      ___  ___   

(see Item 13 for screenout codes)

5.  Is this a DIB, CDB claim or a SSID adult claim?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 13)

6.  Did the individual reside in and receive a title II or title XVI denial/termination in the State of Delaware or Pennsylvania between August 7, 1983, and November 30, 1984, inclusive?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 13)

7.  Was the denial or cessation determination/decision made on the basis of a finding that the individual's impairment(s) was not severe?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 13)

8.  Were benefits denied or ceased at any level of the administrative process (i.e., initial, reconsideration, ALJ hearing or Appeals Councilreview) between August 7, 1983, and November 30, 1984, inclusive?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 13)

9.  Did any of the determinations or decisions made between August 7, 1983, and November 30, 1984, inclusive, become final? (That is, if there was a determination or decision on the same claim made after November 30, 1984, then the answer should be “No.”)

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 13)

10.  Did the individual subsequently receive a final decision in federal court following judicial review of the unfavorable administrative decision?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 13)

11.  Was the individual ever notified of his/her entitlement to readjudication of his/her claim pursuant to a court order in another class action?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 13)

12.  Did the individual receive a final administrative decision, either favorable or unfavorable, after November 30, 1984, on a subsequent claim that covered the same period as the Bailey claim?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 13)

13.Enter the SCREENOUT CODE in item 4.b. as follows:

Enter 05 if question 5 was answered “NO.”

Enter 06 if question 6 was answered “NO.”

Enter 07 if question 7 was answered “NO”

Enter 08 if question 8 was answered “NO.”

Enter 09 if question 9 was answered “NO.”

Enter 10 if question 10 was answered “YES.”

Enter 11 if question 11 was answered “YES.”

Enter 12 if question 12 was answered “YES.”

 

 

 

No other screened code

entry is appropriate.

After completing 4.b. check

the appropriate box in 4.a.

SIGNATURE OF SCREENER COMPONENT DATE

Enter dates of all applications screened.

    ________________ _________________ ________________ _________________

Attachment 5. Route Slip For Routing Class Member Alert (and Prior Claim Foodless)) to ODIO In PSC — OHA No longer Has Correct Claim

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE:
TO: INITIALS DATE
1.    
2.    
3.    
4.    
5.    
6.    
7.    
XX ACTION   FILE   NOTE AND RETURN
  APPROVAL   FOR CLEARANCE   PER CONVERSATION
  AS REQUESTED   FOR CORRECTION   PREPARE REPLY
  CIRCULATE   FOR YOUR INFORMATION   SEE ME
  COMMENT   INVESTIGATE   SIGNATURE
  COORDINATION   JUSTIFY    
           

REMARKS

BAILEY CASE

Claimant: ___________________________

SSN: ________________________________

OHA received the attached alert [and prior claim folder(s)] for screening and no longer has the current claim folder. Our records show that you now have possession of the current claim. Accordingly, we are forwarding the alert and any accompanying prior claim folder(s) for association with the current claim. After associating the alert with the current claim, please forward to the appropriate DDS for screening and possible readjudication. SEE POMS DI 42525.005 OR DI 12525.005

Attachment

DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions.

FROM:

Office of Hearings and Appeals

__________________________________________

SUITE/BUILDING
PHONE NUMBER

OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
* U.S.GPO:1985-0-461-274/200020 Prescribed by GSA
FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11-.206

Attachment 6. Non-Class Membership Notice

SOCIAL

SECURITY      Important Information

NOTICE

_____________________________________________________________

From: Department of Health and Human Services

Social Security Administration

_____________________________________________________________

___________________________ DATE: __________________

___________________________ CLAIM NUMBER: __________________

___________________________

We are writing to tell you that we received your request to review your earlier claim for disability benefits under the Bailey, et al. v. Sullivan court decision. We have looked at your case and have decided that you are not a class member. This means that we will not review our earlier decision that you were not disabled. The reason you are not a class member under the Bailey court decision is checked below.

Why You Are Not a Class Member

You are not a Bailey class member because:

_______ You did not reside in Delaware or Pennsylvania at any time between August 7, 1983, and November 30, 1984, inclusive.
_______ As a Delaware or Pennsylvania resident, you did not receive a decision denying or terminating disability benefits at any administrative level between August 7, 1983, and November 30, 1984, inclusive.
_______ You received a decision or determination after November 30, 1984, on appeal of the same potential Bailey claim that was denied or terminated at a lower level of review between August 7, 1983, and November 30, 1984, inclusive.
_______ You filed a later claim that was denied after November 30, 1984, and covered the same period as the potential Bailey claim.
_______

Your benefits were denied or terminated for some reason other than “non-severe” medical impairments. The reason was:

______________________________________________

We Are Not Deciding If You Are Disabled

It is important for you to know that we are not making a decision about whether you are disabled. We are deciding only that you are not a Bailey class member.

If You Are Disabled Now

If you think you are disabled now, you should fill out a new application at any Social Security office.

If You Have Any Questions

If you have any questions, you may contact your local Social Security office. If you call or visit one of our offices, please have this letter with you. It will help us answer your questions.

Additionally, if you have someone helping you with your claim, you should contact him or her.

A copy of this letter is being sent to the attorneys for the class. If they disagree, we may change our minds and look at your case again. If you disagree, you may write or call class counsel, who will answer your questions about class membership without charge. The name, address and telephone number of class counsel is:

Peter B. Macky, Esq.
Susquehanna Legal Services
206 Arch Street
Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801
Attn: Bailey
1-800-326-9264

To help you contact Mr. Macky, we have enclosed a postage prepaid postcard addressed to him.

Si usted no entiende esta carta, llevela a la oficina de Seguro Social arriba mencionada para que se la expliquen.

cc: Peter B. Macky, Esq.
Susquehanna Legal Services

Attachment 7. Route Slip For Non-Class Membership Cases

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE:
TO: INITIALS DATE
1. SSA District Office    
2. P.O. Box 266    
3. Sunbury, PA 17801    
4.    
5.    
6.    
7.    
XX ACTION   FILE   NOTE AND RETURN
  APPROVAL   FOR CLEARANCE   PER CONVERSATION
  AS REQUESTED   FOR CORRECTION   PREPARE REPLY
  CIRCULATE   FOR YOUR INFORMATION   SEE ME
  COMMENT   INVESTIGATE   SIGNATURE
  COORDINATION   JUSTIFY    
           

REMARKS

BAILEY CASE

Claimant: ___________________________

SSN: ________________________________

We have determined that this claimant is not a Bailey class member. (See screening sheet and copy of non-class membership notice in the attached claim folder(s).) SEE POMS DI 12525.005

Attachment

DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions.

FROM:

Office of Hearings and Appeals

__________________________________________

SUITE/BUILDING
PHONE NUMBER

OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
*U.S. GPO:1985-0-461-274/20020 Prescribed by GSA
FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206

Attachment 8. Acting Associate Commissioner's Memorandum Dated February 21, 1991, Entitled “The Standard for Evaluating 'Not Severe' Impairments.”

ssalogo.gif

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Social Security Administration

Refer to:

FEB 21, 1991

Office of Hearings and Appeals
P.O. Box 3200
Arlington, VA 22203
MEMORANDUM TO: Headquarters Executive Staff
Appeals Council Members
Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges
Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judges
Administrative Law Judges
Supervisory Staff Attorneys
Decision Writers
FROM: Acting Associate Commissioner
SUBJECT: The Standard for Evaluating “Not Severe” Impairments — ACTION

During the past few months, the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has requested voluntary remand in a number of cases, denied by the Secretary at step two of the sequential evaluation, on the grounds that the decisions have not been fully consistent with SSA policy and the Supreme Courts opinion in Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987).

Despite the Yuckert decision, extensive litigation, both in individual cases and in significant class actions, continues on the issue of how the Agency applies the step two standard expressed in Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-28. Because the courts continue to give step two denials close scrutiny, I am asking all adjudicators and decision writers to carefully review SSR 85-28 to ensure that they are applying the proper standard for adjudicating claims at step two.

In accordance with SSR 85-28, a step two denial is appropriate only in very limited situations. The evidence must establish that the claimants impairment, or combination of impairments, is so slight that it does not have more than a minimal effect on the individual's ability to perform basic work activities. When the medical evidence is inconclusive and does not clearly establish the effect of a claimant impairment(s), or when the evidence shows more than a minimal effect, the claim may not be denied at step two.

Decisions denying claims at step two must include a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence of record and a decisional rationale consistent with SSR 85-28. Even when the medical evidence of record clearly fails to establish that the claimant has more than a slight mental or physical abnormality, the decision must clearly show that the or evaluated all the evidence and must articulate the reasons for finding that the impairment(s) is not severe. Furthermore, when the claimant has a medically determinable impairment which might reasonably be expected to cause pain or other symptoms, the decision must include an evaluation of the claimant's subjective complaints using the factors outlined in SSR 88-13 or its equivalent, i.e., SSR 90-1p for Fourth Circuit cases.

If hearing office personnel have questions or need copies of applicable instructions, they should contact the appropriate Regional Office personnel should direct their questions to the Division of Field Practices and Procedures, Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge.

Lawrence W. Mason for Andrew J. Young

Attachment 9. Bailey Class Member Flag For Headquarters Use (DDS Readjudication)

Bailey Class Action Case

READJUDICATION NECESSARY

Claimant's Name: __________________________________

SSN: __________________________________

This claimant is a Bailey class member. After expiration of the retention period, forward claim folder(s) to the ____________________ DDS for readjudication.

If the claimant has filed a civil action and elected to remain in court for review of the subsequent claim, forward the Bailey claim folder(s) without delay to the ____________________ DDS for readjudication.

Send folders to: (Insert name and address of appropriate DDS)

__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________

(Destination code: ____ )

Attachment 10. ALJ Dismissal to DDS

DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Social Security Administration
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE CASE OF   CLAIM FOR
_______________________   _______________________
_______________________   _______________________

This case is before the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to a request for hearing filed on _________________ with respect to the application(s) filed on _________________.

In accordance with an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the case of Bailey, et al. v. Sullivan, No. 83-1797 (M.D. Pa. July 29, 1991), the claimant has requested review of the final (determination/ decision) on the prior application(s) filed on ______________. The claimant has been identified as a Bailey class member and is entitled to have the final administrative denial of the prior application(s) reviewed under the terms of the Bailey final judgment order. Because the claimant's current claim shares certain common issues with the prior claim, the undersigned hereby dismisses without prejudice the request for hearing.

The claimant's current application(s) will be associated with the prior claim(s) and forwarded to the __________________ Disability Determination Service that will conduct the Bailey readjudication.

The disability determination service will notify the claimant of its new determination and, if unfavorable, give notice of the claimant's right to file a new request for hearing.

_______________________
Administrative Law Judge

_______________________
Date

Attachment 11. Notice Transmitting ALJ Order of Dismissal

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Claimant's Name
Address
City, State Zip

Enclosed is an order of the Administrative Law Judge dismissing your request for hearing and returning your case to the ______________ Disability Determination Service that makes disability determinations for the Social Security Administration. Please read this notice and Order of Dismissal carefully.

What This Order Means

The Administrative Law Judge has sent your current claim and your Bailey class member claim back to the _______________ Disability Determination Service for further processing. The enclosed order explains why.

The Next Action on Your Claim

The ________________ Disability Determination Service will contact you to tell you what you need to do. If you do not hear from the ______________ Disability Determination Service within 30 days, contact your local Social Security office.

Do You Have Any Questions?

If you have any questions, contact your local Social Security office. If you visit your local Social Security office, please bring this notice and the Administrative Law Judge's order with you.

Enclosure

cc:
(Name and address of representative, if any)
(Social Security Office (City, State))

Attachment 12. Bailey Class Member Flag For HO Use (DDS Readjudication)

Bailey Class Action Case

READJUDICATION NECESSARY

Claimant's Name: __________________________________

SSN: __________________________________

This claimant is a Bailey class member. The attached Bailey claim folder was forwarded to this hearing office for possible consolidation with a current claim.

_______

The Administrative Law Judge has determined that the prior and current claims do not share a common issue and, therefore, should not be consolidated.

OR

_______

The claims have not been consolidated because:

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached alert and prior claim folder(s) to your location for any necessary Bailey readjudication action.

We are sending the alert and prior folder(s) to:

(Insert name and address of appropriate DDS)

______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________

(Destination code: ____)