Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director

In the mid-1990s, the Social Security Administration (SSA) implemented a groundbreaking initiative known as Process Unification to address inconsistencies in disability claim adjudication. The state Disability Determination Services were not “reading from the same book” as the Administrative Law Judges. The Process Unification initiative culminated in a series of Social Security Rulings (SSRs) in 1996, collectively called the Process Unification Rulings (SSR 96-1p to SSR 96-9p). These rulings transformed how adjudicators develop and decide disability claims, ensuring greater uniformity and transparency across the decision-making process.

The Context: Litigation and Reform

The Process Unification Rulings emerged from class-action lawsuits filed across various states, where plaintiffs alleged significant discrepancies between standards used by State Disability Determination Services (DDSs) and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). Cases such as Samuels (TN),[1] Day (OH),[2] Bentley (FL),[3] Sorenson (OR),[4] Laird (IA)[5] and others highlighted a perception of stricter standards at the DDS level than ALJs. These lawsuits, bolstered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowen v. City of New York, led to judicial findings and settlements that mandated reform.

The Rulings: Key Highlights

The 1996 rulings clarified SSA’s policies and set standards for adjudicators at all levels. Key elements include:

1. Credibility Assessments (SSR 96-7p): Adjudicators must clearly articulate their rationale for finding a claimant credible or not credible when evaluating symptoms such as pain.

• Treating Source Opinions (SSR 96-2p): Detailed the conditions under which treating source opinions should be given controlling weight, emphasizing the need for consistency with other substantial evidence.

• Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) Assessments (SSR 96-8p): Established guidelines for documenting and supporting RFC assessments with specific evidence from the record.

• Symptoms and Impairments (SSR 96-4p): Reiterated the requirement for medically determinable impairments for disability findings.

Impact and Legacy

The Process Unification Rulings provided a framework to address adjudicatory inconsistencies, ensuring that DDS personnel, ALJs, and the Appeals Council operate under shared standards. These rulings enhanced transparency in decision-making and provided claimants with more straightforward explanations of how evidence was evaluated. Despite their initial effectiveness, several SSRs have been rescinded or superseded by newer guidance, reflecting ongoing changes in SSA policy.

What Attorneys Should Know

Understanding the principles established by the 1996 rulings remains critical for attorneys advocating in Social Security disability cases. While some rulings have been updated, their foundational concepts of transparency, consistency, and evidence-based decision-making influence SSA policies today.

By leveraging these rulings, attorneys can better navigate the adjudicatory process and advocate for fair outcomes for their clients.

---

[1] Samuels v. Heckler, 668 F. Supp. 656 (W.D. Tenn. 1986).

[2] Day v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 1052 (6th Cir. 1994).

[3] Bentley v. Sellars, No. 92-40-Civ-J-20 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 1995).

[4] Sorenson v. Concannon, 893 F.Supp. 1469, 1477 (D. Ore. 1994).

[5] Laird v. Stilwill, 982 F. Supp. 1345, 1350 (N.D. Iowa 1997).