Ed Olson & Tom Krause

Every Social Security practitioner has encountered the Program Operations Manual System, universally known as the POMS. Yet understanding precisely what this resource is, how to use it effectively, and what legal weight it carries can significantly enhance your practice. For attorneys navigating the complexities of Social Security law, the POMS serves as an indispensable tool.

The POMS is the Social Security Administration’s comprehensive internal manual containing instructions and policies that govern how agency staff process claims and administer the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs. It translates the Social Security Act, regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations, and agency policy into operational guidance for the thousands of employees who make daily decisions about benefits. The manual covers everything from wage verification procedures to complex disability determinations, providing the practical framework that turns statutory requirements into administrative action.

The POMS is publicly accessible online at policy.ssa.gov, where it can be searched by section number, keyword, or topic. The manual is organized into multiple series, each designated by a two-letter prefix: DI sections cover disability insurance, SI sections address supplemental security income, GN sections contain general program information, and RM sections govern earnings and records maintenance, among many others. The site allows practitioners to search current provisions and, importantly, to access historical versions—a critical feature when addressing claims involving past periods or when the agency applied different standards. The POMS is also available on Westlaw.

Successfully navigating the POMS often depends on knowing the agency’s terminology for the problem you’re trying to solve. The POMS contains guidance for countless specific situations, but finding the right provision requires searching for the precise phrase SSA uses internally. When you encounter a client whose earnings record mistakenly includes wages that belong to someone else—or whose own earnings appear on another person’s record—the relevant POMS section won’t appear under searches for “incorrect earnings” or “mixed up records.” Instead, you need to search for “scrambled earnings,” the agency’s technical term for this situation, which leads directly to POMS RM 03870.045. Similarly, when you represent a claimant with a Title II claim pending before an Administrative Law Judge and that claimant becomes newly eligible for Supplemental Security Income, you want both claims heard together rather than having the SSI claim languish at the initial level while the Title II appeal proceeds. The solution lies in a specific procedure, but you won’t find it by searching for “combining claims” or “consolidating appeals.” The key term is “escalating,” which brings you to the POMS provisions explaining how to move the Title XVI claim from the field office to the hearing level so both claims can be decided together. Learning these internal terms—whether through experience, conversations with agency staff, or guidance from more seasoned practitioners—transforms the POMS from an overwhelming database into a genuinely useful resource.

The primary audience for the POMS is Social Security Administration employees. The manual provides detailed instructions for claims representatives, disability examiners, field office staff, and agency decision-makers at all levels. It tells these employees what information to gather, how to evaluate evidence, what policies to apply, and how to document their decisions. In this sense, the POMS functions as the operational playbook for the agency’s day-to-day work.

The question of whether the POMS is binding, however, depends entirely on who is reading it. For SSA employees, the POMS represents mandatory agency policy. Staff members are expected to follow POMS instructions in processing claims and making determinations. When agency employees fail to follow POMS provisions, it can form the basis for challenging their decisions within the administrative process.

For ALJs, the picture becomes more nuanced. ALJs are bound by the Social Security Act, the regulations, Social Security Rulings, HALLEX, and POMS. The POMS is arguably binding on adjudicators, including ALJs. See Soc. Sec. Ruling, SSR 13-2p.; Titles II & XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Drug Addiction & Alcoholism (DAA), SSR 13-2p (S.S.A. Feb. 20, 2013). While many ALJs give it considerable weight—particularly when it offers reasonable interpretations of ambiguous regulatory provisions—ALJs are not strictly bound by POMS instructions in the same way agency staff members are. The distinction matters: an ALJ may decline to follow a POMS provision that conflicts with the statute, regulations, or SSRs, or that represents an unreasonable interpretation of those authorities.

Federal courts have consistently held that the POMS does not have the force of law. In Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785 (1981), the Supreme Court made clear that internal agency manuals like the POMS cannot expand or contract statutory or regulatory requirements, nor can they create rights that bind the agency beyond what the law itself provides.[1] Courts that view the POMS as persuasive guidance may inform their understanding of how the agency interprets its own regulations, but the POMS does not constitute binding authority. Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1050–51 (9th Cir. 2017) (POMS is “persuasive authority”).

Despite these limitations, the POMS remains extraordinarily valuable for practitioners. It reveals how the agency interprets ambiguous regulatory language, shows what evidence SSA considers sufficient for various determinations, and demonstrates the procedures the agency follows in processing claims. When the POMS provides a reasonable interpretation of a regulation, courts often defer to that interpretation under principles established in cases like Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), overruled by Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).[2] The POMS can also be powerful in challenging agency decisions: when SSA staff fail to follow their own manual, it may constitute procedural error or arbitrary decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706.

Effective use of the POMS requires understanding both its utility and its limits. When drafting appeals or briefs, practitioners should cite the POMS to show that the agency’s own policies support a client’s position, while simultaneously grounding arguments in the statute, regulations, and case law. The POMS works best as supporting authority that demonstrates the agency’s own interpretation, not as the sole foundation for a legal argument.

For Social Security attorneys, the POMS represents an essential window into agency operations. It provides the detailed guidance that explains how policy becomes practice, even as practitioners remain mindful that its provisions serve as internal instruction rather than binding law. Master the POMS, but never mistake it for the statute or regulations it implements.

---

[1] Courts have consistently rejected the “elephant-in-a-mousehole” argument that SSR 13-2p established or expanded the enforceability of POMS or HALLEX in a judicial proceeding. See Dawn M. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:24-CV-02, 2024 WL 3568859, at *5 (S.D. Ohio July 29, 2024), aff’d sub nom. Mabry-Schlicher v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 24-3811, 2025 WL 1604376 (6th Cir. June 6, 2025); Jeanne E. v. Saul, No. 6:18-CV-01722-SB, 2020 WL 602279, at *6 (D. Or. Feb. 7, 2020) (collecting cases).

[2] Last year, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). A quick survey of recent cases failed to reveal a significant change in the weight given to the POMS.

---

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.