Just Ask Jennifer: Can You Hear Me Now?

Jennifer Cronenberg, Interim CEO

My old boss had a favorite answer he liked to give young associates when we questioned how to handle certain client issues: “just pick up the phone.” A seemingly simple concept that can practically and effectively resolve (and avoid) most client issues. In fact, if you look at one of the most cited reasons for bar complaints, it frequently boils down to a basic failure to pick up the phone. But what happens when its the agency that is seemingly screening our calls? This is the painful question many of us have been asking over the past few weeks. How do we appropriately advocate for our clients if we cannot even get the agency to answer?

Well we have some good news. NOSSCR has been hard at work behind the scenes advocating on your behalf—explaining to anyone and everyone at the agency that the current “route to the 800 number” system is not tenable for representatives. While the entire problem is not yet resolved, we have received assurances that they will work to unravel their current 800 number routing, returning to a system that allows representatives to connect directly with the needed field office. We don’t have a date for this “unraveling,” nor do we expect that it will be perfect. Will you still get routed to the 800# if your local FO lines are full? Potentially. But will you at least have a chance to get through to the office that you called? Yes.

Please also know that we continue to work on wholesale solutions to the the actual problems. As we all know too well, a significant number of representative calls to the agency would disappear if the 1696 attachment process weren’t such a disaster. If third-party filed initial applications didn’t unnecessarily require attestation, if we had complete transparency into a claimant’s file, if notices of award (or denial) were routinely and timely uploaded, still more calls would disappear. If we could contact the needed agent at SSA via a messaging system within a portal, we would rarely need to call at all. SSA knows all of this because we tell them all of this on a near weekly basis. And we will continue to tell them until the problems resolve. They are working on a new representative portal. They are again considering the idea of a representative-only hotline. They are looking into overhauling the application and 1696 processes. As with all federal agencies, it’s rare for anything to be fast-moving or perfect.

So, hang in there. Know that NOSSCR hears you and is actively fighting for you. And keep picking up that phone.

---

---

President’s Corner: The Importance of Paying Attention to Policy

Rob Wendt, NOSSCR President

Of all the interesting and meaningful experiences available to NOSSCR members, one of my all-time favorites has been the NOSSCR Policy Committee which I currently chair. The Policy committee considers detailed policy questions about legislation, regulation, agency policy, and operations – for the benefit of the full board of directors before it takes formal action.

The membership of this committee has always included active, thoughtful, and often outspoken NOSSCR members who revel in exploring and debating the wonky details of Social Security disability law and practice, which is the heart and soul of effective advocacy and fair decisions, as well as the key to financial success in our law practices.

This year has been a particularly active one for the Policy Committee, which meets almost every other week.  Much of the Committee’s time was spent evaluating changes in agency policy on vocational evidence after the withdrawal in early 2026 of SSA’s “MegaReg” proposal — a sweeping plan to overhaul the vocational rules used in disability determinations. The Committee issued a report to the board on this topic at the Baltimore national conference in April.  More recently, the Policy Committee has been evaluating all the bills pending in the current Congress, which will be ending soon. The Committee gave an interim report at the April board meeting on pending legislation to eliminate or alter the five-month waiting period.  We’ll have another report on that legislation and all other pending Social Security disability legislation at the October board meeting during the Salt Lake City national conference.

The policy issue I’d like to address in more detail today, is one that has been discussed by the Policy Committee more recently –  the solvency of the Social Security trust funds. In my view, the  solvency crisis is likely to be the most important and challenging policy issue facing NOSSCR over the next four to six years.

To be clear, restoration of trust fund solvency, ultimately will be driven by political forces and institutions much larger and more powerful than NOSSCR. Nevertheless, our role in this national debate will be an important contribution to the final outcome, particularly as it relates to disabled Americans and their families for generations to come.  I know this to be true, based on my own experience in a very similar political battle over the future of Social Security which I’d like to share with our members – President George W. Bush’s 2005 proposal to privatize Social Security.

If you read any of the histories of Social Security, the most prominent of which is Robert Ball and the Politics of Social Security by Edward D. Berkowitz (Robert Ball and the Politics of Social Security | University of Wisconsin Press ), you will quickly learn that the root of all political controversies over the Social Security insurance programs is a philosophical one – is it a wasteful  socialist welfare program contrary to American values of self-sufficiency and freedom from government control; or an important stabilizing force for the economy and a safeguard for vulnerable Americans threatened by periodic economic downturns, disability, old age, and death, which cannot be replicated by the private sector, and which is consistent with American moral beliefs, and necessary to long-term national security.

The philosophical divide over the nature and purposes of Social Security played a prominent role in the privatization movement that started over 30 years ago.  By the late 1990’s, conservative political theorists and think tanks, promoted the idea that Social Security was in “growing financial distress” and that the only fiscally sound solution was to privatize the retirement portion of the system.  (Privatizing Social Security: It’s High Time To Privatize | Brookings ; The Great Social Security Debate of 2000 | Cato Institute ).  Progressive political writers and think tanks responded. (Undermining Social Security with private accounts: Commission’s final proposals would lower living standards without fixing shortfall | Economic Policy Institute).

In my state, South Carolina, then-Congressman Mark Sanford became an early acolyte of the privatization movement and in 1997 held a series of town hall meetings to promote it.  A retired Social Security ALJ and I got together and decided to attend those meetings to present the arguments in opposition.  After our local newspaper printed Sanford’s opinion piece supporting privatization, I wrote this response.

During his first term, President George W. Bush took the initial step toward privatization by creating the Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), which recommended “individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts.”  After his reelection in 2004 he formally announced his privatization plan, adopted from the CSSS report, in which 4% of taxable wages could be diverted from FICA, placed in voluntary individual accounts, and invested in a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. The option would apply to workers under age 55 after a phase‑in period.

President Bush put the full court press on Congress to pass his plan, stating after his reelection: “I earned capital in the campaign — political capital — and now I intend to spend it.” Fortuitously, Senator Lindsey Graham, a little over two years into his first term, emerged as the leader in the Senate to gain passage of the President’s plan and to serve as a broker between the two parties.

Senator Graham was not only my law school classmate, I was one of his earliest supporters when he first successfully ran for a seat in the South Carolina General Assembly and I supported him early in his Congressional career as well, even though I was an active Democrat.  Senator Graham was also a trial lawyer, and while he kept it under the radar, he worked closely with the trial lawyer organizations.  I served on the SC Trial Lawyers Association board (now SCAJ) as the chair of the Social Security Section, and SCAJ was the most well-connected of the state trial lawyer associations to the national trial lawyers (now AAJ), a lobbying powerhouse in Congress.  An opportunity had presented itself.

Working with Nancy Shor, then NOSSCR executive director, and Linda Lipson, then AAJ public affairs director and now president, I wrote a position paper outlining the reasons why the Bush privatization proposal as presented, would hurt disabled Social Security beneficiaries.  We made arrangements for me to meet personally with Senator Graham at the AAJ winter convention in Palm Springs, California to which Senator Graham was invited for private meetings.

I met with Senator Graham after he had finished a round of golf – he was still clacking around in his golf cleats – and we caught up on our respective careers and then got down to business discussing the position paper, which he had read and had questions about.  The meeting went well, and not long afterward, there were reports in the news and from sources on Capitol Hill that some changes needed to be made in the plan respecting disability beneficiaries.

Ultimately, Congress never passed the privatization bill, which marked a major defeat for President Bush.  In no way did this one effort make the difference between passage or failure of the privatization plan.  The bill was doomed to fail in the face of much more powerful political forces arrayed against it, and the general sentiment of American voters.  At the same time, small efforts such as this, combined with similar efforts from other less powerful political and professional players were important because they had a cumulative effect on our desired outcome.

The defeat of the privatization movement did little to quell the activities of the anti-Social Security crowd. In 2011 and 2012, there was a series of newspaper articles around the country decrying the “inevitable” insolvency of Social Security and calling for reform.  As did many other NOSSCR members, I responded to these attacks in letters to the editor of my local newspaper.

Be assured that the philosophical battle over the future of Social Security is far from over. The same forces that have opposed Social Security from the beginning will be back at full strength as the solvency debate develops.  Don’t forget that just last year, Elon Musk argued on “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast that Social Security is “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.” There will be a lot more of this to come.

I hope that my experience and that of many other NOSSCR veterans of the privatization war and other political threats to Social Security, will be helpful and encouraging to NOSSCR and its members as we response to the latest debate over solvency.  It’s important for NOSSCR to have a strong Washington presence, something we’ve accomplished over the last several years and that we must maintain.  It’s also important to have a vigorous policy committee, working with our policy advisors on a regular basis to explore policy options for approval and implementation by the full board. 

Every NOSSCR member can be an influencer with our clients, fellow attorneys, family, and friends on these issues, and NOSSCR can be relied upon to provide talking points and supporting information.  Every NOSSCR member can write a letter to the editor to respond to negative opinions in their local press. And every NOSSCR member has a US Senator or House member they can visit in Washington in connection with NOSSCR Capitol Hill days, and better yet, whom they can support and get to know personally.

NOSSCR may be small compared to the many political actors in Washington who will play to win the influence game when the Social Security solvency debate gets going, but when the work we do is smart and strategic, and we do it together, there is a multiplier effect that is more powerful than our numbers alone.  Be ready for this battle – its coming, and it’ll be a big one.

---

Rooms are Filling Fast! Don’t Miss Your Chance to Join Us in SLC

NOSSCR’s Fall National Conference is headed to Salt Lake City, Utah, October 13-16, 2026, and we can’t wait to share this beautiful city with all of you.

Things to know now:

• Rooms at the beautiful The Grand America Hotel are filling fast. Don’t delay, book your room today!

• 32 CLE sessions being offered, starting Tuesday morning at 9am and concluding Friday at noon.

• Early morning “table talks” for those early morning risers who want to start each day strong.

• Dedicated staff track, providing specialized training and highlighting new tools for your support staff.

• The hotel offers a top rate spa and high tea—book in advance to take advantage of these great offerings.

• Daily breakfasts, lunch T-Th, and two evening receptions included with your conference registration.

Don’t miss your chance to combine a great conference with a great family trip. Register early, book your extra nights, and make a week of it — Salt Lake City will not disappoint.

---

Dispatches from Camp: Who’s on the Other Side of the Table? Inside SSA’s Medical Expert Contracts

David Camp, NOSSCR Senior Policy Advisor

Every one of you has had a hearing turn on the testimony of a medical expert you had never seen before, working from a file you had spent months building, rendering an opinion that carried more weight with the ALJ than your own treating source. It is worth understanding where that person came from, who pays them, and how much leverage you actually have when you think their opinion does not hold up.

The Contract

SSA just awarded Mednick Associates a new task order to supply medical experts for ALJ hearings across the Western Regions and the National Hearing Center. The key facts:

– Value: $163,375

– Awarded: August 21, 2026

– Term: six months, September 1, 2026 – February 28, 2027

– Coverage: the Western hearing regions plus the National Hearing Center

That $163,375 figure is just a six-month increment, not the full picture. The prior full-year task order for the same western footprint (September 2025–August 2026) was worth $5,288,700: that is the number that shows the real scale of one vendor’s operation across six regions and the National Hearing Center, and it is a lot of geography and a lot of hearings running through a single vendor.

Quick comparison:

– Western primary (current, 6 mo.): $163,375

– Western primary (prior, 12 mo.): $5,288,700

– Eastern back-up (current, 12 mo., Regions 1–4): $9,975

– Eastern back-up (prior, 12 mo., Regions 1–4 and 6): $89,250

Mednick’s reach does not stop at the west. Mednick also holds the standing back-up ME task order for eastern Regions 1–4, a much smaller award at $9,975 for September 2025–August 2026. This back-up role activates whenever the primary eastern vendor cannot cover a case, letting Mednick doctors step in. So if you practice in the east, do not assume Mednick is someone else’s problem: their doctors can still turn up on your docket as a fill-in.

If you practice anywhere in that combined footprint, primary or back-up, there is a real chance the same handful of MEs keep showing up on your calendar, month after month, case after case. And because the roster and the geography can shift with each recompete, this is worth your attention no matter where you practice, not only in the regions named in this particular task order.

This is not new. SSA has contracted out medical and vocational expert services for years rather than employing these witnesses directly, and NOSSCR has tracked the mechanics of that system for some time, including publishing an item on updated payment rates for vocational and medical experts in our December 2023 Forum. But a task order of this size, layered on top of a multi-year relationship covering this much of the country, is a good occasion to walk through how the procurement actually works and what that means for your cross-examination.

There is also a reason to watch this particular vendor relationship right now. SSA posted a Request for Information on medical expert services in early June 2026, with responses due later that month. Both incumbent national ME vendors are currently working short bridge orders instead of full-year contracts. TMAX Government Solutions, which holds the eastern primary role covering the eastern hearing regions, is also reportedly working under a task order structured in shorter increments rather than as a single full-year award. Mednick’s new western order, as noted above, covers just six months instead of the usual year. Read together, that pattern looks like a recompete underway, which means the national roster of ME vendors, and potentially the doctors on it, could look different within the year. Who shows up as the expert witness in your hearing room, and under whose incentive structure, may be about to change, and that possibility applies to the whole country, not just the regions named in the current task orders.

How the Vendor Pipeline Works

SSA does not hire MEs as employees. It contracts with staffing companies, who in turn maintain rosters of physicians willing to review files and testify (usually by phone or video) for a set fee per case. The agency issues task orders to these vendors covering specific hearing offices or regions, the vendor recruits and vets the doctors, and SSA’s Office of Hearings Operations schedules them into individual cases as needed.

The practical effect is that your ME did not go through the same credentialing process as, say, a consultative examiner selected through the state disability determination service. The vendor is doing the vetting, under contract terms that are not fully public, and the financial incentive on the vendor’s side is volume. The more experts it can place into hearings, the more the contract pays out. That does not mean the doctors are unqualified or biased. It does mean you should never assume the vetting was rigorous just because the check comes from the government.

What You Can Actually Challenge

There are three angles worth building into your practice when a contracted ME testifies against your client, and none of them require you to prove bad faith.

Credentials and scope of practice. Ask, on the record, what board certifications the ME holds and when they last treated a patient with your client’s specific impairment. A cardiologist testifying about fibromyalgia, or an internist opining on complex mental health limitations, is fair game for a foundational challenge regardless of how many SSA hearings they have worked.

Frequency and specialization within the vendor’s roster. If you have appeared against the same ME multiple times, or if you know from colleagues that this doctor works almost exclusively through one vendor across an unusually wide territory, that is relevant to how independently their opinions are formed versus how routinized their testimony has become. A doctor who testifies in hundreds of hearings a year develops patterns, and those patterns are legitimate cross-examination territory.

Consistency with the objective record. This is the fundamental of ME cross-examination and it does not change because the witness came from a contractor rather than a treating relationship: pin the ME to specific exhibits, ask them to reconcile their opinion with specific findings, and do not let a broad credibility assertion substitute for a citation to the record.

NOSSCR has built training around exactly this skill set. Our conference CLE programming has included sessions specifically on cross-examining medical experts, and if you have not taken one of those sessions, I encourage you to look for the next one on the schedule.

The Leverage Point Multi-Region Contracts Create

Here is what is different about a contract spanning multiple regions, plus a back-up role in several more: it concentrates a large share of a category of witness under one vendor’s incentive structure, which means patterns are easier to spot and more consequential when you find them. This is not a phenomenon confined to the regions named in the current task order. If members across the country start comparing notes on which experts a single vendor sends into hearings, and how those experts testify, that pattern evidence is more useful than any single cross-examination transcript. I encourage you to post on the NOSSCR Martin Listserv about who you are seeing from Mednick Associates, wherever you encounter them, and how those hearings have gone. That kind of shared observation is exactly what lets us, and Congress, eventually ask whether a concentrated contract is serving claimants well.

This is also where oversight outside the hearing room matters. Congress has looked at contracted medical review quality before. In 2019, Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John Larson requested a GAO study into the quality of medical reviews performed by SSA-contracted physicians, following investigative reporting on rushed, per-case-paid review practices. I submitted written testimony to that same Subcommittee in October 2023 addressing a related structural problem, SSA’s reliance on outdated vocational data systems for hearing witnesses, and urging the agency to move its expert testimony framework into the modern era. The throughline across both issues is the same: when SSA outsources expert testimony to contractors compensated by volume, oversight of who is actually testifying and how well is not optional. It is part of due process.

What I Am Watching

We want to see the terms of these vendor contracts get more transparent, particularly the qualification standards vendors apply before putting a doctor on a hearing roster. We also want to see whether a single contractor covering six regions, with a back-up role in four more, produces the kind of testimony consistency, or inconsistency, that would justify Congressional attention the way the 2019 GAO request did. With a Request for Information already posted and both incumbent vendors on short bridge orders, we expect a recompete of the national ME contracts to play out over the coming months, and we intend to watch whether it changes who is actually showing up in your hearings, in any region.

In the meantime, treat every contracted ME the way you would any other witness whose income depends on the party that hired them: politely, professionally, and with your exhibits open. Where you see patterns worth sharing, share them with your colleagues and with us. I will report back if this contract, the recompete, or anything else in this space generates something worth putting in front of the Subcommittee again.

---

A Judge’s Perspective: The Foundations Series

NOSSCR is excited to introduce a new educational opportunity: Retired ALJ Gina Carpenter, back by popular demand with more of her “A Judge’s Perspective” sessions, is launching a new series: The Foundations Series.

The Foundations Series will explore the core legal concepts that shape Social Security disability adjudication. Each course will combine a review of the governing regulations and rulings, insight into how Administrative Law Judges evaluate the evidence, and practical tips on developing persuasive evidence and identifying legal errors on appeal.

These courses are designed to help representatives better understand the decision-making process and become more effective advocates. Each session will be highly interactive, so come prepared to participate! (Because of the interactive nature of these courses, they are not offered for CLE credit).

1st course: Residual Functional Capacity — The Centerpiece of ALJ Decisions

This session opens with a foundational overview of the regulations, rulings, and definitions that underpin Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) analysis. Building on that framework, the discussion turns to the types of evidence judges rely on when making specific RFC findings, equipping participants to identify and highlight the evidence needed to support the RFC limitations they want to establish, along with effective strategies for making those arguments. The session concludes with a hands-on exercise focused on spotting legal errors in RFC determinations.

Please note: this same course will repeat 4 additional times, twice a day on two dates, to allow maximum participation while adhering to small group sizes for maximum interaction with the judge. Please sign up for the one date/time below that best fits your schedule.

Session length:

• 90 minutes

Pricing per session:

• $75 nonprofit and emeritus members
• $108 sustaining members
• $120 regular members
• $143 nonmembers

Dates and times:

• Friday September 18, 10-11:30am Eastern & 2-3:30pm Eastern
• Friday September 25, 10-11:30am Eastern & 2-3:30pm Eastern

Register now for the 1st course (classes have limited seats and fill quickly):

Dates and topic for the 2nd course in the A Judge’s Perspective Foundations Series will be announced later this fall.

---

Legislative Spotlight: Social Security 2100 Act Returns

David Camp, NOSSCR Senior Policy Advisor

A bill reintroduced this summer would eliminate the five-month DIB waiting period outright, the change most likely to reshape how you counsel clients on early-stage timing. It would also replace work-based termination with a gradual earnings offset and raise the representative fee cap substantially. The bill, H.R. 9519/S. 5042, the Social Security 2100 Act, was reintroduced by Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT); Larson introduced the House version on June 29, 2026, with Blumenthal’s companion following in the Senate on July 21. Larson has introduced versions of this bill in nearly every Congress since 2014, and yet it has never received a floor vote. Solvency projections for the trust funds are back in the headlines this time, changing the political backdrop somewhat. Larson himself will not be the one carrying this fight forward: he lost his primary in Connecticut this cycle and will leave Congress at the end of this term. Whatever happens to this particular bill, any legislation that touches benefit formulas, agency staffing, or overpayment recovery deserves a close read from our members.

What the bill would do

This is a larger package than most summaries let on. Beyond the provisions disability representatives will care about most, it rewrites the representative fee cap, touches benefit formulas, and makes several changes to agency operations and overpayment recovery. For quick reference:

Disability practice: eliminates the five-month waiting period (Sec. 108); replaces work-based termination with a gradual earnings offset and adjusts Ticket to Work employment network payments accordingly (Sec. 109).

Representative fees: replaces the discretionary fee agreement cap with a mandatory, wage-indexed formula (Sec. 308). Yes, this bill addresses representative fees, and substantially so; it is covered in detail below.

Benefit formulas: merges the trust funds, raises the payroll tax cap above $400,000 in wages, sets the special minimum benefit at 125 percent of the poverty line, switches the COLA formula to CPI-E, adds a 2 percent across-the-board increase, and repeals WEP/GPO (again!).

Agency operations: a staffing floor pegged to January 2025 levels (Sec. 301); a field-office closure moratorium paired with permanent notice requirements (Sec. 302); new data-access safeguards with a private right of action (Sec. 303); a ban on the Commissioner holding another federal office (Sec. 306); and a return to mail as the statement default (Sec. 307).

Overpayments: codifies a 10 percent withholding cap for non-fault overpayments (Sec. 305).

Each is covered in turn below.

Eliminating the five-month waiting period

Of everything in this package, Section 108 is the provision we want members to notice first. It amends Section 223(a) so that disability insurance benefits become payable “for each month beginning with the first month during all of which the individual is under a disability and in which the individual becomes entitled,” eliminating the five-month waiting period, with a conforming change to the Section 223(a)(2) benefit computation that treats the individual as attaining age 62 in the first month of entitlement. Parallel amendments strike paragraph (5) in Section 202(e) and (f) and redesignate accordingly, eliminating the waiting period for disabled widow(er)s as well. The provision is not permanent as drafted: it applies only where the period of disability begins in a month in 2027 through 2036. Transition rules deem a waiting period already in progress as of January 2027 to end that December, and for anyone caught by the 2036 sunset, a new waiting period begins January 2037, running five months minus whatever elapsed in 2036. The waiting period has long been a source of hardship for claimants with no other income between onset and the start of benefits. A ten-year window without it would change how you counsel clients on early-stage timing and would affect protective filing strategy near the 2027 and 2036 boundaries.

Gradual offset for beneficiaries who work

Section 109 is the provision we expect our members working with employment networks and return-to-work clients to care about most. It has three moving parts:

Termination becomes medical-cessation-only. Section 223(a)(1) is rewritten so entitlement ends only “at the third month following the earliest month after the end of such period of trial work with respect to which such individual is determined to no longer be suffering from a disabling physical or mental impairment,” not on work activity itself. The extended period of eligibility and the 36-month rule disappear, work-related Medicare termination under Section 226(b) is eliminated, and expedited reinstatement under Section 223(i) is struck as no longer necessary once there is nothing left to reinstate from. Parallel amendments extend the same change to childhood disability benefits and disabled widow(er)’s benefits.

A dollar-for-two offset replaces the cliff. Section 223(e) creates a $1-for-$2 reduction on earnings above the SGA amount applicable to blind individuals, with no reduction before the third month after trial work ends and benefits never reduced below zero; auxiliary benefits are reduced proportionally.

Ticket to Work payments get a fix. Section 1148(h)(5) lets the Commissioner adjust employment network payment requirements as necessary to keep enough ENs available and to ensure beneficiaries have reasonable access to employment services, since a gradual offset upends the milestone-outcome structure those payments currently assume.

Like the waiting-period provision, this applies only to 2027 through 2036.

Benefit formula changes

The bill would merge the OASI and DI trust funds, raise the payroll tax cap above $400,000 in wages, set the special minimum benefit at 125 percent of the poverty line for a worker with 30 years of coverage, switch the COLA formula to CPI-E, add a 2 percent across-the-board increase, and repeal WEP and GPO (again!). Each of these affects benefit amount or trust fund mechanics rather than eligibility, but for clients on fixed, long-duration SSDI awards, the cumulative effect compounds meaningfully over time.

Agency operations

Title III deserves close attention, and it covers more ground than one paragraph can hold.

Staffing floor (Sec. 301)

Section 301 would require the Commissioner to hold SSA’s workforce at no less than its January 19, 2025 level, though the text contains no appropriation, deadline, or enforcement mechanism attached to that requirement; the chosen date is simply the day before the inauguration.

Office-closure moratorium (Sec. 302)

Section 302 would impose an immediate moratorium on closing or consolidating field offices, hearing offices, or resident stations, or on imposing any new access limitation, with an exception for temporary emergency closures:

Duration: runs until 180 days after the Commissioner submits a required report to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees; that report cannot be submitted before January 21, 2029, effectively extending the moratorium through the end of the current administration.

Report contents: closure-selection criteria, the burden on elderly and disabled people served, and cost-benefit methodology, including anticipated savings, replacement-service costs, and effects on employees.

Permanent notice rule (new Section 704(f)): for any future closure, consolidation, or access limitation, at least 120 days’ advance notice (direct mailing plus posting where practicable), a statement of how lost access will be replaced within 30 days plus how to reach SSA about resulting delays, and a further procedural step timed no earlier than 30 days after notice and no later than 45 days before the action.

Data-access safeguards (Sec. 303)

Section 303 adds three new subsections to Section 1106 plus a regulatory freeze. Subsection (h) bars political appointees and special government employees, the category that includes outside staff brought in under emergency hiring authorities, from beneficiary data systems: the Numident, the Master Beneficiary Record, the SSI Record and Special Veterans Benefits system, the National Disability Determination Services file, the earnings and self-employment income system, and anything else reachable through the Enterprise Data Warehouse.

The provision most likely to matter in practice is subsection (i), which creates a new private right of action for negligent unauthorized access or disclosure; current law only criminalizes disclosure. Key terms:

Damages: greater of $5,000 per act or actual damages, plus punitive damages for willful or grossly negligent conduct.

Fees and timing: attorney’s fees available against the government for a prevailing plaintiff; two-year discovery-based limitations period.

Exceptions: good-faith erroneous interpretation and individual-requested disclosures.

IG reporting (subsection (j)): the Inspector General must investigate and report every violation to Congress within 30 days, including a risk assessment and a description of any stopped payment during the unauthorized access.

Separately, the section locks 20 C.F.R. part 401 as it existed on January 19, 2025 into statutory force, insulating SSA’s current Privacy Act regulations from revision, and orders a GAO study within a year with monthly interim reports to the relevant committees.

Commissioner’s other offices (Sec. 306)

Section 306 would bar the Commissioner from holding any other federal office: “except as otherwise required by law, the Commissioner may not hold any other office or position in the Government of the United States.” The carve-out preserves duties other statutes impose on the office, such as trustee service.

Context: the provision targets the current arrangement in which the sitting Commissioner also holds a senior Treasury role.

Open question: the bill doesn’t say whether this would force an incumbent to divest, or bind only future appointees, though the present-tense language supports immediate application.

Mail as statement default (Sec. 307)

Section 307 would restore mail as the default method for Social Security statements, both on request and for the annual statement under Section 1143, making electronic delivery an affirmative yearly opt-in through a safe harbor rather than the default it has effectively been since SSA began suppressing most paper statements around 2011 in favor of the my Social Security online portal. It applies to statements required on or after January 1, 2027, and it is the one provision in this title that cuts against the agency’s digital-first direction, deliberately, on the theory that a digital default leaves workers without reliable internet access unserved.

Overpayment recovery

Section 305, titled “Claws off Social Security,” deserves its own paragraph because it would lock into statute a policy currently subject to reversal by any administration. It amends the Act’s overpayment-withholding provision so that for overpayments not believed due to fraud or similar fault, monthly withholding cannot exceed 10 percent of the amount otherwise payable, unless the individual requests a faster rate. This codifies the policy SSA adopted administratively in March 2024—the same policy the agency abandoned in 2025, first raising withholding to 100 percent, then to 50 percent.

Scope:

– Applies to Title II only (SSI already has its own 10 percent rule).

– Leaves waiver and reconsideration rights untouched.

– Applies to overpayments already outstanding on enactment: existing repayment arrangements above 10 percent would need to be reset.

– No sunset.

Representative fees

Section 308 is the provision our members have been asking us about, and it is a far larger change than the incremental fixes we have accomplished in recent years. Current law caps fee agreements at the lesser of 25 percent of past-due benefits or a dollar amount, set at $9,200 with annual cost-of-living adjustments under SSA’s 2024 rulemaking, itself the product of decades of Commissioner discretion built on a $4,000 base fixed in the 1990 statute.

Section 308 rewrites the last sentence of Section 206(a)(2)(A) to replace that discretionary mechanism entirely with an automatic statutory formula. For agreements entered into on or after enactment, the cap is the greater of:

– the prior year’s amount (a ratchet, meaning it can never decrease), or

– $4,000 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for the second preceding year to the 1989 index, rounded to the nearest dollar.

Using the 1989 index ($20,099.55) and the 2023 index ($66,621.80), that yields roughly $13,258, well above the current $9,200 cap, and set to keep climbing with wages rather than prices.

Subsection (b) adds Section 206(a)(2)(A) to the list of provisions that use the Section 209(k)(1) wage index definition, and because Section 112 of this same bill amends

Conclusion

This bill is a very long list of ideas supported by NOSSCR. With Congressman Larson’s departure, we will need to continue our work on the Hill with a new champion. It will be interesting to see who picks up this challenge, and how these legislative updates progress either in standalone bills or within larger packages such as this.

---

The Scully Reception Talent Show: All Conference Attendees Welcome!

Now open to all conference attendees, the Scully Reception is going full variety show.

Tom Scully started the tradition of gathering folks together at each conference for good food, good drinks, and a chance to meet colleagues you’d otherwise just nod at in the hallway. This year, we’re throwing the doors open to all attendees, because the more of you in the room, the better the networking (and the better the show).

We’re asking all of you to drag out those hidden talents and keep us entertained throughout the evening! The deadline to sign-up to perform is fast approaching!

NOSSCR Board Member Freddie Effinger, a person of a truly suspicious range of talents, has graciously agreed to serve as our talent show emcee, so we know the stage will be warm, inviting, and filled with fun, but we need more of you to step up and share what we know is a hidden trove of talents.

So please friends, do NOT make us pull out the kazoo solos, the interpretive PowerPoint readings, or whatever “spoken word about vocational testimony” bit someone’s threatening to do. We know some of you are sitting on genuine, real, “wait, you can DO that?” talent. This is your night. Please join us.

The Details:

• Deadline to apply to perform: September 4, 2026
• Eligibility: You must be a registered conference attendee to perform
• Content Rules: Keep it professional! All acts must be PG-rated and family-friendly

---

Social Security Adds 14 Compassionate Allowance Conditions

This month, SSA added 14 additional Compassionate Allowance Conditions. While most of these conditions are rare, it’s still worth taking note so that you can flag relevant cases.

The newly added Compassionate Allowances conditions are:

• Adenylosuccinate Lyase Deficiency – Neonatal Form and Type 1
• Aicardi Syndrome
• Baraitser-Winter Syndrome
• Beare-Stevenson Cutis Gyrata Syndrome
• Bohring-Opitz Syndrome
• CASK-Related Gene Disorders
• Hepatosplenic T-Cell Lymphoma
• Lafora Disease
• Malignant Migrating Partial Seizures of Infancy (MMPSI)
• OPHN1 Syndrome
• Primary Cardiac Sarcoma
• Primary Intracranial Malignant Melanoma
• Uveal Melanoma – with Metastases
• Warburg Micro Syndrome

---

Krause Chronicles: The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fifth Edition (WAIS-5)

Tom Krause, NOSSCR Lifetime Member

From WAIS-5 Scores to Work-Related Limitations: What each Index Actually Predicts about Work and How to Say it in SSA’s own Vocabulary

Drawn from the author’s NOSSCR CLE training session scheduled for September 9, 2026 at 2pm. Register here.

Every representative in this practice has had the same experience. A neuropsychological report arrives, you read it, and it is obvious the claimant cannot work. Then you watch the ALJ shrug. The reason is almost never that the report was wrong. It is that the report stopped at the score and never continued to find a work limitation. This article is about continuing to the work-related limitations.

The bridge, and the three numbers that finish it

A score measures a construct under laboratory conditions: one problem at a time, in a quiet room, with a patient examiner. A limitation is a conclusion about function sustained across a workday and a workweek. Processing Speed Index of 74 is a test score. It implies slowed visual scanning, decision, and output; that is a construct. That implies difficulty holding pace on a quota task, a work demand. And the work demand must be phrased in the agency’s own vocabulary: the ability to complete a normal workday and workweek at a consistent pace.

But even a report that has established that an ability is impaired must describe how often, how severely, or for how long. Those three coordinates, frequency, intensity, and duration, are what convert a construct into a work-related limitation. SSA considers the kind, degree, and frequency of the difficulty a claimant would have (Listing 12.00F1); asks how often exacerbations occur and how long they last (Listings 12.00F4a); lists “location, duration, frequency, and intensity” of the pain among the required factors for symptom evaluation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); and describes the basic mental demands of unskilled work as the abilities, on a sustained basis, to do those things, POMS DI 25020.010A.3.a.

First, know what instrument you are looking at

The WAIS-5, published in 2024 with norms collected in 2023–2024, is not the WAIS-IV. The WAIS-5 has 20 subtests, 5 primary indexes where there were 4, and 15 ancillary indexes, but only 7 subtests feed the Full Scale IQ. A summary of the Indexes and subtests follows this article.

Perceptual Reasoning has split into Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning, so a claimant can now be intact on one and impaired on the other. Picture Completion and Cancellation are gone. Digit Span has been broken into three standalone subtests, which matters whenever compared to an older WAIS-IV report on the same claimant. Arithmetic now connects to (“loads on”) Fluid Reasoning rather than Working Memory.

The practical consequence is the one to carry into the hearing. Because the FSIQ leans toward higher-order reasoning and away from speed and working memory, a claimant can post a respectable Full Scale score and still be unable to keep pace. ALJs anchor on the FSIQ. Our job is to move them onto the index profile.

The five primary indexes, and the work each one predicts

What follows is the translation itself. For each index: what it measures, the work demands a low score bears on, and the POMS DI 25020.010B.3 abilities it puts in issue. Those abilities are the language the MRFC form and the written decision actually use, which is why the third step matters as much as the first two.

Verbal Comprehension (VCI). VCI measures acquired verbal knowledge and reasoning with words, built from Similarities and Vocabulary. A low VCI bears on understanding instructions, learning job terminology, written policies, and safety notices, and on asking a useful question when something goes wrong. It puts in issue the abilities to understand and carry out simple instructions, to ask simple questions or request assistance, and to be aware of normal hazards. Two cautions, both of which SSA may raise if you do not: First, VCI is heavily loaded on education and language, so a low score in a claimant with an eighth-grade education, or who learned English at age twenty-five, may be measuring opportunity rather than impairment. And second, an intact VCI does not rebut a brain-injury claim, because vocabulary is often the last thing to go.

Visual Spatial (VSI). VSI measuresanalyzing and mentally manipulating visual-spatial information, from Block Design and Visual Puzzles. A low VSI bears on blueprints, diagrams, and gauges; on assembly, packing, sorting, and machine set-up; and on wayfinding and hazard awareness. It puts in issue the abilities to remember work-like procedures, to carry out simple instructions, and to be aware of normal hazards and take appropriate precautions.

Fluid Reasoning (FRI). FRI involvessolving novel problems by inductive, quantitative, and logical reasoning, from Matrix Reasoning and Figure Weights. A low FRI bears on troubleshooting, adapting a routine, sequencing a multi-step job, and using judgment, and it puts in issue the abilities to make simple work-related decisions and to respond appropriately to changes in a routine work setting. Note what FRI does not establish. It is measured one problem at a time, in a quiet room, with a patient examiner, so it speaks to reasoning under ideal conditions rather than reasoning under production pressure with a phone ringing.

Working Memory (WMI). WMI gaugesholding and manipulating information over seconds while using it, from Digit Sequencing and Running Digits. A low WMI bears on multi-step instructions, resuming after an interruption, taking an order, and mental arithmetic. It puts in issue the abilities to carry out simple instructions and to maintain attention for extended periods of two-hour segments. That second ability is where a great many of these cases are actually decided.

Processing Speed (PSI). PSI calculatesthe speed of simple visual scanning, decision, and output under time limits, from Coding and Symbol Search. A low PSI bears on production quotas, timely completion, keeping pace with coworkers on routine output, and error rate late in a shift, and it puts in issue the ability to complete a normal workday and workweek at a consistent pace. PSI is the most sensitive index in the battery to various causes and the least specific. Depression, pain, sedating medication, sleep loss, poor effort, and even a bad shoulder all depress it. A low PSI tells you that the claimant is slow; it never tells you why, but a good report answers that question before the ALJ asks it.

The ancillary indexes

These are the most underused tools in the instrument, and two of them help decide cases. General Ability (GAI) strips out speed and working memory and gives you the claimant’s ceiling. Cognitive Proficiency (CPI) strips out reasoning and gives you her efficiency. The gap between them may be the basis for the entire claim, because the strongest psychometric case is rarely that the client is not smart. It is that the client is smart and still cannot keep up.

The motor-reduced family matters in any case with a severe physical impairment. Block Design is timed and requires two working hands, so in a claimant with tremor, neuropathy, arthritis, or hemiparesis a low score may be measuring the hand rather than the brain. The Nonmotor Index and the Motor-Reduced Processing Speed Index estimate ability without the manual demand, and the new Naming Speed Quantity subtest measures motor-free numerical fluency. Together they are the answer to “that is just her arthritis.” If your client has an upper-extremity problem, the first question to the neuropsychologist is whether a motor-reduced composite was reported; if not, request it. The Nonverbal Index does the same work where aphasia, expressive language loss, or limited English proficiency would otherwise confound the estimate.

The auditory working memory split is also more useful than it looks. Registration measures taking information in; Manipulation measures working with it while holding it. A claimant who registers normally but does poorly on manipulation can hear an instruction and still be unable to act on a compound one. That is a specific and credible limitation, and a far better sentence than “impaired working memory.”

Subtests are hypotheses, not conclusions

Argue indexes, not subtests. An index is a composite and far more reliable than any single scaled score, and across a twenty-subtest battery healthy adults routinely produce at least one low score. A subtest-level finding tells you what a score is consistent with, not what it proves, and it never tells you how often, how severely, or for how long. A low PSI alone is a number. Convergence is the whole game: a low PSI plus a slowed Trails A plus an employer who documents missed quotas is an argument.

Two subtest-level moves are worth knowing anyway. First, structure dependence: an intact Block Design, where a model is supplied, beside a low Matrix Reasoning, where none is, says the claimant performs better when the task has been structured for her. This speaks directly to responding appropriately to changes in a routine work setting. Second, Spatial Addition is the only WAIS-5 subtest that expressly requires ignoring competing stimuli, which makes it the closest the instrument comes to the conditions of an actual workplace and the best evidence in the battery on the ability to work in coordination with or proximity to others without being unduly distracted by them.

Governing all of it is the instructions found at Listing 12.00F3d: no single piece of information, including test results, can establish the degree of limitation of an area of mental functioning. This cuts both ways. It is also your answer when a denial rests on one 15-minute consultative examination that found the claimant alert and oriented times three.

From an index to a hypothetical question

The test of a translated finding is whether it could be read into a hypothetical. “Processing speed is moderately impaired” cannot be: it is true, it is defensible, and it is useless, because an ALJ can accept it in full and still write an RFC for simple, routine tasks. This can be: a Processing Speed Index of 74 places the claimant at roughly the fourth percentile for simple visual output; convergent with her working memory scores (Ex. __F/__), a slowed Trails B (Ex. __F/__), her decline across the continuous performance measure (Ex. __F/__), and her employer’s quota records (Ex. __E/__), she would be off task for 15-20% of an eight-hour day. (Ex. __F/__).

Note that the second version names its sources, and that this is not a stylistic preference. Usually, a neuropsychological evaluation is read by a judge outside of the hearing. The ALJ must then explain in writing how persuasive she found it. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2) the two factors she must address are supportability and consistency, and supportability is defined at (c)(1) by the objective evidence and the supporting explanations the source presents. So ask the expert for the reasoning rather than only the number, and for a range rather than false precision. For example, 15-20% survives a skeptical reading in a way that 17% does not.

Then take the number to the vocational expert. Ask what percentage of the workday off task is tolerated in the unskilled jobs she identified and ask for the basis for the figure. Ask how many unscheduled absences a month are tolerated. Ask it twice: once for the general tolerance and once for the probationary period. See Sczepanski v. Saul, 946 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2020) (claimant’s ability to complete a probationary period was relevant to her disability status). These tolerances vary by expert and by case and are testimony rather than authority, so establish yours on the record before you argue that your client exceeds it.

What the WAIS-5 cannot reach

At least one gap remains. Working memory on the WAIS-5 is a seconds-long construct; that is, a digit sequence held and reordered. Attention on a continuous performance test is minutes. The POMS abilities live an order of magnitude further out: attention across two-hour segments, a full shift at a consistent pace. Regular attendance and punctuality, eight hours a day and five days a week, and the twelve-month duration requirement live further out still. Every instrument in the report sits in the first two registers; every ability that decides the case sits in the last two. That is also why the WAIS-5 alone often is not enough — memory, executive function, sustained attention, adaptive functioning, and validity testing are all found elsewhere.

No test closes the gap; the record does. Obtain employer and personnel records, including attendance data, write-ups, quota reports, accommodations granted, and the reason the job ended. These records may be the best evidence of the inability to sustain a workweek anyone will put before the ALJ. And often, the most overlooked source is the neuropsychological evaluation itself. The neuropsychologist watched your client for perhaps 2-3 hours and knows how many breaks she took, how often an instruction had to be repeated, and whether the last hour looked like the first. That is frequency and duration data observed by an acceptable medical source, and it is often omitted because nobody asked for it in writing.

An example

A 47-year-old shipping clerk, three years past a moderate TBI. VCI 104, VSI 96, FRI 99, WMI 78, PSI 74, FSIQ 88, with GAI 101 and CPI 76. Premorbid FSIQ estimated near 102, a flat CVLT-3 learning curve, slowed Trails B, all validity measures passed. Read the indexes and the translation writes itself: reasoning is preserved, efficiency has collapsed, and the claim runs to maintaining attention across two-hour segments and completing a normal workday and workweek at a consistent pace. The claimant’s limitations are quantified, on this record, at roughly 15% off task, worse late in each segment, and 1 ½ to 2 unscheduled absences a month. What it does not support is substantial loss of the ability to understand or carry out simple instructions, where VCI and FRI are intact. Reaching for that lets the ALJ discount everything else. Claim attention and pace, not substantial loss.

If you remember nothing else

Move the ALJ off the FSIQ and onto the index profile. Argue indexes rather than subtests, and convergence rather than single findings. Learn the GAI–CPI split, because it is the profile that wins. Correlate every index to the POMS DI 25020.010B.3 abilities by name, one at a time. And give every limitation a frequency, an intensity, and a duration with a stated basis and cite, because an ability answered yes or no is an ability the ALJ cannot put to a vocational expert.

WAIS-5 Subtests

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fifth Edition (WAIS-5) is divided into 10 Primary subtests (used for core IQ metrics) and 10 Secondary subtests (used for deeper clinical insight) across five main domains.

Verbal Comprehension Subtests

• Vocabulary (Primary): The examinee defines words presented orally and visually.
• Similarities (Primary): The examinee explains how two seemingly different words or concepts are alike.
• Information (Secondary): The examinee answers general knowledge questions covering history, science, and geography.
• Comprehension (Secondary): The examinee answers questions about social rules, common expressions, and everyday solutions.

Visual Spatial Subtests

• Block Design (Primary): The examinee uses red-and-white plastic blocks to replicate a printed geometric design within a time limit.
• Visual Puzzles (Primary): The examinee chooses three puzzle pieces from an array that can combine to recreate a target shape.

Fluid Reasoning Subtests

• Matrix Reasoning (Primary): The examinee completes an incomplete visual grid by selecting the logical missing piece from multiple choices.
• Figure Weights (Primary): The examinee selects weights to balance an imperfect scale based on visual logic diagrams.
• Set Relations (Secondary): The examinee identifies patterns and deductive relationships among abstract visual shapes.
• Arithmetic (Secondary): The examinee mentally solves mathematical word problems without using a pencil or calculator.

Working Memory Subtests

• Digit Sequencing (Primary): The examinee listens to a jumbled string of numbers and repeats them back in exact numerical order.
• Running Digits (Primary): The examinee listens to a continuous string of numbers and must remember and repeat only the last few digits spoken.
• Digits Forward (Secondary): The examinee listens to a sequence of numbers and repeats them back exactly as heard.
• Digits Backward (Secondary): The examinee listens to a sequence of numbers and repeats them in reverse order.
• Symbol Span (Secondary): The examinee views a brief sequence of abstract symbols and then selects them in the correct sequential order from a grid.
• Spatial Addition (Secondary): The examinee views two sequential visual grids and mentally combines or subtracts the location of dots to select a final pattern.
• Letter-Number Sequencing (Secondary): The examinee listens to mixed letters and numbers and reorders them alphabetically and numerically. 

Processing Speed Subtests

• Coding (Primary): The examinee copies simple symbols that pair with specific numbers as quickly and accurately as possible within a time limit.
• Symbol Search (Primary): The examinee scans a visual row to quickly determine if a target symbol matches an array of options.
• Naming Speed Quantity (Secondary): The examinee rapidly looks at visual groups of boxes and vocally names the quantities of those boxes as fast as possible.

---

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

---

New Virtual CLE on Psychometric Testing

Free for NOSSCR Nonprofit Members

Join us for Tom Krause’s “Psychometric Testing: From Test Scores to Work-Related Limitations” on Wednesday, September 9, 2026, at 2pm Eastern!

This session addresses a recurring problem in disability practice: a neuropsychological report an ALJ finds credible but cannot apply, because nothing in it translates test scores into the vocabulary SSA uses. Using the WAIS-5 (published 2024) as the working example, it walks the inferences that separate a score from a work-related limitation, maps the primary indexes and subtests to the mental abilities listed at POMS DI 25020.010B.3, and explains the GAI–CPI split. It also covers what intelligence testing does not measure, such as memory, executive function, sustained attention, adaptive functioning, premorbid baseline, and validity — and which instruments do. Practical material includes the elements of Listing 12.05, five common ways representatives overclaim, and specific language to include in a letter to an examiner.

For a sneak peek on what to expect in this session, check out Tom’s “Krause Chronicles” article found later in this issue of the Forum.

This session is eligible for live virtual CLE credit, pending state approval.

Session length:

• 60 minutes

Pricing:

• NOSSCR Nonprofit Members: $0
• Emeritus Members: $50
• Sustaining Members: $72
• Regular Members: $80
• Non-Members: $95

---

Circuit Court Considerations: Four Reminders From the Ninth Circuit on Substantial Evidence Review

Adriana de la Torre, NOSSCR Sustaining Member

On August 11, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits in Yandrich v. Bisignano; it carries no precedential weight. But still, it is worth reading as it is a useful reminder of how substantial evidence review actually plays out once a matter reaches the Ninth Circuit.

Medical opinions. The ALJ discounted three favorable opinions, from Dr. Jamito, Dr. Wingate, and Mr. Bolden, as inconsistent with the providers’ own “unremarkable” treatment notes, while crediting the better-supported opinions of Drs. Sacks, Ahn, and Melamed. The panel affirmed under Kitchen v. Kijakazi, 82 F.4th 732 (9th Cir. 2023), and Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir. 2022). The lesson for us: a strong opinion letter isn’t enough on its own if the contemporaneous chart doesn’t reflect the same picture of limitation. When we’re developing the record, it’s worth going back to a treating source before the hearing, not just after an unfavorable decision, if their notes and their opinion seem to be telling different stories. Closing that gap early matters more than the opinion letter itself.

Symptom testimony. The court found the ALJ gave “specific, clear, and convincing reasons” for discounting the claimant’s testimony about disabling fatigue and social anxiety, tying the finding to concrete conflicts with clinical findings and reported daily activities. The panel relied on Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489 (9th Cir. 2022). ALJs who anchor credibility findings in specifics, a particular activity, a particular exam finding, rather than generic boilerplate about daily living, are consistently getting affirmed post-Smartt. That means our job at the hearing level is to get ahead of the specific activities and findings an ALJ is likely to flag, and address the apparent inconsistency directly through testimony or a brief, rather than leaving that fight for the appeal, where the standard is much harder to overcome.

Lay witness testimony. Because the lay witness testimony from Amanda DeLouise “largely repeated” the claimant’s own claims, the panel held the same reasons discounting his testimony were “germane” enough to discount hers too, citing Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009). This is a good moment to revisit how we prepare lay witnesses. A statement carries the most independent weight when it adds something the claimant’s own testimony can’t, specific observed changes over time, particular incidents, day-to-day details a third party would notice that a claimant might not think to mention. A statement that mirrors the claimant’s narrative offers little independent evidentiary value, and as this case shows, it’s just as vulnerable to the same credibility findings.

RFC and step five. Because the medical opinion and testimony challenges failed, the panel treated the RFC and step-five arguments as derivative, the ALJ was only obligated to include limitations he found supported by the record, and his reliance on Medical-Vocational Rule 201.27 to direct a finding of “not disabled” was upheld under Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005). This is worth flagging for anyone building an appellate brief: RFC and grid-rule arguments rarely succeed as freestanding claims of error. If they’re not paired with a successful challenge to the medical evidence or testimony underneath them, they typically don’t have anywhere to stand on their own.

None of this breaks new legal ground, and Yandrich won’t be cited as authority. But it confirms a pattern worth internalizing: these cases are usually won or lost long before the appeal, in how thoroughly the record is developed, how squarely testimony is tied to the medical evidence, and whether lay statements add anything a reviewing court can point to as independent. By the time substantial evidence review kicks in, there’s very little room left to argue that the ALJ simply reached the wrong result on a well-supported record. The work that protects a claimant on appeal happens well before the notice of appeal is ever filed.

---

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.

---

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

Participate in our New Partner Pages

Stay in front of NOSSCR members year-round.

Partner Pages is a monthly advertising email that provides organizations serving the Social Security disability community with an affordable way to promote products, services, webinars, events, educational programs, software, and other announcements directly to NOSSCR members.

Whether you’re introducing a new product, inviting members to an upcoming webinar, or sharing the latest developments from your organization, Partner Pages helps keep your message visible between conferences and other events.

What’s Included

• Your company logo
• A featured image or graphic (375px x 325px)
• Up to 150 words of promotional content
• One clickable website, registration, or landing page link
• Distribution in the monthly Partner Pages email

Investment: $500 per issue

Space is limited in each edition to provide advertisers with maximum visibility.

Please note: Partner Pages contains paid advertising and promotional content submitted by participating organizations. Inclusion in Partner Pages does not constitute endorsement, approval, or recommendation by NOSSCR of any advertiser, product, or service.

---

PAC Contributor List

THANK YOU TO OUR NOSSCR PAC CONTRIBUTORS

As of August 2026

Contributions to the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives PAC (NOSSCR PAC) are not tax-deductible as a charitable contribution for federal income tax purposes. Contributions to NOSSCR PAC will be used to support federal and state candidates, political parties, and other political committees.  Contributions are strictly voluntary.  You may refuse to contribute without reprisal.  Any proposed contribution level is merely a suggestion, and you are free to contribute more or less than suggested.  You will not benefit or be disadvantaged by reason of the amount of your contribution or a decision not to contribute.  Federal law requires NOSSCR PAC to use its best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and employer of persons whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year.  You must be a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S. to contribute.

Daily Dose of Data from SSA

This month, Social Security released the following updates:

• SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2025

• Monthly Statistical Snapshot, July 2026

• SSI Monthly Statistics, July 2026

• A new memorandum providing the estimated change in program cost due to proposed legislation: SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act

• my Social Security Participation and Willingness to Register Among U.S. Adults

• OASDI Beneficiaries by State and County, 2025

• SSI Recipients by State and County, 2025

---

Useful Resources