SOCIAL SECURITY LISTING #12

A. Introduction: The evaluation of disability on the basis of mental disorders requires the documentation of a medically determinable impairment(s) as well as consideration of the degree of limitation such impairment(s) may impose on the individual's ability to work and whether these limitations have lasted or are expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. The listings for mental disorders are arranged in eight diagnostic categories: organic mental disorders (12.02); schizophrenic, paranoid and other psychotic disorders (12.03); affective disorders (12.04); mental retardation and autism (12.05); anxiety related disorders (12.06); somatoform disorders (12.07); personality disorders (12.08); and substance addiction disorders (12.09). Each diagnostic group, except listings 12.05 and 12.09, consists of a set of clinical findings (paragraph A criteria), one or more of which must be met, and which, if met, lead to a test of functional restrictions (paragraph B criteria), two or three of which must also be met. There are additional considerations (paragraph C criteria) in listings 12.03 and 12.06, discussed therein.

The purpose of including the criteria in paragraph A of the listings for mental disorders is to medically substantiate the presence of a mental disorder. Specific signs and symptoms under any of the listings 12.02 through 12.09 cannot be considered in isolation from the description of the mental disorder contained at the beginning of each listing category. Impairments should be analyzed or reviewed under the mental category(ies) which is supported by the individual's clinical findings.

The purpose of including the criteria in paragraphs B and C of the listings for mental disorders is to describe those functional limitations associated with mental disorders which are incompatible with the ability to work. The restrictions listed in paragraphs B and C must be the result of the mental disorder which is manifested by the clinical findings outlined in paragraph A. The criteria included in paragraphs B and C of the listings for mental disorders have been chosen because they represent functional areas deemed essential to work. An individual who is severely limited in these areas as the result of an impairment identified in paragraph A is presumed to be unable to work.

The structure of the listing for substance addiction disorders, listing 12.09, is different from that for the other mental disorder listings. Listing 12.09 is structured as a reference listing; that is, it will only serve to indicate which of the other listed mental or physical impairments must be used to evaluate the behavioral or physical changes resulting from regular use of addictive substances.

The listings for mental disorders are so constructed that an individual meeting or equaling the criteria could not reasonably be expected to engage in gainful work activity.

Individuals who have an impairment with a level of severity which does not meet the criteria of the listings for mental disorders may or may not have the residual functional capacity (RFC) which would enable them to engage in substantial gainful work activity. The determination of mental RFC is crucial to the evaluation of an individual's capacity to engage in substantial gainful work activity when the criteria of the listings for mental disorders are not met or equaled but the impairment is nevertheless severe.

RFC may be defined as a multidimensional description of the work-related abilities which an individual retains in spite of medical impairments. RFC complements the criteria in paragraphs B and C of the listings for mental disorders by requiring consideration of an expanded list of work-related capacities which may be impaired by mental disorder when the impairment is severe but does not meet or equal a listed mental disorder.

B. Need for Medical Evidence: The existence of a medically determinable impairment of the required duration must be established by medical evidence consisting of clinical signs, symptoms and/or laboratory or psychological test findings. These findings may be intermittent or persistent depending on the nature of the disorder. Clinical signs are medically demonstrable phenomena which reflect specific abnormalities of behavior, affect, thought, memory, orientation, or contact with reality. These signs are typically assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist and/or documented by psychological tests. Symptoms are complaints presented by the individual. Signs and symptoms generally cluster together to constitute recognizable clinical syndromes (mental disorders). Both symptoms and signs which are part of any diagnosed mental disorder must be considered in evaluating severity.

C. Assessment of Severity: For mental disorders, severity is assessed in terms of the functional limitations imposed by the impairment. Functional limitations are assessed using the criteria in paragraph B of the listings for mental disorders (descriptions of restrictions of activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence, or pace; and ability to tolerate increased mental demands associated with competitive work). Where "marked" is used as a standard for measuring the degree of limitation, it means more than moderate, but less than extreme. A marked limitation may arise when several activities or functions are impaired or even when only one is impaired, so long as the degree of limitation is such as to seriously interfere with the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively. Four areas are considered.

1. Activities of daily living include adaptive activities such as cleaning, shopping, cooking, taking public transportation, paying bills, maintaining a residence, caring appropriately for one's grooming and hygiene, using telephones and directories, using a post office, etc. In the context of the individual's overall situation, the quality of these activities is judged by their independence, appropriateness and effectiveness. It is necessary to define the extent to which the individual is capable of initiating and participating in activities independent of supervision or direction.

"Marked" is not the number of activities which are restricted but the overall degree of restriction or combination of restrictions which must be judged. For example, a person who is able to cook and clean might still have marked restrictions of daily activities if the person were too fearful to leave the immediate environment of home and neighborhood, hampering the person's ability to obtain treatment or to travel away from the immediate living environment.

2. Social functioning refers to an individual's capacity to interact appropriately and communicate effectively with other individuals. Social functioning includes the ability to get along with others, e.g., family members, friends, neighbors, grocery clerks, landlords, bus drivers, etc. Impaired social functioning may be demonstrated by a history of altercations, evictions, firings, fear of strangers, avoidance of interpersonal relationships, social isolation, etc. Strength in social functioning may be documented by an individual's ability to initiate social contacts with others, communicate clearly with others, interact and actively participate in group activities, etc. Cooperative behaviors, consideration for others, awareness of others' feelings, and social maturity also need to be considered. Social functioning in work situations may involve interactions with the public, responding appropriately to persons in authority, e.g., supervisors, or cooperative behaviors involving coworkers.

"Marked" is not the number of areas in which social functioning is impaired, but the overall degree of interference in a particular area or combination of areas of functioning. For example, a person who is highly antagonistic, uncooperative or hostile but is tolerated by local storekeepers may nevertheless have marked restrictions in social functioning because that behavior is not acceptable in other social contexts.

3. Concentration, persistence and pace refer to the ability to sustain focused attention sufficiently long to permit the timely completion of tasks commonly found in work settings. In activities of daily living, concentration may be reflected in terms of ability to complete tasks in everyday household routines. Deficiencies in concentration, persistence and pace are best observed in work and work-like settings. Major impairment in this area can often be assessed through direct psychiatric examination and/or psychological testing, although mental status examination or psychological test data alone should not be used to accurately describe concentration and sustained ability to adequately perform work-like tasks. On mental status examinations, concentration is assessed by tasks such as having the individual subtract serial sevens from 100. In psychological tests of intelligence or memory, concentration is assessed through tasks requiring short-term memory or through tasks that must be completed within established time limits. In work evaluations, concentration, persistence, and pace are assessed through such tasks as filing index cards, locating telephone numbers, or disassembling and reassembling objects. Strengths and weaknesses in areas of concentration can be discussed in terms of frequency of errors, time it takes to complete the task, and extent to which assistance is required to complete the task.

4. Deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like settings refers to repeated failure to adapt to stressful circumstances which cause the individual either to withdraw from that situation or to experience exacerbation of signs and symptoms (i.e., decompensation) with an accompanying difficulty in maintaining activities of daily living, social relationships, and/or maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace (i.e., deterioration which may include deterioration of adaptive behaviors). Stresses common to the work environment include decisions, attendance, schedules, completing tasks, interactions with supervisors, interactions with peers, etc.

D. Documentation: The presence of a mental disorder should be documented primarily on the basis of reports from individual providers, such as psychiatrists and psychologists, and facilities such as hospitals and clinics. Adequate descriptions of functional limitations must be obtained from these or other sources which may include programs and facilities where the individual has been observed over a considerable period of time.

Information from both medical and nonmedical sources may be used to obtain detailed descriptions of the individual's activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence and pace; or ability to tolerate increased mental demands (stress). This information can be provided by programs such as community mental health centers, day care centers, sheltered workshops, etc. It can also be provided by others, including family members, who have knowledge of the individual's functioning. In some cases descriptions of activities of daily living or social functioning given by individuals or treating sources may be insufficiently detailed and/or may be in conflict with the clinical picture otherwise observed or described in the examinations or reports. It is necessary to resolve any inconsistencies or gaps that may exist in order to obtain a proper understanding of the individual's functional restrictions.

An individual's level of functioning may vary considerably over time. The level of functioning at a specific time may seem relatively adequate or, conversely, rather poor. Proper evaluation of the impairment must take any variations in level of functioning into account in arriving at a determination of impairment severity over time. Thus, it is vital to obtain evidence from relevant sources over a sufficiently long period prior to the date of adjudication in order to establish the individual's impairment severity. This evidence should include treatment notes, hospital discharge summaries, and work evaluation or rehabilitation progress notes if these are available.

Some individuals may have attempted to work or may actually have worked during the period of time pertinent to the determination of disability. This may have been an independent attempt at work, or it may have been in conjunction with a community mental health or other sheltered program which may have been of either short or long duration. Information concerning the individual's behavior during any attempt to work and the circumstances surrounding termination of the work effort are particularly useful in determining the individual's ability or inability to function in a work setting.

The results of well-standardized psychological tests such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the Rorschach, and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), may be useful in establishing the existence of a mental disorder. For example, the WAIS is useful in establishing mental retardation, and the MMPI, Rorschach, and TAT may provide data supporting several other diagnoses. Broad-based neuropsychological assessments using, for example, the Halstead-Reitan or the Luria-Nebraska batteries may be useful in determining brain function deficiencies, particularly in cases involving subtle findings such as may be seen in traumatic brain injury. In addition, the process of taking a standardized test requires concentration, persistence and pace; performance on such tests may provide useful data. Test results should, therefore, include both the objective data and a narrative description of clinical findings. Narrative reports of intellectual assessment should include a discussion of whether or not obtained IQ scores are considered valid and consistent with the individual's developmental history and degree of functional restriction.

In cases involving impaired intellectual functioning, a standardized intelligence test, e.g., the WAIS, should be administered and interpreted by a psychologist or psychiatrist qualified by training and experience to perform such an evaluation. In special circumstances, nonverbal measures, such as the Raven Progressive Matrices, the Leiter international scale, or the Arthur adaptation of the Leiter may be substituted.

Identical IQ scores obtained from different tests do not always reflect a similar degree of intellectual functioning. In this connection, it must be noted that on the WAIS, for example, IQs of 70 and below are characteristic of approximately the lowest 2 percent of the general population. In instances where other tests are administered, it would be necessary to convert the IQ to the corresponding percentile rank in the general population in order to determine the actual degree of impairment reflected by those IQ scores.

In cases where more than one IQ is customarily derived from the test administered, i.e., where verbal, performance, and full-scale IQs are provided as on the WAIS, the lowest of these is used in conjunction with listing 12.05.

In cases where the nature of the individual's intellectual impairment is such that standard intelligence tests, as described above, are precluded, medical reports specifically describing the level of intellectual, social, and physical function should be obtained. Actual observations by Social Security Administration or State agency personnel, reports from educational institutions and information furnished by public welfare agencies or other reliable objective sources should be considered as additional evidence.

E. Chronic Mental Impairments: Particular problems are often involved in evaluating mental impairments in individuals who have long histories of repeated hospitalizations or prolonged outpatient care with supportive therapy and medication. Individuals with chronic psychotic disorders commonly have their lives structured in such a way as to minimize stress and reduce their signs and symptoms. Such individuals may be much more impaired for work than their signs and symptoms would indicate. The results of a single examination may not adequately describe these individuals' sustained ability to function. It is, therefore, vital to review all pertinent information relative to the individual's condition, especially at times of increased stress. It is mandatory to attempt to obtain adequate descriptive information from all sources which have treated the individual either currently or in the time period relevant to the decision.

F. Effects of Structured Settings: Particularly in cases involving chronic mental disorders, overt symptomatology may be controlled or attenuated by psychosocial factors such as placement in a hospital, board and care facility, or other environment that provides similar structure. Highly structured and supportive settings may greatly reduce the mental demands placed on an individual. With lowered mental demands, overt signs and symptoms of the underlying mental disorder may be minimized. At the same time, however, the individual's ability to function outside of such a structured and/or supportive setting may not have changed. An evaluation of individuals whose symptomatology is controlled or attenuated by psychosocial factors must consider the ability of the individual to function outside of such highly structured settings. (For these reasons the paragraph C criteria were added to Listings 12.03 and 12.06.)

G. Effects of Medication: Attention must be given to the effect of medication on the individual's signs, symptoms and ability to function. While psychotropic medications may control certain primary manifestations of a mental disorder, e.g., hallucinations, such treatment may or may not affect the functional limitations imposed by the mental disorder. In cases where overt symptomatology is attenuated by the psychotropic medications, particular attention must be focused on the functional restrictions which may persist. These functional restrictions are also to be used as the measure of impairment severity. (See the paragraph C criteria in Listings 12.03 and 12.06.)

Neuroleptics, the medicines used in the treatment of some mental illnesses, may cause drowsiness, blunted affect, or other side effects involving other body systems. Such side effects must be considered in evaluating overall impairment severity. Where adverse effects of medications contribute to the impairment severity and the impairment does not meet or equal the listings but is nonetheless severe, such adverse effects must be considered in the assessment of the mental residual functional capacity.

H. Effect of Treatment: It must be remembered that with adequate treatment some individuals suffering with chronic mental disorders not only have their symptoms and signs ameliorated but also return to a level of function close to that of their premorbid status. Our discussion here in 12.00H has been designed to reflect the fact that present day treatment of a mentally impaired individual may or may not assist in the achievement of an adequate level of adaptation required in the work place. (See the paragraph C criteria in Listings 12.03 and 12.06.)

I. Technique for Reviewing the Evidence in Mental Disorders Claims to Determine Level of Impairment Severity: A special technique has been developed to ensure that all evidence needed for the evaluation of impairment severity in claims involving mental impairment is obtained, considered and properly evaluated. This technique, which is used in connection with the sequential evaluation process, is explained in § 404.1520a and § 416.920a.