Tag Archives: Past Relevant Work

PAST RELEVANT WORK & DISABILITY AFTER SSR 24-2p

Alberts Law, Social Security Disability, Topics of Interest, , , , , , , ,

Past relevant work (PRW) almost always is an issue when the Social Security Administration makes a disability determination. Social Security Ruling 24-2p went into effect on June 22, 2024 in order to achieve more consistent application of regulations involving this issue. Due to the role that past relevant work has in disability cases, one needs to understand what SSR 24-2p says before filing a claim with the SSA.

The new ruling is titled “Title II and Title XVI: How We Evaluate Past Relevant Work.” More specifically, the SSA’s focus is on a person’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and the extent to which it permits the individual to perform PRW. This needs to be viewed in the context of the sequential evaluation that the Social Security Administration uses to decide if someone is disabled.

Past Relevant Work in the Sequential Evaluation Process

Looking at initial disability determinations in cases involving adults, the SSA employs a five-step sequential evaluation process to reach its decision. While a claimant can be found disabled after any step, she or he can only win a disability case after either Step 3 or Step 5.

Very few cases win at Step 3. To do so, a person must meet or equal a listing found in the SSA’s Blue Book, which details Listing of Impairments, with criteria for meeting each listing; the focus here is again on initial determinations for adults. In addition, an impairment that is medically equivalent to a listing’s criteria results in a finding of disability. The degree of difficulty inherent in equaling any specific impairment in Step 3 ensures that most claims pass Step 4 in order to have a chance of surviving Step 5, resulting in a favorable disability determination. Due to the importance of Step 4 as well as the SSR enacted in 2024 to explain how SSA makes its decision at this step, the following focuses on Step 4’s role in the sequential evaluation.

The Importance of SSR 24-2p

The Social Security Administration’s issuance of SSR 24-2p on June 22, 2024 defines how Past Relevant Work is to be evaluated from that date forward. A question-and-answer format was used to provide guidance on how a determination of whether or not claimants retain “residual functional capacity,” or RFC, to perform their PRW.

When this social security ruling went into effect, it rescinded and replaced SSR 82-61 (which looked at how a job or occupation is generally performed) and SSR 82-62 (which concerned a claimant’s PRW, in general). SSR 24-2p also rescinded Social Security Ruling 86-8 (“The Sequential Evaluation Process”), which basically means that the process returns to the status quo prior to SSR 86-8.

The importance of these changes is that the latest SSR now applies to new, as well as pending, claims that existed on June 22, 2024 – the new Step 4 now is followed in these claims. Only appeals in federal court that were decided under the prior rulings are to be decided as if the old rulings remained effective. However, if a federal court remands such a case, the SSA will apply SSR 24-2p to the claim on remand. The extent to which SSR 24-2p has supplanted the other ruling is important to understand because the former sets forth how Step 4 will be analyzed; the new ruling states the manner in which claims involving past relevant work and a person’s alleged disability are viewed together at this step of the sequential evaluation process.

Residual Functional Capacity & Past Relevant Work

However, before proceeding to Step 4, there is a term that is used in the last two steps that needs to be defined. As has been mentioned previously, the ability to do past relevant work is decided by applying a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the demands of the person’s past relevant work.

Essentially, RFC is what a person retains in terms of the ability to perform work-related activities despite all medically substantiated physical and/or mental impairments. If past relevant work cannot be done in light of the individual’s RFC, then Step 5 again applies the residual functional capacity to a determination, often developed with the help of testimony of a vocational expert, of the person’s ability to do any other work found in significant numbers anywhere in the national economy. If PRW is eliminated and no other jobs exist, the person would be disabled based on the sequential evaluation process.

Review of the Definition of Disability in Social Security Cases

Before taking a more in-depth review of the evaluation of past relevant work at Step 4, one needs to understand what disability means in the context of a Social Security case since this is the overriding issue of all of these cases. A claimant must be unable to engage in Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) due to the presence of one or more medically determinable physical and/or mental impairments that would be expected to result in death or that has lasted or would be expected to last for at least 12 consecutive months.

SSR 24-2p and its 10 Questions & Answers regarding Step 4

At this point, attention will focus of Social Security Ruling 24-2p and how it will be used by the Social Security Administration to determine if a disability claimant retains sufficient residual functional capacity to meet the demands of the individual’s prior relevant work. In doing so, the 10 questions and answers found in SSR 24-2p will be reviewed, albeit not in the order that they are listed in the new ruling. The idea is to look at each one methodically to reach the ultimate decision regarding the ability to do PRW as it is decided by the end of Step 4 of the 5-step sequential evaluation process.

Question 1 Defines Past Relevant Work

The work must have been done in the last five years at Substantial Gainful Activity level for a period long enough to learn how to do it. As will be seen here, the underlined phrases are developed in the answers found in SSR 24-2p.

Questions 8 and 9 – How Work History is Determined for Step 4

For a disability claimant, Questions 8 and 9 may be the most crucial in terms of the ruling’s guide answers because they involve information primarily received from the claimant. These look at an account of the person’s work history and contain information to develop which jobs will be classified as past relevant work. In addition, the answers are used in the determination of whether or not the claimant retains residual functional capacity to perform any PRW at the time that the disability determination is made.

Question 8 involves evidence about work history. It also notes that the claimant generally is the primary source of this information. The individual must provide statements that sufficiently explain the work performed, including the skill level that was required. Question 9 stresses the need for the explanation of the mental and physical demands of the past relevant work. If the claimant provides a sufficient work history, then the SSA will not seek more information from third parties (including employers and co-workers). However, before the SSA contacts any third parties, the claimant must give permission. In general, a claimant is likely to be better off granting permission if asked, as opposed to relying on an insufficiently developed work history.

In addition, Question 9 summarizes what the SSA considers when determining the capacity to perform PRW. Residual Functional Capacity as well as a claimant’s statements about the reasons that he or she is unable to do the work are reviewed. Supplementary information about the requirements of the relevant jobs also is mentioned. As noted in Question 7 (which is discussed, below), vocational experts or specialists often are the sources here.

Question 2 Explains What Are the “Last Five Years” of Work

The Social Security Administration seeks the last five years of a person’s work history as well as jobs during that period that lasted for at least 30 consecutive days. The “last five years” of the work history is defined in the answer to Question 2 of SSR 24-2p. For specificity, one can consult the table with the answer, in which the meaning of “the last five years” is linked to specific fact patterns.

In general, the two most common definitions set the end of this period on the date that of the SSA determination or its decision regarding the person’s claim. There also is a footnote in SSR 24-2p that references SSR 18-1p. This deals with situations in an earlier date – the Established Onset Date – defines the endpoint of this critical five-year period. The guidance found in the new ruling must be applied so that a claim focuses on the correct period for a person’s work history.

Question 3: PRW Excludes Work Done for Less than 30 Calendar Days

Meanwhile, Question 3 looks at something that is excluded from Past Relevant Work. In general, a job held for less than 30 consecutive calendar days is not considered regardless of whether or not it would meet SGA or if it had been done on a full-time basis. The work started and stopped in for less than 30 consecutive calendar days is not viewed as PRW, according to SSR 24-2p.

The new ruling does make allowances for “gig economy” work often done by independent contractors and the self-employed in which there may be multiple work assignments throughout a 30-day period when the individual jobs were of the same type. Cumulatively, they are deemed sufficient to learn the work in question, even though no single assignment meets the time requirement. This recognizes the increasing contribution of freelancing, non-permanent workers to the national economy. According to Investopedia, 38 percent of the U.S. workforce in 2023 was comprised of gig workers – the Social Security Administration is aware of their prevalence and has made this adjustment to account for these jobs.

After the work history for the relevant five-year period has been developed, the SSA looks at the listed employment to see which jobs qualify as Past Relevant Work, which is the focus of this step of the evaluation process. For adults, PRW must meet the requirements for Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA). This was mentioned in passing, above. More specifically, SGA generally is defined by average monthly “countable earnings” that equal or exceed the amounts for a given year which are shown in the Earnings Guidelines in POMS DI 10501.015. While there are exceptions to the earnings requirement, this is the basic rule when applying SGA to a person’s work history to see what can qualify as PRW.

Question 4: How Long is “Long Enough to Learn?”

Also, as discussed above, even if done at SGA level, a job still has to last long enough for the individual to learn how to perform the work involved. The type of job determines how long is sufficient, with the shortest period being the aforementioned 30 consecutive calendar days.  However, learning how to do a job entails acquiring the necessary information, skills, and sufficient facility to perform adequately. The time required to learn how to perform any work is based on the type of work and its complexity. The Social Security Administration looks at what is known as Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) when determining how long this takes.

SVP is set forth in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which has long been a main source used by the SSA in its disability determinations. The DOT established nine SVP levels. SVP 1 and 2 represent unskilled work while jobs at SVP 3 and 4 are considered semi-skilled; those above SVP 4 are classified as skilled occupations. Specific Vocational Preparation levels correspond with the amount of time needed to learn particular jobs. The capacity to learn how to perform a job at SGA level for at least the length of time dictated by the job’s SVP determines which jobs, if any, in a claimant’s work history meet the definition of Past Relevant Work. This leads to the pivotal issue of a claimant’s ability to handle PRW despite averring that she or he disabled under the Social Security Act.

Questions 5 -7 Focus on the Issue of the Ability to Perform PRW

SSR 24-2p poses three questions (numbered 5 through 7) in making the decision about a person’s ability to perform Past Relevant Work.  Question 5 is general in nature, summarizing how the individual’s ability to perform PRW is determined. The next two questions deal with the specifics of how this is analyzed.

Question 6 states the first consideration, which is if the claimant can perform PRW as this individual actually performed it. This acknowledges that there are occasions when functional demands of work as someone actually performed it differ from how the position generally is performed throughout the national economy. If Residual Functional Capacity exists to handle PRW as it actually was performed by the claimant, then the person is not disabled for Social Security purposes. This finding essentially ends the sequential evaluation process at Step 4.

When the individual lacks the RFC to perform Past Relevant Work as he or she actually performed it, SSR 24-2p moves to Question 7. This is similar to the previous question in that both focus on PRW; however, this analyzes PRW while considering how the work is generally performed in the national economy.

Use of “Reliable Sources of Information” to Describe Occupations (Question 7)

The Social Security Administration relies on “reliable sources of job information” to determine how a job is generally performed and then decides if the person retains the RFC to perform any PRW as generally done in the national economy. For reliable sources, the SSA often uses vocational experts to explain the job requirements as well as providing an opinion regarding the claimant’s capacity to perform the work in question. Ultimately, the Social Security Administration makes the final decision regarding whether or not the individual can perform Past Relevant Work. If the claimant can handle the work based on the answer to either Question 6 or 7, then Step 5 in the sequential evaluation process will become inconsequential.

Question 10: Summarizing Determinations Regarding PRW

Finally, there is Question 10 in SSR 24-2p. The answer actually is a concise summary of the determinations involving Past Relevant Work found in Step 4 of the sequential evaluation process. First, a claimant’s RFC must be defined. Then, PRW must be determined. Residual Functional Capacity is used to decide if the person still can do this work. If the RFC precludes the claimant from engaging in Past Relevant Work, the initial disability determination moves to Step 5 of the sequential evaluation, when the claimant could be found disabled under SSA rules if there is no job anywhere in the national economy that she or he has the RFC to perform at Substantial Gainful Activity level. However, the case does not reach Step 5 if the claimant cannot survive Step 4. Because it explains the evaluation of Past Relevant Work, SSR 24-2p must be understood by claimants and their representatives.

Past Relevant Work and Disability according to Social Security

Alberts Law, Social Security Disability, ,

Past Relevant Work (PRW) can prevent you from being found disabled by the Social Security Administration, but claimants often do not understand what this means and why it can be so important in deciding a disability claim. In the five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether or not a claimant is disabled, this issue does not arise until Step 4 but will end the case for someone found capable of doing PRW – this person cannot be disabled.

The Basic Definition of Past Relevant Work

At its most basic level, Past Relevant Work examines your current capacity to perform past work, which may show the ability to do Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) now. To define Past Relevant Work, you focus on a specific portion of your past work – this is the “relevant” part. The Social Security Administration uses a 15-year window here. This window “closes” at the earlier of two dates: the “date last insured,” which is the last day that you met the requirements to be eligible for Social Security benefits, and the date that the disability determination is made. Then, you look at all of your work from whichever date applies to the date ending 15 years prior to this date.

However, not all of your past work within this timeframe is necessarily relevant (SSR 82-62).The general rule of thumb is that you had to have earnings that at least equaled the amount set as Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) when you did the work. Relevant work also means that you performed the work long enough to know how to do the job. The level of skill required by a job provides the guidance here. For example, unskilled positions usually are considered to take no more than 30 days to learn. As a job becomes more complex to learn, you would need to earnings at SGA level for a longer period of time. Being able to explain what you had to do at a particular job is important because this demonstrates the necessary skill level, which, in turn, affects how long you had to do a job at SGA level for it to be considered PRW.

Past Relevant Work becomes very important if you are not found to meet or equal one of the SSA’s listed impairments because, while PRW cannot lead to a finding that you are disabled, it can eliminate the possibility of being found disabled. For example, if the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at a hearing decides that you did something that would be Past Relevant Work and also decides that your functional capacities at the time of the hearing would allow you to do this job now, then you are not disabled. Everything that would qualify as PRW during the prior 15 years must be beyond your functional capacities for your disability claim to reach the fifth and final step of the sequential evaluation (i.e., whether or not a claimant can do any job found in significant numbers in the national economy).

The SSA chose fifteen years as the lookback period for a specific reason. The theory is that jobs and their requirements gradually change over time with societal and technological changes occurring. What employers will need to do a particular position has to adjust to these changing demands. The thinking is that, after 15 years, a comparison between what you had to do then versus what you would have to do in the same work now is unrealistic.

Past Relevant Work: Viewed from Two Perspectives by Social Security

Past Relevant Work is viewed from two potentially different perspectives. First, an ALJ at a hearing wants to know how you performed this work (SSA – POMS: DI 25005.020 – PRW as the Claimant Performed It – 04/27/2017). This could be very different from the standard definition since one employer’s needs may differ from another’s. Being able to explain how you did a job on a function-by-function basis is crucial here. Another reason is that your work as you did it may not be among the standard definitions found in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the “DOT”) because many jobs are composed of various elements of different jobs. These “composite” positions are not found in the DOT.

As long as you can perform all of the essential parts of the job as you did it, you usually are not considered disabled. There is enough flexibility in the concept of Past Relevant Work that part-time work could be considered PRW under certain circumstances as could work performed during a 4-day week instead of the 5-day week that is part of the standard SGA definition. While you may be able to do PRW as you actually performed it, this flexibility regarding defining your Past Relevant Work might not preclude a finding of disability at Step 5. For example, an inability to work a 40-hour week could significantly erode your occupational base, leading to a favorable disability determination here.

The second way that Past Relevant Work is evaluated does focus on how the work generally is performed in the national economy. The DOT remains the starting point for this definition. A decision on disability should consider and discuss PRW from both perspectives.

In the context of the SSA’s sequential evaluation of disability claims, Past Relevant Work could be irrelevant if a final determination on a claim is made in any of the 3 prior steps (Code of Federal Regulations § 404.1560). However, since there is no guarantee that this will happen, a case must be approached with the idea that Step 4 will be reached. This means that a claimant’s PRW needs to be developed. The main source of documentation for vocational evidence of Past Relevant Work should be the claimant, who can describe past employment in terms of the tasks, responsibilities, and other factors that comprised the work. If the claimant cannot or, for some reason, will not provide this information and if no other source for this vocational information is available, the claim generally will be denied.

How the Ability to Do Past Relevant Work is Determined

After the information about PRW is determined, it is used to decide if you are able to do your Past Relevant Work. Your Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) – what you can do despite any and all limitations due to your impairments – is determined prior to Step 4. RFC is described on a function-by-function basis. This is compared to the physical and mental demands of your PRW at this point. The issue is whether the RFC will permit the claimant to do the Past Relevant Work as the claimant actually performed it or as it generally is done in the national economy. The facts of the case are used to decide how these comparisons are made.

In the end, if PRW cannot be done under either test, then the disability determination moves to Step 5. This is the final step, which looks at the ability to do any work at SGA level that is found in the national economy in significant numbers.

It is important to remember that a decision regarding Past Relevant Work does not occur in a vacuum. There must be a current comparison point, which is why mental and physical Residual Functional Capacity must be established prior to Step 4. For example, at a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will determine the claimant’s functional limitations, looking at capacities to sit, stand, walk, lift, and carry (among other physical abilities). They are compared to the physical demands of PRW. If there is evidence of mental or emotional impairments that affect a person’s RFC, then the ALJ needs to know job responsibilities and duties from the PRW that would be likely to produce tension and anxiety, for example. Again, this is a function-by-function comparison of current Residual Functional Capacity with the claimant’s Past Relevant Work and what it required the person to do.

Quick Tips to Remember about the Development of Past Relevant Work

If you apply for disability, you always must bear in mind that you are the primary source of your work experience (Code of Federal Regulations § 404.1565). You need to give a detailed description of jobs that you performed. Then, you have to give credible testimony of the work requirements that you no longer can meet as well as the reasons why you cannot perform them anymore. Your testimony is not the only consideration, though. Disability decisions rely on medical evidence so the evaluation of medical evidence must support your reasons. Other sources that may influence any decision about your current ability to do PRW may come from a Vocational Expert at your hearing and even the somewhat outdated Dictionary of Occupational Titles, providing an overview of how your Past Relevant Work generally is performed in the national economy.

Taken together, all of these things lead to the decision at Step 4 of the sequential evaluation. The decision maker should state the relative weight given to medical and non-medical factors in the determination regarding your ability to do your Past Relevant Work. In doing this, your Residual Functional Capacity must be explained as well as the factual findings of the physical and mental demands of the past work being considered. In the final analysis, you need to remember that you will give much of the information needed to make this decision so you cannot afford to treat your Past Relevant Work as an afterthought. While no finding regarding this issue can ensure a favorable disability determination, a decision not to fully develop your Past Relevant Work can easily doom your disability claim.