I-5-4-45.Cuffee v. Shalala

Table of Contents
I Purpose
II Background
III Guiding Principles
IV Definition of Class
V Determination of Class Membership and Preadjudication Actions
VI Processing and Adjudication
VII Case Coding
VIII Reconciliation of Implementation
IX Inquiries
Attachment 1 Stipulation and Consent Order Entered by the Court on December 2, 1993
Attachment 2 CUFFEE COURT CASE FLAG/ALERT
Attachment 3 Screening Flag - Inside OHA
Attachment 4 Cuffee SCREENING SHEET
Attachment 5 Screening Flag - Outside OHA
Attachment 6 Non-Class Membership Notice
Attachment 7 Route Slip for Non-class Member Claims
Attachment 8 Notice of Revised Class Membership
Attachment 9 Readjudication Flag for OHA Retention Cases
Attachment 10 ALJ Dismissal to DDS
Attachment 11 Notice Transmitting ALJ Order of Dismissal
Attachment 12 Readjudication Flag for No Common Issue Cases
Attachment 13 Text for Appeals Council Remand to DDS Class Member Claim Associated with Current Claim Pending Appeals Council Review
Attachment 14 Text for Appeals Council Remand to DDS Class Member Claim Pending Appeals Council Review

ISSUED: March 17, 1995; REVISED: February 26, 1997

I. Purpose

This Temporary Instruction (TI) sets forth procedures for implementing the Stipulation and Consent Order approved and entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on December 2, 1993, in the Cuffee v. Shalala class action (see Attachment 1). The Cuffee class action is principally oriented toward alleged deficiencies in Missouri Disability Determination Services (DDS) actions and procedures.

Adjudicators throughout the country must be familiar with this TI because of case transfers and because Cuffee class members who now reside outside of Missouri must have their cases processed in accordance with the requirements of the Stipulation and Consent Order.

II. Background

On January 22, 1991, the named plaintiff amended his individual complaint, filed in May 1990, to reflect class allegations and the addition of State defendants as parties. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Missouri DDS failed to evaluate pain in accordance with the requirements of the Polaski court order, affecting Eighth Circuit residents. After protracted litigation and at the court's direction, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and, on December 2, 1993, the district court approved the parties' proposed Stipulation and Consent Order.

III. Guiding Principles

Under the Cuffee Stipulation and Consent Order, the Secretary will readjudicate the claim(s) of those Missouri residents who, under titles II and/or XVI: 1) receive a fully or partially favorable disability determination, decision or court reversal based either on a new claim filed during the period between December 2, 1993, and April 30, 1995, inclusive, or on a claim pending as of December 2, 1993; or, receive a res judicata denial or dismissal based on a new claim filed during the period between December 2, 1993, and April 30, 1995, inclusive, or on a claim pending as of December 2, 1993; 2) filed a prior claim(s) that the Missouri DDS medically denied (including a closed period determination) during the period between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive; 3) respond to notice informing them of the opportunity for readjudication; and 4) are determined to be class members.

The Secretary will also readjudicate the claim(s) of those Missouri residents who: 1) were entitled to disability insurance benefits and/or eligible for SSI benefits on December 2, 1993; 2) in response to public notice, notify an SSA field office (FO) (or OHA hearing office (HO)) that he or she had a final medical denial issued by the Missouri DDS dated on or between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive; and 3) are determined to be class members. These individuals must self-identify and notify an SSA FO or HO by April 30, 1995.

In most cases, the Office of Disability and International Operations (ODIO) will screen the prior claims of those individuals who respond to individual or public notice, and forward class member claims to the Missouri DDS for readjudication.

Additionally, if the potential class member claim, or the new claim filed in response to Cuffee, is pending or stored in OHA when class membership becomes an issue, e.g., the claimant appealed a partially favorable determination issued on the new claim, OHA will perform the screening and, under limited circumstances as described in Part VI., will perform the readjudication.

The type of readjudication will be a “redetermination.” A redetermination consists of a de novo reevaluation of the class member's eligibility for benefits based on all evidence in his or her file, including newly obtained evidence, relevant to the period of time at issue in the administrative determination(s) or decision(s) that forms the basis for the claimant's class membership. If the redetermination results in a favorable decision, the adjudicator must also determine whether the class member's eligibility has been continuous through the date of the readjudication, i.e., through the current date or the date of the most recent allowance. The DDS will also assess disability through the current date, if: 1) a class member claim is pending a hearing or is associated with a common-issue current claim that is pending a hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) exercises discretion to dismiss the request for hearing and return the claim(s) to the DDS (see Part VI.); or 2) a class member claim is pending before the Appeals Council or is associated with a common-issue current claim that is pending before the Appeals Council, and the Appeals Council, under certain circumstances, remands the claim(s) to the DDS (see Part VI.).

Cases readjudicated by the Missouri DDS will be processed at the reconsideration level regardless of the final level at which the claim was previously decided. The class member claim(s) will be adjudicated under current policies and procedures. Class members who receive adverse readjudication determinations will have full appeal rights, i.e., ALJ hearing, Appeals Council and judicial review.

Other than “waterfall” cases, i.e., appealed cases, the primary implementation impact of the Cuffee settlement on OHA will be the responsibility for screening when a potential class member claim or current claim is pending or stored at OHA. Under the terms of the stipulation and order for settlement, SSA will consolidate cases only at the DDS level. However, the ALJ or the Appeals Council may consolidate a class member claim and a current claim for the purpose of issuing a decision that is fully favorable with respect to the class member claim.

IV. Definition of Class

Except as noted below, the Cuffee class members entitled to relief are all residents of Missouri who:

  • apply for title II and/or title XVI disability benefits, between December 2, 1993, and April 30, 1995, inclusive; or

  • have a disability claim pending at any administrative level or in Federal court on December 2, 1993; and

  • receive a medical allowance or res judicata denial on their disability claim; or

  • were entitled to or eligible for disability benefits as of December 2, 1993; and

  • had a prior claim for title II and/or title XVI disability benefits medically denied (including a closed period determination) by the Missouri DDS at the initial or reconsideration level between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive; and

  • were residents of the State of Missouri at the time the prior decision was issued (between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive) and at all other relevant times.

EXCEPTIONS:

A person is not a Cuffee class member entitled to relief if he or she:

  • is an individual not currently eligible for disability insurance benefits and/or Supplemental Security Income benefits who had a closed period of eligibility at any time between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive; or

  • appealed to OHA and received an unfavorable decision (other than a dismissal) which became the final decision of the Secretary after receiving a denial from the Missouri DDS between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive; or

  • received a subsequent fully favorable determination or decision issued at any time on or after November 14, 1991, which covered the entire period for which the individual might be eligible for additional benefits, and all benefits have been paid, i.e., all claims within the class member period have been reopened under the normal rules of administrative finality; or

  • had his or her prior claims reviewed pursuant to the Boyd, Peck, Polaski or Zebley class actions.

V. Determination of Class Membership and Preadjudication Actions

A. Pre-Screening Actions - General

  1. Identification

    SSA has provided poster notices concerning the right to file a new claim under Cuffee, to all SSA FOs and the four OHA HOs in the State of Missouri. SSA must publicly display the notices until May 1, 1995.

    Individuals who file a new claim in response to the posters are not required to affirmatively state their intent under Cuffee, and are not potential class members unless and until they receive a favorable determination, decision or court reversal, or a res judicata denial or dismissal. The effectuating component will take all necessary actions to place favorable determinations, decisions or court reversals on claims pending as of December 2, 1993, or claims filed between December 2, 1993, and April 30, 1995, inclusive, into pay status. Then, using SSA's data processing systems, Litigation Staff will match favorable claims and res judicata denials against prior claims adjudicated during the class member period, i.e., between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive.

    Individuals who are already entitled to or eligible for disability under titles II or XVI and who received a Missouri DDS medical denial during the relevant 1987 - 1991 period must “self-identify.” The FO (or receiving HO) will:

    • obtain a signed SSA-795 from the individual with the statement "I request readjudication of my previous claim under the Cuffee v. Shalala class action lawsuit;"

    • include the individual's SSN, current address and phone number on the SSA-795;

    • ask the individual, “Do you have any side effects from the medication(s) you take?”;

    • have the individual document his/her answer on the SSA-795; and

    • then route the SSA-795 to Litigation Staff at the address shown in Part V. A. 3.

  2. Notification and Routing

    Litigation Staff will send notice to prospective class members, whose claims are matched against claims denied during the class member period, of their opportunity for readjudication. Prospective class members must return a bar-coded reply form to ODIO within 60 days of the date of receipt of notice. ODIO will scan the replies into the Civil Action Tracking System (CATS), and Litigation Staff will generate folder alerts (see Attachment 2 for a sample Cuffee Court Case Flag/Alert). Litigation Staff will also generate folder alerts for claimants who “self-identify.”

    If a claim within the class period or a later claim is pending or stored at OHA, e.g., the claimant filed a civil action on a claim decided during the period between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive, or the claimant appealed a partially favorable determination on the claim giving rise to potential Cuffee membership, Litigation Staff will forward the alert to the Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) at the following address (case locator code 5007):

    Office of Hearings and Appeals
    Office of Appellate Operations
    One Skyline Tower, Suite 701
    5107 Leesburg Pike
    Falls Church, VA 22041-3200

    ATTN: OAO Class Action Coordinator

    NOTE:

    The OAO Class Action Coordinator is responsible for controlling and reconciling the disposition of class alerts shipped to OHA for association with pending or stored claims. The OAO Class Action Coordinator will maintain a record of all alerts received and the location, if any, to which they are transferred. This information will be necessary to do the final class membership reconciliation.

  3. Folder Reconstruction

    Generally, ODIO, the program service centers or the Wilkes-Barre Data Operations Center will initiate any necessary reconstruction of prior claim files through the servicing FO. Consequently, OHA requests for reconstruction of potential Cuffee class member cases should be rare. Prior to requesting reconstruction, OHA will determine whether available systems data or other information provides satisfactory proof that the particular claim would not confer class membership. However, if it becomes necessary for OHA to request reconstruction, the OHA component (the HO or the OAO branch) will forward the alert and any accompanying claim file(s) (if the claim file(s) is not needed for adjudication purposes) to the servicing FO, along with documentation of attempts to locate the file and a covering memorandum requesting that the reconstructed folder be forwarded to OHA. HOs will route any reconstruction requests directly to the servicing FOs. The OAO branch will route requests to the servicing FO and will send a copy of the covering memorandum to the OAO Class Action Coordinator. For CATS purposes, HO personnel and the OAO Class Action Coordinator will forward a copy of the reconstruction request memorandum to Litigation Staff at the following address:

    Litigation Staff
    Office of Policy and Planning
    3-K-26 Operations Building
    6401 Security Boulevard
    Baltimore, MD 21235
    ATTN: Cuffee Coordinator

    HO personnel and the OAO branch will identify in the reconstruction request the OHA location of any existing claim file(s) being retained for adjudication purposes, and the date(s) of the claim(s) involved.

    The HO or OAO will not delay action on a pending claim when a prior claim is being reconstructed for screening purposes, unless the prior claim is needed for the adjudication of the pending claim. If OHA completes action on the pending claim prior to receipt of the reconstructed folder, the HO or OAO, as appropriate, will forward the class action material, including the alert, if still in its possession, unneeded claim files, if any, and a copy of the reconstruction request directly to the servicing FO using a covering memorandum. The HO or OAO will send a copy of the covering memorandum to the OAO Class Action Coordinator, along with a copy of the action taken on the pending claim (see Part V. B. 2.). For additional information on reconstruction procedures, see the Generic Class Action Implementation instructions in HALLEX I-1-7-5 C.

B. OHA Screening Actions

  1. Determining Jurisdiction for Screening

    1. Current Claim Pending or Stored in OHA

      As provided in Part V. A. 2., if there is a current claim pending or stored at OHA, the OAO Class Action Coordinator will receive the alert and related Cuffee claim file(s). The OAO Class Action Coordinator will determine OHA jurisdiction for screening and forward as follows.

      • If the current claim is in an HO, the Coordinator will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and any prior claim file(s) to the HO for screening. (Part V. B. 3. a. provides instructions to HOs regarding the action to be taken if they receive an alert package but no longer have a current claim pending.)

      • If the current claim is before the Appeals Council, or is located in an OAO branch mini-docket or in the OAO Docket and Files Branch (DFB), the Coordinator will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and any prior claim file(s) to the appropriate OAO branch for screening. (Part V. B. 3. a. provides instructions to the OAO branches regarding the action to be taken if they receive an alert package but no longer have a current claim pending.)

      If the Coordinator (or designee) is unable to locate the current claim file within OHA, the Coordinator (or designee) will broaden the claim file search and arrange for alert transfer or file reconstruction, as necessary.

    2. Current Claim Pending in Court

      If the OAO Class Action Coordinator receives an alert for a claimant who has a civil action pending, either on the alerted case or on another claim, the Coordinator will forward the alert and any accompanying claim file(s) to the appropriate OAO Court Case Preparation and Review Branch (CCPRB) for screening, using Attachment 3. See Part V. B. 3. b. for special screening instructions when a civil action is involved.

  2. Pre-screening Procedures

    Prior to screening an individual case, the screening component will obtain appropriate systems information to determine whether:

    • there is a subsequent claim pending at any administrative level or in court;

    • there are additional claims within the class dates which have not been associated;

    • the claimant has received a determination/decision on a subsequent claim which is fully favorable with respect to the time period at issue in the potential class member claim and all benefits have been paid thus providing a basis for determining that the claimant is not a class member eligible for relief.

    The screening component will also:

    • obtain the files for all unassociated claims that fall within the class dates, as well as any inactive claims that postdate the class period (which potentially provide a basis for screen-out or for limiting class relief); and

    • if necessary, request reconstruction of any potential class member files for claims that cannot be located, unless available systems data or other information provides satisfactory proof that the particular claim would not confer class membership.

  3. Screening

    1. General Instructions

      The screening component will associate the alert and any prior claim file(s) with the claim file(s) in its possession and then complete a screening sheet (see Attachment 4) as follows:

      • consider all applications denied (including res judicata denials/dismissals) during the Cuffee timeframe;

      • follow all instructions on the screening sheet and the screening sheet instructions (Attachment 4);

      • sign and date the original screening sheet, place it in the claim file (on the top right side of the file); and

      • if the screening component is an OHA Headquarters component, forward a copy of the screening sheet to the OAO Class Action Coordinator at the address in Part V. A. 2. (The Coordinator will enter information from the screening sheet into a database and forward a copy of the screening sheet to the Division of Litigation Analysis and Implementation (DLAI)). If the screening component is an HO, forward a copy of the screening sheet directly to DLAI at the following address:

        Office of Hearings and Appeals
        Division of Litigation Analysis and
          Implementation
        One Skyline Tower, Suite 702
        5107 Leesburg Pike
        Falls Church, VA 22041-3255
        ATTN: Cuffee Coordinator

        HO personnel may also forward material by telefax to DLAI at (703) 305-0655. (DLAI will retain a copy of each screening sheet, share a copy with the OAO Class Action Coordinator, and forward a copy to Litigation Staff.)

      If the HO receives an alert only, or an alert associated with a prior claim file(s), for screening, and no longer has the current claim file, it will return or forward the alert and any prior claim file(s) to the OAO Class Action Coordinator (see address in Part V. A. 2.) and advise the Coordinator of the action taken on the current claim and its destination. The Coordinator will determine the current claim file location and, if it is located in OHA Headquarters, will forward the alert and any accompanying claim file(s) to the responsible OAO branch for screening, using Attachment 3. If the file(s) is no longer in OHA, the Coordinator will use Attachment 5 to send the alert and any accompanying claim file(s) to the non-OHA location for screening coordination.

      If an OAO branch receives an alert only, or an alert associated with a prior claim file(s), and no longer has the current claim file, (and it is not located in an OAO branch mini-docket or in the OAO DFB), it will determine the location of the current claim file. If the current claim file is located within OHA, the OAO branch will use Attachment 3 to forward the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the current OHA location. If the file(s) is no longer in OHA, the OAO branch will use Attachment 5 to forward the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) to the non-OHA location for screening coordination. The OAO branch will also advise the OAO Class Action Coordinator of its actions.

    2. Special OAO Screening Instructions if a Civil Action Is Involved

      As noted in Part V. B. 1. b., the CCPRB will screen for Cuffee class membership when a civil action is involved. The CCPRB's class membership/eligibility for relief determination will dictate the appropriate post-screening action.

      • The receipt of a favorable determination/decision provides the threshold for class membership. The only cases pending in court which should require screening are those in which: 1) the claimant is in benefit status based on either a subsequent disability claim, e.g., the claim pending in court is under title II, and the claimant is eligible under title XVI; or, there was a partially favorable decision on the claim pending in court; or, there was a partially favorable decision on a claim filed prior to the claim now pending in court, e.g., the claimant filed the claim now pending in court subsequent to a partially favorable decision, and 2) the claimant self-identifies as a potential class member or the subsequent claim is effectuated during the pendency of the court action.

      • If the claim pending in court is the only claim, the claimant cannot be a class member even if the Missouri DDS denied the claim during the class period. This is because a claimant must not only meet the threshold requirement of being in receipt of a favorable determination or decision (or res judicata denial), but also must have had another claim that was denied within the class period.

      • If the claimant is a class member, the CCPRB will immediately notify OGC, Region VII, so that OGC can take appropriate action. OGC, Region VII, will advise the CCPRB of the action to be taken.

      • If the claimant is not a class member, the CCPRB will follow the instructions in Part V. 4. a.

  4. Post-Screening Actions

    1. Non-Class Member Cases

      If the screening component determines that the individual is not a class member entitled to relief, the component will:

      • notify the individual, and representative, if any, of non-class membership using Attachment 6 (modified as necessary to fit the circumstances and posture of the case when there is a current claim);

      NOTE:

      Include the address and telephone number of the servicing Social Security FO at the top of Attachment 6.

      • retain a copy of the notice in the claim file;

      • send a copy of the notice to:

        Legal Aid of Western Missouri
        600 Lathrop Building
        1005 Grand Avenue
        Kansas City, MO 64106-2216;
      • retain the claim file(s) for 90 days pending a possible dispute regarding the individual's entitlement to relief;

      • if class counsel makes a timely written request to review the claim file, i.e., within 60 days from receipt of the notice of class membership denial, DLAI will notify the OHA component housing the non-class member claim file to send it to the Office of the Regional Commissioner in Kansas City using the pre-addressed route slip in Attachment 7. Class counsel will have 45 days from the notification of file availability to inspect the file. OGC, Region VII, will attempt to resolve all such disputes through negotiation with class counsel within 60 days;

      NOTE:

      Photocopy any material contained in the prior file that is relevant to the current claim and place it in the current claim file before shipping the prior file.

      • if SSA, through OGC, resolves the dispute in the claimant's favor: 1) the original screening component or Litigation Staff will prepare a revised screening sheet; 2) send the notice of revised class membership determination (Attachment 8) to the claimant and representative, if any, and to the class counsel; 3) OHA jurisdiction cases will proceed in accordance with Part VI.; 4) the screening component will notify DLAI of the revised determination by forwarding a copy of the revised screening sheet; 5) DLAI will coordinate with the OAO Class Action Coordinator as necessary; and

      • if the dispute cannot be resolved, OGC, Region VII, will send the claimant, and class counsel, notice indicating that the claimant will have 60 days to request district court review of the class membership/eligibility for relief determination.

      • if after 90 days no review is requested, return the file(s) to the appropriate storage location if not otherwise needed.

      An individual who wishes to appeal a determination of non-class membership may do so only through class counsel, as explained in the notice (Attachment 6).

    2. Cases Determined to Be Class Members

      If the screening component determines that the individual is a class member, it will proceed with processing and adjudication in accordance with the instructions in Part VI.

VI. Processing and Adjudication

All disability claims pending as of December 2, 1993, the date the court approved the Stipulation and Consent Order, or filed between December 2, 1993, and April 30, 1995, inclusive, will automatically be considered under Cuffee. FOs will follow normal procedures when a new claim is filed and a claim is already pending in OHA. When appropriate, the new claim will be escalated to the OHA level. OHA decision makers will follow existing statutory and regulatory policies and procedures for processing and adjudicating new claims and class member claims.

The relevant policies and procedures include, but are not limited to, the development and evaluation of subjective symptoms, including pain (20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929), obtaining medical evidence of record from treating physicians (20 CFR §§ 404.1512, 404.1513 and 416.912, 416.913), obtaining consultative examinations (20 CFR §§ 404.1517, 404.1519 and 416.917, 416.919), the weight to be accorded the opinion of treating sources (20 CFR §§ 404.1527 and 416.927), and the determination of residual functional capacity and completion of the residual functional capacity assessment form (20 CFR §§ 404.1545 and 416.945).

When an ALJ or the Appeals Council issues a fully or partially favorable decision on a claim filed in response to Cuffee or pending at the time of the Stipulation and Consent Order, the ALJ or the Appeals Council may, in connection therewith, reopen a claim(s) within the class period under the normal rules of administrative finality. In this situation, even though the ALJ or the Appeals Council may have afforded all class relief, there is no special decisional language with respect to Cuffee. However, in any case in which the claimant had a prior claim finally decided within the class member period, and the ALJ or the Appeals Council does not reopen that claim in connection with favorable action on the current claim, HO or OAO personnel must annotate the transmittal sheet to the effectuating component, that a Cuffee notice may be needed.

As indicated previously, the Missouri DDS will ordinarily perform the class member readjudications, irrespective of the administrative level at which the claim was last decided. However, the following processing and adjudication procedures will apply when OHA has responsibility for screening, because a potential class member claim is pending or stored in OHA, and when the claimant is a class member.

A. Class Member Claim Is Associated with Current Claim Pending at Hearing Level

  1. Claims Have Common Issues; Hearing Scheduled or Held

    In this situation, the appropriate HO action will depend on the ALJ's consideration of the merits and disposition of the current claim.

    1. If the ALJ issues a decision on the current claim, and that decision is fully favorable with respect to the class member claim, the ALJ will:

      • consolidate the claims;

      • notify the claimant, and representative, if any, that the decision on the current claim also resolves the class member claim; and

      • forward a copy of the decision directly to DLAI at the address in Part V. B. 3.

    2. If the ALJ issues a decision on the current claim that is not fully favorable with respect to the class member claim, or dismisses the request for hearing on the current claim, HO personnel will flag the class member claim (see Attachment 9) for forwarding to the DDS on completion of all OHA actions and expiration of any appeal period.

  2. Claims Have Common Issues; Hearing Not Scheduled

    In this situation, the ALJ will dismiss the request for hearing on the current claim, using the language in Attachment 10 and the covering notice in Attachment 11, and forward both the current and class member claims to the DDS at the address on the alert, for a consolidated reopening.

    EXCEPTIONS:

    The ALJ will not dismiss the request for hearing on the current claim, when a hearing has not been scheduled, if 1) the claimant has waived his or her right to an in-person hearing and the current claim is ready for an on-the-record decision; 2) the ALJ is otherwise prepared to issue a fully favorable decision on the current claim; 3) the current claim is on remand from the Appeals Council; or 4) the current claim involves terminal illness.

    If the ALJ is unable to dismiss the request for hearing on the current claim because an exception applies, and the ALJ proposes to issue a decision that is fully favorable with respect to the class member claim, the ALJ will follow the guidance in Part VI. A. 1. a. If the ALJ issues a decision on the current claim that is not fully favorable with respect to the class member claim, HO personnel will flag the class member claim (see Attachment 9) for forwarding to the DDS on completion of all OHA actions and expiration of any appeal period.

  3. Claims Do Not Have Common Issues

    HO personnel will retain and process the current claim separately and forward the class member claim to the DDS for redetermination without delay, using Attachment 12.

B. Class Member Claim Is Pending at the Hearing Level

  1. Hearing Scheduled or Held

    As in Part VI. A. l., the appropriate HO action with respect to class relief will depend on the ALJ's disposition of the request for hearing.

    1. If the ALJ issues a decision that is fully favorable, this action provides all class relief and the ALJ will:

      • notify the claimant, and representative, if any, that the decision resolves class relief; and

      • forward a copy of the decision directly to DLAI at the address in Part V. B. 3. a.

    2. If the ALJ issues a decision that is not fully favorable or dismisses the request for hearing, HO personnel will flag the claim (see Attachment 9) for forwarding to the DDS on completion of all OHA actions and expiration of any appeal period.

  2. Hearing Not Scheduled

    The ALJ will dismiss the request for hearing using the language in Attachment 10 and the covering notice in Attachment 11, and forward the claim to the DDS for reopening.

    EXCEPTIONS:

    The ALJ will not dismiss the request for hearing when a hearing has not been scheduled, if 1) the claimant has waived his or her right to an in-person hearing and the case is ready for an on-the-record decision; 2) the ALJ is prepared to issue a fully favorable decision; 3) the claim is on remand from the Appeals Council; or 4) the claim involves terminal illness.

    If the ALJ is unable to dismiss the request for hearing because an exception applies, and the ALJ proposes to issue a decision that is fully favorable, the ALJ will follow the guidance in Part VI. A. 1. a. If the ALJ issues a decision that is not fully favorable, HO personnel will flag the claim (see Attachment 9) for forwarding to the DDS on completion of all OHA actions and expiration of any appeal period.

C. Class Member Claim Is Associated with Current Claim Pending at Appeals Council Level

  1. Claims Have Common Issues

    The appropriate Appeals Council action will depend on the Appeals Council's consideration of the merits and disposition of the current claim.

    1. If the Appeals Council issues a decision on the current claim and that decision is fully favorable with respect to the class member claim, the Council will:

      • consolidate the claims;

      • notify the claimant, and representative, if any, that the decision on the current claim also resolves the class member claim; and

      • forward a copy of the decision, for coordination with DLAI, to the OAO Class Action Coordinator at the address in Part V. A. 2.

    2. If the Appeals Council issues a decision on the current claim and that decision is not fully favorable with respect to the class member claim, OAO personnel will flag the claim for forwarding to the DDS (see Attachment 9) following effectuation and expiration of any appeal period.

    3. If the Appeals Council finds a basis for remand, unrelated to the fact of Cuffee class membership, it will combine the claims and forward them to the DDS for a consolidated reopening (see sample remand language at Attachment 13).

    4. In all other situations, i.e., after consideration of the merits, if the Appeals Council would otherwise dismiss or deny the request for review or issue an unfavorable decision, OAO personnel will combine the claims and forward them to the DDS for redetermination through the date of the ALJ's decision on the pending claim (or, if the ALJ dismissed, through the date of reconsideration) (see sample remand language at Attachment 13).

  2. Claims Do Not Have Common Issues

    1. If the class member claim file is not needed for adjudication of the current claim, OAO personnel will forward the class member file to the DDS, using Attachment 12, modified as appropriate for the Appeals Council.

    2. If the class member claim file is needed for adjudication of the current claim, OAO personnel will flag the class member claim (see Attachment 9) for forwarding to the DDS on completion of all OHA actions and expiration of any appeal period.

D. Class Member Claim Is Pending at the Appeals Council Level

The Appeals Council's action with respect to class relief will depend on the Council's consideration of the merits of the request for review.

  1. Appeals Council Decides to Issue a Fully Favorable Decision OAO personnel will:

    1. notify the claimant, and representative, if any, that the decision resolves class relief; and

    2. forward a copy of the decision, for coordination with DLAI, to the OAO Class Action Coordinator at the address in Part V. A. 2.

  2. Appeals Council Decides to Issue a Partially Favorable Decision

    OAO personnel will flag the claim for forwarding to the DDS (see Attachment 9) following effectuation and expiration of any appeal period.

  3. Appeals Council Finds a Basis for Remand, Unrelated to the Fact of Cuffee Class Membership

    The Council will remand the claim to the DDS for reopening, using Attachment 14.

  4. Appeals Council Would Otherwise Dismiss or Deny the Request for Review or Issue an Unfavorable Decision

    The Council will remand the claim to the DDS for redetermination through the date of the ALJ's decision or, if the ALJ dismissed, through the date of reconsideration, using Attachment 14.

E. Class Member Claim Is Stored Pending Appeal

OAO will flag the case (see Attachment 9) for forwarding to the DDS at the expiration of the appeal period.

VII. Case Coding

If the class member claim is pending at the hearing level, and the ALJ: 1) dismisses the request for hearing for the purpose of DDS readjudication of the class member claim; or 2) issues a fully favorable decision, HO personnel will change the hearing type on the claim to a “reopening.” For any other ALJ action on the pending class member claim, the hearing type, as a new request for hearing, will remain unchanged. However, in all situations, to identify class member cases in the Hearing Office Tracking System (HOTS), HO personnel will code “CU” in the “Class Action” field.

No special identification codes will be used in the OHA Case Control System (CCS). Additionally, HO personnel will code dismissal cases as “OTDI.” HOTS users will need to bypass the automated case routing capability and manually route dismissal cases through the special case disposition/routing function. Only the systems administrator can access this function. The individual will need to enter the DDS address from the Cuffee Court Case Flag/Alert attached to the case file.

If the class member claim is associated with a current claim pending at the hearing level, and the ALJ: 1) dismisses the request for hearing for the purpose of DDS readjudication, because the current claim and class member claim have common issues; or 2) issues a decision on the current claim that is fully favorable with respect to the class member claim, HO personnel will change the hearing type on the current claim to a “reopening.” For any other ALJ action on the current claim, the hearing type, as a new request for hearing, will remain unchanged. However, in all situations, to identify class member cases in HOTS, HO personnel will code “CU” in the “Class Action” field. HOs will not use special identification codes in the OHA CCS. Additionally, HO personnel will code dismissal cases as “OTDI.” HOTS users will need to bypass the automated case routing capability and manually route dismissal cases through the special case disposition/routing function. Only the systems administrator can access this function. The individual will need to enter the DDS address from the Cuffee Court Case Flag/Alert attached to the case file.

VIII. Reconciliation of Implementation

At an appropriate time, Litigation Staff will request SSA components to reconcile their screening activity and disposition of class member claims with information available on CATS. Within OHA, the OAO Class Action Coordinator is responsible for maintaining a personal computer-based record of OHA implementation activity (e.g., a record of alerts processed by OHA, and a record of cases screened and consolidated by OHA), as reported by HOs and OAO to the Coordinator. See HALLEX I-1-7-12 with respect to reporting requirements.

IX. Inquiries

Hearing office personnel should direct any questions to their Regional Office. Regional Office personnel should contact the Division of Field Practices and Procedures in the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge at (703) 305-0022. Headquarters personnel should contact the Division of Litigation Analysis and Implementation at 305-0708.

Attachment 1. Stipulation and Consent Order Entered by the Court on December 2, 1993

WELTON CUFFEE et al., v. DONNA E. SHALALA et. al.

  [DATE FILED 12/02/1993]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
WELTON CUFFEE et al., )  
  )  
Plaintiffs,
)  
  )  
vs. ) Civil Action No.
  )  
DONNA E. SHALALA, et. al., ) 90-0460-CV-W-5
  )  
Defendants.
)  
STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER

The parties to this action are plaintiffs Welton Cuffee, Josephine Wolbert,and Nellie Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Defendants are Donna E. Shalala, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Robert Bartman, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education, State of Missouri: Frank Jost, in his official capacity as the former Coordinator of the Section of Disability Determinations; and Elizabeth Washburn in her official capacity as the Administrator of the Missouri Disability Determination Services (Missouri DDS).

Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on November 24, 1992. On June 3, 1993, the Court issued a decision on plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment and on June 14, 1993, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and partial motion for summary judgment.

In order to amicably resolve all of the disputes in this case without the expense of further litigation, the parties, by their undersigned counsel, therefore agree to a complete settlement of all of plaintiffs' claims in this action in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

Class Definition

In an order dated June 24, 1991, the Court certified two state-wide classes. These classes are revised to include:

all Missouri residents who applied for (a) Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 401-433 (b) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1382-1383d; or (c) both DIB and SSI benefits; and whose application was denied on or between the dates of January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991.

The class does not include any individual not currently eligible for DIB and/or SSI benefits who had a closed period of eligibility at any time between the dates of January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991.

Retroactive Relief

  1. The class members who shall be entitled to relief under the terms of this Stipulation and Consent Order, are:

    1. All Missouri residents who:

      1. apply for (a) DIB; (b) SSI; or (c) both DIB and SSI benefits, from the effective date of this Order through April 30, 1995,

      2. receive a medical allowance on their application, and who

      3. received a final medical denial by the Missouri DDS on an application for DIB and/or SSI benefits and the denial is dated on or between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991;

    2. Any Missouri resident who has a claim for DIB and/or SSI benefits pending at any administrative level or in Federal Court on the effective date of this Stipulation and Consent Order, who subsequently receives a medical allowance on that claim, and who meets the requirement of paragraph 1(a)(3) of the Stipulation and Consent Order.

    3. Any Missouri resident currently entitled to DIB and/or SSI benefits on the effective date of this Stipulation and Consent Order, who meets the requirements in paragraph 1(a) (3) and paragraph four.

    4. A class member who applies for DIB and whose claim is denied on the basis of res judicata at any administrative level, will be entitled to a redetermination under the procedures outlined in paragraph three, if the requirements of paragraph 1(a) (1) and (a) (3) are met.

  2. Defendants will not redetermine the class claim of any class member otherwise entitled to relief under this Order who:

    1. appealed the medical denial dated on or between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, and

      1. received an administrative denial (other than a dismissal) from an administrative law judge, which became final because the individual did not seek Appeals Council review, or became final because the Appeals Council denied review of the decision of the administrative law judge, or became final on the Appeals Council's issuance of its own decision on review of the decision of the administrative law judge; or

      2. had their claim reviewed pursuant to Boyd v. Bowen, No. 83--0352-CV-W-3 (W.D. Mo. September 26, 1989); Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984); Peck v. Sullivan, No. 88-173-D-1 (S.D. Iowa, November 15, 1990); or Zebley v. Sullivan, 493 U.S. 521, 110 S. Ct. 885, 896 (1990).

  3. When a class member entitled to relief in accordance with paragraph 1(a) or (b) receives a medical allowance based on such application, the Social Security Administration (SSA) shall send the class member a request for review form which asks whether the class member wants a redetermination of his or her final medical denial from the Missouri DDS dated on or between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991. The request for review form will be accompanied by a postage-paid, pre-addressed envelope. To receive the redetermination, class members must return the request for review form within sixty (60) days of the date on which they receive the form. If a class member does not timely request review in accordance with this paragraph, subject to good cause, the prior denial will not be redetermined. SSA may presume that a class member received the request for review five (5) days after mailing, unless the class member establishes that he or she actually received the request for review at a later date, in which case the sixty (60) days to request redetermination shall be counted from the date of actual receipt.

  4. For class members described in paragraph 1(c) to obtain a redetermination under this Stipulation and Consent Order, he or she must notify an SSA Field Office, in writing, in person, or by telephone, that he or she had a final medical denial issued by the Missouri DDS dated on or between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991. The individual must notify an SSA Field Office by April 30, 1995.

  5. All claims entitled to redetermination under the terms of this Stipulation and Consent Order shall be redetermined at the reconsideration level of administrative review.

  6. If a class member has more than one claim subject to redetermination pursuant to this Stipulation and Consent Order, SSA may, at its option, consolidate all such claims and redetermine them at the reconsideration level of review.

  7. SSA shall decide whether an individual who requests redetermination under any provision herein is entitled to relief under the criteria of paragraph one or is not entitled to relief because of the exclusions in paragraph two based upon SSA's data processing systems and/or documentation submitted by the individual showing that he or she meets the criteria of those paragraphs.

  8. If SSA decides that an individual who has requested redetermination under paragraphs 1(a), (b), or (d), is not entitled to a redetermination of his or her final medical denial based upon the exclusions set forth in paragraph two, SSA shall send a notice of its decision to the individual, the individual's representative of record, if known, and to class counsel. The notice shall specify the reason(s) for SSA's decision not to redetermine the prior denial and will indicate that the individual should contact class counsel if he or she wishes to contest the decision and the time in which the decision must be contested.

  9. If SSA determines that an individual who has requested redetermination pursuant to paragraph 1(c) did not have a final medical denial within the specified time period under paragraph 1(a)(3), or is not entitled to a redetermination based upon the exclusions in paragraph two, SSA will send a notice of its decision to the individual and class counsel. The notice shall specify the reason(s) for SSA's decision not to redetermine the prior denial and will indicate that the individual should contact class counsel if he or she wishes to contest the decision and the time in which the decision must be contested.

  10. If class counsel disagrees with a decision made by SSA under paragraph eight or nine, he or she shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the notice described in paragraph eight or nine, notify the Chief Counsel, Office of the General Counsel (OGC), Department of Health and Human Services, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, in writing of the disagreement and specify the reasons for the disagreement. SSA, through OGC, shall respond to the notification of disagreement within sixty (60) days. If class counsel fails to contest a decision made under paragraph eight or nine within the specified time, the decision shall take immediate effect and shall not be subject to further review.

  11. Class counsel may request inspection of the claims file, data or documents relied upon by SSA in making a decision under paragraph eight or nine of this Stipulation and Consent Order, but must do so in writing. To protect the privileged information contained in the claims file, class counsel may not use or disclose any information obtained from the claims file except for the purpose of pursuing the individual's claim pursuant to this Stipulation and Consent Order or as otherwise authorized by the claimant. Class counsel and SSA shall arrange for a mutually agreeable time and place for inspection of the data, documents and claims file.

  12. OGC and class counsel shall negotiate in good faith to resolve any disputes concerning whether the individual is entitled to a redetermination. If, after negotiation, counsel cannot resolve the issue, OGC will send class counsel written confirmation that the prior claim will not be redetermined. Class counsel may, by motion, submit the unresolved matter to this Court for resolution. Such motion must be filed not later than sixty (60) days after class counsel's receipt of the written confirmation sent by OGC.

  13. This Stipulation and Consent Order shall not be construed as limiting the preexisting rights of any class member to apply for benefits, request administrative or judicial review, or request reopening of a decision pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.988 and 416.1488.

  14. Notice of this Stipulation and Consent Order shall be made through poster notices prepared by SSA and reviewed by class counsel and publicly displayed in all SSA field offices and OHA offices in the State of Missouri until May 1, 1995. Class counsel may publicize the contents of the Stipulation and Consent Order by any other means.

  15. Individuals whose claims are redetermined pursuant to this Stipulation and Consent Order shall retain all rights to seek further administrative and judicial review in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart J and Part 416, Subpart N.

  16. SSA shall promulgate instructions to all personnel charged with implementing this Stipulation and Consent Order and shall provide class counsel and the Court with a copy of the instructions prior to their distribution. Class counsel will also be provided copies of the notices referred to in this Stipulation prior to distribution.

  17. By May 1, 1994, and every six months thereafter, ending with November 1, 1995, SSA shall submit a written report to the Court and class counsel which includes the following information:

    1. The number of individuals to whom a request for review is sent pursuant to paragraph three.

    2. The number of individuals who responded to the request for review described in paragraph three.

    3. The number of individuals who requested redetermination pursuant to paragraph four.

      Prospective Relief

  18. SSA agrees to provide additional training by its central office to disability counselors, senior counselors, hearing officers, and medical consultants at the Missouri Disability Determination Services (Missouri DDS) as well as quality assurance personnel, both State and Federal, who are involved in reviewing Missouri DDS disability determinations, within 120 days from the effective date of the Order, concerning:

    1. the development and evaluation of subjective symptoms, including pain;

    2. the development and evaluation of medical evidence and reports of treating sources;

    3. the weight to be afforded the opinion of a treating physician; and

    4. the completion of the residual functional capacity assessment form.

      Class counsel or designated representative will be allowed to attend the training sessions.

  19. The Missouri DDS agrees to conduct a special study of cases involving pain for six months beginning July 1, 1994.

  20. SSA agrees to conduct a consistency review, as described in POMS GN04441.00 et seq., of cases involving pain adjudicated by the Missouri DDS for six months beginning January 1, 1994, and to provide a copy of the report to class counsel.

  21. 21. Defendants agree to ask claimants during disability intake the question “Do you have any side effects from the medication(s) you take?”

  22. The Missouri DDS agrees to move the question regarding the treating sources' willingness to perform any necessary consultative examination to the first page of the request for medical evidence of record. The Missouri DDS also agrees to add language to the request stating that the amount paid for the consultative examination will be discussed with the treating source if, and when, an examination is requested.

    Standards for Review

  23. SSA agrees that the policies and procedures to be applied in the redetermination of claims pursuant to this Stipulation and Consent Order, as well as the adjudication of current claims for DIB and/or SSI benefits, are found in the Social Security Act, Social Security regulations, Social Security Rulings (SSRs), and the Program Operation Manual System (POMS). The relevant policies and procedures for purposes of this Stipulation and Consent Order include, but are not limited to:

    1. The development and evaluation of subjective symptoms, including pain:

      1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929-

      2. POMS DI 22501.001 et seq.

      3. POMS DI 22505.001 et seq.

      4. POMS DI 22505.005

      5. POMS DI 24515.012

      6. POMS DI 24501.020

      7. POMS DI 24501.025

      8. POMS DI 24515.060D, E and F

    2. Obtaining medical evidence of record from treating sources:

      1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512, 404.1513, 416.912, and 416.913

      2. POMS DI 22505.001-.040

    3. Obtaining consultative examinations:

      1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1517, 404.1519, 416.917, 416.919

      2. POMS DI 22510.001-.030

    4. The weight to be accorded the opinion of treating sources:

      1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927

      2. POMS DI 24515.001-.010

    5. Determination of residual functional capacity and completion of the residual functional capacity assessment form:

      1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945

      2. POMS DI 24510.001-.065

      3. POMS DI 24515.060E and F

      Case Review

  24. For a period not to exceed nine months from May 1, 1994, class counsel may inspect the final decisions made by SSA or the Missouri DDS in connection with the redetermination of claims pursuant to this Stipulation and Consent Order. Individual claims files will be made available for inspection at a mutually agreeable time and office of SSA. The claims files may not be removed from the custody of SSA. Claims files must be reviewed within 90 days after class counsel is notified that a claims file is available for inspection. Class counsel shall notify OGC, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, of any alleged pattern of misapplication of SSA policy found during review of the claims files. Upon such notification, SSA agrees to review the cases within 60 days and thereafter, OGC and class counsel shall negotiate in good faith to resolve the disputes.

    Attorney Fees

  25. The parties agree that the Federal defendant will pay plaintiffs and their attorneys reasonable attorneys fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The amount of fees and expenses has been agreed to by the parties. Upon approval of this order by the Court, plaintiffs will file a motion for attorneys fees under the EAJA. With that motion, plaintiffs will file a stipulation setting forth the amount of fees and expenses.

    Release of Claims and Liabilities

  26. The terms set forth in this Stipulation and Consent Order shall be in full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims and demands, of whatever nature, that plaintiffs have against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and any of her agents or employees, and against the Secretary of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, State of Missouri, and any of his agents or employees, based upon and with respect to the incidents, claims or circumstances giving rise to and/or alleged in the pleadings filed herein. Accordingly, and in consideration for the implementation of the provisions of this Stipulation and Consent Order, the parties, on behalf of themselves and any entity or individual on whose behalf they act or have acted, agree to resolve this action and to fully, finally and forever release, discharge and waive any and all claims, demands, liabilities, actions, rights of action and causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever based on the incidents, claims or circumstances giving rise to and/or alleged in the pleadings filed herein.

  27. Counsel for the parties may, at any time, mutually agree to modify this Stipulation. The parties will notify the Court of the modification and it shall become effective thirty (30) days after notification to the Court unless the Court objects to the proposed modification.

  28. The terms of the numbered paragraphs of this Stipulation and Consent Order as well as any memoranda or other submissions filed with the Court for approval of this Stipulation and Consent Order, constitute the entire agreement of the parties, and no statement, representation, agreement or understanding, oral or written, which is not contained therein, shall have force or effect, nor does the Stipulation and Consent Order reflect any agreed upon purpose other than the desire of the parties to reach full settlement.

  29. This court retains jurisdiction over this action for the enforcement of the provisions of this Stipulation and Consent Order.

  30. The relief offered herein is in no way to be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing by defendants and is agreed to by defendants solely to settle the case and to avoid the cost of further litigation.

  31. Class counsel, by signing below, warrant and guarantee that they are sole counsel to the plaintiff class and that they are duly authorized to stipulate to the settlement of issues in this action on behalf of Welton Cuffee, Josephine Wolbert, Nellie Roberts, and all class members those named plaintiffs represent. Counsel for defendants, by signing below, represent that they are authorized to stipulate to the settlement of issues in this action.

  32. This Stipulation and Consent Order shall be effective only upon entry of the order by the Court.

LET THE JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY

Dated this 2nd day of December, 1993

 
/s/
  _________________________
  SCOTT O. WRIGHT
  United States District Judge
   
/s/
11-24-93
_________________________ _________________________
JAMES MARSHALL SMITH, #25688 Date
Legal Aid of Western Missouri  
600 Lathrop Building  
1005 Grand Avenue  
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2216  
   
/s/
11-24-93
_________________________ _________________________
MARIA T. DUGAN, #39638 Date
Legal Aid of Western Missouri  
600 Lathrop Building  
1005 Grand Avenue  
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2216  
   
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS  
   
MARIETTA PARKER  
United States Attorney  
   
/s/
Nov. 24, 1993
_________________________ _________________________
JERRY L. SHORT, #26318 Date
Assistant United States Attorney  
1201 Walnut Street  
Suite 2300  
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2149  
   
ATTORNEY FOR FEDERAL DEFENDANT  
   
JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON  
Attorney General  
   
/s/
 
_________________________ _________________________
EDWIN H. STEINMANN, JR. #2105 Date
Assistant Attorney General  
Broadway State Office Building  
8th Floor  
Post Office Box 899  
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102  
   
ATTORNEY FOR STATE DEFENDANTS  

Attachment 2. CUFFEE COURT CASE FLAG/ALERT





TITLE: CATEGORY:



REVIEW PSC MFT DOC ALERT DATE
OFFICE


BOAN OR PAN NAME



CAN OR HUN RESP DTE TOE



FOLDER LOCATION INFORMATION
TITLE CFL CFL DATE ACN PAYEE ADDRESS


II
XVI

SHIP TO ADDRESS:

     [Missouri DDS Office of jurisdiction]

 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
 
IF CLAIM IS PENDING OR STORED IN OHA OR FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, THEN SHIP TO:
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Office of Appellate Operations (OAO)
One Skyline Tower, Suite 701
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3200

ATTN: OAO Class Action Coordinator

(Case locator code 5007)

Attachment 3. Screening Flag - Inside OHA

Cuffee Class Action Case
   
   
SCREENING   NECESSARY
   
   
Claimant's Name: __________________________________
   
   
SSN : __________________________________
   
   
This claimant may be a Cuffee class member. The attached folder location information indicates that a current claim file is located in your office. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached alert [and prior claim file(s)] for association, screening for class membership, consolidation consideration and possible readjudication.
   
Please refer to HALLEX Temporary Instruction 5-445 for additional information and instructions.
   
TO: ______________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
   

Attachment 4. Cuffee SCREENING SHEET

CLASS ACTION CODE: C  U  

1. WAGE EARNER'S SSN

   ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___

 

2. CLAIMANT'S NAME (FIRST, MI, LAST)

3. SCREENING DATE (MONTH, DAY, YEAR)

   ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___

4. a. SCREENING RESULTS

MEMBER (J)     NON-MEMBER (F)

      ___              ___

b. SCREENOUT CODE

      ___  ___   

(see Item 12 for screenout codes)

5.a.  Did the individual apply for disability benefits at any time between December 2, 1993 and April 30, 1995, inclusive?    OR

5.b.  Did the individual have a disability claim pending at any administrative level or in Federal court on December 2, 1993?   OR

5.c.  Was the individual entitled to or eligible for disability benefits as of December 2, 1993?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 12)

6.  If the answer to item 5.a. or 5.b. is “Yes,” did the individual receive a medical allowance or res judicata denial on the disability claim?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 12)

7.  Did the individual have a prior claim denied for medical reasons by or receive a closed period decision from the Missouri Disability Determination Services (DDS) between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 12)

8.  Did the individual reside in the State of Missouri at the time the prior decision was issued (i.e. between 01/22/87, and 11/14/91, inclusive) as well as the time of the filing of his/her claim indicated in Item 5 above?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if No, go to 12)

9.  After receiving a denial from the Missouri DDS between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, did the individual appeal to an Administrative Law Judge and receive an unfavorable decision (not a dismissal) which became the final decision of the Secretary?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if Yes, go to 12)

10.  Has a subsequent favorable determination or decision been issued at any time on or after November 14, 1991 which covered the entire period for which the individual might be eligible for additional benefits, and have all benefits been paid (i.e., all claims within the class member period have been reopened under the normal rules of administrative finality)?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if Yes, go to 12)

11.  Did the individual have his/her prior claim(s) reviewed pursuant to the Boyd, Peck, Polaski or Zebley class actions?

___  Yes       ___ No

   (if Yes, go to 12)

12.The individual is not a class member entitled to Cuffee relief. Check the nonmember block in item 4.a. and enter the screenout code in item 4.b. as follows:

   Enter 05 if question 5 was answered “No”.

   Enter 06 if question 6 was answered “No”.

   Enter 07 if question 7 was answered “NO”.

   Enter 08 if question 8 was answered “NO”.

   Enter 09 if question 9 was answered “YES”.

   Enter 10 if question 10 was answered “YES”.

   Enter 11 if question 11 was answered “YES”.

     

     

   Reason to use in Notice of Non-Entitlement to Relief:

  a.  If screenout code is 05, check reason No.1.

  b.  If screenout code is 06, check reason No.2.

  c.  If screenout code is 07, check reason No.3.

  d.  If screenout code is 08, check reason No.4.

  e.  If screenout code is 09, check reason No.5.

  f.  If screenout code is 10, check reason No.6.

  g.  If screenout code is 11, check reason No.7.

   

 

No other screenout code entry is appropriate.

PRINT SCREENER'S NAME:

SIGNATURE:

COMPONENT AND PHONE NO. DATE

Enter dates of all applications screened and the date of the final determination/decision for each application.

    ________________ _________________ ________________ _________________



CUFFEE SCREENING SHEET INSTRUCTIONS

COMPLETE ONLY ONE SCREENING SHEET, EVEN IF THE CLAIMANT RECEIVED MULTIPLE DETERMINATIONS WITHIN THE CLASS DATES. HOWEVER, THE SCREENING SHEET PROVISIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH CLAIM. A CLASS MEMBER WHO RECEIVED MULTIPLE DETERMINATIONS IS ELIGIBLE FOR READJUDICATION ONLY ON THOSE CLAIMS MEETING ALL CLASS MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS.

Items 1 - 3

Fill in wage earner's SSN, claimant's name, and date of screening.

Item 5

This question involves three thresholds for potential class membership. Screen first for date of application between December 2, 1993 and April 30, 1995, inclusive. For claims filed between these dates, the date of disposition is immaterial.

Next, screen for claims filed prior to December 2, 1993. Claims filed before this date are potential class member claims as long as the claim was still pending as of December 2, 1993, i.e., any determination, decision, Appeals Council action or Federal court disposition was rendered on or after December 2, 1993. (Note: Although not the “final decision of the Secretary”, an Appeals Council denial of a request for review is the last action of the Secretary, and the date of such a denial controls for class membership screening purposes.) Claims filed on or after May 1, 1995, are not subject to class membership relief.

Finally, determine if the individual was entitled to or eligible for disability benefits as of December 2, 1993, based on a previous medical allowance, regardless of whether the individual is actually in payment status, e.g., benefits may have been suspended because the claimant exceeds income and resource requirements.

Item 6

If the individual applied for disability benefits between December 2, 1993, and April 30, 1995, inclusive, or had a disability claim pending at any administrative level or in Federal court on December 2, 1993, the individual must have received a medical allowance, either fully or partially favorable, or a res judicata dismissal or denial on the disability claim.

Item 7

The prior claim must have been denied, not ceased, at the initial or reconsideration level on a medical basis. A technical denial on the basis of res judicata is not a medical denial. A closed period received in the Cuffee timeframe will be treated as a medical denial for review purposes. To screen the claim, look for the appropriate regulation basis medical denial codes in item 22 of the Form SSA-831-U3 or on the Form SSA-3687-U2 or the Form SSA-3428-U2. The regulation basis medical denial codes for title II are: E1, E2, E3, E4, F1, F2, G1, G2, H1, H2, J1, J2, K1, K2, L1, L2, M5 or M6. The appropriate regulation basis medical denial codes for title XVI are: N30, N31, N32, N34, N35, N36, N37, N39, N40, N41, N42, N43, N45, N46 or N51. In a Disability Hearing Unit (DHU) case, read the decision to determine the basis for the denial. If the claimant received a reconsideration determination that became final, the reconsideration determination must have been on a non-medical basis for this screen-out code to apply. Use the latest date on the Form SSA-831-U3 or other denial form as the date of denial.

Item 8

Claimants must meet two thresholds for residency. The claimant must have been a resident of the State of Missouri when filing a new claim between December 2, 1993 and April 30, 1995, inclusive. Claimants with pending or effectuated claims must have been a resident as of December 2, 1993, the date of the Stipulation and Consent Order. Additionally, the claimant must have been a resident when s/he received a prior medical denial from the Missouri DDS. Screen for residency in all claims.

Item 9

If the claimant received an unfavorable substantive decision at the hearing level or above, s/he is not a class member. A dismissal is not a substantive decision. If an Administrative Law Judge decision is not final at the time of screening, i.e., the claim is still within the appeal period or the claimant requested Appeals Council or court review which is pending, the claim cannot be screened out. In this situation, this question would be answered “No.”

Item 10

This class relief exception applies only if the individual has received all benefits to which s/he could be entitled based on the potential class member claim. Review the file to determine whether benefits were subsequently (e.g., since November 14, 1991) allowed or continued (in closed period cases) from the earliest alleged onset date, cessation date or control date of a claim decided within the timeframes for class membership. The allowance or continuance could have been either on the same claim or on a subsequent application.

Note: If full retroactive benefits were not awarded because of subsequent application filing date limitations, route the case to a claims authorizer in the PC or ODIO, if Title II, or the appropriate FO, if Title XVI, for the preparation of an amended award in accordance with DI 42537.010 C.6.

Item 11

Check the inactive file(s) for screening sheets or any other information indicating that the claimant may have had a claim that was reviewed pursuant to the Peck v. Sullivan, Zebley v. Sullivan, Polaski v. Heckler or Boyd v. Bowen class actions. The Peck v. Sullivan, Zebley v. Sullivan, Polaski v. Heckler or Boyd v. Bowen class actions, all cover the issues and the time period involved in the terms of the Cuffee Stipulation. If the responder received a review of his/her previous denial under the terms of one or more of these class actions, the responder is not entitled to another review under the terms of the Cuffee Stipulation.

Instructions if Claimant is Determined to be a Class Member

  1. Check the “Member” block in item 4. a. of the screening sheet.

  2. Sign and date the screening sheet. Enter the name of the screening component.

  3. Show the dates of all applications screened and the dates of the final administrative action on each.

  4. Retain the original screening sheet in the folder.

  5. OHA Headquarters components will send a copy of the screening sheet to the OAO Class Action Coordinator. [The OAO Class Action Coordinator will enter the screening sheet information from the screening sheet into a data base and forward the screening sheet to the Division of Litigation Analysis and Implementation (DLAI).] OHA Hearing Offices (HOs) will send a copy of the screening sheet to:

    Office of Hearings and Appeals
    Division of Litigation Analysis and Implementation 5107 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041-3255One Skyline Tower, Suite 702Falls CHurch, VA 22041-3255
    ATTN: Cuffee Coordinator

    [DLAI will retain a copy of each screening sheet received from the OAO Class Action Coordinator or an HO and forward a copy to Litigation Staff at SSA Headquarters for entry into the Civil Action Tracking System.]

  6. Follow HALLEX I-5-4-45, V. B. 4. b. for screened-in cases.

  7. Follow procedures in Part V. B. 4. b. for screened-in cases.

Instructions if Claimant is Determined to be a Non-class Member or a Class Member Not Entitled to Relief

  1. Check the “Non-member” block in Item 4. a. of the screening sheet and enter the appropriate screen-out code in item 4. b.

  2. Follow items b. - d. above.

  3. Prepare the notice in attachment 6. Retain a copy of it in the folder.

  4. Follow the procedures in Part V. B. 4. a. for screened-out cases.

Attachment 5. Screening Flag - Outside OHA

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE:

TO: INITIALS DATE
1.    
2.    
3.    
4.    
5.    
6.    
7.    

XX ACTION   FILE   NOTE AND RETURN
  APPROVAL   FOR CLEARANCE   PER CONVERSATION
  AS REQUESTED   FOR CORRECTION   PREPARE REPLY
  CIRCULATE   FOR YOUR INFORMATION   SEE ME
  COMMENT   INVESTIGATE   SIGNATURE
  COORDINATION   JUSTIFY    
           

REMARKS

CUFFEE CASE

Claimant: ___________________________  
   
SSN: ________________________________  
   
OHA received the attached alert [and prior claim file(s)] for screening and no longer has the current claim file. Our records show that you now have possession of the current claim. Accordingly, we are forwarding the alert and any accompanying prior claim file(s) for association with the current claim. After associating the alert with the current claim, please forward to the Missouri DDS for screening and possible readjudication. SEE POMS DI 42537.010 OR DI 12537.005A.6.
   
   
Attachment
   
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions.
FROM: Office of Hearings and Appeals __________________________________________ SUITE/BUILDING
PHONE NUMBER

OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)

*U.S.GPO:1985-0-461-274/20020 Prescribed by GSA

FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206

Attachment 6. Non-Class Membership Notice

Social Security Administration  
Important Information ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE
  NUMBER OF SERVICING SSO
   
   
               DATE:
  CLAIM NUMBER:
  DOC:
   
   
   
  Telephone:
   

We are writing to tell you that we received your request to review your earlier denied claim for disability benefits under the Cuffee v. Shalala court decision. We have looked at your case and have decided that you are not a class member entitled to relief. This means that we will not review our earlier decision that you were not disabled. The reason that you are not a class member entitled to relief under the Cuffee court decision is checked below.

   
Why You Are Not A Class Member Entitled To Relief
   
You are not a Cuffee class member entitled to relief because:
   
___           1. You did not file a claim for Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits at any time on or after December 2, 1993;
   
  OR
   
  You did not have a claim for Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits pending at any administrative level or in Federal court on December 2, 1993;
   
  OR
   
  You were not entitled to or eligible for Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits on or after December 2, 1993.
   
___           2. You had a claim pending at an administrative level or in Federal court on or after December 2, 1993, but you did not receive a medical allowance on that claim or a res judicata denial.
   
___           3. Your claim was not denied for medical reasons by (or you did not receive a closed period of disability from) the Missouri Disability Determination Services between January 22, 1987 and November 14, 1991, inclusive.
   
___           4. You did not live in the State of Missouri during the time that your prior decision was issued (i.e. January 22, 1987, through November 14, 1991) or you did not live in Missouri on or after December 2, 1993.
   
___           5. Your claim was denied by the Missouri Disability Determination Services between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive, but you appealed that decision to the Office of Hearings and Appeals and received an unfavorable decision (other than a dismissal) which became the final decision of the Secretary.
   
___           6. We already changed our earlier decision and found that you were disabled and that decision covered the entire period for which you might be eligible for additional benefits.
   
___           7. Your claim was denied by the Missouri Disability Determination Services between January 22, 1987, and November 14, 1991, inclusive, but we already reviewed your claim under another court decision, for example, Boyd v. Bowen, Polaski v. Heckler, Peck v. Sullivan, or Zebley v. Sullivan.
   
___           8. Your claim was not denied for medical reasons. Your claim was denied for:
  _____________________________________________________
  _____________________________________________________
   
   

We Are Not Deciding If You Were Disabled

It is important for you to know that we are not making a decision about whether you were disabled at the time of your earlier claim. We are deciding only that you are not a Cuffee class member.

If You Do Not Agree With This Determination

If you want us to review our determination that you are not entitled to relief under the Cuffee case, you must contact the attorneys for the Cuffee case who will answer your questions about entitlement to relief under the Cuffee case. The address and telephone number of the attorneys are listed below. YOU MUST DO THIS WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIVING THIS NOTICE.

If You Have Any Questions

If you have any questions, you may contact your Social Security office. The address and phone number are printed at the top of this letter. If you call or visit an office, please have this letter with you. It will help us answer your questions.

Additionally, if you have someone helping you with your claim you should contact him/her. You may also ask for legal help by contacting a legal aid office in your area or by contacting the lawyers in the Cuffee case:

Legal Aid of Western Missouri
600 Lathrop Building
1005 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2216
Telephone: (816) 474-6750

Si usted no entiende esta carta, llevela a la oficina de Seguro

Social arriba mencionada para que se la expliquen.

cc: Legal Aid of Western Missouri

Attachment 7. Route Slip for Non-class Member Claims

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE:

TO: INITIALS DATE

1.

Office of the Regional Commissioner
Federal Office Building
Room 436
601 E. 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106

   
   
   
2.    
3.    
4.    
5.    

XX ACTION   FILE   NOTE AND RETURN
  APPROVAL   FOR CLEARANCE   PER CONVERSATION
  AS REQUESTED   FOR CORRECTION   PREPARE REPLY
  CIRCULATE   FOR YOUR INFORMATION   SEE ME
  COMMENT   INVESTIGATE   SIGNATURE
  COORDINATION   JUSTIFY    
           

REMARKS

CUFFEE CASE

Claimant: ___________________________  
   
SSN: ________________________________  
   
We have determined that this claimant is not a Cuffee class member. (See screening sheet and copy of non-class membership notice in the attached claim file(s).) We have been informed that class counsel wishes to review the file(s). SEE POMS DI 12537.005
   
   
   
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions.
FROM: Office of Hearings and Appeals __________________________________________ SUITE/BUILDING
PHONE NUMBER

OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)

*U.S.GPO:1985-0-461-274/20020 Prescribed by GSA

FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206

Attachment 8. Notice of Revised Class Membership

Social Security Administration  
Important Information  
  DATE:
  CLAIM NUMBER:

In an earlier notice that we sent you, we said that you were not a member of the Cuffee class action. After reviewing all of the facts, we have decided that you are a member of the Cuffee class action. Therefore, we will review your class member claim, using the standards set by the court under the Cuffee v. Shalala Stipulation and Consent Order.

We have many requests for review and it may take several months before we look at your claim file. When we start the review, we may contact you for additional evidence or information that you may wish to submit.

If you have any questions, you may contact any Social Security office. If you have someone helping you with your claim, you should contact him or her. You or your representative may also contact the attorneys in this case:

Legal Aid of Western Missouri
600 Lathrop Building
1005 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2216

Telephone: (816) 474-6750

If you call or visit a Social Security office, please have this letter with you. It will help us answer your questions.

Si usted no entiende esta carta, llevela a la oficina de Seguro Social arriba mencionada para que se la expliquen.

cc: Legal Aid of Western Missouri

Attachment 9. Readjudication Flag for OHA Retention Cases

Cuffee Class Action Case

READJUDICATION  NECESSARY

Claimant's Name: __________________________________
   
SSN : __________________________________
   
This claimant is a Cuffee class member. After effectuation and expiration of the retention period, forward claim file(s) to the DDS for readjudication.
   
[Send claim file(s) to the DDS. Enter the DDS address from the Cuffee Court Case Flag/Alert.]
   

NOTE:

If the claimant has filed a civil action and elected to remain in court for review of the current claim, forward the Cuffee claim file(s) without delay to the DDS for readjudication.

Attachment 10. ALJ Dismissal to DDS

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE CASE OF   CLAIM FOR
     
_______________________   _______________________
     
_______________________   _______________________
     
This case is before the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to a request for hearing filed on _________________ with respect to the application(s) filed on _________________.
 
In accordance with the Stipulation and Consent Order negotiated by the parties and approved by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in the case of Cuffee v. Shalala, Civil Action No. 90-0460-CV-W-5 (Dec. 2, 1993), the claimant has requested readjudication of the final (determination/decision) on the prior application(s) filed on ______________. The claimant has been identified as a Cuffee class member entitled to relief and is entitled to have the final administrative denial of the prior application(s) reviewed under the terms of the Stipulation and Order.
 
Because the claimant's current claim shares certain issues in common with the prior claim, the undersigned hereby dismisses without prejudice the request for hearing. The claimant's current application(s) will be associated with the prior claim(s) and forwarded to the Missouri Disability Determination Service which will conduct the Cuffee readjudication.
     
The Missouri Disability Determination Service will notify the claimant of its new determination and of the claimant's right to file a new request for hearing.
     
    _______________________
    Administrative Law Judge
     
    _______________________
    Date

Attachment 11. Notice Transmitting ALJ Order of Dismissal

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Claimant's Name  
Address  
City, State Zip  
   
Enclosed is an order of the Administrative Law Judge dismissing your request for hearing and returning your case to the Missouri Disability Determination Service which makes disability determinations for the Social Security Administration. Please read this notice and Order of Dismissal carefully.
   
What This Order Means  
   
The Administrative Law Judge has sent your current claim and your Cuffee class member claim back to the Missouri Disability Determination Service for further processing. The enclosed order explains why.
   
The Next Action on Your Claim
   
The Missouri Disability Determination Service will contact you to tell you what you need to do. If you do not hear from the Missouri Disability Determination Service within 30 days, contact your local Social Security office.
   
Do You Have Any Questions?
   
If you have any questions, contact your local Social Security office. If you visit your local Social Security office, please bring this notice and the Administrative Law Judge's order with you.
   
Enclosure  
   
cc:  
   (Name and address of representative, if any)
   (Social Security Office (City, State))

Attachment 12. Readjudication Flag for No Common Issue Cases

Cuffee Class Action Case

READJUDICATION NECESSARY

Claimant's Name:   __________________________________
     
SSN:   __________________________________
     
This claimant is a Cuffee class member. The attached Cuffee claim file was forwarded to this hearing office for possible consolidation with a current claim.
     
_______   The Administrative Law Judge has determined that the prior and current claims do not share a common issue and, therefore, should not be consolidated.
    OR
_______   The claims have not been consolidated because
     
    [state reason(s)]_____________________________
    ______________________________________________
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached alert and prior claim file(s) to your location for any necessary Cuffee readjudication action.
 
We are sending the alert and prior file(s) to:
 
[Enter the DDS address from the Cuffee Court Case Flag/Alert.]

Attachment 13. Text for Appeals Council Remand to DDS Class Member Claim Associated with Current Claim Pending Appeals Council Review

On ____________, the claimant filed a request for review by the Appeals Council on the issues raised by ((his/her) application dated ____________.) OR (the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal action.) The claimant has also been identified as a member of the Cuffee class action and is entitled to have the final administrative denial of (his/her) application(s) dated ____________ readjudicated by the Missouri Disability Determination Services under the terms of the December 2, 1993 Stipulation and Consent Order for settlement. The undersigned has determined that the current and class member claims have issues in common.

(Discuss the Appeals Council's reasons for remand of the current claim.)

[Use the following language if the Appeals Council finds a basis for remand unrelated to the fact of Cuffee class membership, and remands to the DDS for a consolidated reopening.]

Accordingly, the Appeals Council grants the claimant's request for review and vacates the Administrative Law Judge's (decision/dismissal action). Because the claimant is also entitled to relief at the reconsideration level under the Cuffee class action, the Council remands this case to the Missouri Disability Determination Services for reopening of the issues raised by the (dates of applications) applications. The Disability Determination Services will issue one determination covering (both or all) claims. If the Disability Determination Services does not issue a fully favorable determination, it will notify the claimant of the right to request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

OR

[Use the following language if the Appeals Council would otherwise dismiss or deny the request for review or issue an unfavorable decision, and remands to the DDS for redetermination.]

Accordingly, the Appeals Council grants the claimant's request for review, vacates the Administrative Law Judge's (decision/dismissal action) and remands this case to the Missouri Disability Determination Services. The Disability Determination Services will redetermine, through the date of the Administrative Law Judge's decision or, if the Administrative Law Judge issued a dismissal, through the date of reconsideration, the issues raised by the (dates of applications) applications. The Disability Determination Services will issue one determination covering (both or all) claims. If the Disability Determination Services does not issue a fully favorable determination, it will notify the claimant of the right to request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Attachment 14. Text for Appeals Council Remand to DDS Class Member Claim Pending Appeals Council Review

On ____________, the claimant filed a request for review by the Appeals Council on the issues raised by ((his/her) application dated ____________.) OR (the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal action.) The claimant has also been identified as a member of the Cuffee class action and is entitled to have (his/her) claim readjudicated by the Missouri Disability Determination Services under the terms of the December 2, 1993 Stipulation and Consent Order for settlement.

(Discuss the Appeals Council's reasons for remand.)

[Use the following language if the Appeals Council finds a basis for remand unrelated to the fact of Cuffee class membership, and remands to the DDS for reopening.]

Accordingly, the Appeals Council grants the claimant's request for review and vacates the Administrative Law Judge's (decision/dismissal action). Because the claimant is also entitled to relief at the reconsideration level under the Cuffee class action, the Council remands this case to the Missouri Disability Determination Services for reopening of the issues raised by the ____________ application. If the Disability Determination Services does not issue a fully favorable determination, it will notify the claimant of the right to request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

[Use the following language if the Appeals Council would otherwise dismiss or deny the request for review or issue an unfavorable decision, and remands to the DDS for redetermination.]

Accordingly, the Appeals Council grants the claimant's request for review, vacates the Administrative Law Judge's (decision/dismissal action) and remands this case to the Missouri Disability Determination Services. The Disability Determination Services will redetermine, through the date of the Administrative Law Judge's decision or, if the Administrative Law Judge dismissed, through the date of reconsideration, the issues raised by the ____________ application. If the Missouri Disability Determination Services does not issue a fully favorable determination, it will notify the claimant of the right to request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.