Mental health groups are fighting the Social Security Administration (SSA) over the agency's proposed changes to disability requirements for mental disorders. The proposed changes would make it much more difficult to prove a mental disability by requiring the use of mental "tests" that do not exist.
Much of the controversy stemming from the August proposed rule deals with paragraph B, which contains 4 mental abilities. Under the proposed rule, an individual could show a "marked" limitation of 2 abilities or an "extreme" limitation of 1 ability to qualify as mentally disabled. These are the abilities to understand, remember, and apply information; interact with others; concentrate, persist, and maintain pace; and manage oneself.

In what was considered a major policy change, the proposed rule stated that SSA adjudicators could use standardized tests to determine paragraph B limitations for adults. However, the SSA did not specify what tests it had in mind, and mental health groups uniformly complained that no such tests existed. Mark Lassiter, press officer at the SSA, asked for detailed e-mailed questions on the testing issue, but he did not respond to them.

"We believe that the agency should recognize that there are no such valid tests at the current time for purposes of measuring the B criteria as related to mental illness," explained Linda Rosenberg, president and CEO, National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare. "We recognize that the proposed rule did not require the use of test results alone when making determinations of disability; however, we are aware of the different ways in which disability adjudicators interpret and use the rules. By including a reference to standardized tests in the rule, the agency is sending a message to the adjudicators that there are tests that can measure B criteria, when there are not."

I am pleased to comment on this federal workers compensation claim. The Employees Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) has reversed a termination of federal workers' compensation benefits on a claim of multiple chemical sensitivities. (ECAB 2010-0328, 03/03/2011)

The claimant had been working in a federal building that had flooded and continued to have air quality problems.  She filed a federal workers' compensation claim for compensation after she was diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivities and severe environmental allergies.  She was not able to return to work and compensation was awarded.

The government then sent her to a variety of their doctors over several years for testing.  The government doctor's "tests" actually consisted of having the claimant blow once or twice into a straw The government's doctors did not conduct any allergen or environmental testing.  Based on these "tests" the government terminated the claimant's compensation benefits.

The claimant appealed to ECAB.  The claimant in turn argued that the government's doctor's "tests" did not comply with any known government procedures for documenting multiple chemical sensitivities and that none of the government's doctor's subjected the claimant to any federally recognized testing for environmental allergies.  Further the claimant showed the the government's doctors were not experts nor had any qualifications to diagnosis multiple chemical sensitivities.

The ECAB agreed with the claimant.  The ECAB found that the government improperly terminated the claimant's compensation benefits as to her continuing work-related residual impairments and ordered that the case be remanded back for further review and proceedings.