If the annuitant is entitled to a disability annuity because he or she is disabled for any regular employment, the annuitant should promptly tell the Board if—

(a) His or her impairment(s) improves;

(b) He or she returns to work;

(c) He or she increases the amount of work; or

(d) His or her earnings increase.

There is a statutory requirement that, if an annuitant is entitled to a disability annuity, the annuitant's continued entitlement to such an annuity must be reviewed periodically until the employee or child annuitant reaches full retirement age and the widow(er) annuitant reaches age 60. When the annuitant is entitled to a disability annuity as a disabled employee, disabled widow(er) or as a person disabled since childhood, there are a number of factors to be considered in deciding whether his or her disability continues. The Board must first consider whether the annuitant has worked and, by doing so, demonstrated the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. If so, the disability will end. If the annuitant has not demonstrated the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity, then the Board must determine if there has been any medical improvement in the annuitant's impairment(s) and, if so, whether this medical improvement is related to the annuitant's ability to work. If an impairment(s) has not medically improved, the Board must consider whether one or more of the exceptions to medical improvement applies. If medical improvement related to ability to work has not occurred and no exception applies, the disability will continue. Even the medical improvement related to ability to work has occurred or an exception applies (see § 220.179 for exceptions), in most cases the Board must also show that the annuitant is currently able to engage in substantial gainful activity before it can find that the annuitant is no longer disabled.

There are several terms and definitions which are important to know in order to understand how the Board reviews whether a disability for any regular employment continues:

(a) Medical improvement. Medical improvement is any decrease in the medical severity of an impairment(s) which was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision that the annuitant was disabled or continued to be disabled. A determination that there has been a decrease in medical severity must be based on a comparison of prior and current medical evidence showing changes (improvement) in the symptoms, signs or laboratory findings associated with the impairment(s).

(b) Medical improvement not related to ability to do work. Medical improvement is not related to the annuitant's ability to work if there has been a decrease in the severity of the impairment(s) (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision, but no increase in that annuitant's functional capacity to do basic work activities as defined in paragraph (d) of this section. If there has been any medical improvement in an annuitant's impairment(s), but it is not related to the annuitant's ability to do work and none of the exceptions applies, the annuity will be continued.

(c) Medical improvement that is related to ability to do work. Medical improvement is related to an annuitant's ability to work if there has been a decrease in the severity (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) of the impairment(s) present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision and an increase in the annuitant's functional capacity to do basic work activities as discussed in paragraph (d) of this section. A determination that medical improvement related to an annuitant's ability to do work has occurred does not, necessarily, mean that such annuitant's disability will be found to have ended unless it is also shown that the annuitant is currently able to engage in substantial gainful activity as discussed in paragraph (e) of this section.

(d) Functional capacity to do basic work activities. (1) Under the law, disability is defined, in part, as the inability to do any regular employment by reason of a physical or mental impairment(s). “Regular employment” is defined in this part as “substantial gainful activity.” In determining whether the annuitant is disabled under the law, the Board will measure, therefore, how and to what extent the annuitant's impairment(s) has affected his or her ability to do work. The Board does this by looking at how the annuitant's functional capacity for doing basic work activities has been affected. Basic work activities means the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs. Included are exertional abilities such as walking, standing, pushing, pulling, reaching and carrying, and non-exertional abilities and aptitudes such as seeing, hearing, speaking, remembering, using judgment, dealing with changes in a work setting and dealing with both supervisors and fellow workers. The annuitant who has no impairment(s) would be able to do all basic work activities at normal levels; he or she would have an unlimited functional capacity to do basic work activities. Depending on its nature and severity, an impairment(s) will result in some limitation to the functional capacity to do one or more of these basic work activities. Diabetes, for example, can result in circulatory problems which could limit the length of time the annuitant could stand or walk and can result in damage to his or her eyes as well, so that the annuitant also had limited vision. What the annuitant can still do, despite his or her impairment(s), is called his or her residual functional capacity. How the residual functional capacity is assessed is discussed in more detail in § 220.120. Unless an impairment is so severe that it is deemed to prevent the annuitant from doing substantial gainful activity (i.e., the impairment(s) is medically disabling), it is this residual functional capacity that is used to determine whether the annuitant can still do his or her past work or, in conjunction with his or her age, education and work experience, do any other work.

(2) A decrease in the severity of an impairment as measured by changes (improvement) in symptoms, signs or laboratory findings can, if great enough, result in an increase in the functional capacity to do work activities. Vascular surgery (e.g., femoropopliteal bypass) may sometimes reduce the severity of the circulatory complications of diabetes so that better circulation results and the annuitant can stand or walk for longer periods. When new evidence showing a change in medical findings establishes that both medical improvement has occurred and the annuitant's functional capacity to perform basic work activities, or residual functional capacity, has increased, the Board will find that medical improvement which is related to the annuitant's ability to do work has occurred. A residual functional capacity assessment is also used to determine whether an annuitant can engage in substantial gainful activity and, thus, whether he or she continues to be disabled (see paragraph (e) of this section).

(3) Many impairment-related factors must be considered in assessing an annuitant's functional capacity for basic work activities. Age is one key factor. Medical literature shows that there is a gradual decrease in organ function with age; that major losses and deficits become irreversible over time and that maximum exercise performance diminishes with age. Other changes related to sustained periods of inactivity and the aging process include muscle atrophy, degenerative joint changes, decrease in range of motion, and changes in the cardiac and respiratory systems which limit the exertional range.

(4) Studies have also shown that the longer the annuitant is away from the workplace and is inactive, the more difficult it becomes to return to ongoing gainful employment. In addition, a gradual change occurs in most jobs so that after about 15 years, it is no longer realistic to expect that skills and abilities acquired in these jobs will continue to apply to the current workplace. Thus, if the annuitant is age 50 or over and had been receiving a disability annuity for a considerable period of time, the Board will consider this factor along with his or her age in assessing the residual functional capacity. This will ensure that the disadvantages resulting from inactivity and the aging process during a longer period of disability will be considered. In some instances where available evidence does not resolve what the annuitant can or cannot do on a sustained basis, the Board may provide special work evaluations or other appropriate testing.

(e) Ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. In most instances, the Board must show that the annuitant is able to engage in substantial gainful activity before stopping his or her annuity. When doing this, the Board will consider all of the annuitant's current impairments not just that impairment(s) present at the time of the most recent favorable determination. If the Board cannot determine that the annuitant is still disabled based on medical considerations alone (as discussed in §§ 220.110 through 220.115), it will use the new symptoms, signs and laboratory findings to make an objective assessment of functional capacity to do basic work activities (or residual functional capacity) and will consider vocational factors. See §§ 220.120 through 220.134.

(f) Evidence and basis for the Board's decision. The Board's decisions under this section will be made on a neutral basis without any initial inference as to the presence or absence of disability being drawn from the fact that the annuitant had previously been determined to be disabled. The Board will consider all of the evidence the annuitant submits. An annuitant must give the Board reports from his or her physician, psychologist, or others who have treated or evaluated him or her, as well as any other evidence that will help the board determine if he or she is still disabled (see § 220.45). The annuitant must have a good reason for not giving the Board this information or the Board may find that his or her disability has ended (see § 220.178(b)(2)). If the Board asks the annuitant, he or she must contact his or her medical sources to help the Board get the medical reports. The Board will make every reasonable effort to help the annuitant in getting medical reports when he or she gives the Board permission to request them from his or her physician, psychologist, or other medical sources, Every reasonable effort means that the Board will make an initial request and, after 20 days, one follow-up request to the annuitant's medical source to obtain the medical evidence necessary to make a determination before the Board evaluates medical evidence obtained from another source on a consultative basis. The medical source will have 10 days from the follow-up to reply (unless experience indicates that a longer period is advisable in a particular case). In some instances the Board may order a consultative examination while awaiting receipt of medical source evidence. Before deciding that an annuitant's disability has ended, the Board will develop a complete medical history covering at least the preceding 12 months (See § 220.45(b)). A consultative examination may be purchased when the Board needs additional evidence to determine whether or not an annuitant's disability continues. As a result, the Board may ask the annuitant, upon the Board request and reasonable notice, to undergo consultative examinations and tests to help the Board determine whether the annuitant is still disabled (see § 220.50). The Board will decide whether or not to purchase a consultative examination in accordance with the standards in §§ 220.53 through 220.54.

(g) Point of comparison. For purposes of determining whether medical improvement has occurred, the Board will compare the current medical severity of that impairment(s), which was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision that the annuitant was disabled or continued to be disabled, to the medical severity of that impairment(s) at that time. If medical improvement has occurred, the Board will compare the annuitant's current functional capacity to do basic work activities (i.e., his or her residual functional capacity) based on this previously existing impairment(s) with the annuitant's prior residual functional capacity in order to determine whether the medical improvement is related to his or her ability to do work. The most recent favorable medical decision is the latest decision involving a consideration of the medical evidence and the issue of whether the annuitant was disabled or continued to be disabled which became final.

(a) General. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of § 220.177 discuss what is meant by medical improvement, medical improvement not related to the ability to work and medical improvement that is related to the ability to work. How the Board will arrive at the decision that medical improvement has occurred and its relationship to the ability to do work, is discussed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

(b) Determining if medical improvement is related to ability to work. If there is a decrease in medical severity as shown by the symptoms, signs and laboratory findings, the Board then must determine if it is related to the annuitant's ability to do work. In § 220.177(d) the relationship between medical severity and limitation on functional capacity to do basic work activities (or residual functional capacity) and how changes in medical severity can affect the annuitant's residual functional capacity is explained. In determining whether medical improvement that has occurred is related to the annuitant's ability to do work, the Board will assess the annuitant's residual functional capacity (in accordance with § 220.177(d)) based on the current severity of the impairment(s) which was present at that annuitant's last favorable medical decision. The annuitant's new residual functional capacity will then be compared to the annuitant's residual functional capcity at the time of the Board's most recent favorable medical decision. Unless an increase in the current residual functional capacity is based on changes in the signs, symptoms, or laboratory findings, any medical improvement that has occurred will not be considered to be related to the annuitant's ability to do work.

(c) Additional factors and considerations. The Board will also apply the following in its determinations of medical improvement and its relationship to the annuitant's ability to do work:

(1) Previous impairment was medically disabling. If the Board's most recent favorable decision was based on the fact that the annuitant's impairment(s) at that time was medically disabling, an assessment of his or her residual functional capacity would not have been made. If medical improvement has occurred and the current severity of the prior impairment(s) is no longer medically disabling based on the standard (see § 220.100(b)(3)) applied at the time of that decision, the Board will find that the medical improvement was related to the annuitant's ability to work. If the medical findings support impairment(s) that is currently so severe as to be medically disabling, the annuitant is deemed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. If there has been medical improvement to the degree that the impairment(s) is not currently medically disabling, then there has been medical improvement related to the annuitant's ability to work. The Board must, of course, also establish that the annuitant can currently engage in gainful activity before finding that his or her disability has ended.

(2) Prior residual functional capacity assessment made. The residual functional capacity assessment used in making the most recent favorable medical decision will be compared to the residual functional capacity assessment based on current evidence in order to determine if an annuitant's functional capacity for basic work activities has increased. There will be no attempt made to reassess the prior residual functional capacity.

(3) Prior residual functional capacity assessment should have been made, but was not. If the most recent favorable medical decision should have contained an assessment of the annuitant's residual functional capacity (i.e., his or her impairment(s) was not medically disabling) but does not, either because this assessment is missing from the annuitant's file or because it was not done, the Board will reconstruct the residual functional capacity. This reconstructed residual functional capacity will accurately and objectively assess the annuitant's functional capacity to do basic work activities. The Board will assign the maximum functional capacity consistent with an allowance.

(4) Impairment subject to temporary remission. In some cases the evidence shows that the annuitant's impairment(s) are subject to temporary remission. In assessing whether medical improvement has occurred in annuitants with this type of impairment(s), the Board will be careful to consider the longitudinal history of the impairment(s), including the occurrence of prior remission, and prospects for future worsenings. Improvement in such impairment(s) that is only temporary, i.e., less than 1 year, will not warrant a finding of medical improvement.

(5) Prior file cannot be located. If the prior file cannot be located, the Board will first determine whether the annuitant is able to now engage in substantial gainful activity based on all of his or her current impairments. (In this way, the Board will be able to determine that his or her disability continues at the earliest point without addressing the often lengthy process of reconstructing prior evidence.) If the annuitant cannot engage in substantial gainful activity currently, his or her disability will continue unless one of the second group of exceptions applies (see § 220.179(b)).

(a) First group of exceptions to medical improvement. The law provides for certain limited situations when the annuitant's disability can be found to have ended even though medical improvement has not occurred, if he or she can engage in substantial gainful activity. These exceptions to medical improvement are intended to provide a way of finding that the annuitant is no longer disabled in those limited situations where, even though there has been no decrease in severity of the impairment(s), evidence shows that the annuitant should no longer be considered disabled or never should have been considered disabled. If one of these exceptions applies, the Board must also show that, taking all of the annuitant's current impairment(s) into account, not just those that existed at the time of the Board's most recent favorable medical decision, the annuitant is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity before his or her disability can be found to have ended. As part of the review process, the annuitant will be asked about any medical or vocational therapy that he or she has received or is receiving. Those answers and the evidence gathered as a result as well as all other evidence, will serve as the basis for the finding that an exception applies.

(1) Substantial evidence shows that the annuitant is the beneficiary of advances in medical or vocational therapy or technology (related to his or her ability to work). Advances in medical or vocational therapy or technology are improvements in treatment or rehabilitative methods which have increased the annuitant's ability to do basic work activities. The Board will apply this exception when substantial evidence shows that the annuitant has been the beneficiary of services which reflect these advances and they have favorably affected the severity of his or her impairment(s) or ability to do basic work activities. This decision will be based on new medical evidence and a new residual functional capacity assessment. In many instances, an advanced medical therapy or technology will result in a decrease in severity as shown by symptoms, signs and laboratory findings which will meet the definition of medical improvement. This exception will, therefore, see very limited application.

(2) Substantial evidence shows that the annuitant has undergone vocational therapy (related to his or her ability to work). Vocational therapy (related to the annuitant's ability to work) may include, but is not limited to, additional education, training, or work experience that improves his or her ability to meet the vocational requirements of more jobs. This decision will be based on substantial evidence which includes new medical evidence and a new residual functional capacity assessment. If, at the time of the Board's review the annuitant has not completed vocational therapy which could affect the continuance of his or her disability, the Board will review such annuitant's claim upon completion of the therapy.

(3) Substantial evidence shows that based on new or improved diagnostic or evaluative techniques the annuitant's impairment(s) is not as disabling as it was considered to be at the time of the most recent favorable decision. Changing methodologies and advances in medical and other diagnostic or evaluative techniques have given, and will continue to give, rise to improved methods for measuring and documenting the effect of various impairments on the ability to do work. Where, by such new or improved methods, substantial evidence shows that the annuitant's impairment(s) is not as severe as was determined at the time of the Board's most recent favorable medical decision, such evidence may serve as a basis for finding that the annuitant can engage in substantial gainful activity and is no longer disabled. In order to be used under this exception, however, the new or improved techniques must have become generally available after the date of the Board's most recent favorable medical decision.

(i) How the Board will determine which methods are new or improved techniques and when they become generally available. New or improved diagnostic techniques or evaluations will come to the Board's attention by several methods. In reviewing cases, the Board often becomes aware of new techniques when their results are presented as evidence. Such techniques and evaluations are also discussed and acknowledged in medical literature by medical professional groups and other governmental entities. Through these sources, the Board develops listings of new techniques and when they become generally available.

(ii) How the annuitant will know which methods are new or improved techniques and when they become generally available. The Board will let annuitants know which methods it considers to be new or improved techniques and when they become available.

(4) Substantial evidence demonstrates that any prior disability decision was in error. The Board will apply the exception to medical improvement based on error if substantial evidence (which may be evidence on the record at the time any prior determination of the entitlement to an annuity based on disability was made, or newly obtained evidence which relates to that determination) demonstrates that a prior determination was in error. A prior determination will be found in error only if:

(i) Substantial evidence shows on its face that the decision in question should not have been made (e.g., the evidence in file such as pulmonary function study values was misread or an adjudicative standard such as a medical/vocational rule in appendix 2 of this part was misapplied).

(ii) At the time of the prior evaluation, required and material evidence of the severity of the annuitant's impairment(s) was missing. That evidence becomes available upon review, and substantial evidence demonstrates that had such evidence been present at the time of the prior determination, disability would not have been found.

(iii) Substantial evidence which is new evidence relating to the prior determination (of allowance or continuance) refutes the conclusions that were based upon the prior evidence (e.g., a tumor thought to be malignant was later shown to have actually been benign). Substantial evidence must show that had the new evidence (which relates to the prior determination) been considered at the time of the prior decision, the disability would not have been allowed or continued. A substitution of current judgment for that used in the prior favorable decision will not be the basis for applying this exception.

(5) The annuitant is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity. If the annuitant is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity, before the Board determines whether he or she is no longer disabled because of his or her work activity, the Board will consider whether he or she is entitled to a trial work period as set out in § 220.170. The Board will find that the annuitant's disability has ended in the month in which he or she demonstrated the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity (following completion of a trial work period, where it applies). This exception does not apply in determining whether the annuitant continues to have a disabling impairment(s) for purposes of deciding his or her eligibility for a reentitlement period.

(b) Second group of exceptions to medical improvement. In addition to the first group of exceptions to medical improvement, the following exceptions may result in a determination that the annuitant is no longer disabled. In these situations the decision will be made without a determination that the annuitant has medically improved or can engage in substantial gainful activity.

(1) A prior determination was fraudulently obtained. If the Board finds that any prior favorable determination was obtained by fraud, it may find that the annuitant is not disabled. In addition, the Board may reopen the claim.

(2) Failure to cooperate with the Board. If there is a question about whether the annuitant continues to be disabled and the Board requests that he or she submit medical or other evidence or go for a physical or mental examination by a certain date, the Board will find that the annuitant's disability has ended if he or she fails (without good cause) to do what is requested. The month in which the annuitant's disability ends will be the first month in which he or she failed to do what was requested.

(3) Inability of the Board to locate the annuitant. If there is question about whether the annuitant continues to be disabled and the Board is unable to find him or her to resolve the question, the Board will suspend annuity payments. If, after a suitable investigation, the Board is still unable to locate the annuitant, the Board will determine that the annuitant's disability has ended. The month such annuitant's disability ends will be the first month in which the question arose and the annuitant could not be found.

(4) Failure of the annuitant to follow prescribed treatment which would be expected to restore the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. If treatment has been prescribed for the annuitant which would be expected to restore his or her ability to work, he or she must follow that treatment in order to be paid a disability annuity. If the annuitant is not following that treatment and he or she does not have good cause for failing to follow the treatment, the Board will find that his or her disability has ended. The month such annuitant's disability ends will be the first month in which he or she failed to follow the prescribed treatment.

Evaluation steps. To assure that disability reviews are carried out in a uniform manner, that decisions of continuing disability can be made in the most expeditious and administratively efficient way, and that any decisions to stop a disability annuity are made objectively, neutrally and are fully documented, the Board will follow specific steps in reviewing the question of whether an annuitant's disability continues. The Board's review may cease and the disability may be continued at any point if the Board determines that there is sufficient evidence to find that the annuitant is still unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. The steps are—

(a) Is the annuitant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If he or she is (and any applicable trial work period has been completed), the Board will find disability to have ended (see § 220.179(a)(5));

(b) If the annuitant is not engaging in substantial gainful activity, does he or she have an impairment or combination of impairments which is medically disabling? If the annuitant's impairment(s) is medically disabling, his or her disability will be found to continue;

(c) If the annuitant's impairment(s) is not medically disabling, has there been medical improvement as defined in § 220.177(a)? If there has been medical improvement as shown by a decrease in medical severity, see step (d). If there has been no decrease in medical severity, then there has been no medical improvement; (See step (e));

(d) If there has been medical improvement, the Board must determine whether it is related to the annuitant's ability to do work in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 220.177, (i.e., whether or not there has been an increase in the residual functional capacity based on the impairment(s) that was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical determination). If medical improvement is not related to the annuitant's ability to do work, see step (e). If medical improvement is related to the annuitant's ability to do work, see step (f);

(e) If the Board found at step (c) that there has been no medical improvement or if it found at step (d) that the medical improvement is not related to the annuitant's ability to work, the Board considers whether any of the exceptions in § 220.178 apply. If none of them apply, disability will be found to continue. If one of the first group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, see step (f). If an exception from the second group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, disability will be found to have ended. The second group of exceptions to medical improvement may be considered at any point in this process;

(f) If medical improvement is shown to be related to the annuitant's ability to do work or if one of the first group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, the Board will determine whether all of the annuitant's current impairments in combination are severe. This determination will consider all current impairments and the impact of the combination of those impairments on the ability to function. If the residual functional capacity assessment in step (d) above shows significant limitation of ability to do basic work activities, see step (g). When the evidence shows that all current impairments in combination do not significantly limit physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities, these impairments will not be considered severe in nature, and the annuitant will no longer be consider to be disabled;

(g) If the annuitant's impairment(s) is severe, the Board will assess his or her current ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. That is, the Board will assess the annuitant's residual functional capacity based on all of his or her current impairments and consider whether he or she can still do work that was done in the past. If he or she can do such work, disability will be found to have ended; and

(h) If the annuitant is not able to do work he or she has done in the past, the Board will consider one final step. Given the residual functional capacity assessment and considering the annuitant's age, education and past work experience, can he or she do other work? If the annuitant can do other work, disability will be found to have ended. If he or she cannot do other work, disability will be found to continue.

If the evidence shows that the annuitant is no longer disabled, the Board will find that his or her disability ended in the earliest of the following months—

(a) The month the Board mails the annuitant a notice saying that the Board finds that he or she is no longer disabled based on evidence showing:

(1) There has been medical improvement in the annuitant's impairments related to the ability to work and the annuitant has the capacity to engage in substantial gainful work under the rules set out in §§ 220.177 and 220.178; or

(2) There has been no medical improvement in the annuitant's impairments related to the ability to work but the annuitant has the capacity to engage in substantial gainful work and one of the exceptions to medical improvement set out in § 220.179(a)(1), (2), (3) or (4) applies.

(b) The month in which the annuitant demonstrated his or her ability to engage in substantial gainful activity (following completion of a trial work period);

(c) The month in which the annuitant actually does substantical gainful activity where such annuitant is not entitled to a trial work period;

(d) The month in which the annuitant returns to full-time work, with no significant medical restrictions and acknowledges that medical improvement has occurred, and the Board expected the annuitant's impairment(s) to improve;

(e) The first month in which the annuitant failed without good cause to do what the Board asked, when the rule set out in paragraph (b)(2) of § 220.179 applies;

(f) The first month in which the question of continuing disability arose and the Board could not locate the annuitant after a suitable investigation (see § 220.179(b)(3));

(g) The first month in which the annuitant failed without good cause to follow prescribed treatment, when the rule set out in paragraph (b)(4) of § 220.179 applies; or

(h) The first month the annuitant was told by his or her physician that he or she could return to work provided there is no substantial conflict between the physician's and the annuitant's statements regarding that annuitant's awareness of his or her capacity for work and the earlier date is supported by the medical evidence.

(i) The month the evidence shows that the annuitant is no longer disabled under the rules set out in §§ 220.177 through 220.180, and he or she was disabled only for a specified period of time in the past as discussed in § 220.21 or § 220.105;

Before the Board stops a disability annuity, it will give the annuitant a chance to explain why it should not do so.

(a) General. If the Board determines that the annuitant does not meet the disability requirements of the law, the disability annuity will generally stop. Except in the circumstance described in paragraph (d) of this section, the Board will give the annuitant advance written notice when the Board has determined that he or she is not now disabled.

(b) What the advance written notice will tell the annuitant. The advance written notice will provide—

(1) A summary of the information the Board has and an explanation of why the Board believes the annuitant is no longer disabled. If it is because of medical reasons, the notice will tell the annuitant what the medical information in his or her file shows. If it is because of the annuitant's work activity, the notice will tell the annuitant what information the Board has about the work he or she is doing or has done, and why this work shows that he or she is not disabled. If it is because of the annuitant's failure to give the Board information the Board needs or failure to do what the Board asks, the notice will tell the annuitant what information the Board needs and why, or what the annuitant has to do and why;

(2) The date the disability annuity will stop;

(3) An opportunity for the annuitant to submit evidence within a specified period to support continuance of disability before the decision becomes final; and

(4) An explanation of the annuitant's rights to reconsideration and appeal after the decision becomes final.

(c) What the annuitant should do if he or she receives an advance written notice. If the annuitant agrees with the advance written notice, he or she does not need to take any action. If the annuitant desires further information or disagrees with what the Board has told him or her, the annuitant should immediately write or visit a Board office. If the annuitant believes he or she is now disabled, the annuitant should tell the Board why. The annuitant may give the Board any additional or new information, including reports from doctors, hospitals, railroad or non-railroad employers, or others that he or she believes the Board should have. The annuitant should send these as soon as possible to a Board office.

(d) When the Board will not give the annuitant advance written notice. The Board will not give the annuitant advance written notice when the Board determines that he or she is not now disabled if the Board recently told the annuitant that—

(1) The information the Board has shows that he or she is not disabled;

(2) The Board was gathering more information; and

(3) The disability annuity would stop.

If a new severe impairment(s) begins in or before the month in which the last impairment(s) ends, the Board will find that disability is continuing. The impairment(s) need not be expected to last 12 months or to result in death, but it must be severe enough to keep the annuitant from doing substantial gainful activity, or severe enough so that he or she is still disabled.

After the Board finds that the annuitant is disabled, the Board must evaluate the annuitant's impairment(s) from time to time to determine if the annuitant is still eligible for disability cash benefits. The Board calls this evaluation a continuing disability review. The Board may begin a continuing disability review for any number of reasons including the annuitant's failure to follow the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act or these regulations. When the Board begins such a review, the Board will notify the annuitant that the Board is reviewing the annuitant's eligibility for disability benefits, why the Board is reviewing the annuitant's eligibility, that in medical reviews the medical improvement review standard will apply, that the Board's review could result in the termination of the annuitant's benefits, and that the annuitant has the right to submit medical and other evidence for the Board's consideration during the continuing disability review. In doing a medical review the Board will develop a complete medical history of at least the preceding 12 months in any case in which a determination is made that the annuitant is no longer under a disability. If this review shows that the Board should stop payment of cash benefits, the Board will notify the annuitant in writing and give the annuitant an opportunity to appeal. In § 220.186 the Board describes those events that may prompt it to review whether the annuitant continues to be disabled.

(a) General. The Board conducts continuing disability reviews to determine whether or not the annuitant continues to meet the disability requirements of the law. Payment of cash benefits or a period of disability ends if the medical or other evidence shows that the annuitant is not disabled under the standards set out in section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act or section 223(f) of the Social Security Act.

(b) When the Board will conduct a continuing disability review. A continuing disability review will be started if—

(1) The annuitant has been scheduled for a medical improvement expected diary review;

(2) The annuitant has been scheduled for a periodic review in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section;

(3) The Board needs a current medical or other report to see if the annuitant's disability continues. (This could happen when, for example, an advance in medical technology, such as improved treatment for Alzheimer's disease or a change in vocational therapy or technology raises a disability issue.);

(4) The annuitant returns to work and successfully completes a period of trial work;

(5) Substantial earnings are reported to the annuitant's wage record;

(6) The annuitant tells the Board that he or she has recovered from his or her disability or that he or she has returned to work;

(7) A State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency tells the Board that—

(i) The services have been completed; or

(ii) The annuitant is now working; or

(iii) The annuitant is able to work;

(8) Someone in a position to know of the annuitant's physical or mental condition tells the Board that the annuitant is not disabled, that the annuitant in not following prescribed treatment, that the annuitant has returned to work, or that the annuitant is failing to follow the provisions of the Social Security Act, the Railroad Retirement Act, or these regulations, and it appears that the report could be substantially correct; or

(9) Evidence the Board receives raises a question as to whether the annuitant's disability continues.

(c) Definitions. As used in this section—

Medical improvement expected diary— refers to a case which is scheduled for review at a later date because the individual's impairment(s) is expected to improve. Generally, the diary period is set for not less than 6 months or for not more than 18 months. Examples of cases likely to be scheduled for a medical improvement excepted diary are fractures and cases in which corrective surgery is planned and recovery can be anticipated. The term “medical improvement expected diary” also includes a case which is scheduled for a review at a later date because the individual is undergoing vocational therapy, training or an educational program which may improve his or her ability to work so that the disability requirement of the law is no longer met. Generally, the diary period will be the length of the training, therapy, or program of education.

Permanent impairment medical improvement not expected—refers to a case in which any medical improvement in the person's impairment(s) is not expected. This means an extremely severe condition determined on the basis of our experience in administering the disability program to be at least static, but more likely to be progressively disabling either by itself or by reason of impairment complications, and unlikely to improve so as to permit the individual to engage in substantial gainful activity. The interaction of the individual's age, impairment consequences and lack of recent attachment to the labor market may also be considered in determining whether an impairment is permanent. Improvement which is considered temporary under § 220.178(c)(3), will not be considered in deciding if an impairment is permanent. Examples of permanent impairments are as follows and are not intended to be all inclusive:

(1) Parkinsonian syndrome with significant rigidity, brady kinesia, or tremor in two extremities, which, singly or in combination, result in sustained disturbance of gross and dexterous movements, or gait and station.

(2) Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, based on documentation of a clinically appropriate medical history, neurological findings consistent with the diagnosis of ALS, and the results of any electrophysiological and neuroimaging testing.

(3) Diffuse pulmonary fibrosis in an individual age 55 or older which reduces FEV1 to 1.45 to 2.05 (L, BTPS) or less depending on the individual's height.

(4) Amputation of leg at hip.

Nonpermanent impairment refers to a case in which any medical improvement in the person's impairment(s) is possible. This means an impairment for which improvement cannot be predicted based on current experience and the facts of the particular case but which is not at the level of severity of an impairment that is considered permanent. Examples of nonpermanent impairments are: regional enteritis, hyperthyroidism, and chronic ulcerative colitis.

(d) Frequency of review. If an annuitant's impairment is expected to improve, generally the Board will review the annuitant's continuing eligibility for disability benefits at intervals from 6 months to 18 months following the Board's most recent decision. The Board's notice to the annuitant about the review of the annuitant's case will tell the annuitant more precisely when the review will be conducted. If the annuitant's disability is not considered permanent but is such that any medical improvement in the annuitant's impairment(s) cannot be accurately predicted, the Board will review the annuitant's continuing eligibility for disability benefits at least once every 3 years. If no medical improvement is expected in the annuitant's impairment(s), the Board will not routinely review the annuitant's continuing eligibility. Regardless of the annuitant's classification, the Board will conduct an immediate continuing disability review if a question of continuing disability is raised pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

(e) Change in classification of impairment. If the evidence developed during a continuing disability review demonstrates that the annuitant's impairment has improved, is expected to improve, or has worsened since the last review, the Board may reclassify the annuitant's impairment to reflect this change in severity. A change in the classification of the annuitant's impairment will change the frequency with which the Board will review the case. The Board may also reclassify certain impairments because of improved tests, treatment, and other technical advances concerning those impairments.

(f) Review after administrative appeal. If the annuitant was found eligible to receive or to continue to receive disability benefits on the basis of a decision by a hearings officer, the three-member Board or a Federal court, the agency will not conduct a continuing disability review earlier than 3 years after that decision unless the annuitant's case should be scheduled for a medical improvement expected or vocational reexamination diary review or a question of continuing disability is raised pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

(g) Waiver of timeframes. All cases involving a nonpermanent impairment will be reviewed by the Board at least once every 3 years unless the Board determines that the requirements should be waived to ensure that only the appropriate number of cases are reviewed. The appropriate number of cases to be reviewed is to be based on such considerations as the backlog of pending reviews, the projected number of new applications, and projected staffing levels. Therefore, an annuitant's continuing disability review may be delayed longer than 3 years following the Board's original decision or other review under certain circumstances. Such a delay would be based on the Board's need to ensure that backlogs, and new disability claims workloads are accomplished within available medical and other resources and that such reviews are done carefully and accurately.

If the annuitant's impairment was expected to improve and the annuitant returned to full-time work with no significant medical limitations and acknowledges that medical improvement has occurred, the Board may find that the annuitant's disability ended in the month he or she returned to work. Unless there is evidence showing that the annuitant's disability has not ended, the Board will use the medical and other evidence already in the annuitant's file and the fact that he or she has returned to full-time work without significant limitations to determine that the annuitant is no longer disabled. (If the annuitant's impairment is not expected to improve, the Board will not ordinarily review his or her claim until the end of the trial work period, as described in § 220.170.)

200.00 Introduction. (a) The following rules reflect the major functional and vocational patterns which are encountered in cases which cannot be evaluated on medical considerations alone, where an individual with a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) is not engaging in substantial gainful activity and the individual's impairment(s) prevents the performance of his or her vocationally relevant past work. They also reflect the analysis of the various vocational factors (i.e., age, education, and work experience) in combination with the individual's residual functional capacity (used to determine his or her maximum sustained work capability for sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work) in evaluating the individual's ability to engage in substantial gainful activity in other than his or her vocationally relevant past work. Where the findings of fact made with respect to a particular individual's vocational factors and residual functional capacity coincide with all of the criteria of a particular rule, the rule directs a conclusion as to whether the individual is or is not disabled. However, each of these findings of fact is subject to rebuttal and the individual may present evidence to refute such findings. Where any one of the findings of fact does not coincide with the corresponding criterion of a rule, the rule does not apply in that particular case and, accordingly, does not direct a conclusion of disabled or not disabled. In any instance where a rule does not apply, full consideration must be given to all of the relevant facts of the case in accordance with the definitions and discussions of each factor in the appropriate sections of the regulations.

(b) The existence of jobs in the national economy is reflected in the “Decisions” shown in the rules; i.e., in promulgating the rules, administrative notice has been taken of the numbers of unskilled jobs that exist throughout the national economy at the various functional levels (sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy) as supported by the “Dictionary of Occupational Titles” and the “Occupational Outlook Handbook,” published by the Department of Labor; the “County Business Patterns” and “Census Surveys” published by the Bureau of the Census; and occupational surveys of light and sedentary jobs prepared for the Social Security Administration by various State employment agencies. Thus, when all factors coincide with the criteria of a rule, the existence of such jobs is established. However, the existence of such jobs for individuals whose remaining functional capacity or other factors do not coincide with the criteria of a rule must be further considered in terms of what kinds of jobs or types of work may be either additionally indicated or precluded.

(c) In the application of the rules, the individual's residual functional capacity (i.e., the maximum degree to which the individual retains the capacity for sustained performance of the physical-mental requirements of jobs), age, education, and work experience must first be determined. When assessing the person's residual functional capacity, the Board considers his or her symptoms (such as pain), signs, and laboratory findings together with other evidence the Board obtains.

(d) The correct disability decision (i.e., on the issue of ability to engage in substantial gainful activity) is found by then locating the individual's specific vocational profile. If an individual's specific profile is not listed within this appendix 2, a conclusion of disabled or not disabled is not directed. Thus, for example, an individual's ability to engage in substantial gainful work where his or her residual functional capacity falls between the ranges of work indicated in the rules (e.g., the individual who can perform more than light but less than medium work), is decided on the basis of the principles and definitions in the regulations, giving consideration to the rules for specific case situations in this appendix 2. These rules represent various combinations of exertional capabilities, age, education and work experience and also provide an overall structure for evaluation of those cases in which the judgments as to each factor do not coincide with those of any specific rule. Thus, when the necessary judgments have been made as to each factor and it is found that no specific rule applies, the rules still provide guidance for decisionmaking, such as in cases involving combinations of impairments. For example, if strength limitations resulting from an individual's impairment(s) considered with the judgments made as to the individual's age, education and work experience correspond to (or closely approximate) the factors of a particular rule, the adjudicator then has a frame of reference for considering the jobs or types of work precluded by other, nonexertional impairments in terms of numbers of jobs remaining for a particular individual.

(e) Since the rules are predicated on an individual's having an impairment which manifests itself by limitations in meeting the strength requirements of jobs, they may not be fully applicable where the nature of an individual's impairment does not result in such limitations, e.g., certain mental, sensory, or skin impairments. In addition, some impairments may result solely in postural and manipulative limitations or environmental restrictions. Environmental restrictions are those restrictions which result in inability to tolerate some physical feature(s) of work settings that occur in certain industries or types of work, e.g., an inability to tolerate dust or fumes.

(1) In the evaluation of disability where the individual has solely a nonexertional type of impairment, determination as to whether disability exists shall be based on the principles in the appropriate sections of the regulations, giving consideration to the rules for specific case situations in this appendix 2. The rules do not direct factual conclusions of disabled or not disabled for individuals with solely nonexertional types of impairments.

(2) However, where an individual has an impairment or combination of impairments resulting in both strength limitations and nonexertional limitations, the rules in this subpart are considered in determining first whether a finding of disabled may be possible based on the strength limitations alone and, if not, the rule(s) reflecting the individual's maximum residual strength capabilities, age, education, and work experience provide a framework for consideration of how much the individual's work capability is further diminished in terms of any types of jobs that would be contraindicated by the nonexertional limitations. Also, in these combinations of nonexertional and exertional limitations which cannot be wholly determined under the rules in this appendix 2, full consideration must be given to all of the relevant facts in the case in accordance with the definitions and discussions of each factor in the appropriate sections of the regulations, which will provide insight into the adjudicative weight to be accorded each factor.

201.00 Maximum sustained work capability limited to sedentary work as a result of severe medically determinable impairment(s). (a) Most sedentary occupations fall within the skilled, semi-skilled, professional, administrative, technical, clerical, and benchwork classifications. Approximately 200 separate unskilled sedentary occupations can be identified, each representing numerous jobs in the national economy. Approximately 85 percent of these jobs are in the machine trades and benchwork occupational categories. These jobs (unskilled sedentary occupations) may be performed after a short demonstration or within 30 days.

(b) These unskilled sedentary occupations are standard within the industries in which they exist. While sedentary work represents a significantly restricted range of work, this range in itself is not so prohibitively restricted as to negate work capability for substantial gainful activity.

(c) Vocational adjustment to sedentary work may be expected where the individual has special skills or experience relevant to sedentary work or where age and basic educational competences provide sufficient occupational mobility to adapt to the major segment of unskilled sedentary work. Inability to engage in substantial gainful activity would be indicated where an individual who is restricted to sedentary work because of a severe medically determinable impairment lacks special skills or experience relevant to sedentary work, lacks educational qualifications relevant to most sedentary work (e.g., has a limited education or less) and the individual's age, though not necessarily advanced, is a factor which significantly limits vocational adaptability.

(d) The adversity of functional restrictions to sedentary work at advanced age (55 and over) for individuals with no relevant past work or who can no longer perform vocationally relevant past work and have no transferable skills, warrants a finding of disabled in the absence of the rare situation where the individual has recently completed education which provides a basis for direct entry into skilled sedentary work. Advanced age and a history of unskilled work or no work experience would ordinarily offset any vocational advantages that might accrue by reason of any remote past education, whether it is more or less than limited education.

(e) The presence of acquired skills that are readily transferable to a significant range of skilled work within an individual's residual functional capacity would ordinarily warrant a finding of ability to engage in substantial gainful activity regardless of the adversity of age, or whether the individual's formal education is commensurate with his or her demonstrated skill level. The acquisition of work skills demonstrates the ability to perform work at the level of complexity demonstrated by the skill level attained regardless of the individual's formal educational attainments.

(f) In order to find transferability of skills to skilled sedentary work for individuals who are of advanced age (55 and over), there must be very little, if any, vocational adjustment required in terms of tools, work processes, work settings, or the industry.

(g) Individuals approaching advanced age (age 50-54) may be significantly limited in vocational adaptability if they are restricted to sedentary work. When such individuals have no past work experience or can no longer perform vocationally relevant past work and have no transferable skills, a finding of disabled ordinarily obtains. However, recently completed education which provides for direct entry into sedentary work will preclude such a finding. For this age group, even a high school education or more (ordinarily completed in the remote past) would have little impact for effecting a vocational adjustment unless relevant work experience reflects use of such education.

(h) The term “younger individual” is used to denote an individual age 18 through 49. For those within this group who are age 45-49, age is a less positive factor than for those who are age 18-44. Accordingly, for such individuals; (1) who are restricted to sedentary work, (2) who are unskilled or have no transferable skills, (3) who have no relevant past work or who can no longer perform vocationally relevant past work, and (4) who are either illiterate or unable to communicate in the English language, a finding of disabled is warranted. On the other hand, age is a more positive factor for those who are under age 45 and is usually not a significant factor in limiting such an individual's ability to make a vocational adjustment, even an adjustment to unskilled sedentary work, and even where the individual is illiterate or unable to communicate in English. However, a finding of disabled is not precluded for those individuals under age 45 who do not meet all of the criteria of a specific rule and who do not have the ability to perform a full range of sedentary work. The following examples are illustrative: Example 1: An individual under age 45 with a high school education can no longer do past work and is restricted to unskilled sedentary jobs because of a severe medically determinable cardiovascular impairment (which does not meet or equal the listings in appendix 1). A permanent injury of the right hand limits the individual to sedentary jobs which do not require bilateral manual dexterity. None of the rules in appendix 2 are applicable to this particular set of facts, because this individual cannot perform the full range of work defined as sedentary. Since the inability to perform jobs requiring bilateral manual dexterity significantly compromises the only range of work for which the individual is otherwise qualified (i.e., sedentary), a finding of disabled would be appropriate. Example 2: An illiterate 41 year old individual with mild mental retardation (IQ of 78) is restricted to unskilled sedentary work and cannot perform vocationally relevant past work, which had consisted of unskilled agricultural field work; his or her particular characteristics do not specifically meet any of the rules in appendix 2, because this individual cannot perform the full range of work defined as sedentary. In light of the adverse factors which further narrow the range of sedentary work for which this individual is qualified, a finding of disabled is appropriate.

(i) While illiteracy or the inability to communicate in English may significantly limit an individual's vocational scope, the primary work functions in the bulk of unskilled work relate to working with things (rather than with data or people) and in these work functions at the unskilled level, literacy or ability to communicate in English has the least significance. Similarly the lack of relevant work experience would have little significance since the bulk of unskilled jobs require no qualifying work experience. Thus, the functional capability for a full range of sedentary work represents sufficient numbers of jobs to indicate substantial vocational scope for those individuals age 18-44 even if they are illiterate or unable to communicate in English.

202.00 Maximum sustained work capability limited to light work as a result of severe medically determinable impairment(s). (a) The functional capacity to perform a full range of light work includes the functional capacity to perform sedentary as well as light work. Approximately 1,600 separate sedentary and light unskilled occupations can be identified in eight broad occupational categories, each occupation representing numerous jobs in the national economy. These jobs can be performed after a short demonstration or within 30 days, and do not require special skills or experience.

(b) The functional capacity to perform a wide or full range of light work represents substantial work capability compatible with making a work adjustment to substantial numbers of unskilled jobs and, thus, generally provides sufficient occupational mobility even for severely impaired individuals who are not of advanced age and have sufficient educational competences for unskilled work.

(c) However, for individuals of advanced age who can no longer perform vocationally relevant past work and who have a history of unskilled work experience, or who have only skills that are not readily transferable to a significant range of semi-skilled or skilled work that is within the individual's functional capacity, or who have no work experience, the limitations in vocational adaptability represented by functional restriction to light work warrant a finding of disabled. Ordinarily, even a high school education or more which was completed in the remote past will have little positive impact on effecting a vocational adjustment unless relevant work experience reflects use of such education.

(d) Where the same factors in paragraph (c) of this section regarding education and work experience are present, but where age, though not advanced, is a factor which significantly limits vocational adaptability (i.e., closely approaching advanced age, 50-54) and an individual's vocational scope is further significantly limited by illiteracy or inability to communicate in English, a finding of disabled is warranted.

(e) The presence of acquired skills that are readily transferable to a significant range of semi-skilled or skilled work within an individual's residual functional capacity would ordinarily warrant a finding of not disabled regardless of the adversity of age, or whether the individual's formal education is commensurate with his or her demonstrated skill level. The acquisition of work skills demonstrates the ability to perform work at the level of complexity demonstrated by the skill level attained regardless of the individual's formal educational attainments.

(f) For a finding of transferability of skills to light work for individuals of advanced age who are closely approaching retirement age (age 60-64), there must be very little, if any, vocational adjustment required in terms of tools, work processes, work settings, or the industry.

(g) While illiteracy or the inability to communicate in English may significantly limit an individual's vocational scope, the primary work functions in the bulk of unskilled work relate to working with things (rather than with data or people) and in these work functions at the unskilled level, literacy or ability to communicate in English has the least significance. Similarly, the lack of relevant work experience would have little significance since the bulk of unskilled jobs require no qualifying work experience. The capability for light work, which includes the ability to do sedentary work, represents the capability for substantial numbers of such jobs. This, in turn, represents substantial vocational scope for younger individuals (age 18-49) even if illiterate or unable to communicate in English.

203.00 Maximum sustained work capability limited to medium work as a result of severe medically determinable impair- ment(s). (a) The functional capacity to perform medium work includes the functional capacity to perform sedentary, light, and medium work. Approximately 2,500 separate sedentary, light, and medium occupations can be identified, each occupation representing numerous jobs in the national economy which do not require skills or previous experience and which can be performed after a short demonstration or within 30 days.

(b) The functional capacity to perform medium work represents such substantial work capability at even the unskilled level that a finding of disabled is ordinarily not warranted in cases where a severely impaired individual retains the functional capacity to perform medium work. Even the adversity of advanced age (55 or over) and a work history of unskilled work may be offset by the substantial work capability represented by the functional capacity to perform medium work. However, an individual with a marginal education and long work experience (i.e., 35 years or more) limited to the performance of arduous unskilled labor, who is not working and is no longer able to perform this labor because of a severe impairment(s), may still be found disabled even though the individual is able to do medium work.

(c) However, the absence of any relevant work experience becomes a more significant adversity for individuals of advanced age (55 and over). Accordingly, this factor, in combination with a limited education or less, militates against making a vocational adjustment to even this substantial range of work and a finding of disabled is appropriate. Further, for individuals closely approaching retirement age (60-64) with a work history of unskilled work and with marginal education or less, a finding of disabled is appropriate.

204.00 Maximum sustained work capability limited to heavy work (or very heavy work) as a result of severe medically determinable impairment(s). The residual functional capacity to perform heavy work or very heavy work includes the functional capability for work at the lesser functional levels as well, and represents substantial work capability for jobs in the national economy at all skill and physical demand levels. Individuals who retain the functional capacity to perform heavy work (or very heavy work) ordinarily will not have a severe impairment or will be able to do their past work—either of which would have already provided a basis for a decision of “not disabled”. Environmental restrictions ordinarily would not significantly affect the range of work existing in the national economy for individuals with the physical capability for heavy work (or very heavy work). Thus an impairment which does not preclude heavy work (or very heavy work) would not ordinarily be the primary reason for unemployment, and generally is sufficient for a finding of not disabled, even though age, education, and skill level of prior work experience may be considered adverse.

1.01 The Board uses this appendix to adjudicate the occupational disability claims of employees with medical conditions and job titles covered by the Tables in this appendix. The Tables are divided into “Body Parts”, with each Body Part further divided by job title. Under each job title there is a list of impairments and tests with accompanying test results which establish a finding of “D” (disabled). The use of these Tables is a three-step process. In the first step we determine whether the employee's regular railroad occupation is covered by the Tables; next we establish the existence of an impairment covered by the Tables; finally, we reach a disability determination. If we do not find an employee disabled under these Tables, the employee may still be found disabled using Independent Case Evaluation (ICE), as explained in subpart C of this part.

1.02 The Cancer Tables are treated in a different way than other body systems. Different types of cancer and their treatments have different functional impacts. In the Cancer Tables the impact of the impairment is seen as being significant or not significant. Therefore, these tables contain an “S” (significant) which is equivalent to a “D” rating. A detailed explanation of how to use those tables is in that section. The steps to use the remaining Tables are explained below:

2.01 Once we determine that the employee's regular railroad occupation is covered by the Job Titles in the Tables, we must determine the existence of an impairment covered by the Tables. This is done through the use of Confirmatory Tests. These tests can include information from medical records, surgical or operative reports, or specific diagnostic test results. Confirmatory Tests are listed in the initial section regarding each Body Part covered in the Tables. If an impairment cannot be confirmed because of inconsistent medical information, ICE may be required.

2.02 There are two types of Confirmatory Tests as follows.

2.03 “Highly Recommended” Tests—The designation of a confirmatory test as being “highly recommended” means that the test is almost always performed to confirm the existence of the impairment. For many conditions, only one “highly recommended” test finding is suggested to confirm the impairment. However, there may be times when that test is not available or is negative, but other more detailed testing confirms the impairment.

2.04 Example A: To confirm the condition of pulmonary hypertension, the Tables under Body Part C., Cardiac, designate as “highly recommended”: an electrocardiogram which indicates definite right ventricular hypertrophy. However, the impairment may also be confirmed by insertion of a Swan-Ganz catheter into the pulmonary artery and the pulmonary artery pressure measured directly.

2.05 There may be some conditions for which several “highly recommended” tests are suggested to confirm an impairment. In these circumstances, we will use all “highly recommended” tests to establish the existence of the impairment.

2.06 Example B: Under Body Part E., Lumbar Sacral Spine, three highly recommended medical findings are identified for the diagnosis of chronic back pain, not otherwise specified. These findings include:

A. A history of back pain under medical treatment for at least one year, and

B. A history of back pain unresponsive to therapy for at least one year, and

C. A history of back pain with functional limitations for at least one year.

2.07 All three of these criteria must be satisfied to confirm the existence of chronic back pain.

2.08 Sometimes the employee may have undergone detailed testing which is as reliable as one of the “highly recommended” tests listed in the Tables. In cases where an impairment has not been confirmed by one of the designated “highly recommended” tests, the impairment may still be confirmed by “recommended” tests (see below) or by evidence acceptable under section 220.27 of this part.

2.09 Recommended Tests—The designation of a confirmatory test as “recommended” means that the test need not be performed, or be positive, to confirm the impairment. However, a positive test provides significant support for confirming the impairment. If there are no “highly recommended” tests for confirming the impairment, at least one of the “recommended” tests should be positive.

2.10 There are two categories of recommended tests which are described below.

A. Imaging studies—These studies can include MRI, CAT scan, myelogram, or plain film x-rays. For conditions where several of these imaging studies are identified as “recommended” tests, at least one of the test results should be positive and meet the confirmatory test criteria. For some conditions, such as degenerative disc condition, there are several equivalent imaging methods to confirm a diagnosis.

B. Other tests—This category of tests refers to non-imaging studies.

2.11 If there are no “highly recommended” confirmatory tests designated to confirm an impairment and the “recommended” confirmatory tests only include non-imaging procedures, at least one of these tests should be positive to confirm the impairment. The greater the number of tests that are positive, the greater the confidence that the correct diagnosis has been established.

2.12 Example: Under Body Part C., Cardiac, the diagnostic confirmatory tests for ventricular ectopy, a cardiac arrhythmia, include the following “recommended” tests:

A. Medical record review, i.e., a review of the claimant's medical records, or

B. Holter monitoring, or

C. Provocative testing producing a definite arrhythmia.

2.13 In this situation, only one of the “recommended” confirmatory tests need be positive to confirm the impairment. However, the more tests that are positive, the stronger the support for the diagnosis.

2.14 In no circumstance will the Board require that an invasive test be performed to confirm an impairment. Several of the Confirmatory Tests which are described in the Tables are invasive and it is not the intention of the Board to suggest that these be performed. The inclusion of invasive tests in the Tables Confirmatory Tests section is intended to help the Board evaluate the significance of findings from such tests that may have already been performed and which are part of the submitted medical record.

2.15 If an employee's impairment(s) cannot be confirmed by use of the confirmatory tests listed in the Tables, it still may be confirmed by medical evidence described in section 220.27 of this part. However, if a claimant's impairment(s) cannot be confirmed through use of the Tables or under section 220.27, and the medical evidence is complete and in concordance, the claimant will be found not disabled.

3.01 Once the Board determines that the employee's regular railroad occupation is covered by one of the Job Titles in the Tables and that his or her alleged impairment fits into a Body Part covered by the Tables and can be confirmed, we examine the results of any of the disability tests listed under the impairment. If the results from any of these tests indicate a “D” finding, the employee is found disabled. If none of the test results indicate a “D” finding, then the employee's claim is evaluated using ICE.

3.02 Example: A trainman has angina as confirmed by the recommended tests under Body Part A: Cardiac—Angina. An echocardiogram shows that he has poor ejection fraction ≤35%. The employee is rated disabled. If none of the results of the listed disability tests match the results required for a “D” finding, then the employee's claim is evaluated under ICE.

A. Cancer

B. Endocrine

C. Cardiac

D. Respiratory

E. Lumbar Sacral Spine

F. Cervical Spine

G. Shoulder and Elbow

H. Hand and Arm

I. Hip

J. Knee

K. Ankle and Foot

Cancer conditions can be viewed as belonging to one of three categories.

Category 1: Significant impact on functional capacity or anticipated life span.

Category 2: Intermediate impact on functional capacity; large individual variability.

Category 3: No significant impact on functional capacity or expected life span.

The factors that are considered in developing these categories include the following:

The functional impact of different malignancies varies tremendously and each malignancy has to be considered on an individual basis.

The disability standards are based upon the magnitude or extent of disease. The extent of disease affects both anticipated life span and the functional capacity or work ability of the individual. Localized cancer including cancer “in situ” can frequently be completely cured and not have an impact on functional capacity or life span. In contrast, many cancers that have distant or significant regional spread generally have a poor prognosis. The magnitude or extent of disease is classified into three categories: local, regional and distant.

The criteria which are used to classify a cancer into one of the three categories are based upon the distillation of several staging methods into a single system [Miller, et al. (1992). Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1989; NIH Publication No. 92-2789].

Although some types of cancer may be potentially curable with radical surgery and/or radiation therapy, the treatment regimen may result in a significant impairment that could affect functional capacity and ability to work. For example, a person with a laryngeal tumor which had spread regionally could be cured by a complete laryngectomy and radiotherapy. However, this treatment could result in a loss of speech and significantly impair the individual's communicative skills or ability to use certain types of respiratory protective equipment.

Some cancers may have minimal impact on a person's functional capacity, but have a very poor prognosis with respect to life expectancy. For example, an individual with early stage brain cancer may be minimally impaired, but have a poor prognosis and minimal potential for surviving longer than two years. Five and two year survival data are presented in the Cancer Disability Guideline Table which follows.

The Cancer Disability Guideline Table provides information concerning the probability of survival for five years for local, regional, and distant disease for each type of malignancy. In addition, two-year survival data are also presented for all disease stages. The five-year survival data are based upon data collected from population-based registries in Connecticut, New Mexico, Utah, Hawaii, Atlanta, Detroit, Seattle and the San Francisco and East Bay area between 1983 and 1987 (Miller, 1992). The two-year data are from a cohort study initially diagnosed in 1988.

The malignancies are classified as disabling (Category 1), potentially disabling (Category 2) and non-disabling (Category 3). Category 2 conditions must be evaluated with respect to how the worker's tumor affects the worker's ability to perform the job and an assessment of his life span.

Information concerning the potential impact of the malignancy on a worker's ability to perform a job is identified in the Functional Impact column in the table. All railroad occupations in the Tables are considered together. Functional impacts are classified as significant if the treatment or sequelae from treatment including radiotherapy, chemotherapy and/or surgery is likely to impair the worker from performing the job. If the treatment results in a significant impairment of another organ system, the individual should be evaluated for disability associated with impairment of that body part. For example, a person undergoing an amputation for a bone malignancy would have to be evaluated for an amputation of that body part. For many cancers, it is difficult to make generalizations regarding the level of impairment that will occur after the person has initiated or completed treatment. Nonsignificant impacts include those that are unlikely to have any effect on the individual's work capacity.