We evaluated policies and procedures that the Social
Security Administration (SSA) uses for suspending and terminating
benefits to title II disability beneficiaries whom SSA cannot locate.
Except for actions involving Continuing Disability Reviews (CDR),
SSA`s practice is to maintain the entitlement of unlocated beneficiaries
by suspending, rather than terminating, benefits. This practice is
inconsistent with section 223(f) of the Social Security Act (the
Act) and SSA’s implementing regulations regarding unlocated
title II disability beneficiaries. The relevant regulation at 20
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 404.1594(e)(3) states:
If there is a question about whether you continue
to be disabled and we are unable to find you to resolve the question,
we will determine that your disability has ended.
When SSA terminates benefits, the beneficiary’s
entitlement to title II benefits ends. When SSA suspends benefits,
however, the beneficiary’s entitlement to title II benefits
continues.
During our review, we identified beneficiaries who
incorrectly remained entitled to title II benefits because SSA suspended,
rather than terminated, benefits when it could not locate the beneficiaries.
Although SSA was not paying benefits to these unlocated beneficiaries,
the value of the unpaid benefits continued to accrue pending resolution
of the suspension issue. SSA would be obligated to pay these unpaid
benefits if the beneficiaries or their representatives provided new
addresses. However, if SSA had terminated the benefits as the relevant
regulation requires, it would not be obligated to pay these benefits.
In addition, SSA’s actions unnecessarily overstate SSA’s
accrued benefit liability and program expenses in the Agency`s
financial statements.
Based on a statistical sample of unlocated title II
disability beneficiaries in suspended pay status, we identified an
estimated $79.5 million in unpaid benefits as of September 30, 1995.
We also identified $1.4 million in benefits SSA paid to related individuals
(i.e., the spouse and children of the unlocated beneficiary) because
the beneficiary incorrectly remained entitled to benefits. Therefore,
we are recommending that SSA place an individual in terminated status
after SSA has made reasonable attempts to locate the beneficiary
and has provided the beneficiary with all appropriate due process
rights.
The Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act
of 1984 (Disability Reform Act), codified at section 223(f) of the
Act, establishes the basis for SSA to terminate disability benefits
for beneficiaries SSA cannot locate. The accompanying congressional
conference report states that benefits should be terminated either
as a result of medical improvement or other exceptions. The specific
exceptions which permit termination of title II benefits are set
out in the conference report and include, among other things, failure
to cooperate, failure to follow prescribed treatment, and cases where
an individual cannot be located. Relevant SSA regulations at 20 CFR 404.1594(e)(3)
reflect this legal requirement:
If there is a question about whether you continue
to be disabled and we are unable to find you to resolve the question,
we will determine that your disability has ended. The month your
disability ends will be the first month in which the question arose
and we could not find you.
Therefore, according to section 223(f) of the Act and
implementing regulations, SSA’s inability to locate a beneficiary
after several returned disability checks raises a question of continuing
disability. If SSA is still unable to locate a beneficiary after
reasonable attempts and due process has been provided, the Act requires
that entitlement should end (i.e., benefit termination). Suspension
of benefits should only be a means of stopping payments temporarily while
SSA maintains entitlement and attempts to locate missing beneficiaries.
SSA Procedures
When a beneficiary is scheduled for a CDR and cannot
be located, SSA sends a due process notice to the last known address
informing the beneficiary that it will terminate benefits unless
the beneficiary cooperates. If the beneficiary does not respond within
10 days, SSA terminates benefits.
In situations other than a CDR, SSA suspends, rather
than terminates, benefits if it cannot locate the beneficiary. If
an unlocated beneficiary in suspended pay status is subsequently
found, and meets the entitlement criteria, SSA will pay the benefits
accrued during suspension. Moreover, the suspension does not apply
to related individuals, (i.e., the spouse and children of the
beneficiary). If these individuals are entitled to benefits under
the beneficiary’s record, they will remain entitled and continue
to receive benefits as long as the beneficiary is entitled (i.e.,
while the beneficiary is in current or suspended pay status, but
not in terminated status).
During the period of suspension, SSA records the unpaid
amounts as a program expense in its accounting records. SSA also
accrues a liability for the suspended payments. Both the program
expense and liability are presented in SSA`s annual financial
statements.
Efforts Required to Locate Missing Beneficiaries
The field office (FO) is required to take reasonable
steps to find unlocated beneficiaries. First, the FO requests address
information from the postmaster. Second, it contacts family members
who receive benefits. When the FO contacts family members, it urges
the family members to cooperate fully and reminds them that their
benefits may be terminated if the FO cannot locate the beneficiary.
If the FO had previously received a busy signal when attempting to
telephone family members, it must attempt a telephone call at a different
time and different day. Finally, the FO attempts to contact other
sources based on leads in the beneficiary’s file. Other sources
may include representative payees, relatives, friends, landlord,
neighbors, merchants, employers, homeless shelters, financial institutions,
city or State welfare agencies, and any medical sources and institutions
to which the beneficiary has been admitted (Program Operations Manual
System, section DI E13015.001 C.1.b.).
This audit was performed in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. The objective was to evaluate
SSA’s polices and procedures for suspending and terminating
benefits to title II disability beneficiaries whom SSA cannot locate.
We also assessed SSA’s compliance with legal requirements and,
accordingly, obtained a legal opinion from the Inspector General
Division (IG Division) of SSA’s Office of the General Counsel
(OGC) in January 1996. The opinion is attached to this report as
Appendix A. We limited our review of internal controls to those necessary
to achieve the audit objective. We interviewed SSA personnel in the
Dallas regional office, Southeastern Program Service Center in Birmingham,
Alabama, and headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. We conducted field
work between August 1995 and January 1996.
We conducted a case folder review of a sample of unlocated
title II disability beneficiaries selected from a 10 percent sample
of the Master Beneficiary Record as of April 1995. The sample consisted
of 537 title II disability beneficiary records in suspended pay status
pending development of a correct address. We then selected a stratified
random sample of 195 of those records. For each sampled record, we
calculated the length of time that the benefits had been in suspended
pay status and the dollar amount of those suspended benefits, as
well as the amount of benefits paid to family members while the beneficiary
was in suspended pay status.
We determined that SSA has a statutory obligation to
terminate benefits for title II disability beneficiaries whom it
cannot locate. The IG Division`s interpretation of the pertinent
implementing regulation notes that returned checks and mailings raise
a question regarding an unlocated beneficiary`s continuing disability.
Thus, the fact that SSA cannot locate the beneficiary is grounds
for termination after SSA has made reasonable efforts to locate the
individual and has provided all appropriate due process rights.
Nearly $80 Million in Benefits are Payable to
Beneficiaries Whom SSA Cannot Locate
At the time of our audit, we found that 115 of the
195 sampled beneficiary records remained suspended--many of them
incorrectly. SSA should have terminated benefits for beneficiaries
that it had attempted to locate and provided all appropriate due
process rights. We found that the status of the 80 remaining sampled
beneficiary records had changed at the time of our audit. For these
sampled beneficiaries:
50 were in current pay status;
Ø 15 were in suspense status for reasons other
than SSA’s inability to locate them (e.g., need for
representative payee, prison-related problem);
Ø 14 were in terminated status--mostly due to death;
and
Ø 1 was in deferred pay status.
The results of our review are shown in Appendix B.
Length of Suspension
We found that the length of benefit suspension for the 115 beneficiaries
ranged from 1 month to 24 years. We noted that SSA made a determination
to terminate benefits for one of the cases in our sample, but the
benefits continued in suspense status at the time of our audit. For
35 of the unlocated beneficiaries (30 percent), the length of
suspension was more than 4 years.
Reasons for Suspension of Payments
Returned benefit checks and SSA mailings were the primary reasons
that SSA documented in case folders as to why it suspended benefits.
These reasons applied to 62 of the 115 cases (see Figure 2).
We were not able to determine why SSA suspended benefits for 51 cases
because of a lack of case folder documentation. SSA suspended the
remaining two cases due to: (1) a representative payee notification;
and (2) a death alert.
SSA Potentially Obligated for Suspended Benefits to Unlocated
Beneficiaries
SSA is potentially obligated for payments totaling $2.7 million
for sampled beneficiaries whose benefits should have been terminated.
This point bears repeating. Although SSA was not paying the benefits
to these unlocated beneficiaries, the value of the unpaid benefits
continued to accrue. SSA will pay, retroactively, the unpaid benefits
if the beneficiaries or their representatives provide new addresses.
Had SSA followed its own regulations and terminated the benefits,
it would not be obligated to pay these benefits. Another ultimate
effect of SSA’s actions is to overstate unnecessarily SSA’s
accrued benefit liability and program expenses in the Agency`s
financial statements. When projected to the 3,340 estimated unlocated
beneficiaries in suspended pay status, we estimated this liability
at $79.5 million as of September 30, 1995.
Our sample identified an estimated 250 records under which related
individuals continued to receive benefits because SSA incorrectly
suspended, rather than terminated, benefits. We projected that, from
the date of suspension until September 30, 1995, SSA improperly
paid $1.4 million in benefit payments to related individuals.
1. examine the entitlement status of all disability beneficiaries
who are in suspended pay status because they cannot be located;
and
2. terminate benefits in cases where: (a) a reasonable time
period lapses (e.g., 90 days from the date of suspension)
to locate the beneficiary; and (b) due process has been provided
(e.g., notification letter to last known address).
SSA COMMENTS
We appreciate the efforts of the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) in reviewing the Social Security Administration`s (SSA)
policies and procedures that apply to suspending and terminating
benefits to title II disability beneficiaries whom SSA cannot locate.
Resolving cases that are in suspense continues to be a major initiative
for the agency. Although we find we are unable to agree with the
report recommendation, we value OIG`s input in our efforts to
improve this process.
Recommendation
That SSA:
determine the entitlement status of all disability beneficiaries
who are in suspended pay status because they cannot be located;
and
terminate benefits after: (a) a reasonable time period lapses
(e.g., 90 days from the date of suspension) to locate the beneficiary;
and (b) due process is given (i.e., sending a notification letter
to last known address).
Comment
As stated in the report, the Social Security Disability Benefits
Reform Act of 1984, (codified at section 223(f) of the Social Security
Act), established the basis for SSA to terminate disability benefits
for beneficiaries SSA cannot locate when these cases are being reviewed
to determine if the impairments have ceased, no longer exist, or
are no longer disabling. The accompanying conference report provides
for terminating benefits without full medical development, either
as a result of medical improvement or other exceptions, such as failure
to cooperate, failure to follow prescribed treatment, and cases where
the beneficiary cannot be located.
With respect to cases where the beneficiary cannot be located, the
relevant SSA regulation at 20 CFR 404.1594(e)(3) states that, if
there is a question about whether the beneficiary continues to be
disabled and SSA is unable to find the individual, it will be determined
that the disability has ended. The OIG report cites this regulation,
along with an SSA Office of the General Counsel (OGC) staff attorney
opinion, to support its conclusion that suspended title II beneficiaries
for whom checks and mailings have been returned should be terminated
because such returns raise the question of continuing disability.
After further review of the pertinent regulation, OGC does not believe
that it provides the authority to terminate disability beneficiaries
outside of the continuing disability review (CDR) process. Instead,
OGC believes that the regulation clearly provides that as a threshold
matter there must be a question about whether the claimant continues
to be disabled before the inability to locate the claimant can result
in a termination (20 CFR 404.1594(e)(3)). This regulation was promulgated
to implement section 223(f) of the Act, which sets forth the criteria
for CDRs and, accordingly, should be applied in the context of a
CDR. Under OGC`s analysis, the intent of the law is that there
must first be a question of continuing disability resulting in the
case being selected for review, before termination can take place
because of inability to locate. A copy of OGC`s revised opinion
is attached (Appendix D).
We generally agree, as is stated in the earlier OGC opinion, that
when a case is already being reviewed because of some evidence regarding
continued disability, or because it was scheduled for a CDR, returned
mailings can be the basis for termination. We do not believe, however,
that outside the CDR process, returned checks or mailings, are, in
and of themselves, an indication of whether disability is continuing,
or that the inability to locate a beneficiary raises the question
of continuing disability. When there is no other evidence that raises
this question, returned mailings are more likely to be an indication
of a deterioration of medical condition requiring a change in care,
a family emergency, or a change in living arrangement for other reasons.
Therefore, we continue to believe that the appropriate action to
take in these kinds of cases is suspension of disability benefits.
While we are unable to implement the report`s recommendation,
we believe the information it provides offers helpful insight as
SSA continually seeks ways to resolve cases in suspense. As stated
in SSA`s recent response to an OIG report, "Follow-Up Report
on a Department of Health and Human Services` OIG Audit Entitled "Suspended
Payments Need to be Resolved Timely" (A-13-93-00421) the agency
has several initiatives, planned and underway, to ensure more timely
resolution of current and future suspensions. In addition, we will
explore the possibility of initiating CDRs for unlocated disability
beneficiaries whose benefits have been suspended for an extended
period, and we will ask our Office of Program and Integrity Reviews
to conduct a brief study of unlocated disability beneficiary records.
We believe that these efforts will greatly enhance our ability to
resolve more suspense cases.
Other Comments
The last sentence of the second paragraph on page 1, as well as
the section on page 5, "SSA Still Obligated for Suspended Benefits
to Unlocated Beneficiaries," conclude that SSA`s actions
in suspending, rather than terminating, these beneficiaries has the
effect of overstating SSA`s accrued benefit liability on the
financial statement and related benefit expense. This conclusion
is factually inaccurate and both references should be deleted.
As recognized in the report, beneficiaries in suspense continue
to have a right to unpaid benefits. The amount of these benefits
is a liability and it is SSA`s responsibility to show the amount
as an accrued liability on its financial statements. Under existing
policy, this amount cannot be characterized as an overstatement.
Whether the Agency is legally precluded from terminating a beneficiary’s
title II disability benefits when the Agency: (a) cannot locate the
beneficiary; and (b) the beneficiary is not scheduled for a CDR.
OIG Position
The Agency is not legally precluded from terminating title II benefits
in whereabouts unknown cases where the Agency has received several
returned disability checks. However, the Agency must ensure that
the beneficiary is provided with all relevant due process rights
prior to termination of benefits.
Background
In January 1996, our office received a legal opinion from the OGC,
Inspector General Division (IG Division Opinion) on the above-noted
issue. The legal opinion concluded that the plain meaning of section
223(f) of the Social Security Act (Act) and relevant regulations
did not preclude the Agency from terminating title II disability
benefits in cases of whereabouts unknown, if the Agency had received
several returned checks and due process rights were provided.
The IG Division Opinion also noted concurrence from the Policy and
Legislation Division of OGC, pursuant to the Interim Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Inspector General and the General
Counsel in effect at that time. The opinion was widely circulated
throughout the Agency and went unchallenged for nearly 15 months.
The Agency questioned the validity of the legal opinion only after
the Office of Audit issued its draft audit recommendations in March
1997. In April 1997, the General Counsel issued his own legal opinion
on this issue (General Counsel`s Opinion) (Appendix C). The General
Counsel issued a memorandum to the Inspector General on this issue
in June 1997 (Appendix D).
We have concluded that the IG Division Opinion, which had the concurrence
of OGC`s Policy and Legislation Division, in compliance with
the relevant MOU, provides the sounder legal analysis. Our reasoning
follows.
Legal Standard - IG Division Opinion
The Disability Reform Act, Public Law 98-460, establishes a
standard of review for Agency determinations of continuing entitlement
to disability benefits, and all other determinations that disability
benefits should be terminated. The conference report accompanying
the Disability Reform Act explains that, under the revised standard,
disability benefits should be terminated only for beneficiaries who
can perform substantial gainful activity due to medical improvement
in their medical conditions, and beneficiaries to whom certain exceptions
apply. The Disability Reform Act standard of review for termination
of disability benefits, and relevant exceptions language, is codified
at section 223(f) of the Act. Additionally, the Agency has promulgated
implementing regulations which further develop the exceptions to
the medical improvement standard (e.g., whereabouts unknown). See
20 C.F.R. § 404.1594 et. seq.
According to the IG Division Opinion, section 223(f) expressly excepts
the Agency from the mandatory entitlement determination requirement
(e.g., CDR) in cases of whereabouts unknown. The relevant exceptions
language in section 223(f) reads as follows:
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require a
determination that a [title II beneficiary based on disability]
... is entitled to such benefits ... if the individual
... cannot be located. (emphasis added).
In other words, the express statutory exceptions language prohibits
SSA from construing section 223(f) to require a disability entitlement "determination" or
CDR, in cases of whereabouts unknown. This makes enormous practical
sense, inasmuch as there is no reason to require a CDR, employing
a medical improvement standard, when the beneficiary
cannot even be located. Moreover, we find such an interpretation
to be consistent with the conference report language on exceptions
to the medical improvement standard. Thus, we feel that the answer
to the above-noted issue can be gleaned from the plain statutory
language of section 223(f).
The implementing regulations also recognize this express statutory
exception to the medical improvement or CDR requirement. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(e)(3).
The regulations specifically list whereabouts unknown as an exception
to the blanket rule requiring a CDR prior to terminating title II
disability benefits:
If there is a question about whether you continue to be disabled and
we are unable to find you to resolve the question, we will determine
that your disability has ended. The month your disability ends
will be the first month in which the question arose and we could
not find you. (emphasis added).
We feel that a series of returned, uncashed benefit checks certainly
raise "a question about whether . . . [a title II beneficiary]
continue[s] to be disabled" under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(e)(3).
The whereabouts unknown beneficiary may be deceased, working "off-the-books," or
otherwise not entitled. Further, we find that our interpretation
of the regulatory phrase "a question about whether you continue
to be disabled" harmonizes SSA’s implementing regulations
with the express statutory prohibition against conducting a CDR for
whereabouts unknown.
As noted in the IG Division Opinion, due process matters must be
resolved prior to termination. As a temporary stop-gap measure, benefits
should be suspended upon the discovery of the returned checks. During
this suspension period, SSA should contact the beneficiary’s
auxiliaries in an attempt to locate the beneficiary under 20 C.F.R § 404.1595.
Proper notice and appeal rights should be provided to all relevant
parties as specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1595, 404.1597. However,
if such efforts are unsuccessful, the Act requires that benefits
be terminated.
Disagreement with General Counsel’s Opinion
In numerous places, the General Counsel’s Opinion states that
the Agency must have some reason for selecting a case for a CDR before
returned mailings could provide a basis for termination of disability
benefits. In reaching this conclusion, the General Counsel sidesteps
the relevant statutory provision, and instead relies on SSA’s
implementing regulation. We find such heavy reliance on this regulation
to be misplaced. Additionally, we feel that the General Counsel’s
interpretation of the relevant regulatory provision puts the regulation
in direct conflict with section 223(f) of the Act.
The disputed clause can be found in SSA’s implementing regulation
for section 223(f). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(e)(3). Specifically,
it states that "[i]f there is a question about whether you
continue to be disabled and we are unable to find you to resolve
the question, we will determine that your disability has ended." (emphasis
added). As noted above, we read this clause to mean that a series
of returned checks would logically raise a question as to whether
a title II beneficiary is still disabled. We base our reading on
the IG Division Opinion. In contrast, the General Counsel’s
April 1997 Opinion interprets this clause as a "threshold requirement
that there be some question regarding a beneficiary’s continuing
disability before the inability to locate a beneficiary can result
in a termination." The General Counsel’s Opinion also states
that "[s]ome evidence, information, or scheduling regarding
a CDR must first exist that would cause the Agency to contact
the beneficiary for purposes of a CDR." (emphasis added).
We find the General Counsel’s regulatory interpretation to
be in direct conflict with the plain meaning of section 223(f) of
the Act. The section 223(f) exceptions language prohibits the Agency
from construing section 223(f) to require the application of the
medical improvement standard in certain instances (e.g., whereabouts
unknown). Indeed, the implementation of such a medical improvement
standard for whereabouts unknown leads to somewhat bizarre results.
First, the Agency would be required to perform a medical improvement
CDR, even when it cannot locate somebody to start such a CDR. Second,
such an interpretation would make the length of title II entitlement,
for an individual whom SSA cannot find, a function of when a computer
selects the person for a medical improvement determination (e.g.,
CDR). This makes length of entitlement for whereabouts unknown a
function of a computer’s randomization selection criteria for
CDRs.
In practical terms, the Agency’s adoption of this legal position
has resulted in whereabouts unknown cases, where length of entitlement
ranges from several months to 24 years, depending on CDR selection
date. Meanwhile, the auxiliaries of many title II beneficiaries maintain
their entitlement to benefits throughout the entire period. Such
auxiliaries would have received benefit checks throughout the entire
period, even though there would have been no way to determine whether
the entitled individual was still entitled to benefits (e.g., alive
or deceased). Such a rule could be perceived as unfair to the whereabouts
unknown individual with auxiliaries whose benefits are terminated
within a matter of months due to a CDR, and overly generous to the
whereabouts unknown individual whose auxiliaries maintain entitlement
status for many years because no CDR has been scheduled.
Thus, we find that the IG Division Opinion provides sounder legal
reasoning and more consistent results. The IG Division Opinion would
allow all title II whereabouts unknown cases to be handled in an
identical fashion. Specifically, SSA would make an attempt to locate
the beneficiary, contact any auxiliaries, provide due process, and
then terminate entitlement. Moreover, the Agency would not be paying
auxiliaries for many years, when the entitled wage earner may no
longer be alive.
Disagreement with Agency Response - Policy Issues
We strongly disagree with the Agency’s position that several
returned disability checks do not raise a question regarding continuing
disability. Specifically, the Agency states:
We do not believe, however, that outside the CDR process, returned
checks or mailings, are, in and of themselves, an indication of
whether disability is continuing, or that the inability to locate
a beneficiary raises the question of continuing disability. When
there is no other evidence that raises this question, returned
mailings are more likely to be an indication of a deterioration
of medical condition requiring a change in care, a family emergency,
or a change in living arrangement for other reasons.
After we received the Agency’s response, we reviewed our audit
working papers to definitively determine whether returned mailings
and/or unknown addresses, in and of themselves, ever directly correlate
with the death of a title II disability beneficiary. We examined
this parameter, because we thought it would provide a definitive
answer as to whether returned checks and/or address unknown ever
raise the "ultimate question" as to continuing disability
status--death. Moreover, we thought that all parties would agree
that leaving deceased individuals in entitlement status creates an
unnecessary liability, and opens the door to erroneous payments to
auxiliaries.
Our brief review uncovered 13 such cases in our sample alone. In
these 13 cases, deceased individuals were inappropriately placed
in suspense status due to returned mailings and/or unknown address.
We find this to be compelling evidence that returned mailings raise
a legitimate issue as to continuing entitlement to disability benefits.
Other Matters
SSA stated that it would explore initiating CDRs for all beneficiaries
who have been in suspense status for an extended period of time.
Even if SSA instituted such a CDR policy, it would not be responsive
to our audit findings. As noted at length above, unlocated title
II beneficiary cases should not be subject to the CDR process.
Finally, SSA feels that our statements related to overstatement
of accrued liability on the financial statements are factually inaccurate.
SSA is correct in stating that beneficiaries in suspense status continue
to have the right to unpaid benefits and, therefore, this information
should be included in the financial statements. However, we believe
that these beneficiaries are incorrectly in suspense status, thus
making it unnecessary to present this information in the financial
statements. We have revised the report to reflect this point.
- David C. Williams
1 H.R. Rep. No. 98-1039, 2d Sess. at 25 (1984).
2 Id. at 25-26. See also section 223(f) of the
Act.
3 The purpose of the MOU was to ensure that the Inspector
General was provided with independent and authoritative legal
advice. As such, the MOU created a mechanism for the Inspector
General to receive legal advice from a separate unit of OGC,
the IG Division, "provided in a manner consistent with
the statutory independence" of the Inspector General.
The MOU required that "where the OIG unit proposes to
issue a legal opinion to the OIG which interprets or analyzes
SSA program law, a draft of that opinion will be shared with
appropriate OGC staff prior to issuance for OGC concurrence.
The appropriate OGC staff shall review the draft and provide
concurrence or comments as promptly as possible." As the
IG Division component satisfied all of the relevant requirements
in the MOU, including securing concurrence from OGC program
attorneys, the legal opinion was a valid IG Division Opinion
at the time, and continues to function as such to this day.
In October 1996, staff attorneys in the IG Division were absorbed
into the Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General. This
new OIG unit provides legal advice solely to the Inspector
General.
4 H.R. Rep. No. 98-1039, 2d Sess. at 25 (1984).
5 Relevant SSA regulations clearly define
a CDR as a disability entitlement determination. For example,
20 C.F.R. § 404.1589 states the following:
[W]e must evaluate your impairment(s) from time to time to determine if
you are still eligible for disability cash benefits.
We call this evaluation a continuing disability review.
(emphasis added).
6 The Conference Report briefly touches on the
relevant exceptions, and it essentially paraphrases the statutory
language. H.R. Rep. No. 98-1039, 2d Sess. at 25 (1984).
7 See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises,
Inc., 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1031 (1989) (noting that "[t]he
plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in
the ... rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute
will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions
of its drafters") (citations omitted).
8 Our audit report noted that 30 percent
of the whereabouts unknown cases involved beneficiaries who remained
entitled for a period between 4 to 24 years.
www.socialsecurity.gov
