# AR 15-1(4): AR 15-1(4): Rescinded

> Federal · Rulings · Rescinded

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_15_1_4

## Section

- **Citation:** AR 15-1(4)
- **Heading:** AR 15-1(4): Rescinded
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** Rescinded
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Social Security Rulings / AR / Fourth Circuit Court / AR 15-1(4)

## Text

Effective Date: September 23, 2015 Publication Date: September 23, 2015 Federal
Register Vol. 80, No. 184, page 57418 Rescinded Effective 4/2/2021 by Federal Register Vol 85, No. 236,
page 79063 ACQUIESCENCE RULING 15-1(4) Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013):
Standard for Meeting Section 1.04A of the Listing of Impairments —
Disorders of the Spine with Evidence of Nerve Root Compression —
Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. ISSUE: Must all of the medical criteria in section 1.04A of the
Listing of Impairments be simultaneously present on examination
and continue, or be expected to continue, to be simultaneously
present for at least 12 months for a disorder of the spine to
meet the listing? STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING
CITATION: Sections 205(b) , 223(d)(1)(A) ; 223(d)(2)(A) ; 223(d)(5)(A) ; 1614(a)(3)(A) ; 1614(a)(3)(B) ; 1614(a)(3)(H)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 423(d)(2)(A);
423(d)(5)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(B); 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i)); 20 CFR 404.1509 , 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) , 404.1520(d) , 404.1525 , 416.909 , 416.920(a)(4)(iii) , 416.920(d) ; 416.925 ; 20 CFR Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 1.04A . CIRCUIT: Fourth (Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia). APPLICABILITY OF RULING: This ruling applies to determinations or decisions made in the Fourth
Circuit at all levels of administrative review. DESCRIPTION OF CASE: Jimmy
Radford injured his back at work in
December 2002 and underwent decompression and fusion surgery in
August 2007. The administrative record included reports of
examinations by various physicians and other medical sources.
These reports over a five-year period showed the presence of all
the medical criteria listed in listing 1.04A
( 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 1.04A ),
but did not show them
simultaneously for a 12-month period. Mr. Radford applied for
disability insurance benefits in June 2007. After a hearing, an
administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Mr
s physicians and other medical sources.
These reports over a five-year period showed the presence of all
the medical criteria listed in listing 1.04A
( 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 1.04A ),
but did not show them
simultaneously for a 12-month period. Mr. Radford applied for
disability insurance benefits in June 2007. After a hearing, an
administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Radford's
impairments did not meet or medically equal any listed
impairment, including listing 1.04. The ALJ noted that the
State agency physicians who evaluated Mr. Radford's claim
initially and on reconsideration had also concluded that Mr.
Radford's impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of
a listing. The ALJ found that Mr. Radford was not disabled at
the fifth step of our sequential evaluation process at any time
from his alleged onset date in December 2002 through his date
last insured of December 31, 2007. Mr. Radford sought judicial review in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district
court found that listing 1.04A required only that his spinal
stenosis be “characterized by” certain clinical signs and
symptoms and held that the listing did not require that all of
the clinical signs or symptoms be documented as present
simultaneously. The district court found that Mr. Radford had
shown evidence of each of the required criteria and that the ALJ
did not correctly apply the regulations. The district court
further held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Mr.
Radford's impairment met listing 1.04A and ordered an award of
benefits. The Commissioner appealed the district court's decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The
court of appeals held that the district court did not err in
interpreting listing 1.04A, but it vacated the district court's
judgment because the decision to direct an award of benefits was
an abuse of discretion
airment met listing 1.04A and ordered an award of
benefits. The Commissioner appealed the district court's decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The
court of appeals held that the district court did not err in
interpreting listing 1.04A, but it vacated the district court's
judgment because the decision to direct an award of benefits was
an abuse of discretion. The court found that the text of
listing 1.04A required evidence of nerve root compression
“characterized by” the listed medical criteria and that the use
of the word “and” to connect them meant that they all must be
present in the claimant. The court stated that the text of the
regulation did not specify when the medical criteria must be
present and did not say that they must be present at the same
time or that they must be present within a certain proximity of
one another. Thus, the court held that the regulatory structure
did not require the simultaneous presence of all of the listed
criteria over a 12-month period. Rather, the listing required a
“more free-form, contextual inquiry that makes 12 months the
relevant metric for assessment of the claimant's duration of
disability.” 734 F.3d at 293. Accordingly, the court of
appeals held that “Listing 1.04A requires a claimant to show
only … that each of the symptoms are present, and that the
claimant has suffered or can be expected to suffer from nerve
root compression continuously for at least 12 months.” Id. at
294. The court further held that a “claimant need not show that
each symptom was present at precisely the same time— i.e. ,
simultaneously—in order to establish the chronic nature of his
condition. Nor need a claimant show that the symptoms were
present in the claimant in particularly close proximity.” Id
cted to suffer from nerve
root compression continuously for at least 12 months.” Id. at
294. The court further held that a “claimant need not show that
each symptom was present at precisely the same time— i.e. ,
simultaneously—in order to establish the chronic nature of his
condition. Nor need a claimant show that the symptoms were
present in the claimant in particularly close proximity.” Id. Although the court of appeals held that the Commissioner's
interpretation of listing 1.04A was not correct, the court
nevertheless vacated the district court's judgment because the
court should have remanded the case with instructions for the
ALJ to clarify why Mr. Radford's impairment did not satisfy
listing 1.04A. STATEMENT AS TO HOW RADFORD DIFFERS FROM THE AGENCY'S
POLICY: At step three of the sequential evaluation process,
we will find
a claimant disabled if the claimant has an impairment that meets
or equals one of the listed impairments and meets the duration
requirement. 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) , 404.1525(c)(3) , 416.920(a)(4)(iii) , 416.925(c)(3) .
Thus, in considering whether an impairment meets or equals a listed
impairment, we consider both the severity of the impairment, in light
of the set of medical criteria in the listing, and the duration requirement.
Claimants found disabled under the listings at step three of the
sequential evaluation process have impairments that we consider
severe enough to prevent any gainful activity, regardless of the
claimant's age, education, or work experience. Our policy is
that listing 1.04A specifies a level of severity that is only
met when all of the medical criteria listed in paragraph A are
simultaneously present: (1) Neuro-anatomic distribution of pain,
three of the
sequential evaluation process have impairments that we consider
severe enough to prevent any gainful activity, regardless of the
claimant's age, education, or work experience. Our policy is
that listing 1.04A specifies a level of severity that is only
met when all of the medical criteria listed in paragraph A are
simultaneously present: (1) Neuro-anatomic distribution of pain,
(2) limitation of motion of the spine, (3) motor loss (atrophy
with associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied
by sensory or reflex loss, and, (4) if there is involvement of
the lower back, positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and
supine). Listing 1.04A uses the conjunction “and” when
enumerating the medical criteria in order to establish that the
entire set of criteria must be present at the same time on
examination. When this set of criteria is present on
examination, the individual has the clinical presentation we
expect from a person who suffers from nerve root compression
that is so severe that it would preclude any gainful activity. 20 CFR 404.1525(a) , 416.925(a) . On the other hand, when the listing criteria are scattered over
time, wax and wane, or are present on one examination but absent
on another, the individual's nerve root compression would not
rise to the level of severity required by listing 1.04A. An
individual who shows only some of the criteria on examination
presents a different, less severe clinical picture than someone
with the full set of criteria present simultaneously. To meet
the severity required by the listing, our policy requires the
simultaneous presence of all of the medical criteria in listing
1.04A. In addition to meeting the severity requirement, in order to
meet the duration requirement, the simultaneous presence of all
of the medical criteria in paragraph A must continue, or be
expected to continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 CFR 404.1525(c)(4) , 416.925(c)(4)
isting, our policy requires the
simultaneous presence of all of the medical criteria in listing
1.04A. In addition to meeting the severity requirement, in order to
meet the duration requirement, the simultaneous presence of all
of the medical criteria in paragraph A must continue, or be
expected to continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 CFR 404.1525(c)(4) , 416.925(c)(4) .
The “duration” requirement follows from two provisions in the
Social Security Act. First, sections 223(d)(1)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act define “disability” as an inability “to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected
to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
Second, sections 223(d)(2)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(B) of the Act state that “[a]n individual shall be determined to be
under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or
impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to
do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education,
and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial
gainful work which exists in the national economy....” Thus, an
impairment that lasts or is expected to last 12 months is not
sufficient to establish disability. The impairment must also be
severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in
substantial gainful work. As the Supreme Court of the United
States explained in Barnhart v. Walton , 535 U.S. 212, 218
ny other kind of substantial
gainful work which exists in the national economy....” Thus, an
impairment that lasts or is expected to last 12 months is not
sufficient to establish disability. The impairment must also be
severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in
substantial gainful work. As the Supreme Court of the United
States explained in Barnhart v. Walton , 535 U.S. 212, 218
(2002): “In other words, the statute, in the two provisions,
specifies that the ‘impairment’ must last 12 months and also be
severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in any
‘substantial gainful work.’” Accordingly, our policy requires that for a disorder of the
spine to meet listing 1.04A at step three in the sequential
evaluation process, the claimant must establish the simultaneous
presence of all the medical criteria in paragraph A. Once this
level of severity is established, the claimant must also show
that this level of severity continued, or is expected to
continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
The court of appeals' decision differs from our policy because
it held that listing 1.04A required a claimant to show only
“that each of the symptoms are present, and that the claimant
has suffered or can be expected to suffer from nerve root
compression continuously for at least 12 months.” 734 F.3d at
294. Contrary to our policy that the requisite level of
severity requires the simultaneous presence of all the medical
criteria in paragraph A, the court of appeals held that a
claimant need not show that each criterion was present
simultaneously or in particularly close proximity. Accordingly,
this holding is inconsistent with our interpretation of listing
1.04A and of the severity and durational requirements at step
three of the sequential evaluation process
res the simultaneous presence of all the medical
criteria in paragraph A, the court of appeals held that a
claimant need not show that each criterion was present
simultaneously or in particularly close proximity. Accordingly,
this holding is inconsistent with our interpretation of listing
1.04A and of the severity and durational requirements at step
three of the sequential evaluation process. EXPLANATION OF HOW WE WILL APPLY RADFORD WITHIN THE
CIRCUIT: This Ruling applies only to claims in which the
claimant resides
in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, or West
Virginia at the time of the determination or decision at any
level of administrative review. In these States, in deciding whether a claimant's severe
medically determinable disorder of the spine meets listing
1.04A, adjudicators will not require that all of the medical
criteria in paragraph A appear simultaneously or in particularly
close proximity. Rather, adjudicators will engage in what the
court of appeals described as “a more free-form, contextual
inquiry that makes 12 months the relevant metric for the
assessment of the claimant's duration of disability.”
Adjudicators will decide whether the evidence shows that all of
the medical criteria in paragraph A are present within a
continuous 12-month period (or, if there is less than 12 months
of evidence in the record, that all the medical criteria are
present and are expected to continue to be present). If all of
the medical criteria are not present within a continuous 12-month
period, adjudicators will determine that the disorder of
the spine did not meet the listing. If all of the medical criteria in paragraph A are
present within a continuous 12-month period (or are expected to be
present), adjudicators will then determine whether the evidence
shows—as a whole—that the claimant's disorder of the
spine caused, or is expected to cause, nerve root compression continuously
for at least 12 months
rmine that the disorder of
the spine did not meet the listing. If all of the medical criteria in paragraph A are
present within a continuous 12-month period (or are expected to be
present), adjudicators will then determine whether the evidence
shows—as a whole—that the claimant's disorder of the
spine caused, or is expected to cause, nerve root compression continuously
for at least 12 months. In considering the severity of the nerve root
compression, the medical criteria in paragraph A need not all be
present simultaneously, nor in particularly close proximity.
The nerve root compression must be severe enough, however, that
the adjudicator can fairly conclude that it is still
characterized by all of the medical criteria in paragraph A. Back to Table of Contents

Effective Date: September 23, 2015 Publication Date: September 23, 2015 Federal
Register Vol. 80, No. 184, page 57418 Rescinded Effective 4/2/2021 by Federal Register Vol 85, No. 236,
page 79063

ACQUIESCENCE RULING 15-1(4)

ISSUE: Must all of the medical criteria in section 1.04A of the
Listing of Impairments be simultaneously present on examination
and continue, or be expected to continue, to be simultaneously
present for at least 12 months for a disorder of the spine to
meet the listing?

STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING
CITATION: Sections 205(b) , 223(d)(1)(A) ; 223(d)(2)(A) ; 223(d)(5)(A) ; 1614(a)(3)(A) ; 1614(a)(3)(B) ; 1614(a)(3)(H)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 423(d)(2)(A);
423(d)(5)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(B); 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i)); 20 CFR 404.1509 , 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) , 404.1520(d) , 404.1525 , 416.909 , 416.920(a)(4)(iii) , 416.920(d) ; 416.925 ; 20 CFR Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 1.04A .

CIRCUIT: Fourth (Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia).

APPLICABILITY OF RULING: This ruling applies to determinations or decisions made in the Fourth
Circuit at all levels of administrative review.
CFR 404.1509 , 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) , 404.1520(d) , 404.1525 , 416.909 , 416.920(a)(4)(iii) , 416.920(d) ; 416.925 ; 20 CFR Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 1.04A .

CIRCUIT: Fourth (Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia).

APPLICABILITY OF RULING: This ruling applies to determinations or decisions made in the Fourth
Circuit at all levels of administrative review.

DESCRIPTION OF CASE: Jimmy
Radford injured his back at work in
December 2002 and underwent decompression and fusion surgery in
August 2007. The administrative record included reports of
examinations by various physicians and other medical sources.
These reports over a five-year period showed the presence of all
the medical criteria listed in listing 1.04A
( 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 1.04A ),
but did not show them
simultaneously for a 12-month period. Mr. Radford applied for
disability insurance benefits in June 2007. After a hearing, an
administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Radford's
impairments did not meet or medically equal any listed
impairment, including listing 1.04. The ALJ noted that the
State agency physicians who evaluated Mr. Radford's claim
initially and on reconsideration had also concluded that Mr.
Radford's impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of
a listing. The ALJ found that Mr. Radford was not disabled at
the fifth step of our sequential evaluation process at any time
from his alleged onset date in December 2002 through his date
last insured of December 31, 2007.
y physicians who evaluated Mr. Radford's claim
initially and on reconsideration had also concluded that Mr.
Radford's impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of
a listing. The ALJ found that Mr. Radford was not disabled at
the fifth step of our sequential evaluation process at any time
from his alleged onset date in December 2002 through his date
last insured of December 31, 2007.

Mr. Radford sought judicial review in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district
court found that listing 1.04A required only that his spinal
stenosis be “characterized by” certain clinical signs and
symptoms and held that the listing did not require that all of
the clinical signs or symptoms be documented as present
simultaneously. The district court found that Mr. Radford had
shown evidence of each of the required criteria and that the ALJ
did not correctly apply the regulations. The district court
further held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Mr.
Radford's impairment met listing 1.04A and ordered an award of
benefits.

The Commissioner appealed the district court's decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The
court of appeals held that the district court did not err in
interpreting listing 1.04A, but it vacated the district court's
judgment because the decision to direct an award of benefits was
an abuse of discretion. The court found that the text of
listing 1.04A required evidence of nerve root compression
“characterized by” the listed medical criteria and that the use
of the word “and” to connect them meant that they all must be
present in the claimant. The court stated that the text of the
regulation did not specify when the medical criteria must be
present and did not say that they must be present at the same
time or that they must be present within a certain proximity of
one another
ssion
“characterized by” the listed medical criteria and that the use
of the word “and” to connect them meant that they all must be
present in the claimant. The court stated that the text of the
regulation did not specify when the medical criteria must be
present and did not say that they must be present at the same
time or that they must be present within a certain proximity of
one another. Thus, the court held that the regulatory structure
did not require the simultaneous presence of all of the listed
criteria over a 12-month period. Rather, the listing required a
“more free-form, contextual inquiry that makes 12 months the
relevant metric for assessment of the claimant's duration of
disability.” 734 F.3d at 293. Accordingly, the court of
appeals held that “Listing 1.04A requires a claimant to show
only … that each of the symptoms are present, and that the
claimant has suffered or can be expected to suffer from nerve
root compression continuously for at least 12 months.” Id. at
294. The court further held that a “claimant need not show that
each symptom was present at precisely the same time— i.e. ,
simultaneously—in order to establish the chronic nature of his
condition. Nor need a claimant show that the symptoms were
present in the claimant in particularly close proximity.” Id. Although the court of appeals held that the Commissioner's
interpretation of listing 1.04A was not correct, the court
nevertheless vacated the district court's judgment because the
court should have remanded the case with instructions for the
ALJ to clarify why Mr. Radford's impairment did not satisfy
listing 1.04A.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW RADFORD DIFFERS FROM THE AGENCY'S
POLICY:
oximity.” Id. Although the court of appeals held that the Commissioner's
interpretation of listing 1.04A was not correct, the court
nevertheless vacated the district court's judgment because the
court should have remanded the case with instructions for the
ALJ to clarify why Mr. Radford's impairment did not satisfy
listing 1.04A.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW RADFORD DIFFERS FROM THE AGENCY'S
POLICY:

At step three of the sequential evaluation process,
we will find
a claimant disabled if the claimant has an impairment that meets
or equals one of the listed impairments and meets the duration
requirement. 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) , 404.1525(c)(3) , 416.920(a)(4)(iii) , 416.925(c)(3) .
Thus, in considering whether an impairment meets or equals a listed
impairment, we consider both the severity of the impairment, in light
of the set of medical criteria in the listing, and the duration requirement.
Claimants found disabled under the listings at step three of the
sequential evaluation process have impairments that we consider
severe enough to prevent any gainful activity, regardless of the
claimant's age, education, or work experience. Our policy is
that listing 1.04A specifies a level of severity that is only
met when all of the medical criteria listed in paragraph A are
simultaneously present: (1) Neuro-anatomic distribution of pain,
(2) limitation of motion of the spine, (3) motor loss (atrophy
with associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied
by sensory or reflex loss, and, (4) if there is involvement of
the lower back, positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and
supine). Listing 1.04A uses the conjunction “and” when
enumerating the medical criteria in order to establish that the
entire set of criteria must be present at the same time on
examination. When this set of criteria is present on
examination, the individual has the clinical presentation we
expect from a person who suffers from nerve root compression
that is so severe that it would preclude any gainful activity
4A uses the conjunction “and” when
enumerating the medical criteria in order to establish that the
entire set of criteria must be present at the same time on
examination. When this set of criteria is present on
examination, the individual has the clinical presentation we
expect from a person who suffers from nerve root compression
that is so severe that it would preclude any gainful activity. 20 CFR 404.1525(a) , 416.925(a) .

On the other hand, when the listing criteria are scattered over
time, wax and wane, or are present on one examination but absent
on another, the individual's nerve root compression would not
rise to the level of severity required by listing 1.04A. An
individual who shows only some of the criteria on examination
presents a different, less severe clinical picture than someone
with the full set of criteria present simultaneously. To meet
the severity required by the listing, our policy requires the
simultaneous presence of all of the medical criteria in listing
1.04A.

In addition to meeting the severity requirement, in order to
meet the duration requirement, the simultaneous presence of all
of the medical criteria in paragraph A must continue, or be
expected to continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 CFR 404.1525(c)(4) , 416.925(c)(4) .
The “duration” requirement follows from two provisions in the
Social Security Act. First, sections 223(d)(1)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act define “disability” as an inability “to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected
to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
Second, sections 223(d)(2)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(B) of the Act state that “[a]n individual shall be determined to be
under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or
impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to
do his previous work but cannot, considering hi
n death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
Second, sections 223(d)(2)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(B) of the Act state that “[a]n individual shall be determined to be
under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or
impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to
do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education,
and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial
gainful work which exists in the national economy....” Thus, an
impairment that lasts or is expected to last 12 months is not
sufficient to establish disability. The impairment must also be
severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in
substantial gainful work. As the Supreme Court of the United
States explained in Barnhart v. Walton , 535 U.S. 212, 218
(2002): “In other words, the statute, in the two provisions,
specifies that the ‘impairment’ must last 12 months and also be
severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in any
‘substantial gainful work.’”

Accordingly, our policy requires that for a disorder of the
spine to meet listing 1.04A at step three in the sequential
evaluation process, the claimant must establish the simultaneous
presence of all the medical criteria in paragraph A. Once this
level of severity is established, the claimant must also show
that this level of severity continued, or is expected to
continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
The court of appeals' decision differs from our policy because
it held that listing 1.04A required a claimant to show only
“that each of the symptoms are present, and that the claimant
has suffered or can be expected to suffer from nerve root
compression continuously for at least 12 months.” 734 F.3d at
294
continued, or is expected to
continue, for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
The court of appeals' decision differs from our policy because
it held that listing 1.04A required a claimant to show only
“that each of the symptoms are present, and that the claimant
has suffered or can be expected to suffer from nerve root
compression continuously for at least 12 months.” 734 F.3d at
294. Contrary to our policy that the requisite level of
severity requires the simultaneous presence of all the medical
criteria in paragraph A, the court of appeals held that a
claimant need not show that each criterion was present
simultaneously or in particularly close proximity. Accordingly,
this holding is inconsistent with our interpretation of listing
1.04A and of the severity and durational requirements at step
three of the sequential evaluation process.

EXPLANATION OF HOW WE WILL APPLY RADFORD WITHIN THE
CIRCUIT:

This Ruling applies only to claims in which the
claimant resides
in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, or West
Virginia at the time of the determination or decision at any
level of administrative review.

In these States, in deciding whether a claimant's severe
medically determinable disorder of the spine meets listing
1.04A, adjudicators will not require that all of the medical
criteria in paragraph A appear simultaneously or in particularly
close proximity. Rather, adjudicators will engage in what the
court of appeals described as “a more free-form, contextual
inquiry that makes 12 months the relevant metric for the
assessment of the claimant's duration of disability.”
Adjudicators will decide whether the evidence shows that all of
the medical criteria in paragraph A are present within a
continuous 12-month period (or, if there is less than 12 months
of evidence in the record, that all the medical criteria are
present and are expected to continue to be present)
makes 12 months the relevant metric for the
assessment of the claimant's duration of disability.”
Adjudicators will decide whether the evidence shows that all of
the medical criteria in paragraph A are present within a
continuous 12-month period (or, if there is less than 12 months
of evidence in the record, that all the medical criteria are
present and are expected to continue to be present). If all of
the medical criteria are not present within a continuous 12-month
period, adjudicators will determine that the disorder of
the spine did not meet the listing.

If all of the medical criteria in paragraph A are
present within a continuous 12-month period (or are expected to be
present), adjudicators will then determine whether the evidence
shows—as a whole—that the claimant's disorder of the
spine caused, or is expected to cause, nerve root compression continuously
for at least 12 months. In considering the severity of the nerve root
compression, the medical criteria in paragraph A need not all be
present simultaneously, nor in particularly close proximity.
The nerve root compression must be severe enough, however, that
the adjudicator can fairly conclude that it is still
characterized by all of the medical criteria in paragraph A.

## Nearby sections

- [AR 00-1(4) AR 00-1(4): Albright v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration , 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999) (Interpreting Lively v. Secretary of Health and Human Services )—Effect of Prior Disability Findings on Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_00_1_4.md)
- [AR 15-1(4) AR 15-1(4): Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_15_1_4.md)
- [AR 86-14 AR 86-14(4): Jones v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare , 629 F.2d 334 (4th Cir. 1980) -- Child's Benefits -- Contributions for Support -- Title II of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_14.md)
- [AR 86-22 AR 86-22(4): Parsons v. Health and Human Services , 762 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1985) -- Contributions to Support re: Posthumous Illegitimate Child -- Title II of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_22.md)
- [AR 90-3(3) AR 90-3(3): Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_90_3_3.md)
- [AR 90-4(4) AR 90-4(4): Culbertson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services , 859 F.2d 319 (4th Cir. 1988); Young v. Bowen , 858 F.2d 951 (4th Cir. 1988) -- Waiver of Administrative Finality in Proceedings Involving Unrepresented Claimants Who Lack the Mental Competence to Request Administrative Review -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_90_4_4.md)
- [AR 93-1(4) AR 93-1(4): Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_93_1_4.md)
- [AR 94-2(4) AR 94-2(4): Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_94_2_4.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_15_1_4. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.