# AR 86-5: AR 86-5(9): Leschniok v. Heckler , 713 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1983) Necessity of a Determination under Sections 225(b) and/or 1631(a)(6) of the Social Security Act for a Disability Benefits Recipient Engaged in an Approved Vocational Rehabilitation Program Prior to Cessation of His/Her Benefits Based on Medical Recovery -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_5

## Section

- **Citation:** AR 86-5
- **Heading:** AR 86-5(9): Leschniok v. Heckler , 713 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1983) Necessity of a Determination under Sections 225(b) and/or 1631(a)(6) of the Social Security Act for a Disability Benefits Recipient Engaged in an Approved Vocational Rehabilitation Program Prior to Cessation of His/Her Benefits Based on Medical Recovery -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Social Security Rulings / AR / Ninth Circuit Court / AR 86-5

## Text

AR 86-5(9)

EFFECTIVE DATE: 03/24/86

ISSUE:

Whether a disability benefits recipient, who was expected to recover and
despite evidence that his/her medical condition was no longer disabling,
is entitled to a determination under Sections 225(b) and/or 1631(a)(6) of
the Social Security Act prior to cessation of his/her benefits, when the
recipient is engaged in an approved vocational rehabilitation program.

STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:

Sections 225(b) and 1631(a)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
Sections 425(b) and 1383(a)(6)); 20 C.F.R. 404.316(c), 404.337(c),
404.352(c), 404.1586(f), 404.1596(c), 416.1321(d), 416.1338

CIRCUIT:

NINTH (ALASKA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, GUAM, HAWAII, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA,
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, OREGON, WASHINGTON)

Leschniok v. Heckler , 713 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1983)

APPLICABILITY OF RULING:

DESCRIPTION OF CASE:

William E. Leschniok, named plaintiff, has been receiving dis- ability
benefits and was enrolled in an approved vocational rehabilitation (VR)
program. He was found by the Secretary to have medically recovered and his
disability benefits were termi- nated without a determination under
section 225(b) of the Social Security Act, which provides that payment to
an individual of benefits based on disability shall not be terminated or
suspended because the impairment, on which the individual's eligibility
was based, has ceased, if the individual is participating in an approved
VR program and the Commissioner of Social Security determines that
continuation of the program will increase the likelihood that the person
may be permanently removed from the disability benefit rolls. Mr.
Leschniok filed an administrative appeal of his benefit termination and
following a hearing an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that he had
improved medi- cally. The ALJ did not apply section 225(b). The decision
of the ALJ was not administratively appealed. Mr
f the program will increase the likelihood that the person
may be permanently removed from the disability benefit rolls. Mr.
Leschniok filed an administrative appeal of his benefit termination and
following a hearing an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that he had
improved medi- cally. The ALJ did not apply section 225(b). The decision
of the ALJ was not administratively appealed. Mr. Leschniok, on behalf of
himself and a class of others similarly ceased without section 225(b)
determinations, filed an action in the district court requesting
declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining
the Secretary from terminating disability benefits to individuals
participating in vocational rehabilita- tion programs without first
determining whether section 225(b) required that disability benefits be
continued. The district court found jurisdiction and denied claimant's
motion for a preliminary injunction. Claimants appealed to the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed and remanded the case with
instructions to grant the injunctive relief.

HOLDING:

The circuit court held that the statutory language of section
225(b) [1] of the Social Security
Act expressly provides that disability benefit payments are to continue
for an individual in a VR program if the Commissioner of Social Security
determines that completion of the rehabilitation program will increase the
likelihood that the claimant may be permanently removed from the
disability benefit rolls. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court
abused its discretion in failing to issue a preliminary injunction.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW LESCHNIOK DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY
POLICY:
am if the Commissioner of Social Security
determines that completion of the rehabilitation program will increase the
likelihood that the claimant may be permanently removed from the
disability benefit rolls. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court
abused its discretion in failing to issue a preliminary injunction.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW LESCHNIOK DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY
POLICY:

In preparing the regulations to implement sections 225(b) and 1631(a)(6)
of the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration (SSA) was
guided by the intent of Congress as expressed in the legislative history
of Section 301 of the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
(contained in sections 225(b) and 1631(a)(6)). The conference committee
had stated that it was not the intent of the provision to continue
benefits to individuals permitted to enter approved VR programs even where
there was reasonable expectation of recovery before the termina- tion of
the program, but it was rather the intent of the provi- sion to consider
only those exceptional cases where the disabled beneficiary was not
expected at the beginning of the program to recover medically before the
end of the program but did. There- fore, according to SSA's regulations
implementing sections 225(b) and 1631(a)(6) of the Social Security Act,
only individuals, who at the beginning of their participation in VR
programs were not expected to recover medically before scheduled
completion dates, were entitled to section 301 determinations prior to
benefit termination when their impairments were no longer disabling. 20
C.F.R. 404.316(c), 404.337(c), 404.352(c), 404.1586(f), 404.1596(c),
416.1321(d), 416.1338.
Social Security Act,
only individuals, who at the beginning of their participation in VR
programs were not expected to recover medically before scheduled
completion dates, were entitled to section 301 determinations prior to
benefit termination when their impairments were no longer disabling. 20
C.F.R. 404.316(c), 404.337(c), 404.352(c), 404.1586(f), 404.1596(c),
416.1321(d), 416.1338.

According to the circuit court in Leschniok , the stat- utes
preclude the Secretary from terminating or suspending benefits upon
cessation of an individual's disability if the individual is participating
in an approved VR program and the Commissioner of Social Security
determines that the completion of such program will increase the
likelihood that such individual may be permanently removed from the
disability benefit rolls.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT:

This ruling applies only to cases involving the suspension or termination
of disability benefits to an individual whose dis- ability has ceased and
who was, at the time of the suspension or termination, or who is
participating in an approved VR program and who resides in Alaska,
Arizona, California, Guam, [2] Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon or
Washington at the time of the determination or decision at any level of
administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law
judge hearing or Appeals Council review.
suspension or termination, or who is
participating in an approved VR program and who resides in Alaska,
Arizona, California, Guam, [2] Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon or
Washington at the time of the determination or decision at any level of
administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law
judge hearing or Appeals Council review.

Disability benefits to such an individual cannot be terminated or
suspended if the individual is participating in an approved VR program and
the Commissioner of Social Security determines that specified continuation
or completion of such program will in- crease the likelihood that such
individual may be permanently removed from the disability benefit rolls.
Such a "likelihood determination" must be made for the above described
individual regardless of whether at the time he/she began the VR program
his/her medical recovery was expected prior to the completion date.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

Date of Publication

[1] Since Mr. Leschniok's claim,
as well as the claims of other class members, was for Title II disability
benefits, the court dis- cussed only section 225(b), not 1631(a)(6).
However, since the provisions are the same, the court's ruling would apply
to Title XVI cases, as well as Title II cases.

[2] Since there is no SSI
program in Guam, this Ruling will apply only to Social Security disability
claims there.

## Nearby sections

- [AR 04-1(9) AR 04-1(9): Howard on behalf of Wolff v. Barnhart , 341 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) — Applicability of the Statutory Requirement for Pediatrician Review in Childhood Disability Cases to the Hearings and Appeals Levels of the Administrative Review Process — Title XVI of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_04_1_9.md)
- [AR 05-1(9) AR 05-1(9): Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_05_1_9.md)
- [AR 86-1(9) AR 86-1(9): Summy v. Schweiker , 688 F.2d 1233 (9th Cir. 1982) Third party payments for medical care or services -- Title XVI of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_1_9.md)
- [AR 86-5 AR 86-5(9): Leschniok v. Heckler , 713 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1983) Necessity of a Determination under Sections 225(b) and/or 1631(a)(6) of the Social Security Act for a Disability Benefits Recipient Engaged in an Approved Vocational Rehabilitation Program Prior to Cessation of His/Her Benefits Based on Medical Recovery -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_5.md)
- [AR 86-9(9) AR 86-9(9): Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare v. Meza , 368 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1966); Gardner v. Wilcox , 370 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1966) -- Interpretation of the Secretary's Regulation Regarding Presumption of Death -- Title II of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_9_9.md)
- [AR 86-12(9) AR 86-12(9): Hutcheson v. Califano , 638 F.2d 96 (9th Cir. 1981) -- Determination of Stepchild and Resulting Entitlement to Auxiliary Benefits -- Title II of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_12_9.md)
- [AR 86-17(9) AR 86-17(9): Owens v. Schweiker , 692 F.2d 80 (9th Cir. 1982) Child's Benefits -- Title II of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_17_9.md)
- [AR 86-23(9) AR 86-23(9): Doran v. Schweiker , 681 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1982) 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_23_9.md)
- [AR 86-25(9) AR 86-25(9): Fagner v. Heckler , 779 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1985) -- Applicability of Section 1127 of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_25_9.md)
- [AR 87-3(9) AR 87-3(9): Hart v. Bowen , 799 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1986) Current Market Value of an Installment Sales Contract as an Excess Resource](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_87_3_9.md)
- [AR 90-1(9) AR 90-1(9): Paxton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services , 856 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1988) -- Treatment Of A Dependent's Portion Of An Augmented Veterans Benefit Paid Directly To A Veteran -- Title XVI of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_90_1_9.md)
- [AR 92-5(9) AR 92-5(9): Quinlivan v. Sullivan , 916 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1990) -- Meaning of the Term "Against Equity and Good Conscience" in the Rules for Waiver of Recovery of an Overpayment -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act; Title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. [1]](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_92_5_9.md)
- [AR 92-7(9) AR 92-7(9): Gonzalez v. Sullivan , 914 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1990) -- Effect of Initial Determination Notice Language on the Application of Administrative Finality -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_92_7_9.md)
- [AR 95-2(9) AR 95-2(9): AR 95-2 (9): Hodge v. Shalala , 27 F.3d 430 (9th Cir. 1994) -- Workers' Compensation -- Proration of a Lump-Sum Award for Permanent Disability Over the Remainder of an Individual's Working Life Under Oregon Workers' Compensation Law -- Title II of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_95_2_9.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_86_5. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.