Social Security has issued a ruling regarding evidence needed for a finding of medical equivalence to a listing. This ruling rescinds and replaces Social Security Ruling 96-6p.
An impairment is considered medically equivalent to a listed impairment if it is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of a listed impairment. Social Security can find medical equivalence in three ways: 1) the individual does not exhibit one or more of the findings required by a listing or one or more of the findings is not as severe as required by a listing, but there are other findings related to the impairment that are at least of equal medical significance to the required criteria; 2) the individual has an impairment not described in a listing but has findings related to the impairment that are at least of equal medical equivalence to an analogous listing or 3) the individual has a combination of impairments no one of which meets a listing but has findings related to the impairment that are at least of equal medical equivalence to an analogous listing
To demonstrate an individual is disabled based on medical equivalence, the record must contain either 1) a prior administrative finding from a medical consultant or psychological consultant; 2) medical expert evidence at the hearing level or 3) a report from the Appeals Counsel medical support staff. It seems that evidence from the claimant’s provider cannot support a finding of medical equivalence.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) is not required to obtain medical expert evidence if the ALJ believes that the evidence does not reasonably support a finding of medical equivalence. ALJs are not required to articulate specific evidence to support a finding that an impairment does not equal a listing. A statement that the impairment does not equal a listing is sufficient. SSR 17-2p (March 27, 2017).