How will the five‑year PRW rule affect outcomes at hearing level versus initial determinations?
Executive summary
The Social Security Administration’s change shrinking Past Relevant Work (PRW) from 15 years to 5 years shifts the focal point of disability adjudication toward more recent employment and is likely to raise approval rates at both the initial and hearing levels by narrowing the universe of jobs counted as PRW [1] [2]. The rule is designed to speed processing and reduce appeals — a savings goal explicitly stated by SSA — but it also creates procedural frictions as cases advance because work that qualified as PRW early in review can drop out of consideration later, altering outcomes between initial determinations and hearings [1] [3].
1. Narrower PRW at intake: initial determinations tilt claimant‑friendly
By limiting PRW to jobs held within the five years before adjudication (or before the date last insured), initial disability determinations will consider fewer prior positions when applying Step 4 of the sequential evaluation, meaning fewer instances where an applicant is found capable of performing past work; the agency itself says the shorter window reduces the burden on applicants and aligns PRW with more current job skills [3] [4]. SSA links that change directly to faster processing and fewer re‑applications, and practitioners across multiple legal blogs and firm sites predict the rule will make it easier for claimants to clear Step 4 and win benefits at the DDS/field office stage [1] [5] [2].
2. Hearing‑level dynamics: transferability and shifting eligibility create new litigation points
The rule’s practical tension emerges when a case moves from DDS to the hearing level: because the PRW timeframe “will shift as a case moves through the administrative review process,” jobs treated as PRW at earlier stages may no longer qualify at later stages — a change SSA flagged as material for transferability analysis and older claimants’ outcomes under the medical‑vocational rules [1]. Administrative Law Judges will apply the five‑year standard at Step 4 and Step 5 (transferable skills), which can flip an earlier denial into a hearing‑level allowance if the only disqualifying PRW falls beyond five years, but it can also create new disputes over exactly when adjudication dates and the date‑last‑insured anchor the five‑year window [3] [2].
3. Transferable skills and age buckets: where outcomes diverge most
SSA notes that transferable skills materially affect outcomes for applicants age 50 and older, so narrowing PRW compresses the skill inventory ALJs consider and could reduce Step‑5 denials that relied on older work to find transferable skills; legal commentators anticipate higher approval rates especially for middle‑aged and older claimants whose relevant earlier work will be excluded under the five‑year rule [1] [5]. However, because Step 5 still assesses whether skills from PRW transfer to other jobs, counsel and vocational experts retain a pivotal role at hearings — litigators already advise requesting remands or updates when PRW changes affect pre‑existing denials [6].
4. Administrative policy goals and the unstated incentive structure
SSA frames the rule as evidence‑based and efficiency‑oriented — citing worker skill decay, reduced paperwork, and measurable time savings across initial claims, reconsiderations, and hearings — and expressly projects fewer hearings and reconsiderations over a decade [1] [7]. That claimed administrative savings is an explicit policy driver in the Federal Register notice, which raises the unavoidable alternative interpretation: the agency gains systemic throughput and lower appeal volumes alongside any claimant benefits, a dual incentive that bears watching as implementation metrics emerge [1].
5. What the sources do not yet show — empirical gaps and near‑term practice implications
The present reporting and rule text document process changes and expected administrative effects but do not supply empirical outcome statistics showing approval‑rate shifts at each level post‑implementation, so claims about precise magnitudes of hearing‑level reversals versus initial allowances remain projections by advocates and practitioners rather than measured results [1] [5] [2]. Practically, practitioners should expect more favorable initial determinations for many claimants, more focused Step‑4/5 disputes at hearings over dates and transferability, exclusion of very short jobs (<30 days) from PRW, and continued reliance on vocational testimony where skills and job definitions matter [3] [4] [6].