SSA Replaces “Mental Retardation” with “Intellectual Disability”

Effective September 3, 2013, SSA will replace the term “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” in the Listing of Impairments and other places in its regulations. 78 Fed. Reg. 46499 (Aug. 1, 2013). “This change reflects the widespread adoption of the term ‘intellectual disability’ by Congress, government agencies, and public and private organizations.” The preface to the final rule acknowledges that the term “mental retardation” has negative connotations and has become offensive to many people, “and often results in misunderstandings about the nature of the disorder and those who have it.” In October 2010, Congress passed “Rosa’s Law,” which changed the term in specified federal laws, but not Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. SSA is responding to the spirit of Rosa’s Law. This final rule was published only about 5 months after comments to the proposed rule were due. See 78 Fed. Reg. 5755 (Jan. 28, 2013). SSA provided a shorter than normal 30-day comment period for the proposed rule. NOSSCR signed on to comments submitted by the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities (CCD) that supported this change.

CCD’s support of the change, along with the support of other national organizations advocating on behalf of people with disabilities, is specifically mentioned in the preface to the final rule. As noted
in the CCD comments: This change in terminology is consistent with the widely expressed desire of people with intellectual disability for the use of modern, respectful language. Adoption of “intellectual
disability” will align SSA’s medical listings and other rules with terminology used by many federal agencies under Rosa’s Law (P.L. 111-256) and by national organizations representing professionals practicing in the field, such as the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD).

The preface makes a point of explaining that an individual with an “intellectual disability” does not mean the individual is “under a disability” for purposes of Titles II or XVI. One commenter suggested that the use of the word “disability” to specify an impairment “could generate
confusion among adjudicators, including possible misinterpretation and misapplication of other listings.” Another commenter was concerned that the use of the term “disability” in a listing could lead some people to assume that a person would be found “disabled” under SSA’s rules. SSA did not adopt these comments, noting that the change in terms “will not affect how we interpret or apply any other listings…The name of any disorder, whether mental or physical, in no way directs our findings
regarding disability.”

Source: Volume 35, Number 8 August, 2013

Let attorney Neil O'Toole or attorney John Sbarbaro
help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.
Call the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today!

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer 

Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Privacy Policy