Ready to Register?

MyLawCLE All-Access Pass

Best choice

This program is available only with the All-Access Pass — subscribe to unlock it plus 1,000+ live CLE programs every year.


All specialty & ethics credits included
38 practice areas
New sections: AI & the Law, Practice Management
100s of current and trending legal topics
Nationally recognized and highly experienced presenters

$395 / year — this program included
Register with the All-Access Pass

This program + 1,000+ CLE programs, all year

Psychometric Testing: From Test Scores to Work-Related Limitations (Presented by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives)

An ALJ finds the neuropsychological report credible but cannot apply it. Learn to translate WAIS-5 scores into SSA’s mental-abilities vocabulary, apply Listing 12.05, avoid five common overclaims, and draft precise language for letters to examiners.

2026-09-09 14:00:00

Program Details

2026-09-09 14:00:00

2026-09-09 14:00:00

1h CLE Credits

2026-09-09 14:00:00

Program Details

2026-09-09 14:00:00

Program Details

2026-09-09 14:00:00

Over 1,000+ webinars

2026-09-09 14:00:00

Course Overview

Credible Isn't Enough: Test Scores Don't Speak SSA's Language

2026-09-09 14:00:00

Neuropsychological reports now arrive built on the WAIS-5, published in 2024. Its primary indexes and subtests — and the GAI–CPI split — do not translate themselves into the mental abilities SSA evaluates. That translation is a chain of inferences, and it is where reports fail.

Submit a credible report without that translation, and the ALJ cannot apply it. Cite an intelligence score for what intelligence testing does not measure — memory, executive function, sustained attention, adaptive functioning, premorbid baseline, validity — and the claim overreaches. Overclaim in one of five common ways, and credibility goes with it. Miss an element of Listing 12.05, and the listing argument collapses.

Attendees leave with a working map from WAIS-5 indexes and subtests to the mental abilities listed at POMS DI 25020.010B.3, the elements of Listing 12.05, the five overclaims to avoid, and specific language to include in a letter to an examiner.

Format

CLE Credit

1h CLE Credits

Level

Intermediate

Length

1

Key topics that will be covered

01
Score-to-Limitation Inferences
The chain of inferences that separates a WAIS-5 test score from a work-related limitation an ALJ can apply.
02
POMS Mental-Abilities Mapping
Mapping the WAIS-5 primary indexes and subtests to the mental abilities listed at POMS DI 25020.010B.3.
03
The GAI–CPI Split
What the GAI–CPI split means when translating index scores into the vocabulary SSA uses.
04
Beyond Intelligence Testing
What intelligence testing does not measure — memory, executive function, sustained attention, adaptive functioning, premorbid baseline, and validity — and which instruments do.
05
Listing 12.05 Elements
The elements of Listing 12.05 a representative must establish.
06
Overclaims and Examiner Letters
Five common ways representatives overclaim, and specific language to include in a letter to an examiner.

Program schedule

clock 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm EST

Psychometric Testing: From Test Scores to Work-Related Limitations

This session addresses a recurring problem in disability practice: a neuropsychological report an ALJ finds credible but cannot apply, because nothing in it translates test scores into the vocabulary SSA uses. Using the WAIS-5 (published 2024) as the working example, it walks the inferences that separate a score from a work-related limitation, maps the primary indexes and subtests to the mental abilities listed at POMS DI 25020.010B.3, and explains the GAI–CPI split. It also covers what intelligence testing does not measure, such as memory, executive function, sustained attention, adaptive functioning, premorbid baseline, and validity — and which instruments do. Practical material includes the elements of Listing 12.05, five common ways representatives overclaim, and specific language to include in a letter to an examiner.

Thomas A. KrauseThomas A. Krause
Thomas A. Krause

Thomas A. Krause

NOSSCR

Thomas A. Krause

Thomas A. Krause

NOSSCR

Thomas A. (Tom) Krause is NOSSCR’s Of Counsel, after having served as NOSSCR’s first ever Litigation Director since 2023. He is charged with identifying and pursuing impact litigation for the benefit of NOSSCR members and their clients.

Education & Credentials

Tom began his legal career with the Legal Services Corp. of Iowa on November 29, 1982, and was admitted to the Iowa Bar shortly thereafter.

Recognition & Leadership

Tom has been a Sustaining Member of NOSSCR for 29 years and served on the NOSSCR Board for eight years.

Professional Involvement

He has presented at numerous NOSSCR conferences and Eighth Circuit Social Security Disability Law conferences. Tom joined NOSSCR as a Sustaining Member in 1995 upon entering private practice, and he writes the "Krause Chronicles" column for NOSSCR's Social Security Forum.

Experience

Tom has represented claimants seeking disability benefits for more than 40 years. He worked for about 14 years for Legal Services Corp. of Iowa (now Iowa Legal Aid), initially representing clients on a variety of issues, but later focusing on Social Security Disability/SSI and Medicaid claims. Tom then spent 21 years in private practice, primarily handling federal court appeals of disability claims. From 2018 to 2023, Tom was a Senior Attorney and Assistant Litigation Director for Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, leading SMRLS' Social Security Practice Group. Tom's first reported case was Baugus v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 717 F.2d 443 (8th Cir. 1983) (accuracy of hypothetical question; on the brief). Class actions include Parker v. Barnhart, 174 F.Supp.2d 920 (N.D. Iowa 2001) (SSA User Fee challenge); Surrell v. Willman, 16 F.Supp.2d 1085 (D.Neb. 1998) (DDS class action); and Laird v. Stilwill, 969 F.Supp. 1167 (N.D. Iowa, 1997) (DDS class action). Other cases of note include Hesseltine v. Colvin, 800 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2015) (Listing 12.05C and Intellectual Disability); Hutchison for Hutchison v. Chater, 99 F.3d 286 (8th Cir. 1996) (non-acquiescence; SSI deeming); Newton v. Chater, 92 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1996) (Trial Work Period prior to award of benefits). As NOSSCR's Litigation Director, Tom has worked on vocational and Dictionary of Occupational Titles issues, fraudulent consultative examinations, and medical records issues, including a complaint NOSSCR filed against a vocational expert alleging fraud or similar fault.
Thomas A. Krause

Thomas A. Krause

NOSSCR

Thomas A. (Tom) Krause is NOSSCR’s Of Counsel, after having served as NOSSCR’s first ever Litigation Director since 2023. He is charged with identifying and pursuing impact litigation for the benefit of NOSSCR members and their clients.

Education & Credentials

Tom began his legal career with the Legal Services Corp. of Iowa on November 29, 1982, and was admitted to the Iowa Bar shortly thereafter.

Recognition & Leadership

Tom has been a Sustaining Member of NOSSCR for 29 years and served on the NOSSCR Board for eight years.

Professional Involvement

He has presented at numerous NOSSCR conferences and Eighth Circuit Social Security Disability Law conferences. Tom joined NOSSCR as a Sustaining Member in 1995 upon entering private practice, and he writes the "Krause Chronicles" column for NOSSCR's Social Security Forum.

Experience

Tom has represented claimants seeking disability benefits for more than 40 years. He worked for about 14 years for Legal Services Corp. of Iowa (now Iowa Legal Aid), initially representing clients on a variety of issues, but later focusing on Social Security Disability/SSI and Medicaid claims. Tom then spent 21 years in private practice, primarily handling federal court appeals of disability claims. From 2018 to 2023, Tom was a Senior Attorney and Assistant Litigation Director for Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, leading SMRLS' Social Security Practice Group. Tom's first reported case was Baugus v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 717 F.2d 443 (8th Cir. 1983) (accuracy of hypothetical question; on the brief). Class actions include Parker v. Barnhart, 174 F.Supp.2d 920 (N.D. Iowa 2001) (SSA User Fee challenge); Surrell v. Willman, 16 F.Supp.2d 1085 (D.Neb. 1998) (DDS class action); and Laird v. Stilwill, 969 F.Supp. 1167 (N.D. Iowa, 1997) (DDS class action). Other cases of note include Hesseltine v. Colvin, 800 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2015) (Listing 12.05C and Intellectual Disability); Hutchison for Hutchison v. Chater, 99 F.3d 286 (8th Cir. 1996) (non-acquiescence; SSI deeming); Newton v. Chater, 92 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1996) (Trial Work Period prior to award of benefits). As NOSSCR's Litigation Director, Tom has worked on vocational and Dictionary of Occupational Titles issues, fraudulent consultative examinations, and medical records issues, including a complaint NOSSCR filed against a vocational expert alleging fraud or similar fault.

Credits by state

AK1.0
AL1.0
AR1.0
AZ1.0
CA1.0
CO1.0
CT1.0
DC1.0
DE1.0
FL1.0
GA1.0
HI1.0
IA1.0
ID1.0
IL1.0
IN1.0
KS1.0
KY1.0
LA1.0
MA1.0
MD1.0
ME1.0
MI1.0
MN1.0
MO1.2
MS1.0
MT1.0
NC1.0
ND1.0
NE1.0
NH60.0
NJ1.0
NM1.0
NV1.0
NY1.0
OH1.0
OK1.0
OR1.0
PA1.0
RI1.0
SC1.0
SD1.0
TN1.0
TX1.0
UT1.0
VA1.0
VT1.0
WA1.0
WI1.0
WV1.2
WY1.0

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

10,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

MCLE Credits

Alabama
Pending
Alaska
Approved
Arizona
Approved
Arkansas
Approved
California
Approved
Colorado
Pending
Connecticut
Approved
Delaware
Pending
District of Columbia
No Required
Florida
Approved
Georgia
Pending
Hawaii
Approved
Idaho
Pending
Illinois
Pending
Indiana
Pending
Iowa
Pending
Kansas
Pending
Kentucky
Pending
Louisiana
Pending
Maine
Pending
Maryland
No Required
Massachusetts
No Required
Michigan
No Required
Minnesota
Pending
Mississippi
Pending
Missouri
Approved
Montana
Pending
Nebraska
Pending
Nevada
Pending
New Hampshire
Approved
New Jersey
Approved
New Mexico
Approved
New York
Approved
North Carolina
Pending
North Dakota
Approved
Ohio
Pending
Oklahoma
Pending
Oregon
Pending
Pennsylvania
Approved
Rhode Island
Pending
South Carolina
Pending
South Dakota
No Required
Tennessee
Pending
Texas
Approved
Utah
Pending
Vermont
Approved
Virginia
Not Eligible
Washington
Approved
West Virginia
Pending
Wisconsin
Pending
Wyoming
Pending

Alabama

Requirements

The Alabama State Bar MCLE Commission requires attorneys to complete 12 credits, including 1 ethics, by December 31 of each year. All credits must be reported by February 15 of the following year. A maximum of 12 credits, including 1 ethics credit, may be carried over for 1 year only.  

Formats

  • Attorneys can earn unlimited “live” credit through live seminars, live webcasts, and co-sponsored locations with MyLAWCLE-Alabama approved programs
  • Attorneys are limited to 6 credits per compliance period of “online” programs through MyLAwCLE On-Demand programs