AR 24-1(6) Earley in 2026: How the Nationwide Acquiescence Ruling Rewrote Drummond, Killed the Old Adoption Rule, and Changed Every Refiled SSDI Claim

Published May 29, 2026 by Anthony Albert, Benefits Research Director at Disability Exchange. Reading time: 16 minutes.

If you got denied by an ALJ a few years ago and you're thinking about refiling, the rules just changed. On December 2, 2024, SSA's new Acquiescence Ruling 24-1(6) took effect. It rescinded two old rulings (AR 98-4(6) for Drummond and AR 98-3(6) for Dennard) and replaced them with a single nationwide standard based on the Sixth Circuit's 2018 decision in Earley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 893 F.3d 929. The change matters more than most refilers realize. The old rule treated prior ALJ findings as almost binding. The new rule treats them as evidence, considered but not adopted. That shift cuts both ways. If your prior denial had a favorable RFC, the new rule weakens your ability to lock that finding in. If your prior denial had a brutal RFC, the new rule gives you a fresh shot at a better outcome.

This piece walks through AR 24-1(6) as it operates in 2026: where it came from, what changed from the old rule, when it applies, what it excludes, how to use it on a refiled claim, and what to do when an ALJ misapplies the standard. The Sixth Circuit's underlying decision in Earley is now the national rule. Knowing how to argue under it is the difference between a successful refile and a wasted application.

The History: Drummond, Dennard, and the Old Adoption Rule

To understand AR 24-1(6), you have to know what came before. The story starts in the Sixth Circuit in the late 1990s.

Drummond v. Commissioner of Social Security, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997). Mr. Drummond won a closed period of disability from one ALJ but was denied benefits for a later period by a different ALJ. The Sixth Circuit held that, absent evidence of medical improvement, a subsequent ALJ is bound by the RFC findings of the prior ALJ. The principle: consistency and finality apply to disability adjudication just like in regular litigation. SSA can't relitigate already-decided facts unless something changed.

Dennard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 907 F.2d 598 (6th Cir. 1990). Same idea, different fact pattern. Dennard extended the binding-effect principle to past relevant work findings (step 4 of the sequential evaluation). Once an ALJ decided certain prior jobs were or weren't past relevant work, that finding carried forward in successive claims.

SSA's response. SSA acquiesced to both Sixth Circuit decisions by issuing AR 98-4(6) (Drummond) and AR 98-3(6) (Dennard) in 1998. Both rulings required adjudicators within the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee) to adopt prior findings on RFC and past relevant work in subsequent claims arising under the same title of the Act, unless there was new and material evidence or a change in law.

Outside the Sixth Circuit, SSA's national policy was the opposite. In every other state, subsequent claims for unadjudicated periods were treated as completely fresh: prior findings weren't binding and weren't even considered as evidence. The result was a patchwork. A claimant in Ohio got near-binding prior findings. A claimant in California got total fresh review with no consideration of prior findings.

The Earley Decision and Why It Matters

Earley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 893 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018). Ms. Earley filed a subsequent SSDI claim after a prior denial. The new claim covered a different time period. The new ALJ, following AR 98-4(6), adopted the prior ALJ's RFC findings. Ms. Earley argued the prior findings shouldn't bind the new ALJ because the new claim involved a different (unadjudicated) period.

The Sixth Circuit agreed with her but used the case to clarify Drummond. The court said three things that changed everything:

1. Res judicata doesn't apply to unadjudicated periods. When you file a subsequent claim for a different period, you get a fresh look. Each application for a distinct period is entitled to review.
2. Fresh review is not blind review. The new ALJ should consider what the earlier ALJ found. Consistency between proceedings matters. The earlier record matters.
3. Prior findings are a legitimate but not binding consideration. Absent new and additional evidence, the first ALJ's findings are a legitimate consideration. They're not, however, binding on the new ALJ.

The court explicitly rejected the rigid adoption rule that AR 98-4(6) had created. The court also warned claimants that filing a second application with little or no new evidence is unlikely to succeed: "an applicant remains free to bring a second application that introduces no new evidence or very little new evidence after a failed application," but "should not have high expectations about success if the second filing mimics the first one."

AR 24-1(6): The New Nationwide Rule

SSA took its time absorbing Earley. The decision came down in 2018, but AR 24-1(6) wasn't published until November 25, 2024, in Federal Register vol. 89, no. 227, page 92995, with an effective date of December 2, 2024.

The key features of AR 24-1(6):

The biggest shift is the effect on the new ALJ. Under the old rule, the new ALJ essentially started with the prior findings and could only depart from them on a showing of new and material evidence. Under the new rule, the new ALJ starts with a fresh slate and considers the prior findings as one piece of evidence among many.

When AR 24-1(6) Applies

The Earley AR applies when all four conditions are met:

1. There's a prior final decision by an ALJ or the Appeals Council on a previous disability claim (initial-level or reconsideration determinations don't trigger the rule).
2. The prior decision contains a finding of RFC or another finding required under the sequential evaluation process (20 CFR 404.1520, 416.920, or 416.924 as applicable).
3. The new claim covers a different (unadjudicated) period than the prior decision.
4. The new claim's final determination or decision is dated December 2, 2024 or later.

If any of these is missing, AR 24-1(6) doesn't apply. For example, if the prior claim was denied at reconsideration without an ALJ hearing, the new ALJ has no prior ALJ findings to consider as evidence. The case is fully fresh.

When AR 24-1(6) Does Not Apply (Exclusions)

POMS HA 01540.075 (renumbered I-5-4-75) lists three exclusions where the Earley AR doesn't apply even if the four basic conditions are met.

1. Attorney advisor fully favorable decision. If the prior favorable decision was issued by an attorney advisor rather than an ALJ, the Earley AR doesn't apply. Attorney advisor decisions don't carry the same weight as ALJ or AC decisions.
2. Different disability requirements. If the requirements for disability in the prior and current claims aren't identical, the AR doesn't apply. The classic example is a prior Title XVI childhood disability claim (functional equivalence under 416.924) and a current Title XVI adult claim (sequential evaluation under 416.920). The underlying analysis is different enough that prior findings don't translate cleanly.
3. Lost or destroyed prior file. If the prior claim file is lost or destroyed and the ALJ or AC decision can't be located by SSA, the claimant, or the claimant's representative, the AR doesn't apply. You can't consider findings you don't have.

How to Use the New Rule on a Refiled Claim

The practical question for claimants and representatives in 2026: how do you actually use AR 24-1(6) when you refile?

If the Prior RFC Was Favorable to You

Suppose the prior ALJ found a light RFC with significant postural limits, off-task tolerances, and a need for additional breaks. The case was denied at step 5 because the vocational expert testified there were still light unskilled jobs available. You're refiling because your condition has worsened (or because you've aged into a new grid category).

You want to keep the prior RFC findings in play. They're favorable. Under AR 24-1(6), you can:

• Cite the prior RFC findings in your pre-hearing brief and argue they should carry forward as evidence under Earley.
• Highlight the consistency principle: SSA shouldn't reach a less restrictive RFC for the same impairments absent evidence of medical improvement.
• If your case has progressed (worsened) since the prior decision, argue the new RFC should be more restrictive, not less.
• Use the prior step 5 vocational findings to set up a stronger argument under the grid rules if you've aged into a new category. Borderline age cases often benefit from this approach.

If the Prior RFC Was Unfavorable to You

Suppose the prior ALJ found a medium RFC with minimal limits and denied at step 4 (you could still do your past relevant work). Under the old AR 98-4(6) in the Sixth Circuit, you'd have been stuck with that medium RFC unless you had new and material evidence. Under AR 24-1(6), the new ALJ has to consider that prior medium RFC but isn't bound by it.

To win the refile, you need to:

• Develop new and additional evidence covering the unadjudicated period. Updated treating records, specialist opinions, functional capacity evaluations, and consultative exams that didn't exist at the time of the prior decision.
• Document any worsening since the prior decision: new diagnoses, increased medication, new specialists, new hospitalizations, new objective testing (MRI, EMG, pulmonary function tests).
• Address the prior unfavorable RFC head-on in your pre-hearing brief. Explain why the new evidence supports a more restrictive RFC and why the prior finding shouldn't carry forward as persuasive evidence.
• If you've crossed an age threshold (50, 55, 60), use the new grid rules to argue for approval even if the new RFC is closer to the prior unfavorable finding.

Worked Examples

Example 1: Sarah, California, Worsening Multiple Sclerosis

Sarah got denied SSDI in 2022. The ALJ found a light RFC with limited reaching and standing, denied at step 5 with a hypothetical that included sedentary unskilled jobs. She refiled in 2025 with substantially worsened MS symptoms and a new alleged onset date of January 2024 (the day after the prior decision).

Under AR 24-1(6), the new ALJ has to consider the 2022 RFC findings as evidence. Sarah's representative files a pre-hearing brief arguing two things. First, the prior light RFC should be the floor (her condition has only worsened). Second, new evidence from 2024-2025 supports a sedentary RFC with additional off-task tolerances. The new ALJ adopts a sedentary RFC with the additional limits, finds Sarah's prior work isn't transferable, and applies grid rule 201.14 (age 50-54, sedentary RFC, limited education, no transferable skills) to approve. The prior favorable RFC as evidence helped frame the consistency argument.

Example 2: Mike, Texas, Medium RFC Refile

Mike got denied SSDI in 2023. The ALJ found a medium RFC with no limits, denied at step 4 (could still do past relevant work as a warehouse loader). Mike refiled in 2025 with the same impairments but worsened back pain, a new lumbar fusion surgery, and a new alleged onset date of April 2024.

Under the old AR 98-4(6) (had Mike lived in Ohio), he'd have been stuck with the medium RFC absent new and material evidence. Under AR 24-1(6), the new ALJ considers the prior medium RFC as evidence but isn't bound. Mike's representative develops new post-fusion records, a functional capacity evaluation showing significant limitations, and a treating orthopedist statement. The new ALJ finds a light RFC with postural restrictions and approves at step 5 under grid rule 202.11 (age 50-54, light RFC, limited education, unskilled past work). The prior medium RFC was considered but rejected based on the new evidence.

Example 3: Diana, Florida, Cross-Title Application

Diana had a prior Title XVI SSI claim denied by an ALJ in 2022 with a finding that she had no severe impairment at step 2. She refiled in 2025 with both Title II SSDI and Title XVI SSI claims for an unadjudicated period starting January 2023.

Under the old AR 98-4(6), the prior Title XVI step 2 finding would have applied only to subsequent Title XVI claims. Under AR 24-1(6), the prior step 2 finding can be considered as evidence in both the new Title II and Title XVI claims because the AR applies across titles. Diana's representative develops new treating records, a consultative exam, and a treating provider opinion to argue the step 2 finding was wrong (or has changed) and to develop a full RFC. The new ALJ finds severe impairments at step 2, develops an RFC, and approves at step 5.

Procedural Notes

How to Cite AR 24-1(6) in a Brief

In a pre-hearing brief, the standard citation is: "AR 24-1(6), 89 FR 92995 (Nov. 25, 2024), effective Dec. 2, 2024, interpreting Earley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 893 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018)." Also cite POMS HA 01540.075 (I-5-4-75) for implementation procedures. If you're addressing prior findings from a Drummond-era decision, also note that AR 98-4(6) and AR 98-3(6) were rescinded effective December 2, 2024.

What ALJs Are Required to Do

Under POMS HA 01540.075, the new ALJ must:

• Acknowledge the prior ALJ or AC decision in the procedural history.
• Identify the prior findings of RFC and other sequential evaluation steps.
• Consider those findings as evidence alongside all other evidence in the record.
• Make clear in the decision that they considered the prior findings.
• Explain how they weighed the prior findings against any new and additional evidence.

If the ALJ skips any of these steps, the decision is vulnerable to remand on appeal. The most common error is silent disregard, where the ALJ never mentions the prior findings at all and writes the decision as if the case were entirely fresh.

State-by-State Considerations in 2026

AR 24-1(6) applies nationwide, but practice patterns at the hearing office level still vary. Some patterns we're seeing in 2026:

• California hearing offices in Los Angeles and Oakland adopted the Earley standard early and tend to address prior findings explicitly in decisions.
• Texas Dallas and Houston ODARs are still adjusting. Some ALJs still write decisions as if AR 24-1(6) doesn't exist. Address this with a strong pre-hearing brief.
• Florida Miami and Orlando hearing offices have been more rigorous in citing prior findings explicitly in decisions.
• New York ODARs have substantial experience with successive claims and apply Earley consistently.
• Pennsylvania Pittsburgh and Philadelphia offices have a mix of consistent and inconsistent application. Pre-hearing briefs and post-hearing objections matter here.
• Sixth Circuit states (KY, MI, OH, TN). ALJs here had decades of experience under AR 98-4(6) and are still in the transition period. Cite AR 24-1(6) explicitly and note that AR 98-4(6) is rescinded.

Common Mistakes Under the New Rule

The shift from AR 98-4(6) to AR 24-1(6) has produced several common mistakes that show up in 2026 decisions and ALJ briefs.

Mistake 1: Treating Prior Findings as Binding

Some ALJs and adjudicators still write decisions that adopt prior findings without independent analysis. That was the old AR 98-4(6) approach. Under Earley, prior findings are evidence to weigh, not findings to adopt. A decision that treats prior findings as binding is appealable.

Mistake 2: Silent Disregard of Prior Findings

The opposite error: completely ignoring prior findings in a refiled claim. This was the pre-Earley SSA policy outside the Sixth Circuit, and some ALJs still write decisions this way out of habit. POMS HA 01540.075 requires the new adjudicator to acknowledge and consider prior findings. Silent disregard is appealable.

Mistake 3: Failing to Address Cross-Title Application

Under the old AR 98-4(6), prior findings only carried forward within the same title. Some ALJs still apply that limit. AR 24-1(6) explicitly covers same or different title. If your case involves a prior Title II claim and a current Title XVI claim (or vice versa), the new ALJ must consider the prior findings unless the substantive disability requirements differ materially.

Mistake 4: Refiling Without New Evidence

Earley warned that claimants who refile with little or no new evidence shouldn't expect a different outcome. Many refilers ignore this. If your case looks identical to the prior denied case, your refile is unlikely to succeed regardless of which acquiescence rule applies. Develop new and additional evidence before refiling. Wait until you've crossed a meaningful age threshold or until your condition has documented worsening.

The Bigger Strategic Picture

AR 24-1(6) doesn't just affect how a refiled claim is decided. It affects whether to refile at all and how to time the refile.

Refile vs appeal. If your ALJ denial is recent and within the 60-day Appeals Council window, focus on the appeal instead of a refile. Appeals Council review can vacate the prior decision entirely, eliminating the prior findings problem. A successful appeal is almost always better than a refile under Earley.

Timing the refile. If you've decided to refile, time it to maximize new evidence. Wait for new medical events, new specialist consultations, new imaging or testing, new functional capacity evaluations. The Earley court explicitly noted that refiles with minimal new evidence are unlikely to succeed. Build the new evidence first, then file.

Age category transitions. One of the strongest scenarios for an Earley refile is crossing an age threshold (50, 55, 60). Different grid rules apply. Even with the same RFC and same vocational profile, a new age category can flip the case from denial to approval. Borderline age situations need careful timing.

New regulatory or statutory changes. If there's been a change in regulations (new SSR, new acquiescence ruling, new POMS instruction) since the prior decision, a refile can capture the benefit of the new standard. SSR 24-2p on past relevant work and SSR 24-3p on vocational expert testimony are recent examples that could change outcomes in refiled cases.

Bottom Line

AR 24-1(6) is the most consequential acquiescence ruling SSA has issued in a decade. It rewrote the rules on refiled claims nationwide, killed the rigid adoption rule that governed the Sixth Circuit since 1998, and put fresh review (with prior findings as evidence) at the center of every subsequent SSDI claim filed in 2026 and beyond.

If you're refiling after a prior ALJ denial, understand the new rule and use it. Develop new and additional evidence. Cite AR 24-1(6) explicitly in your pre-hearing brief. Address prior favorable findings as supportive evidence and prior unfavorable findings with countervailing evidence. Watch for ALJs who haven't adjusted to the new standard and preserve issues for Appeals Council review under HALLEX I-3-3.

Refiling under Earley isn't a guaranteed win. But it's a real opportunity that didn't exist in most of the country before December 2, 2024. Use it.