Compliance SSA-3380-BK
Validation Checks by Instafill.ai
1
Validates required identity fields are present (Disabled Person Name, Third-Party Name, Relationship)
Checks that the Disabled Person’s full name, the name of the person completing the form, and the relationship to the disabled person are all provided and not left blank. These fields are essential to associate the report with the correct claimant and to understand the reporter’s basis of knowledge. If any are missing, the submission should be flagged as incomplete and routed for follow-up before adjudicative use.
2
Validates all date fields use MM/DD/YYYY and represent real calendar dates
Ensures the form date (Section A #4) and the completion date on Page 10 are in MM/DD/YYYY format and are valid dates (e.g., not 02/30/2026). Date normalization prevents downstream parsing errors and supports auditability of when the information was provided. If validation fails, the system should reject the date value and require correction or mark the record for manual review.
3
Checks date logical consistency (completion date not in the future; Page 10 date matches/does not conflict with Section A date)
Verifies that the reported dates are not later than the system receipt date (allowing a small tolerance if needed) and that the two form dates are not contradictory (e.g., Page 10 completion date earlier/later by an implausible amount). Consistent dates help establish the timeliness of evidence and reduce fraud/clerical errors. If inconsistent, the submission should be flagged and the user prompted to confirm or correct the dates.
4
Validates daytime telephone number structure and selection logic (Your/Message/None)
Checks that the phone number, if provided, contains exactly 10 digits (area code + prefix + line number) and that only one of the options is selected: direct number, message number, or none. This prevents unreachable contacts and avoids ambiguous routing for follow-up calls. If 'None' is selected, the system should ensure no phone digits are entered; if digits are entered, 'None' must be unselected and one contact type chosen.
5
Validates residence type selection and requires details when 'Other' is chosen
Ensures exactly one residence type is selected for where the disabled person lives (House/Apartment/Boarding House/Nursing Home/Shelter/Group Home/Other). If 'Other' is selected, the 'what?' text field must be populated with a meaningful description. If multiple residence types are checked or 'Other' lacks details, the submission should be flagged for correction to avoid misclassification of living situation.
6
Validates living arrangement selection and requires relationship details when 'Other' is chosen
Checks that exactly one option is selected for with whom the disabled person lives (Alone/With Family/With Friends/Other). If 'Other' is selected, the relationship description must be provided (e.g., roommate, caregiver, partner). If 'Alone' is selected, the 'Other relationship' field must be empty to prevent contradictory data; failures should trigger a correction prompt.
7
Validates acquaintance duration is present and in an acceptable format/range
Ensures the 'How long have you known the disabled person?' field is not blank and is expressed in a parseable unit (e.g., years/months) and within a reasonable range (not negative, not implausibly large). This supports weighting of third-party observations based on familiarity. If the value cannot be interpreted, the system should request clarification (e.g., '3 years' instead of 'a long time').
8
Conditional completeness for Yes/No questions requiring explanations
For all Yes/No items with follow-up text (e.g., caring for others, pet care, help with care, sleep affected, reminders for grooming, medicine reminders, go out alone, drives, problems getting along, fired/laid off, unusual behavior/fears), verifies that selecting 'Yes' (or 'No' where the form asks 'If no, explain') requires a non-empty explanation. This ensures the narrative evidence is captured and prevents unusable binary answers. If missing, the system should block submission or mark the item incomplete and prompt for the required details.
9
Personal care section consistency (No-Problem checkbox vs. individual personal care explanations)
If 'NO PROBLEM with personal care' is checked, the system should ensure that the individual personal care limitation fields (dress/bathe/hair/shave/feed/toilet/other) are empty or explicitly indicate no limitation, not contradictory limitation narratives. If the checkbox is not checked, at least one personal care impact field should be completed or the respondent should state 'none/does not apply' per instructions. Contradictions should be flagged for review because they affect functional capacity assessment.
10
Meals preparation branching validation (Yes requires details; No requires reason)
If the respondent indicates the disabled person prepares meals, the system should require at least the type of food, frequency, and time-to-prepare fields (and optionally changes in habits) to be completed. If the respondent indicates 'No,' the reason for not preparing meals must be provided. Missing branch details should prevent submission because meal preparation is a key ADL indicator.
11
House and yard work completeness and dependency checks
Validates that if chores are listed, the time/frequency field is also completed, and if 'needs help/encouragement' is 'Yes,' the help-needed description is provided. If the respondent indicates the disabled person does not do house/yard work, the explanation field must be completed. Failures should be flagged because incomplete chores data can misrepresent functional limitations.
12
Getting around logic (going outside frequency, travel method, and 'Other' explanation)
Ensures that the 'how often goes outside' field is completed, and if the respondent indicates the person does not go out at all, an explanation is provided. Requires at least one travel method when the person goes out, and if 'Other' travel is selected, an explanation must be entered. If 'can’t go out alone' is selected, the reason must be provided; missing elements should trigger correction prompts.
13
Driving consistency validation (drives vs. travel method and explanation when not driving)
If 'Does the disabled person drive?' is 'No,' the explanation for not driving must be present, and the travel method should not include 'Drive a car' unless clarified (e.g., previously drove, no longer drives). If 'Yes,' the travel method may include driving but should not be required. Contradictory driving data should be flagged because it impacts independence and mobility assessment.
14
Money management 'No' answers require explanation and change-since-onset logic
For each money management capability marked 'No' (pay bills, savings account, count change, checkbook/money orders), requires an explanation in the designated field. If the ability has changed since onset is marked 'Yes,' the change explanation must be completed; if marked 'No,' the change explanation should be empty. Missing explanations should block submission because financial functioning is a key cognitive/functional indicator.
15
Abilities affected checklist requires narrative explanation for checked items
When any items are checked in the abilities affected list (lifting, walking, memory, concentration, etc.), the system should require a corresponding narrative explanation describing the limitation (e.g., max pounds, distance, duration). This prevents checkmarks without usable severity information for RFC evaluation. If items are checked but the explanation is blank, the submission should be flagged as insufficient evidence and routed for follow-up.
16
Handedness selection validation (mutually exclusive and required)
Ensures exactly one handedness option is selected (right-handed or left-handed) and that both are not selected simultaneously. Handedness affects interpretation of limitations involving using hands, reaching, and fine/gross manipulation. If neither or both are selected, the system should prompt for a single selection.
17
Assistive devices and prescription details validation (Other explanation; prescribed/when/usage completeness)
If any assistive device is selected, the system should require completion of when the device is needed (usage details). If the respondent indicates any devices were prescribed by a doctor, the prescription date must be a valid date and the prescribed devices should be identifiable (not left vague). If 'Other' device is selected, an explanation is required; missing details should be flagged because device use materially affects mobility and functional capacity.
18
Medication side effects table validation (side effects Yes requires at least one medicine + side effect pair)
If the disabled person takes medicines and side effects are marked 'Yes,' the system must require at least one complete entry with a medicine name and the side effects experienced. If side effects are marked 'No,' the medicine/side effects rows should be empty to avoid conflicting information. Failures should be flagged because side effects can significantly impact work-related functioning and symptom credibility.
19
Page 10 contact block completeness and address format validation (name, street, city, state, ZIP; email optional)
Ensures the bottom-of-page fields for the person completing the form are completed: printed name, date, street address, city, state, and ZIP code. Validates state as a 2-letter code (or approved list) and ZIP as 5 digits (optionally ZIP+4), and validates email format only if provided. If incomplete or malformed, the submission should be flagged because SSA may need to contact the third party and the form instructions explicitly require this information.