I am a fly on the wall at a Social Security disability hearing. I see 4 persons in the room: the claimant (unrepresented), a recording clerk, a vocational expert (VE) and a US adminstrative law judge (ALJ). From my silent perch, I am going to explain some problems I see during disability hearings, where hundreds of thousands of dollars in disability benefits depend on what happens during the 45 minute hearing.
1) The ALJ asks the vocational expert to classify the claimant's past relevant work. The VE replies that the claimant has had 3 jobs that qualify as past relevant work: a cashier, an administrative assistant, and a rental clerk.
The claimant does not object to any of these jobs, not knowing that they will be used at "Step 4" of the hearing to deny his claim. He should object that the cashier job was more than 15 years ago, thus not past relevant work according to the regulations. Also, he should object that the job as a rental clerk was part-time work and, therefore, not legally past relevant work. He should also point out that he was administrative assistant to a general contractor, where he was frequently required to lift up to 50 pounds and to stand and or walk more than 6 hours out of each 8 hour shift. This would correctly classify the job as "medium exertion" work. However, the vocational expert classified the job as "sedentary exertion" level, taking that out of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which was last published in 1991. Not realizing any of this, the claimant remains silent.
2) The Adminstrative Law Judge (ALJ) forms an opinion as to the claimant's residual functional capacity or RFC. The judge believes that the claimant can perform work at the medium exertion level, which requires him to lift 25 to 50 pounds, stand or walk up to 6 hours a day, with the ability to frequently reach, push-pull, stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl. The claimant should have pointed out medical evidence of back and leg pain that limits standing and walking; evidence of cervical disc degeneration that prevents reaching overhead; and that one of his treating doctors recommended he not lift more than 10 pounds. But the claimant seems a little intimidated by the judge, or perhaps he doesn't know what is about to happen to him; so, he remains as quiet as I am.
3) The judge asks the vocational expert whether the claimant could perform any of his past relevant work. The VE answers, "Yes, based on your hypothetical question, the claimant could perform all 3 of his past jobs." This is known as a Step 4 Denial.
In my next post, I will discuss a second hypothetical question that will also result in a denial of benefits. A fly on the wall learns a lot just by observation.
1) The ALJ asks the vocational expert to classify the claimant's past relevant work. The VE replies that the claimant has had 3 jobs that qualify as past relevant work: a cashier, an administrative assistant, and a rental clerk.
The claimant does not object to any of these jobs, not knowing that they will be used at "Step 4" of the hearing to deny his claim. He should object that the cashier job was more than 15 years ago, thus not past relevant work according to the regulations. Also, he should object that the job as a rental clerk was part-time work and, therefore, not legally past relevant work. He should also point out that he was administrative assistant to a general contractor, where he was frequently required to lift up to 50 pounds and to stand and or walk more than 6 hours out of each 8 hour shift. This would correctly classify the job as "medium exertion" work. However, the vocational expert classified the job as "sedentary exertion" level, taking that out of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which was last published in 1991. Not realizing any of this, the claimant remains silent.
2) The Adminstrative Law Judge (ALJ) forms an opinion as to the claimant's residual functional capacity or RFC. The judge believes that the claimant can perform work at the medium exertion level, which requires him to lift 25 to 50 pounds, stand or walk up to 6 hours a day, with the ability to frequently reach, push-pull, stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl. The claimant should have pointed out medical evidence of back and leg pain that limits standing and walking; evidence of cervical disc degeneration that prevents reaching overhead; and that one of his treating doctors recommended he not lift more than 10 pounds. But the claimant seems a little intimidated by the judge, or perhaps he doesn't know what is about to happen to him; so, he remains as quiet as I am.
3) The judge asks the vocational expert whether the claimant could perform any of his past relevant work. The VE answers, "Yes, based on your hypothetical question, the claimant could perform all 3 of his past jobs." This is known as a Step 4 Denial.
In my next post, I will discuss a second hypothetical question that will also result in a denial of benefits. A fly on the wall learns a lot just by observation.
Comments
Post a Comment