After a very heated hearing with a medical and a vocational expert (“VE”), the administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) indicated that he would deny the case based on the VE’s testimony. I asked the ALJ if
he was relying on the VE’s testimony before or after I pointed out that he originally identified the
wrong occupation as the claimant’s past work. The VE admitted that the claimant’s past work was at
least a composite occupation comprised of the light one he identified and the physically demanding
medium one that I suggested.
The ALJ then said that it made no difference because the VE identified unskilled occupations that the
claimant could perform. I pointed out that the medical-vocational rules would require a finding of
disabled. I explained that there was no difference between being limited to unskilled work, and
lacking any transferable skills. The ALJ said that if he accepted that argument, then he would
approve the claim, but if he did not, then he would require additional information from the treating
sources and a supplemental hearing to cross examine the VE.
The ALJ approved the case yesterday. If I had not accessed vocational databases during the
hearing to show the discrepancy in the VE’s testimony, and if I had not pointed out how there was no
actual difference between being limited to unskilled work, and lacking any transferable skills, then the
ALJ would have denied the case.
Having an experienced, Social Security Disability attorney is vital when applying for SSD benefits. Please feel free to call my office for a free phone consultation. My offices are conveniently located in both Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island.
No comments:
Post a Comment