Insufficient Vocation Case Summary
Group I, Category 53 Insufficient Vocational Documentation to Determine Work History
ISSUE
DDS determined the claimant is disabled at step 5 of sequential evaluation, without first completing step 4. A review of the case file shows there is insufficient vocational evidence to make a vocational determination.
CASE DISCUSSION & POLICY ANALYSIS (INCLUDING SPECIFIC REFERENCES)
This 54- year old claimant is filing a concurrent claim alleging disability since 08/18/2016 due to diabetes, a back injury, a bulging disk, two surgeries, neck injury, carpal tunnel in both hands, feet rolling out, bad knees, right knee replacement, sleep apnea, sinus congestion, migraines, and COPD.
The DDS proposed an RFC for 20/10/4/6 with push/pull and …show more content…
He worked as a machinist 3/1998-8/2016. On the SSA 3368 the claimant indicated he stopped working 8/18/16 due to his condition but made changes to his work 1/1/2010. His condition became severe enough to prevent him from working 11/23/14. The SSA 823 in file completed by the FO indicated he continued to earn SGA until 8/18/16 despite his IRWEs. There were no special conditions or subsidies alleged. On the SSA 821, the claimant indicated he was given a chair that he used when working on the machine. It is not clear when he started using the chair. It is also unclear if the description given on the SSA 3368 reflect this position before or after the work accommodation was given. This is vital as DI 25005.020E states if a previous employer offered accommodations that allowed the claimant to perform PRW with his or her impairment, and the claimant retains the ability to do the PRW with the accommodations in place, find the claimant able to do PRW.
If the PRW is determined to be within the RFC with the accommodation, additional information regarding this work is required. The RFC indicates the claimant should avoid even moderate exposure to moving machinery. Therefore clarification is needed regarding whether the moving parts of the machine were enclosed in safety cages, or whether he was exposed to moving machinery at all while performing the
ISSUE
DDS determined the claimant is disabled at step 5 of sequential evaluation, without first completing step 4. A review of the case file shows there is insufficient vocational evidence to make a vocational determination.
CASE DISCUSSION & POLICY ANALYSIS (INCLUDING SPECIFIC REFERENCES)
This 54- year old claimant is filing a concurrent claim alleging disability since 08/18/2016 due to diabetes, a back injury, a bulging disk, two surgeries, neck injury, carpal tunnel in both hands, feet rolling out, bad knees, right knee replacement, sleep apnea, sinus congestion, migraines, and COPD.
The DDS proposed an RFC for 20/10/4/6 with push/pull and …show more content…
He worked as a machinist 3/1998-8/2016. On the SSA 3368 the claimant indicated he stopped working 8/18/16 due to his condition but made changes to his work 1/1/2010. His condition became severe enough to prevent him from working 11/23/14. The SSA 823 in file completed by the FO indicated he continued to earn SGA until 8/18/16 despite his IRWEs. There were no special conditions or subsidies alleged. On the SSA 821, the claimant indicated he was given a chair that he used when working on the machine. It is not clear when he started using the chair. It is also unclear if the description given on the SSA 3368 reflect this position before or after the work accommodation was given. This is vital as DI 25005.020E states if a previous employer offered accommodations that allowed the claimant to perform PRW with his or her impairment, and the claimant retains the ability to do the PRW with the accommodations in place, find the claimant able to do PRW.
If the PRW is determined to be within the RFC with the accommodation, additional information regarding this work is required. The RFC indicates the claimant should avoid even moderate exposure to moving machinery. Therefore clarification is needed regarding whether the moving parts of the machine were enclosed in safety cages, or whether he was exposed to moving machinery at all while performing the