Study Guide

Lesson Five
Introduction to Vocational Analysis

In this lesson we'll introduce you to the vocational analysis process.  This process is used in conjunction with the claimant's medical evidence to determine if a claimant is capable of performing work despite his impairments. 

What is Vocational Analysis?

Vocational analysis is simply a process used to identify the demands of work. This process allows an advocate to determine the (physical or mental) demands of the claimant's past and/or other work that he may be capable of performing.  Every job in the national economy has some minimal level of physical and/or mental demands that a person must possess in order to perform the job.  Vocational analysis enables you to determine if the claimant is reasonably capable of performing that job with consideration of limitations caused by his impairment. 

When to Perform VA:

As mentioned several times in previous lessons, a representative always begins a claim with the assessment process.  Once the case has been assessed and developed, the advocate will begin the process of case evaluation. During the case evaluation process, the advocate will review the medical evidence and identify claimant’s physical and/or mental limitations.  These limitations are then used to determine the claimant's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC). 

As part of this process, an advocate will also review the claimant's past work history to determine the physical and mental demands of his past work.   Vocational analysis cannot be performed until you know what the claimant's limitations are and the demands of his past work.  With this data, you can formulate both an RFC and an argument based on the limitations supported by the evidence.

A claimant’s physical limitations are then compared to the demands of his past work.  If the claimant’s physical or mental limitations are such that he can no longer perform his past work, (step 5 of the Sequential Analysis), then he is said to be unable to perform past work.  You must now move to step six in Sequential Analysis (SA) process which ask, "Can the claimant do other less demanding work?"

With additional consideration of the claimant’s age, education and remaining capabilities, we then determine if there is less demanding work available that the claimant can perform.  If there is less demanding work within the claimant’s capabilities, he will be denied benefits based on his ability to perform other work (step six in SA). 

To beat step six in SA, you must always argue for a claimant RFC level that reflects his inability to perform other similar or less demanding work.  If you can argue that there is no way that the claimant can adjust to other less demanding work given his condition, he will most likely be found disabled based on medical vocational factors.  This is your objective!

The Vocational Analysis Process:

Vocational analysis is a complex process that occurs during the case evaluation stage of case processing.  It involves the following steps:

1.   Review claimant’s medical evidence and identify physical or mental restrictions and limitations. With this information, formulate an RFC that you feel will result in an allowance determination.

2.   Evaluate the demands of claimant’s past work.

3.   Compare claimant’s remaining capabilities (RFC) with the demands of his past work.  If he can still perform the duties of his past work, he will be denied benefits.  If he cannot, then the next step is to compare his remaining capabilities with the demands of other similar or less demanding work.

4.   If the claimant is unable to adjust to less demanding work, (which is the objective of your argument), he will have the best chance of being found disabled by Social Security.

5.  Always create your argument based on an RFC that would result in an allowance determination.  Use the vocational rules table to determine what RFC is needed for an allowance determination given the client's age, education and so on. 

Our Approach to VA:

Our experience in the field of disability advocacy has shown that doing formal vocational analysis is not always necessary.  You can usually perform an abbreviated voc analysis that will work just as well. 

An Important Skill:

Vocational Analysis or (VA), is an important skill that will help you to succeed as a professional representative.  If you are skilled in vocational analysis, you are far more likely to enjoy success at winning disability cases because good voc analysis is the foundation of any effective argument presented to SSA.
 

Fundamental components and Vocational Analysis:

As stated earlier, vocational analysis is a process by which a person's ability to perform work is determined by evaluating the limitations caused by his impairments with the fundamental components required to perform work  VA requires that you break down a job into its fundamental components.  A job's fundamental components are its demands and requirements. What it takes, both physically and mentally, to perform the work.  

An advocate must compare the claimant's physical and or mental restrictions with the demands of his past or other less demanding work. You are making this comparison to determine if the claimant can realistically perform the work.  If the claimant is limited as a result of his impairments, he will be excluded by SSA from performing work that he is unable to do.  Therefore, the more limited the claimant appears in comparison to work, the better his chances of winning benefits.  An allowance decision based on physical or mental limitations is called a medical vocational allowance.

How Vocational Analysis is Used:

As a disability advocate, you use vocational analysis to establish that the claimant cannot perform the duties of his past work or other less demanding work as a result of his impairment.  Vocational analysis is used to demonstrate that a particular job has physical or mental requirements that cannot be performed by the claimant.  Since SSA must exclude all work that the claimant is incapable of performing, vocational analysis is the most effective method used in arguing for a favorable decision.

Common Sense VA:

Although vocational analysis may appear complex, it is in reality simple once you recognize its underlying purpose.  In earlier versions of our program, we consumed volumes of paper trying to explain the technical aspects of vocational analysis. This approach did little more than confuse the advocate. We now use an approach we call common sense vocational analysis.  In common sense VA, we focus on the fundamental components of work.

Fundamental Components of Work:

A fundamental component refers to those physical and or mental abilities needed by an individual in order that he/she may perform work.  An example of a fundamental component of work would be how much standing, walking, bending or stooping is required in order to perform the work.  The claimant's RFC is nothing more than his remaining ability to perform standing, walking, bending, stooping, etc, with consideration of his impairment.  Therefore, in common sense VA, one simply compares the claimant's RFC with the fundamental component of his past and other less demanding work.

Here is an example of how fundamental components are compared: 

A truck driver has injured his eyes and can no longer see to pass his licensing examination required to operate his vehicle.  His injury and its symptoms (limitations) have been medically documented.  Now we must determine if the truck driver is a good candidate for disability.  To be a good candidate, the claimant's limitations must significantly restrict his ability to perform his past work and other less demanding work.

In this example, it would make good sense to argue that the truck driver is no longer capable of performing his past work due to the restrictions imposed by his visual impairment.  Social Security will probably agree!  The truck driver's visual impairment has caused a loss in a fundamental component required in his past job.  That fundamental component lost is his vision which is required to operate his vehicle.  We have easily shown that the claimant is no longer capable of performing his past work.  But, what about other less demanding work?  And, what if the claimant is only thirty years of age?

There must be secondary limitations that when combined with his vision, will further reduce the claimant's ability to perform sedentary work.  A good example of secondary limitations would be a verifiable back disorder that significantly restricts sitting, standing, walking, etc,.  When the back disorder is combined with poor vision, a reasonable argument can be made that the claimant is incapable of performing sedentary work.  Even at such a young age!

Identifying physical and mental requirements of a Job:

No matter what type of job an individual performs, that job has certain physical and mental requirements.  For example:  To function properly as a bank teller, you must have a number of both physical and mental capabilities. You must be of average intelligence with the ability to read, write and count. You must also have the ability to see, hear and speak and or communicate with others.  A loss of any two of the above fundamental components would make performing as a bank teller all but impossible.


Comparing Claimant's Restrictions to Job Demands:

A disability advocate can use the medical evidence to show and support the loss of a claimant's ability to perform work.  This is done by pointing out that there has been a loss of a specific capability or fundamental component of work that prevents the claimant from doing the job.

Disabled individuals do not always lose the same fundamental components even when they suffer from the same disorder.  Some may lose a large number of capabilities and others just a few.  For this reason, when it comes to limitations, treat each case as if it were absolutely unique.

Remember, in vocational analysis, you are simply comparing claimant's physical and or mental restrictions identified by the medical evidence, to the requirements of a particular job or job category.  T he work might be the claimant's past work or work cited by SSA as being within the claimant's functional capabilities (RFC).  SSA refers to jobs that they feel the claimant is still capable of performing as other work or less demanding work. 

Rules of Practice:

There are three elementary rules that must be followed when performing common sense vocational analysis. These rules are:

1. Attempt to identify as many of the claimant's impairment related limitations as possible.  Remember, the limitation must be as a direct result of a medically documented impairment.

2. Identify the functional requirements of his past work.  Then compare his RFC to other less demanding work. Other work is simply work performed by the claimant in the past that is similar to work within the claimant's industry.

3. In your argument, compare the claimant's remaining functional capacities (the RFC you create) to the demands of his past and or other work. If claimant cannot reasonably be expected to perform the other less demanding work, an allowance decision is warranted.

By reviewing the medical evidence, we are in fact hunting for evidence that will support the claimant's alleged physical limitations. We then compare those limitations with the physical and or mental demands of work, pointing out why the work is now impossible.  If the claimant does not have the fundamental components needed to perform the work, Social Security must find him disabled.  In a nutshell, the above procedure represents the fundamental process called vocational analysis.

Types of Restrictions:

There are two basic types of restrictions or limitations.  Please note that these two terms are used interchangeably.  The first type is physical or exertion restrictions and the second is mental or non-exertional restrictions.

Until now, we have logically referred to physical and mental limitations as restrictions.  However, SSA likes to take a possible stance on technical language and has decided to call restrictions, capabilities.  So for the record, an exertional capability is in fact a physical restriction and a non-exertional capability is a mental restriction.

Exertion Capabilities:

In evaluating an individual's ability to perform a specific type of work, there are two categories of requirements that must be analyzed.  The first is the claimant's physical capabilities which are referred to as exertional.  The other is the claimant's mental capabilities which are referred to non-exertional.  The following is a list of exertional capacities and their definitions.

The above chart shows an individual's ability to lift and carry objects of a given weight.  If a person can lift 100 lb. despite his impairment, he is said to have an exertional Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) for heavy work.  If claimant can lift 50 lb. maximum and 25 lb. frequently, he is said to have an RFC for medium work.  If he can lift only twenty pounds maximum, he has a light RFC.  Lifting of no more than ten pounds gives a sedentary RFC.

There are several exertional components that are of importance to SSA in the determination of disability.  If SSA feels that certain components have a greater negative effect on work, we as consultants must also focus our attention on these same components.  The final RFC (residual functional capacity) for the claimant will be determined by you and should include all appropriate restrictions.  Whether SSA accepts your RFC depends upon the strength of the supporting medical evidence.

Other Exertional Components

Standing and Walking:

The following is an exertional chart showing a claimant's RFC or residual functional capacity to stand and walk.  Common sense tells us that if a claimant is restricted in his ability to stand and walk, there are jobs he simply cannot perform.  The table below provides Social Security's guidelines for assessing the claimant's level of standing and walking restriction.

If a claimant can stand and walk for:
About 6 hours of an 8 hour day ----- Normal
Less than 6 hrs " " " ----- Limited
Less than 2 hrs " " " ----- Markedly Limited.

The above standing and walking restrictions are straight forward.  If a claimant is unable to stand and walk for 6 hrs of an 8 hr day, that person is restricted to performing work that would not require him to stand and walk more than six hours of an eight hour day.

If the claimant can only stand and walk for two hours of an eight hr day, that person is restricted to sedentary work or jobs that would not require that he stand and walk for more than two hours of an eight hour day.  If the claimant can only stand and walk for less than two hours of an eight hour day, his RFC falls to less than sedentary work. If the medical evidence supports this level of restriction, you win the case!

A claimant will also be limited to less than sedentary work if he or she is unable to sit for extended periods (more than one hour), bend at the waist, use fine hand movements or has a visual disorder that causes an inability to read standard print. Remember, all restrictions alleged must be supported by the medical evidence.

Sitting:

Another important restriction to SSA is a person's ability to sit for certain periods of time. Common sense tells us that if a person is unable to sit, that person could be restricted from performing even sedentary work. If a person cannot do sedentary work, that person is said to have an RFC for less than sedentary. If this RFC is supported by the evidence, you win the case!

Please notice that where restrictions are concerned, SSA puts most of its decisional weight on how much or how often a particular action can be performed.  Here are SSA's guidelines for sitting restrictions:

If the claimant can sit a total of:

6 hrs of an 8 hr day ------------ normal
Less than about 6 hrs of an 8 hr day ---- limited
Less than 2 hours a day without frequent breaks or changes in posture or position is considered disabling

Sitting restrictions are most often seen in serious back disorders or circulatory problems of the legs.  If the medical evidence supports the fact that a claimant cannot sit for 2 hours of an 8 hour day without causing additional damage or pain, this would be a good case to argue for a less than sedentary RFC. This RFC is valid even for a person under age forty nine.

Pushing and pulling:

The ability to push or pull is either limited or not, there is no in between.  This situation most often affects claimants whose past work was labor oriented as in construction, warehousing and other occupations that require gross movement or heavy physical labor.

More exertional components:

The above scale shows an example of a claimant who is only able to stoop and crouch occasionally.  If the above restrictions were on a carpenter or construction worker, these limitations would eliminate the claimant's ability to perform the work.  See how this works?  You can use this same approach with literally hundreds of possible physical restrictions.

If the above stooping and crouching limitations were on an accountant, common sense tells us that these restrictions would not apply because an accountant does not have to stoop or crouch to perform his usual job duties. However, limitations such as fine hand movement or poor vision might eliminate an accountant's ability to do his past work.

All physical restrictions that are important to SSA in the disability decision process are listed in the RFC form.  See sample RFC form in your instructional syllabus. These are the same restrictions that you will use to argue your case on behalf of your client.

Turn to RFC form in your instructional syllabus.  On page five of the RFC form, there is a space for environmental restrictions.  This refers to special restrictions caused by lung disease and other disorders that would restrict the type of environment a claimant would be capable of working in.  Don't shy away from using this environmental category if it is appropriate to the claimant's condition.

An example of an environmental restriction is when a claimant is suffering from a serious lung disorder such as asthma or emphysema.  His past work might have been in a chemical factory.  Common sense tells us that the claimant is no longer capable of working in this type of environment or any other environment that would aggravate his proven lung disease.

Residual Functional Capacity:

This term RFC has been used several times in this lesson.  As mentioned earlier, your best friend in determining a claimant's RFC is your common sense.  If your RFC takes into consideration more restrictions than SSA's RFC, and the additional restrictions can be supported by the medical evidence, you have a good chance of convincing SSA that their previous RFC was in error.

Remember that SSA must take into consideration any and all restrictions that are verifiable via the claimant's medical evidence.  This gives you an enormous advantage over SSA.  All you need do is point out the additional restrictions along with the medical evidence used to support it.  The key to winning any case based on physical restrictions is to always pick out those restrictions that are supported by the evidence.  And, always use the physical limitations that most reduce your client's RFC.

The winning concept of less than sedentary work:

If the claimant is under age 49, you'll quickly discover that a case is easiest to argue if you lower the claimant's RFC to less than sedentary.   This rule-of-thumb is well worth repeating because it saves so much time.  If the claimant is forty-nine years of age or less with at least twelve years of education, always argue for a less than sedentary RFC. 

What is less than sedentary work?

Work that is less than sedentary really doesn't exist.  This term is simply a category of work that by definition implies that the claimant cannot lift ten pounds and has other restrictions that make work impossible.  Anyone with a less than sedentary RFC, if accepted by SSA, will be awarded a medical vocational allowance.

Requirements for less than sedentary RFC:

In most cases involving younger individuals, you will have to reduce their RFC to less than sedentary work in order to successfully argue for an allowance determination.

Less than sedentary work defined

Less than sedentary work is defined as the inability to lift more than ten pounds maximum and at least one of the following:

1. The claimant requires a cane, walker or other assistive device in order to do minimal ambulating (walking).

2. The claimant cannot bend at the waist. This restriction may be as a result of an anatomical defect of the hips or spine or may be as a result of pain.

3. The claimant cannot do prolonged sitting without experiencing pain that requires frequent posture or position changes to relieve discomfort.

4. A claimant must have full use of his upper extremities. An RFC is less than sedentary if claimant is unable to lift 10 lbs. and has significant limitations in handling, fingering or feeling in the upper extremities.

5. Poor close vision. Inability or significant problems reading normal sized type due to poor vision that is not correctable with glasses.

6. Significant hearing loss. Most sedentary jobs do require that claimant be able to hear at least at normal conversational voice levels.

Non-exertional capabilities:

Non-exertional capabilities, components or restrictions are fundamental components of work that are nonphysical in nature.  Examples of non-exertional components are a person's ability to understand, remember, concentrate, communicate, work appropriately with others and adapt to changes in a working environment.  It should be obvious that non-exertional components are cognitive or emotional in nature and are most often seen when evaluating mental disorders.

Evaluating a mental disorder is no different than evaluating a physical impairment. You must first review the medical evidence and pick out the key findings that support restrictions in the claimant's ability to function. Compare the claimant's restrictions to the demands of work and structure this information into an argument on behalf of your client.

In many of your cases, you will find that the claimant is suffering from both a physical and mental disorder.  To evaluate these types of cases, analyze the exertional and non-exertional limitations separately, noting both types. Once you have identified all of the claimant's restrictions, you can then combine them and create the most restrictive RFC possible.

To get a better idea of the number and types of possible non-exertional restrictions there are, turn to the sample mental RFC form in your instructional syllabus.  It contains what SSA considers to be the most important types of mental restrictions related to a person's ability to work. These same restrictions can be used by you to argue the case in favor of the claimant if the restrictions are supported by the medical evidence.

The mental RFC form should be used as a restrictions reference guide as is also true for the physical RFC form. Look for the same types of restrictions shown on the RFC forms when evaluating the medical evidence.

Use these same non-exertional restrictions as a guide to structuring your argument for claimants with mental impairments.  According to SSA's internal policy, a claimant who is moderately restricted in A-1, B-4 and moderately to markedly restricted in any two of the remaining components listed on the mental RFC form, would not be realistically capable of performing work.  Always use the medical evidence and your common sense to determine what restrictions best fit a particular case.

Other vocational components:

There are at least three other vocational components that can affect a claimant's ability to perform work.  These are age, education and the skill level of the claimant's past work.

Chronological age:

Once you have shown that the claimant is not physically or mentally capable of performing his past work, you must then prove that the claimant cannot do other work in order to win the case. The claimant's age can help you achieve this goal. SSA believes that as a person gets older, he is less capable of adjusting to new or different types of work. This essentially means that SSA has an easier standard for disability for those over age fifty. This unspoken policy is hidden in the vocational rules. We will discuss vocational rules and how they are used later in this lesson.

Education:

Education is another vocational component that SSA feels can reduce a person's ability to adjust to other types of work. The less education a claimant has, the less capable he/she is to adjust to new or different types of work. The lower a claimant's educational level, the better is his chance for a medical vocational allowance. It is up to you as the claimant's representative to bring forth these types of considerations in your argument. (See vocational rule educational table in your instructional syllabus).

Skill level or SVP:

The amount of time required to achieve average job performance is called the Skill Level or Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) level. If a person's past work was as a medical doctor for example, that person would have taken many years of preparation in order to be able to perform his duties. This would indicate a high skill level or SVP. The higher the SVP, the more complicated or skilled is the job.

SVP: 1 = lowest skill level jobs. 
         9 = highest skill level jobs.

Rule: SSA cannot deny a claimant on the basis that he is capable of work that has a higher SVP or skill level than his past work. SSA will often deny a claim citing a claimant's ability to do jobs that are of a higher skill level. If you catch this common SSA error, this could reverse a previous denial decision.

Example: Your client worked for 15 years as a janitor, SVP of 3, RFC of medium. His current RFC with consideration of his impairment is reduced by you to light work based on some additional restrictions discovered in the evidence. With an RFC of light, he clearly can no longer do janitorial work.

The occupation of a doctor has a physical RFC for light also and an SVP of 8. SSA cannot ask the janitor (SVP of 3), to perform the duties of a doctor (SVP of 8) because of the difference in skill level or SVP. This is an extreme example used to make a point.  Make sure that when SSA says that the claimant is capable of other work, that other work is within the claimant's usual SVP level.

Despite the fact that the janitor job may have an RFC for light work which is the same RFC of a doctor, the janitor cannot be expected to perform work of which he is not trained.  SVP takes precedence over physical RFC. SVP refers to the skill level of a job and should always be no higher than that of the claimant's past work.

Job Transferability:

In the previous paragraphs, we mentioned a claimant being denied to or transferred to other types of work.  This transfer process takes place during the process of vocational analysis. 

By using a job characteristics text like the DOT or the O-Net Consortium (http://www.onetcenter.org/usingOnet.html), you and SSA can determine what jobs might be within a disabled claimant's RFC.  If SSA can cite three jobs to transfer the claimant to, the case will be denied.  The act of finding other jobs within the claimant's remaining capacity is called job transferability.

During the process of job transfer, the claimant's past work experience for the past fifteen years is used to determine if he can perform other similar work that requires less physical or mental exertion.  The other work must be similar in nature and of the same or less SVP.  The new job cannot contain any of the physical or mental requirements that claimant is restricted from performing as a result of his impairment.

Do not overly concern yourself with transferability of skills except where it is obvious that SSA is trying to deny a claimant to a job that he cannot perform. You can argue against this action by pointing out how the claimant's restrictions prevent his transferability to other less demanding work.  You can also argue against transferability if the other work has a higher SVP level than any of the claimant's past work.

Medical Vocational Rules:

The medical vocational rule, also known as the Grid, is a chart used by SSA to compare certain vocational components to determine disability.  This chart can determine at what age and education a claimant must be in order to receive an allowance.  The only information you need from the vocational rules table is the claimant's age and educational level.  You decide on what RFC to argue for based on what will result in an allowance.  Using the voc rules table, you can determine in advance exactly how much to restrict a claimant in order to achieve a medical vocational allowance.

Vocational rules are only used with exertional impairments and you need not cite a rule in your argument unless it clearly supports your position.  Don't get hung up on using the vocational rules table. It is there solely as a guide in determining  an appropriate RFC for your argument.

Trick-of-the-trade:  Concentrate your efforts on disclosing physical or mental restrictions under emphasized or ignored by SSA.  Use these restrictions to argue for a reduced RFC when the primary limitations are not quit strong enough to result in an allowance.  Remember, the vocational rules table will give you an idea of how low you must set the claimant's RFC in order that the outcome is an allowance determination.

Identifying requirements of work:

SSA once used a form called the Vocational Report form or 3369.  Much of the information from this form is now asked on the Client Application form, also known as the 3368 or F16.  In order to evaluate the functional requirements of a claimant's past work, you must have access to the claimant's work history.  This is accomplished by using the old 3369 form or at least some of the questions from this form, at the time you first take the case.  If the claimant has already applied, this information will probably already be in his SSA file.

To make the vocational process easier, Disability Associates has created a software program called the Voc RFC Analyzer.  If you're an Executive member, you can access our Vocational RFC Analyzer software inside the Office Suite.  You may also purchase the Voc RFC Analyzer separately from the link below or upgrade your program to the Executive level course and receive the Voc Analyzer at a significant savings.

Vocational Analysis Software Click link below to purchase product Voc Analyzer Only   Upgrade to Executive

Vocational information is usually provided by the claimant at the time of the initial application. Vocational information should be requested along with the medical evidence and the PDN at the beginning of the case.  If vocational information is found to be lacking in specifics, you should call the claimant for more details.  The old vocational form itself is structured to answer those questions that are most relevant to vocational analysis.  It is much easier to argue that a claimant cannot do past work, when you know what the requirements of his past work were.  See pdf sample of vocational form SSA -3369:

The first page of the old 3369 contains a series of numbered spaces for listing of jobs performed by the claimant in the last fifteen years.  On page two of the form, there is space provided to describe one job per page. The actual 3369 will have about four to five identical page two's (middle page above). 

The process of vocational analysis

Acquire a work history:

One of the earliest steps in the vocational analysis process is the gathering of information about the client's past work history.  This claimant's past work history gives us a window into how he or she performed the work.  This information along with an idea of the claimant's capabilities, will provide you with a framework to creating your argument.

The following is a general list of information about claimant's past work that you'll need in order to start the formal vocational analysis process. The information below should be acquired on all jobs performed by the claimant for more than three months at SGA over the last fifteen years.

1. Claimant's length of time on the job, his age and educational level.

2. Types and title of jobs performed by claimant in the last fifteen years.

3. Each job performed by the claimant in the last fifteen years must be described in detail. This description should include job duties, physical demands, responsibilities, tools used, level of training, etc.

Here is a short list of the most relevant data to be collected about a claimant's past work:

a.  How long was job performed?
b.  Did claimant earn at least $SGA a month?  If not, don't use the job in your past work profile.
c.  Did claimant manage or supervise?
d. What were claimant's primary duties?
e.  Describe the tools, machinery, etc., used by claimant on job.
f.  Did the job involve lifting, climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, etc.   If  so, how much? Were these named actions done frequently, occasionally, or never?
g.  Did jobs require physical movement now restricted by claimant's impairment? Example: Bending.  Was this movement done frequently or occasionally, or never?
h.  Determine if the working environment was in any way harmful to the claimant health.  Example:  Breathing toxic fumes.

Example:  In our hypothetical case on Mr. Katts from lesson four, his past work was as a carpenter. This job is described by the claimant as being medium work (lifting 50 lbs. maximum). The DOT and the O-Net describe this job as being heavy work (lifting 100 lbs. maximum).

SSA felt Mr. Katts was only capable of light work, (lifting of 20 lbs. maximum). Therefore, SSA would not deny him back to past work.  However, they may deny him to other less demanding work because of his remaining capacity to perform light work.  SSA has conceded the RFC for light work because it would still result in a denial of the case.  SSA denied the case on the basis that the claimant is capable of doing other less physically demanding types of work within his current RFC (light).

To counter SSA's argument, you would argue that the claimant's RFC should be further reduced to less than sedentary (<49) making any type of work impossible. You would base this argument on physical or mental limitations that were either ignored or undervalued by SSA.  These ignored or undervalued limitations are used by the astute advocate as the basis for a further reduction of the claimant's RFC.  

How SSA reaches a vocational conclusions about work requirements?

There are two answers to this question.  The first is the voc rules table.  Yes, Social Security looks at the same voc rules table that you do to determine what RFC will result in a particular decision.  The difference is that while you look at the table to determine what RFC it takes for an allowance a case, Social Security  looks at what RFC it would take to deny the case. 

Social Security  will always create an RFC that supports their argument for a denial decision.  This is OK because their RFC has no more merit than your RFC.  An RFC is nothing more than opinion.  You both have an equal right to your opinion about what the claimant's RFC should be.  The victor in this battle will always be the side that presents a well documented argument that makes good common sense!

Social Security  also uses employment industry text like the Dictionary of Occupational Titles or the O-Net Consortium to acquire a formal description of a jobs fundamental components.  Social Security  does this because a formal description of a job 's fundamental requirements can be more or less demanding than the reality of the job. Social Security  will use the less demanding formal job description as a means of justifying a denial decision. 

Example:  If a job is described by the claimant as being heavy, SSA can dispute this description by using the less demanding formal description from the DOT or O-Net.  If the DOT or O-Net say's that the job is of a light exertional nature, SSA will use this quote in their argument for a denial.  This is easy to counter.  An astute advocate would not argue the jobs description in the DOT or O-Net at all.  The advocate's focus should be on the level of the RFC.  Why?  Because if the advocate wins the RFC argument, he'll also win the case.  It really doesn't matter what the claimant's past work exertional RFC level was.  What really matters is the RFC level accepted by SSA at the time the case decision is made.  If the RFC accepted by SSA is low enough to result in an allowance, the RFC of the claimant's past work becomes irrelevant.

Using the DOT:

The O-Net, DOT (Dictionary of Occupational Titles) and the SCO (Selected Characteristics of Occupations) manuals are simply text that describe the fundamental components of most jobs in the national economy. 

These vocational sources are used by both advocates and SSA as a guide to identifying the requirements of an occupation.  For example, if SSA wants to know the maximum lifting requirements of a rough carpenter job, the O-Net or DOT would provide this data.  SSA can then determine if it's appropriate to deny a claimant to that job. 

Identifying Other Work:

Previously, we discussed how to argue that a claimant is not capable of performing his past work, step five of the sequential analysis process. However, in order to acquire an allowance, we must also argue that the claimant is not capable of any type of work.  There are two categories of work that must be considered when arguing that a claimant cannot adjust to any type of work.  These categories are other work or similar work.

Other work refers to work actually performed by the claimant, giving him specific experience in doing that type of work.  Similar work refers to jobs that the claimant might be able to perform because it is similar or require similar skills as his past work.  To identify similar work you must again use an occupational text like the O-Net manual.  Instructions for using the occupational guide can be found within the text or at the O-Net website at http://online.onetcenter.org/ .

Summation of Vocational Analysis:

VA is simply a process where you determine the physical and or mental requirements of the claimant's past work.  You do this by first identifying the claimant's physical and or mental limitations via his medical evidence.  You then review the claimant's job description to determine how his past work was performed and what it required.  Once you have established the claimant's physical and or mental limitations you can formulate an RFC.  You then compare the claimant's remaining capabilities to the requirements of his past work.  This is step five in the vocational analysis process.

Once you have shown that the claimant cannot do his past work, you then compare his RFC or remaining capabilities with other less demanding work.  Other less demanding work is simply other less demanding work or similar work to that performed by the claimant. 

If the claimant is forty-nine years old or less, he will be denied to less demanding work not related to his past work.  Therefore to counter this, you would want to show how his condition restricts him from performing even sedentary work.  Remember, any claimant under age forty-nine will only be allowed benefits if he meets or equals the listings or he is incapable of performing sedentary work.   If you can create a reasonable argument that supports the claimant's inability to perform sedentary work, you will have a good chance of winning the case based on medical vocational factors. 

Preview of Lesson Six:

Lesson Six will focus on the Case Evaluation process.  This process is used in the actual evaluation of a claimant's evidence of record.

********************