Here's a sample decision, in redacted form, not necessarily the best decisional model but one that was readily available and that is at least illustrative of the commonly used format:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
DECISION
IN THE CASE OF ______________________ CLAIM FOR __________________________
JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On __________, the claimant protectively filed a Title II application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The claimant also protectively filed a Title XVI application for supplemental security income on __________. In both applications, the claimant alleged disability beginning __________. These claims were denied initially on June 8, 2011, and upon reconsideration on October 19, 2011. Thereafter, the claimant filed a written request for hearing on November 3, 2011 (20 CFR 404.929 et seq. and 416.1429 et seq.). On __________, the undersigned held a video hearing (20 CFR 404.936(c) and 416.1436(c)). The claimant appeared in ____________ , and the undersigned presided over the hearing from _________. __________, an impartial vocational expert, also appeared at the hearing. The claimant is represented by __________________________, attorneys.
ISSUES
The issue is whether the claimant is disabled under sections 216(i), 223(d) and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. Disability is defined as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
With respect to the claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, there is an additional issue whether the insured status requirements of sections 216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act are met. The claimant's earnings record shows that the claimant has acquired sufficient quarters of coverage to remain insured through December 31, 2014. Thus, the claimant must establish disability on or before that date in order to be entitled to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits.
After careful consideration of all the evidence, the undersigned concludes the claimant has not been under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act from October 10, 2009, through the date of this decision.
APPLICABLE LAW
Under the authority of the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled (20 CFR 404.1520(a) and 416.920(a)). The steps are followed in order. If it is determined that the claimant is or is not disabled at a step of the evaluation process, the evaluation will not go on to the next step.
At step one, the undersigned must determine whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity (20 CFR 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b)). Substantial gainful activity (SGA) is defined as work activity that is both substantial and gainful. "Substantial work activity" is work activity that involves doing significant physical or mental activities (20 CFR 404.1572(a) and 416.972(a)). "Gainful work activity" is work that is usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized (20 CFR 404.1572(b) and 416.972(b)). Generally, if an individual has earnings from employment or self-employment above a specific level set out in the regulations, it is presumed that she has demonstrated the ability to engage in SGA (20 CFR 404.1574, 404.1575, 416.974, and 416.975). If an individual engages in SGA, she is not disabled regardless of how severe her physical or mental impairments are and regardless of her age, education, and work experience. If the individual is not engaging in SGA, the analysis proceeds to the second step.
At step two, the undersigned must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is "severe" or a combination of impairments that is "severe" (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)). An impairment or combination of impairments is "severe" within the meaning of the regulations if it significantly limits an individual's ability to perform basic work activities. An impairment or combination of impairments is "not severe" when medical and other evidence establish only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work (20 CFR 404.1521 and 416.921; Social Security Rulings (SSRs) 85-28, 96-3p, and 96-4p). If the claimant does not have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, she is not disabled. If the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the analysis proceeds to the third step.
At step three, the undersigned must determine whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926). If the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of a listing and meets the duration requirement (20 CFR 404.1509 and 416.909), the claimant is disabled. If it does not, the analysis proceeds to the next step.
Before considering step four of the sequential evaluation process, the undersigned must first determine the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e)). An individual's residual functional capacity is her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments. In making this finding, the undersigned must consider all of the claimant's impairments, including impairments that are not severe (20 CFR 404.1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), and 416.945; SSR 96-8p).
Next, the undersigned must determine at step four whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of her past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f)). The term past relevant work means work performed (either as the claimant actually performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy) within the last 15 years or 15 years prior to the date that disability must be established. In addition, the work must have lasted long enough for the claimant to learn to do the job and have been SGA (20 CFR 404.1560(b), 404.1565, 416.960(b), and 416.965). If the claimant has the residual functional capacity to do her past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant is unable to do any past relevant work or does not have any past relevant work, the analysis proceeds to the fifth and last step.
At the last step of the sequential evaluation process (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)), the undersigned must determine whether the claimant is able to do any other work considering her residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. If the claimant is able to do other work, she is not disabled. If the claimant is not able to do other work and meets the duration requirement, she is disabled. Although the claimant generally continues to have the burden of proving disability at this step, a limited burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the Social Security Administration. In order to support a finding that an individual is not disabled at this step, the Social Security Administration is responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can do, given the residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience (20 CFR 404.1512(g), 404.1560(c), 416.912(g) and 416.960(c)).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned makes the following findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2014.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 10, 2009, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).The claimant worked after the alleged disability onset date but this work activity did not rise to the level of substantial gainful activity. The claimant worked on only a part-time basis after her alleged onset date and her earnings were insufficient to qualify as substantial gainful activity (Ex. 3D, 4D, 4E).
3. The claimant has the following severe combination of impairments: degenerative disc disease, diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, hypothyroid, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, asthma by history, obesity, affective disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).Considered in combination, the above impairments impose more than a minimal limitation on the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities and are expected to last, or have lasted, more than 12 continuous months; therefore, they are found to represent a severe combination of impairments.
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).At the claimant's administrative hearing, her attorney indicated that the claimant's impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of any listing. The undersigned agrees.
The claimant's condition does not meet the requirements of Listing 1.04 because she does not have evidence of nerve root compression, or spinal arachnoiditis, or lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in pseudoclaudication.
She does not meet Listing 3.03 for asthma because she does not have chronic asthmatic bronchitis, or attacks in spite of prescribed treatment and requiring physician intervention, occurring at least once every two months or at least six times per year.
The claimant does not meet Listing 9.08, diabetes mellitus, because there is no neuropathy demonstrated by significant and persistent disorganization of motor function in two extremities resulting in sustained disturbance of gross and dexterous movements, or gait and station. The claimant does not have acidosis occurring at least on an average of once every two months. The claimant does not have retinitis proliferans.
The severity of the claimant's mental impairments, considered singly and in combination, do not meet or medically equal the criteria of listings 12.04 and 12.06. In making this finding, the undersigned has considered whether the "paragraph B" criteria are satisfied. To satisfy the "paragraph B" criteria, the mental impairments must result in at least two of the following: marked restriction of activities of daily living; marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; or repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration. A marked limitation means more than moderate but less than extreme. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration, means three episodes within 1 year, or an average of once every 4 months, each lasting for at least 2 weeks.
In activities of daily living, the claimant has no more than a mild restriction attributable to her mental impairments. The claimant testified that she is able to perform all aspects of personal care, prepare food, do the dishes, and do light housework. The limitations the claimant described in this area were attributed to her physical, rather than mental, impairments.
In social functioning, the claimant has mild difficulties. Both the claimant and her daughter denied that she had any problems getting along with others (Ex. 3E, 5E). They indicated, and the claimant confirmed at hearing, that she socializes with family regularly.
With regard to concentration, persistence or pace, the claimant has mild difficulties. The claimant indicated in a February 2011 function report that she had no problem paying attention and could finish tasks that she began (Ex. 3E). This was confirmed by the claimant's daughter (Ex. 5E). The claimant was noted to have poor attention and concentration at her initial two mental health appointments but this assessment were not repeated on any of her later examinations (Ex. 13F, 16F). She was described in recent treating source records as being alert and oriented in all spheres (Ex. 18F). The claimant reported at her hearing that her mental health symptoms are pretty well controlled as long as she stays on her medication, in an admission corroborated by the claimant's treatment records (Ex. 16F).
As for episodes of decompensation, the claimant has experienced no episodes of decompensation, which have been of extended duration. The medical evidence of record establishes no episodes in which claimant suffered increased symptoms with loss of adaptive functioning that lasted for two weeks or more.
Because the claimant's mental impairments do not cause at least two "marked" limitations or one "marked" limitation and "repeated" episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration, the "paragraph B" criteria are not satisfied.
While the undersigned has determined that the claimant's mental impairments cause no more than a mild limitation in any of the above categories, the combined effect of these impairments does cause some limitation on the claimant's residual functional capacity and, therefore, these impairments have been included in the severe combination of impairments and are reflected in the assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1523 and 416.923).
The undersigned has also considered whether the "paragraph C" criteria are satisfied. In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the "paragraph C" criteria. The record is devoid of evidence of "repeated" episodes of decompensation, potential episodes of decompensation based on minimal increase in mental demands, or the inability to function outside a highly supportive living arrangement.
The limitations identified in the "paragraph B" criteria are not a residual functional capacity assessment but are used to rate the severity of mental impairments at steps 2 and 3 of the sequential evaluation process. The mental residual functional capacity assessment used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process requires a more detailed assessment by itemizing various functions contained in the broad categories found in paragraph B of the adult mental disorders listings in 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (SSR 96-8p). Therefore, the following residual functional capacity assessment reflects the degree of limitation the undersigned has found in the "paragraph B" mental function analysis.
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except that the claimant is restricted to no more than occasional climbing of ramps or stairs, balancing, and stooping, and is precluded from kneeling, crouching, and crawling and from climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; she cannot use her upper extremities for more than occasional pushing, pulling, overhead reaching, gross manipulation, or feeling, and can use them for frequent, but not constant, fine manipulation; she cannot use her lower extremities for more than occasional pushing, pulling, or operation of foot controls; the claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to environmental irritants and must avoid all exposure to unprotected heights and hazardous machinery; and the claimant's work must be low stress in nature, defined as being free of fast paced production requirements and with few, if any, changes in the work place.In making this finding, the undersigned has considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 and SSRs 96-4p and 96 7p. The undersigned has also considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 and SSRs 96 2p, 96-5p, 96 6p and 06-3p.
In considering the claimant's symptoms, the undersigned must follow a two-step process in which it must first be determined whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s)--i.e., an impairment(s) that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques--that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's pain or other symptoms.
Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's pain or other symptoms has been shown, the undersigned must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant's symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant's functioning. For this purpose, whenever statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the undersigned must make a finding on the credibility of the statements based on a consideration of the entire case record.
The claimant alleges that she is unable to engage in competitive employment because of back pain, diabetes with neuropathy, and mental health issues. She testified to a history of constant low back pain that has become less responsive to medication over time. She alleged that she was able to stand for 10 minutes at a time, sit for 20 to 30 minutes at a time, and walk for up to 20 minutes. The claimant's diabetes allegedly causes pain and numbness in her legs, feet, and hands as well as difficulty grasping and holding objects. She indicated that her diabetes leaves her feeling weak and tired. The claimant's mental health is also allegedly affected by depression and anxiety. She testified to experiencing anxiety attacks on an average of two times per week, each lasting from 30 to 60 minutes.
After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause certain of the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant's statements (and those contained in a documentary submission by her daughter) concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible for the reasons explained in this decision.
In terms of the claimant's alleged back problems, she reports that her pain began around the beginning of 2008 (Ex. 1F, 2F, 10F). When she initially sought treatment, she demonstrated lumbar tenderness and limited range of motion and complained of pain radiating into her right lower extremity (Ex. 1F). An MRI of her lumbar spine revealed multilevel degenerative disc disease. On examinations through 2010, the claimant generally had mild deficits in her lower back range of motion and decreased sensation in her lower extremities (Ex. 2F, 5F, 6F). At two consultative examinations in 2011, the claimant was noted to have decreased range of motion in her spine and bilateral shoulders (Ex. 10F, 12F). Associated diagnostic testing found degenerative changes in her cervical and lumbar spine (Ex. 11F). However, a multitude of examinations in 2012 report the claimant to have lumbar tenderness but essentially full range of motion in her back (Ex. 14F, 19F). The claimant also routinely demonstrated a normal gait and full extremity strength at these examinations. An x-ray of her lumbar spine performed in August 2012 was interpreted as showing lumbar disc disease but no acute lumbar spine abnormality (Ex. 14F). Of the claimant's three most recent examinations, two determined that her back was nontender and all found her to have full ranges of motion (Ex. 19F). Based on this evidence, the claimant is limited to the light exertional level with additional restrictions on her posture. The claimant's degenerative disc disease also contributes to restrictions on her extremity use, detailed below.
The claimant has carried a diagnosis of diabetes for decades but has reported associated symptoms in recent years (Ex. 2F, 5F). In April 2009, the claimant alleged having hand pain and numbness from her diabetes but demonstrated full grip strength (Ex. 2F). When seen in September 2009, the claimant reported that problems with her diabetes had been developing gradually but her blood sugar levels remained under control (Ex. 3F). Unfortunately, over the next few months, the claimant's blood sugar levels spiked and she began to complain of extremity pain (Ex. 3F, 4F). The claimant attended a consultative examination in May 2010 where she was found to have decreased sensation in her hands and feet as well as mildly decreased grip strength in the context of not having taken her oral diabetic medication in two months (Ex. 5F). In December 2010, the claimant was hospitalized overnight with complaints of chest pain radiating into her left upper extremity and reports of a syncopal episode (Ex. 7F). Diagnostic testing in the hospital was generally benign except for a significantly elevated blood sugar level (Ex. 7F, 8F). The claimant noted that she had stopped taking her oral diabetic medication for a medical study, though she continued to utilize her insulin. The consulting doctors felt that the claimant's symptoms were related to her blood sugar level. At two consultative examinations in 2011, the claimant reported that her diabetes remained uncontrolled and that she was experiencing neuropathic pain and numbness in her legs, feet, arms, hands, and fingers (Ex. 10F, 12F). She also complained of fatigue and weakness in her hands. On examination, the claimant demonstrated deceased sensation in her hands and feet but had intact grip and extremity strength. The claimant has continued to report mild fatigue and extremity pain and numbness to her medical providers (Ex. 17F, 18F). The claimant affirmed these reports at her hearing, reporting numbness and pain in her fingers and feet and problems dropping things. To account for the claimant's diabetes and diabetic neuropathy, she is limited to occasional use of her lower extremities for pushing, pulling, or operation of foot controls; occasional use of her upper extremities for overhead reaching, gross manipulation, and feeling; and frequent, but not constant use, of her upper extremities for fine manipulation. The claimant must also avoid all exposure to unprotected heights and hazardous machinery.
The record reveals that the claimant has a history of asthma. At a 2009 consultative examination, the claimant reported that her asthma bothered her only in cold weather (Ex. 2F). She made no complaints related to asthma or breathing at any of her three subsequent consultative examinations (Ex. 5F, 10F, 12F). When the claimant initiated treatment with a new medical provider in September 2009, she reported that her breathing problems were mild and intermittent (Ex. 3F). The claimant appears to have sought treatment for asthma exacerbations on two occasions in the medical record (Ex. 4F, 17F). Given the foregoing evidence, the claimant should avoid concentrated exposure to environmental irritants.
The record also shows that the claimant has generally been in the obese weight range (Ex. 2E, 2F, 4F, 12F, 19F). Her obesity has been considered in combination with her other impairments pursuant to SSR 02-1p and is reflected in the above-assessed postural limitations.
The claimant also carries diagnosis of hypothyroidism, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia (Ex. 2F, 3F, 9F, 10F, 12F, 15F). These conditions have persisted throughout the period here at issue, though the claimant testified at hearing that her hypertension is now controlled on medication. The undersigned finds that these impairments contribute to the claimant's limitation to the light exertional level.
In terms of the claimant's mental health, she has been diagnosed with an affective disorder, anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The claimant testified at her hearing in May 2013 that her psychological problems had begun just in the last couple of years. Her records show that she first sought treatment in July 2011 (Ex. 13F). At her initial assessment, the claimant reported experiencing depression and mood swings and demonstrated poor concentration and selective memory. She revealed that her significant other had passed away earlier in 2011 and that she was struggling with this loss. The claimant was diagnosed with an affective disorder, an anxiety disorder, and PTSD. Fortunately, the claimant's treatment records from 2012 show a significant, though incomplete, improvement in her condition (Ex. 16F). While the claimant continued to react to stressful situations, her condition was generally noted as stabilizing. The claimant's other recent treatment records consistently describe her as alert and oriented in all spheres (Ex. 18F). At her hearing, the claimant testified that she experiences approximately two anxiety attacks per week but that her symptoms are "pretty well controlled" as long as she stays on her medication. The undersigned notes that function reports submitted by the claimant and her daughter do not allege any limitations incident to a mental impairment and indicate that the claimant has no problem getting along with others (Ex. 3E, 5E). Nonetheless, in light of the claimant's continued reaction to stressful situations, her employment must be limited to low stress work, as defined above.
Several factors damage the claimant's credibility as to the allegedly disabling severity of her impairments. The claimant testified that she continues to engage in a relatively wide range of activities of daily living including all aspects of personal care, light housework, preparing meals, and doing dishes. In a 2011 function report, the claimant reported being able to drive, go out alone, go shopping, and pay attention without limitation (Ex. 3E). However, the undersigned notes inconsistencies between the claimant's 2011 function report and both her current testimony and a function report submitted by her daughter on the same day in 2011 (Ex. 5E). While the claimant's 2011 report indicates that she needs significant assistance with activities of personal care and that she does no cooking, cleaning, or housework, her daughter's report and her current testimony reveal that she performs personal care independently and engages in a number of other household tasks. The undersigned is also cognizant that the claimant's most severe diabetic episodes have been associated with her not taking her oral diabetic medication.
As for the opinion evidence, the claimant was seen by consultative medical examiner, ____________, on two occasions, in May and September 2011 (Ex. 10F, 12F). On both of these occasions, Dr. _______ opined that the claimant had moderate limitation and that she could walk 100 feet without difficulty. This opinion, while lacking in specificity, is based upon a comprehensive and impartial examination of the claimant, consistent with the record as a whole, and uncontradicted by the opinion of any treating or examining medical source; therefore, it is accorded considerable weight.
The claimant also attended two consultative examinations with Dr. ________, in April 2009 and May 2010 (Ex. 2F, 5F); the first of these examinations was conducted significantly prior to the claimant's alleged disability onset date, and does not and cannot purport to relate to her later condition. The latter assessment is expressly stated in terms of the claimant's own subjective (and evidentiarily uncorroborated) allegations ("she states … she notes," etc.), and not in terms of any objective opinion by Dr. ____ based upon his examination of the claimant. As such, and by its own express terms, Dr. ____'s functional assessment must be viewed as essentially constituting little more than an early set of allegations by the claimant, some of which are inconsistent even with the claimant's later allegations as set forth in her Exhibit 3E function report (indicating no limitations on sitting) and the function report submitted on the claimant's behalf by her daughter (Exhibit 5E, indicating no limitations on standing). The allegations set forth in Dr. _____'s report are also unsupported by the objective findings by Dr. ______ on his later consultative examinations of the claimant (Ex. 10F, 12F), with the essentially normal findings set forth in the claimant's most recent examination and treatment records (Ex. 18F, 19F), with the claimant's quite recent (May 16, 2013) denial of joint pain or weakness (18F/2), and with the wide range of the claimant's reported daily activities. Dr. _____'s purported "functional assessment," which upon close reading is actually nothing of the kind, is accordingly given little weight.
The State agency medical consultant found that the claimant was limited to the light exertional level with additional restrictions on her posture, work environment, and upper extremity use (Ex. 6A). This assessment is given considerable weight. Such consultants are deemed by regulation to be highly qualified experts in Social Security disability determination (20 CFR 416.927(f)(2)(i)), and this opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, within its maker's area of specialization, based upon a comprehensive review of the record then-extant, and uncontradicted by that of any treating or examining medical source. However, the undersigned has included additional limitations in the claimant's above-assessed residual functional capacity based on her testimony that her conditions have worsened over time and in an effort to afford the claimant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).The claimant has past relevant work as a home health aide. The vocational expert testified that the demands of this position exceed the claimant's above-assessed residual functional capacity. Accordingly, the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on _______ and was 50 years old, which is defined as an individual closely approaching advanced age, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled," whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569, 404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)).In determining whether a successful adjustment to other work can be made, the undersigned must consider the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in conjunction with the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. If the claimant can perform all or substantially all of the exertional demands at a given level of exertion, the medical-vocational rules direct a conclusion of either "disabled" or "not disabled" depending upon the claimant's specific vocational profile (SSR 83-11). When the claimant cannot perform substantially all of the exertional demands of work at a given level of exertion and/or has nonexertional limitations, the medical-vocational rules are used as a framework for decisionmaking unless there is a rule that directs a conclusion of "disabled" without considering the additional exertional and/or nonexertional limitations (SSRs 83-12 and 83-14). If the claimant has solely nonexertional limitations, section 204.00 in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines provides a framework for decisionmaking (SSR 85-15).
If the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light work, a finding of "not disabled" would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.14. However, the claimant's ability to perform all or substantially all of the requirements of this level of work has been impeded by additional limitations. To determine the extent to which these limitations erode the unskilled light occupational base, the Administrative Law Judge asked the vocational expert whether jobs exist in the national economy for an individual with the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. The vocational expert testified that given all of these factors the individual would be able to perform the requirements of representative occupations such as ticket seller (DOT #211.467-030; 94,000 positions in the national economy; 12,000 positions in the State economy), office helper (DOT #239.567-010; 83,000 positions in the national economy; 4,800 positions in the State economy), and counter clerk (DOT #249.366-010; 400,000 positions in the national economy; 21,000 positions in the State economy).
Pursuant to SSR 00-4p, the undersigned has determined that the vocational expert's testimony is consistent with the information contained in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
Based on the testimony of the vocational expert, the undersigned concludes that, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the claimant is capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. A finding of "not disabled" is therefore appropriate under the framework of the above-cited rule.
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from ___________, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).DECISION
Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits protectively filed on __________, the claimant is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act.
Based on the application for supplemental security income protectively filed on __________, the claimant is not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act.
___________________________
Administrative Law Judge
___________________________
Date
