Claim Remanded on Vocational Measures

A 35-year-old man with a high school education, who has worked as a factory loader, production worker, shipping loader, tree trimmer and hardwood floor installer, and who suffers from severe depression and other mental health problems, gets another chance at social security disability benefits; the Roanoke U.S. District Court says the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert did not account for certain of claimant’s cognitive limitations.

While plaintiff may be disabled for certain forms of employment, the crucial factual determination is whether plaintiff is disabled for all forms of substantial gainful employment. The court is unable to conclude that the commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial evidence.

The administrative law judge found that, as a result of emotional difficulties and musculoskeletal problems, claimant is disabled for all his past relevant work roles. In such circumstances, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the commissioner to establish the availability of alternate work roles, which claimant could be expected to perform. In assessing claimant’s capacity for alternate work activity, the ALJ relied on testimony from a vocational expert. At the time of the administrative hearing, the ALJ posed the following hypothetical question to the expert: Please consider an individual who may perform work at the light exertional level, occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel and crouch, but who should do no crawling, should avoid heights and hazards, cannot perform continuous hand control or continuous right-foot control and receive no more than simple job instructions.

In response, the vocational expert testified that while plaintiff could not perform past relevant work, he could be expected to perform certain light work roles which exist in significant number in the national economy.

The difficulty in this case is that the hypothetical question put to the vocational expert did not include all the limitations ultimately found to exist by the ALJ in his opinion. In assessing plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ noted moderate impairment in the ability to sustain concentration, persistence or pace. While the vocational expert proposed alternate work roles, as a production assembler, packer and inspector, the expert was not asked to consider the degree to which such work roles require sustained concentration, regular production output and attendance to task,

In the instant case, the court is simply unable to conclude that the assessment offered by the vocational expert and adopted by the ALJ, was based on all the work-related limitations the ALJ found to exist. While plaintiff was ultimately found to be capable of unskilled, production jobs, which often require close attendance to task and satisfaction of daily quotas, the vocational expert was not asked to consider the interplay of moderate limitations in concentration, persistence and pace.

The court is unable to conclude the ALJ properly identified alternate work roles the claimant could be expected to perform. The court finds “good cause” for remand of the case  to the commissioner for further consideration.

The court concludes the hypothetical question posed by the ALJ, excluding plaintiff’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence or pace, is not consistent with the evidence of record.

Sexton v. Colvin (Conrad) (Published) No. 7:13cv521, May 19, 2014; USDC at Roanoke, Va. VLW 014-3-268, 8 pp.