Group I, Category 53 Insufficient Vocational Documentation to Determine Work History
ISSUE
DDS allowed the claimant 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 decision.
CASE DISCUSSION & POLICY ANALYSIS (INCLUDING SPECIFIC REFERENCES)
This 58 year-old claimant is filing a DIB claim alleging disability since 08/01/2015 due to stage 2 Lymphoma, pain, weakness and fatigue, unable to lift left arm above head due to port, blood transfusion, white blood cell count, and a stent in liver.
The DDS reviewed the file and assessed a RFC for 20/10/6/6. The evidence in file supports this determination. There is a vocational …show more content…
This work is not described on the SSA 3369 or elsewhere in the file. DI 22525.001.B.4 states a complete and detailed description of all past work is required for all past relevant work at step 4 of sequential evaluation. This includes job title, dates worked (month and year,) rate of pay, and job duties and work processes.
On the SSA 3368, the claimant lists three jobs within the relevant time. He worked as an assistant starter April 2015- May 2015, and again May 2015-2015. He also worked as a contact laborer May 2015 through August 2016. This work is not described on the SSA 3369, or elsewhere in the file. Although this work may have lasted short periods, without an adequate description it is not possible to determine if this work is relevant. Therefore
The DE contacted the claimant in regards to past work. There is a claim communication dated 8/6/16. The DE contacted the claimant regarding work performed from 1999-2001. Although the examiner’s effort to complete the work history should he lauded, the work history is …show more content…
If the additional development determines the claimant has the capacity to perform PRW as described or as done in the general economy, the claim should be denied. However, if the work is not relevant, or outside of the claimant’s RFC vocational rule 201.02 202.02 directs an allowance as of the date SGA stopped.
REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION
Please complete the vocational development. Contact the claimant for a detailed description of all work done in the 15-year relevant timeframe. This includes a complete description of jobs 6-7 listed on the SSA 3369, and the 3 jobs listed on the SSA 3368. Clarify dates worked as a contact laborer and confirm whether self-employment as an iron hauler is the same as the contracting listed on the written SSA 3368. If necessary contact the FO to obtain an 821/823 regarding the DLW. After your action is completed, please prepare a revised SSA-831 and notice if necessary and return the claim to OQR
ISSUE
DDS allowed the claimant 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 decision.
CASE DISCUSSION & POLICY ANALYSIS (INCLUDING SPECIFIC REFERENCES)
This 58 year-old claimant is filing a DIB claim alleging disability since 08/01/2015 due to stage 2 Lymphoma, pain, weakness and fatigue, unable to lift left arm above head due to port, blood transfusion, white blood cell count, and a stent in liver.
The DDS reviewed the file and assessed a RFC for 20/10/6/6. The evidence in file supports this determination. There is a vocational …show more content…
This work is not described on the SSA 3369 or elsewhere in the file. DI 22525.001.B.4 states a complete and detailed description of all past work is required for all past relevant work at step 4 of sequential evaluation. This includes job title, dates worked (month and year,) rate of pay, and job duties and work processes.
On the SSA 3368, the claimant lists three jobs within the relevant time. He worked as an assistant starter April 2015- May 2015, and again May 2015-2015. He also worked as a contact laborer May 2015 through August 2016. This work is not described on the SSA 3369, or elsewhere in the file. Although this work may have lasted short periods, without an adequate description it is not possible to determine if this work is relevant. Therefore
The DE contacted the claimant in regards to past work. There is a claim communication dated 8/6/16. The DE contacted the claimant regarding work performed from 1999-2001. Although the examiner’s effort to complete the work history should he lauded, the work history is …show more content…
If the additional development determines the claimant has the capacity to perform PRW as described or as done in the general economy, the claim should be denied. However, if the work is not relevant, or outside of the claimant’s RFC vocational rule 201.02 202.02 directs an allowance as of the date SGA stopped.
REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION
Please complete the vocational development. Contact the claimant for a detailed description of all work done in the 15-year relevant timeframe. This includes a complete description of jobs 6-7 listed on the SSA 3369, and the 3 jobs listed on the SSA 3368. Clarify dates worked as a contact laborer and confirm whether self-employment as an iron hauler is the same as the contracting listed on the written SSA 3368. If necessary contact the FO to obtain an 821/823 regarding the DLW. After your action is completed, please prepare a revised SSA-831 and notice if necessary and return the claim to OQR