Social Security is publishing Ruling AR-14-1(8) today, acquiescing to Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012). According to Social Security:
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] erred by relying solely on the Grid rules to determine that Brock could adjust to work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Court held that ``[b]ecause the ALJ determined that Brock suffered from severe mental impairments, the ALJ should have consulted a [VE] in determining whether Brock had the RFC to perform other jobs that exist in significant number in the national economy.''
6 comments:
Well, Duhhhhhhh. Most ALJ's that I know wouldn't do it any other way.
unless the only mental limitation was something limiting him to unskilled work--since all jobs at Step 5 have to be unskilled, there's no need for a VE, no?
I don't think so as we give mental limitations that may lead to unskilled work, but sometimes even with mental limitations, it may not lead to unskilled work. In other words, a person that could only work occasionally with the public or co-workers due to mental impairments might still be able to do skilled or semi-skilled work, or work that their skills might transfer to. Further I don't thinkw ecan take judicial notice that there are unskilled jobs out there that satisfy our RFC. WE also need a VE to give us the number of jobs in the National economy so we may determine if it is a significant number of jobs or not. I also like/need a VE to help me classify the claimant's past work. I feel like I am talking in circles or incoherently. I think I need to go to lunch.
I'm sorry in rereading this I should have said that there are also jobs at Step 5 that are skilled or semi-skilled. If the claimant has transferrable skills and the RFC doesn't eliminate it, the VE can give us a semi or skilled job at Step 5.
I should have been more clear. What I meant was that if the only nonexertional/mental limitation was that work must be unskilled, wouldn't an ALJ be able to do a direct application of the Grids since all jobs at Step 5 (minus PRW or trsfbl skills) we would put someone to are unskilled?
I doubt this is the specific fact pattern of the case giving rise to this AR. It probably involved an RFC with multiple mental lims that definitely should have VE testimony. I should just read the case, huh?
Sounds to me similar to the Sykes Rule in the 3rd Circuit.
Post a Comment