Not too long ago someone told me that this example had been added to Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS):
A 50-year-old claimant with a high school education and unskilled past relevant work has an RFC [Residual Functional Capacity] for standing/walking 2 hours of an 8-hour day and sitting approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour day. He is able to lift/carry/push/pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. This RFC falls between rule 201.12, which has a decision of disabled, and 202.13, which has a decision of not disabled. In this case, use rule 201.12 as a framework for a decision of disabled because the definitions in DI 25001.001 (Medical-Vocational Quick Reference Guide) indicate light work usually requires walking or standing for approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour day. Since the claimant can only walk or stand for 2 hours, he has a significantly reduced capacity to perform light work and a sedentary medical-vocational rule applies as a framework for a determination.
I posted about this. Not long after I posted about it, without any announcement of a change, the example disappeared from the POMS section to which I cited. However, you can still see the example on the transmittal sheet, which is available online, which notified the various components of the agency about this and other changes. As long as it's there, it's going to be cited to courts and Administrative Law Judges. So, now, the question is whether the example will disappear from the transmittal sheet? Will the agency pretend that none of this ever happened? I've heard of the concept of a non-person. Can there be a non-thing? Can Social Security permanently erase this from the memory bank?
5 comments:
You would be amazed by the sheer volume of things the Agency is able to 'permanently erase,' or deny the existence of, from its memory. This is particularly evident in the 'scathing reputation' SSA has in its handling of EEO cases, and refusal of its highest officials to address and take appropriate action against those it is indisputedly aware have engaged in criminal misconduct and wrongdoing. A big scandal is brewing folks!
This is what the state agencies have been doing for years and years. It was always a mystery to DDSs why an ALJ would give a rule for an allowance and the make one of his rare denials.
POMS are not. Law. Just because some idiot mis- quoted a GRID does not make it so.
In my experience, in most circumstances, most VEs will testify that being limited to 2 hours standing/walking in an 8-hour workday limits the claimant to sedentary work. If so, the grid rule for sedentary work applies. Indeed, work is characterized as sedentary because of the amount of weight to be lifted or for the amount of time spent standing or walking. However, VEs may find some light jobs that accommodate standing/walking for that time, assuming no other limitations preclude those light jobs, such that VE testimony is required in those situations. Just because I "know" or think I know how the VE will respond, does not remove the need for the VE testimony. But, a sedentary grid rule finding is quite likely.
POMS are law.
Post a Comment