Applying the Grid Rules – A Case Study

Claimant Profile: 61-year-old male

Past work: wholesale produce salesman, machine operator, cashier, sales representative for advertising directory, punch-out man

Education: high school graduate

Basis of disability claim: In June 2006, my client underwent a 4x heart bypass operation.  There were complications associated with the operation which include kidney failure and at least 2 “mini-strokes.”   My client is also suffering from diabetes and was diagnosed neuropathy in his right leg, which stays numb.  He also complains of pain in the right leg where blood vessels were harvested for the bypass operation.  And recently, my client’s cardiologist has noted a clog with one of the blood vessels involved with the bypass.  Since his surgery, he has suffered from exhaustion and fatigue with light exertion, short term memory loss, cognitive decline, shortness of breath, and slowed reaction time, all of which make the situation more difficult for him.

Analysis: The hearing in this case was held in September 2008.  The record clearly documented the bypass surgery as well as the complications involved in the aftermath. Nevertheless, while my client has been receiving regular medical treatment, his primary care physician would not fill out a functional capacity form for me.  Going into the hearing, I felt that he would testify credibly, but I was concerned about the absence a form.

Fortunately my client did very well during the hearing. The judge opened the hearing by asking questions about why my client is incapable of working. My client answered in a very matter of fact tone and he presented himself as a simple man who sounded like a wise person.  At one point, the judge asked my client about his medications and my client handed the judge a copy of an e-mail sent to me with the list of medications. The judge looked at it and remarked that the drugs and the complications testified to were “consistent,” which made me feel confident that things were going well.

After taking the testimony, the judge now turned to the vocational witness in order to identify the claimant’s past work.  The vocational witness in this case has testified in many hearings that I have tried and I immediately noticed that the form of his testimony had changed – he was much more specific than usual about identifying jobs and he included the Dictionary of Occupational Title numbers.

The judge then asked the VE to assume a hypothetical person who was limited to sedentary work.  Could this hypothetical person could be a fit to any past work.  The answer was “no” because all of the past work was light or medium and the person was simply incapable of doing it.

The judge then puts up second question: “he wanted to know if there are any transferrable skills from past work to sedentary jobs, bearing in mind that according to Social Security rules, there would have to be very minimal work adjustment in such a transfer of skills bearing the age of my client.  The vocational witness responded: “there are no transferrable skills.”

The judge then asked if I had any questions.  I responded “no,” because a claimant age 55+ with a high school education, limited to sedentary work and no transferrable skills meets the grid at 201.06, which the judge confirmed.

As a final aside – I suspect that the judge had spoken with the vocational witness prior to the hearing regarding a possible grid outcome.  I was clearly not under the impression that the judge pre-decided the case, but I suspect that he discussed with the VE the transferrable skills question and verified that there were no transferrable skills.  This clears the confusion as to why the VE was so specific in identifying past work.