Grid Rules Case Study #5

Background

The claimant was a 51 year old female who completed the 10^th grade with no further education.  Her past work history included a job as a grill cook at a restaurant.  She had numerous medical problems, including diabetes, high cholesterol, anemia, high blood pressure, foot and ankle pain, and damaged toenails.  Due to her specific foot and ankle pain, she had to resign from her job as a grill cook because she could no longer stand on her feet.

Due to financial circumstances, the claimant only saw her doctor and podiatrist roughly once every year.  In fact, her last medical visit was in January 2008, almost 2 years prior to the hearing.  Further, her financial situation prevented her from seeing the doctor regularly and resulted in her inability to fill her prescriptions in a timely manner, which was indicated in her medical records.

The claimant was very easy going and friendly, as well as ignorant in the proper way to eat or obtain good medical care.  She noted that prior to her foot pain she could walk 100 to 200 feet.  In an effort to improve her health, she had also decreased her significant smoking habit.

The Hearing Strategy

Upon initial review, the claimant seemed to have a straightforward grid rule case.  Specifically, her case revolved around grid rule 201.10, which results in finding a claimant  disabled if she is 50-54 years old, has a “limited or less” education, possesses semi-skilled working characteristics, and is limited to sedentary work.  The claimant was almost 50 at the onset of her medical problems and it appeared from medical records and her own testimony that she would not be able to stand and walk for 6 out of 8 hours in a day.  Although her age was slightly below the requirement for the grid rule, I rectified the problem by amending her onset date to reflect her 50^th birthday, so as to meet the grid.

The hearing proceeded with the judge appearing via video and an introduction of the vocational expert. The judge then asked for an opening statement, in which I detailed the grid rule argument and noted that the onset date should be amended to reflect the claimant’s 50th birthday.  After the opening, the judge questioned the claimant about her ability to walk and she indicated that she had difficulty walking from her car to the hearing room and had to stop several times.

Next, the judge asked about the claimant’s inconsistent medical care.  The claimant stated that she did not have the financial resources to afford medical care or her prescriptions.  He then asked her about her smoking habit and the cost of cigarettes.  He told her that she could afford medical care 4 times a year if she were to cease smoking.  The claimant was silent as to this assertion.  I attempted to argue this point from a different view by asking the claimant if she had tried to quit smoking.  She testified that she had tried, however, she did not have the money necessary for a smoking cessation program.

The judge then asked the vocational expert to describe the claimant’s past work history.  The witness indicated that the claimant was a short order grill cook, which was a light and semi-skilled position. When the judge asked whether there were any transferable skills to sedentary work, the vocational expert stated that there were not any.  After this testimony, the judge concluded the hearing.

Although the judge will likely approve the case based on grid rule 201.10, the questions regarding smoking were important to consider.  If a claimant is a smoker, she should be prepared to justify the cost of smoking and the decision to ignore health issues associated with smoking.   Whether benefits are awarded may turn on this one subject.