Progress and Pushing Vocational Experts to Reasonable Answers

A court remand case with the prior residual functional capacity finding:

After careful consideration of the entire record, I fmd that the claimant has the
residual functional capacity to perform a range of light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). Specifically the claimant is able to lift pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently.  He can stand and/or walk for two hours out of an eight-hour day, with the ability to use a cane when ambulating outside of the work area; he can sit for 6 hours of an 8 hour day, but must have the ability to stand and stretch every hour estimated to take 1 to 3 minutes per hour.  He does not need to leave the work station to do the stretching.  He can occasionally bend, stoop, and crouch, but he cannot crawl or kneel. He cannot work at highly fast-paced work, such as rapid assembly line work, nor work requiring public contact- He can perform low stress jobs which is defined as jobs having occasional decision making or occasional changes in the work setting.

We have a younger individual with a limited education and unable to perform past work and lacks transferable skills.  The vocational expert is testifying today between two different ALJs so we have some time waiting for the VE.  ALJ asks me how I am going to get this claimant below sedentary.  I don't think I have to, this residual functional capacity will not permit work in significant numbers.  

Enter the vocational expert.  ALJ asks the VE to assume a person of any age, with any education, and any work history with the previously assessed residual functional capacity.  Vocational pauses, contemplates, and then answers, "no jobs."  

I have been in hearings with this judge and this witness many times before.  We all know that identifying some production job will focus on work pace; clerical positions will focus on changes and decision-making; all the counter clerk-type jobs are out for no public contact; and we have a total of four breaks totaling 12 minutes in addition to the California-mandated two 10-minute breaks and 30-minute meal break.  The VE focused on the realistic limitation to sedentary work; the elimination of light work because of a cane outside of the work station; the unavailability of production jobs; and the limitation to occasional decisions and changes.  "No jobs."  

This is not a VE that typically testifies "favorably" to claimants, but he isn't hostile to them either.  My post mortem analysis is that the history with this VE nudged him to the testimony and my history with the ALJ made him more likely to accept the testimony and explanation.  

"Any questions, counsel?"

Smile, "no questions, Judge."  

"Hearing adjourned, have a nice day."