A Truly Vile Tactic - Changing the Hypothetical During Cross-Examination

An ALJ that has a pay rate over 50% in West Los Angeles has a hearing on remand from the District Court via another ALJ hearing and this time an Appeals Council remand.  Most recently vacated ALJ decision is medium, six hours of standing/walking; six hours of sitting; occasional contact with coworkers; no public; and limited to one and two-step tasks.  On remand, the ALJ limits the claimant to that set except changes the one and two-step tasks to able to perform reasoning level 1 and 2 work.  Vocational expert identifies work:

1. PACKAGER, MACHINE - DOT 920.685-078
2. CONVEYOR FEEDER-OFFBEARER - 921.686-014
3. CLEANER, LABORATORY EQUIPMENT - 381.687-022

Cross focuses first on the ability to perform these occupations while standing/walking not more than six hours in a workday.  After first claiming that the DOT permits six hours, the VE backs down on the challenge that the DOT Appendix C says nothing about standing/walking.  Vocational expert concedes on machine packager and starts down that path with feeder-offbearer.  ALJ interrupts and asks if six hours of standing-walking eliminates all three occupations.  

"Yes."  

ALJ changes the question to assume eight hours of standing/walking.  Cross continues to confirm that medium work requires more than six hours as a general proposition.  Need to lock that down and did.  

Cross turns to occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors.  Making an offer of proof based on O*NET OnLine ver. 23.2, the VE states that she relies on her experience.  

"Who has the greater ability to gather data and report data, you or the Department of Labor?"

"Does DOL abide by OMB standards for reporting data?"

"Who peer reviews your data and conclusions?"  

The ALJ deletes the occasional contact with others from her hypothetical.  

Cross turns to reasoning level 1.  The ALJ reminds everyone that the hypothetical question assumed reasoning levels 1 and 2.  None of the jobs have reasoning level 1.  

The opinion evidence shows limited capacity to accept criticism from supervisors.  Assuming an inappropriate response to criticism one a week to once a month, can that person sustain work?  

"No."  

Wear down the witness.  Make the ALJ display the intent to deny by changing the hypothetical questions.  And then reach for the jugular.  A pattern of one a week to once a month of inappropriate responses to criticism is fatal to the world of unskilled work.