Case Study - Limited Range of Sedentary - No Work

We look at a prior denied claim subject to the continuing presumption of non-disability.  The presumption attaches in the Ninth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and the Fourth Circuit.  The Sixth Circuit has an additional Acquiescence Ruling to address.  The continuing presumption shifts the burden to the claimant to show changed circumstances.  We start the case study with the prior residual functional capacity assessment:

4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except she can climb ramps and stairs occasionally. She can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffold. She can stoop occasionally, but never kneel, crouch, or crawl. She can balance frequently. She should avoid unprotected heights, moving machinery, and vibration. She should be in a clean-air work environment meaning low levels of pollutants and stable temperatures. She would require a sit/stand option in thirty-minute intervals. She should work in a moderate noise environment. She is limited to simple, routine, and repetitive work and a low-stress work environment, which means none production-oriented work, but can do goal-oriented work. She can have only occasional contact with supervisors and coworkers. She could interact with small group of coworkers, as long as those interactions were infrequent and superficial. She can have little to no interaction with general public. She can have only occasional changes in the work setting. She cannot do work that would require directing others, abstract thought, or planning. She can only make simple, work related decisions.

The vocational profile is a younger individual, at least a high school education, able to communicate and literate in English, and no past relevant work.  ALJ announces that he will find changed circumstances, that the claimant has additional impairments or additional limitations and asks for an opening statement.  Claimant argues that she wins on the prior residual functional capacity and if that isn't enough, she wins on the additional limitations.  ALJ propounds the  residual functional capacity to the vocational expert -- no jobs. 

The prior ALJ decision accepted vocational expert testimony identifying work as:

inspector (DOT: 669.687-014), with 100,000 jobs in the national economy; assembler (DOT: 734.687-074), with 100,000 jobs in the national economy; and packer (DOT: 209.587-010), with 80,000 jobs in the national economy.

Put aside the question of the job numbers.  They are utter garbage.  We are focused on the first question of whether occupations exist regardless of job numbers.  Inspector is dowel inspector in the woodworking industry.   The woodworking industry exists in the manufacturing sector.  It is repetitive work.  It is a production occupation. 

Assembler is slide-fastener-chain assembler in the button and notion industry.  The button and notion industry exists in the manufacturing sector.  Assembler is repetitive work.  It is a production occupation. 

Packer is misidentified.  The DOT code refers to addresser.  That occupation is obsolete.  Packers could point to ampoule sealer or hand bander -- both production related work. 

The world of work for simple tasks involves mostly production work.  Simple and limited contact with others wipe out clerical unskilled work.  We must see limitations as erosive and cutting.  When the limitations attack the world of work from opposite directions, there is rarely anything left. 

The ALJ accepted the vocational testimony and stated the intent to issue a favorable decision -- on this application.  The other application is too far gone to reopen and revise.