Group I, Category 53 Insufficient Vocational Documentation to Determine Work History
ISSUE
DDS determined the claimant is disabled at step 5 of sequential evaluation, without first completing step 4. A review of the case file shows there is insufficient vocational evidence to make a vocational decision.
CASE DISCUSSION & POLICY ANALYSIS (INCLUDING SPECIFIC REFERENCES)
This 57 year old claimant is filing a Concurrent claim alleging disability since 07/31/2014 due to osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, pain in the low back, hips, and spine.
The DDS proposed an RFC for 20/10/6/6 and a MFRC for unskilled work with an adverse onset of 10/1/14. The evidence in file supports this determination. In addition, the claimant should avoid all work at unprotected heights and all dangerous machinery.
There is a work issue. Om the SSA 3368 in the current file the claimant lists four jobs within the relevant period. He indicated he was a gravel truck driver for an excavation company in 2004, and a laborer for goodwill industries in 2001. The claimant did not describe this past work on the SSA 3369 or elsewhere in the file. A decision about past work cannot be made on job title alone. There is not enough information to conclusively
…show more content…
He indicates the heaviest weight he lifted was 50 lbs. and he carried less than 10 lbs frequently. Based on his description he cannot perform this work as described. However, his description closely equates to Salesperson, General Hardware DOT 279.357-050. If this work is found to be relevant the claimant is capable of returning to this work as found in the national economy. DI 25005.005 C1 indicates if the vocational evidence is sufficient to find that the claimant can perform one past relevant job as the claimant actually performed it, or as generally performed in the national economy, deny the claim at step 4. Therefore, additional development is
We found no evidence in support of the alleged CT 7-15-12 – 7-15-13 and the injuries which the claimant and his attorneys have alleged. This claim is considered a post termination claim after the claimant had previously been terminated on 7-16-13, prior to the claimant’s attorneys filed the claim on behalf of the claimant when the claim was petitioned on 5-10-14.
On Monday, 11-16-2015 she recalled the claimant had punched in early for work that morning and did not say anything to her until shortly later around mid-morning when the claimant came into her office. She said the claimant was brief with her when she requested to file a Workers’ Compensation claim for her alleged right wrist injury coupled with pain to her right fingers. She claimed that her injury was work-related, and her injury occurred on 11-12-2015.
On the morning of August 16, 2017, Wilma Waedle came to my office to discuss a past workman’s comp claim. According to her personnel file, the workman’s comp claim that she was referring to was closed in 2015. That released her to full duty as a Qualified Medical Administration/Certified Nursing Assistant. Ms. Waedle stated that her arm from the previous claim was still causing her pain. She also stated that she had the doctor cleared her so she could continue to work but did not get to the real cause of her pain.
Ms. Almanza confirmed that the claimant’s employment commenced on 10/22/2008 after the claimant filed and signed a Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form, which included a W-4 form for tax withholdings. Ms. Almanza stated she was unable to provide information about the claimant’s past employment history, as the Insured does not provide or request for any of their Date laborer employees to complete an employment
This 66 year old is filing a DIB claim alleging disability due to stroke, fatigue, headache, mixed hyperlipidemia, hypertensive heart disease, benign heart failure, cerebrovascular left hemiparesis, allergic rhinitis, pollen induced, acid reflux disease, depression, benign hypotrophy, PTSD, elevated PSA, abnormal glucose, and a Vitamin D deficiency of 04/11/2014.
On Thursday, 10/22/2015 the claimant stated he reported for work pain-free and was not suffering from any pain or discomfort from four other work related injuries that he reported as claims and received judgments. The claimant was unable to account for the real dates of his past work-related injuries that occurred between 2010 and 1/2013. The claimants past industrial-related injuries ranged from a left wrist injury, head injury and two separate right wrist injuries which he says did not include any injury to any other body parts.
He stopped working on March 1, 2013, the day of his injury. He has been working at his brother’s lawn mower repair shop. He basically comes and goes as he is able and is always paid $320 a week, regardless of how much time he spends at work. He has collected 26 weeks of Unemployment Insurance Benefits and was approved for Medicaid Disability with a $5,000 deductible every six months. He did not get Worker’s Compensation and has been denied Long Term Disability by his private insurer.
This 59- year old is filing a DIB claim alleging disability due to diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arthritis, amnesia and right eye problems as of 06/01/2015.
At this hearing I had Mr. George testify he operates Robert George Design Group, LTD. That he knows the claimant and has known him since around 2007. He describes his work as doing landscaping, outdoor masonry and patio work. He testified he has a subcontractor relationship with the claimant. He said the claimant’s expertise were in such things as roofing, sheet rocking, painting and equipment maintenance.
The claimant had stated before she started at Yamaha Motor Inc. she did not report her injuries to the Human Resources Department or her supervisor when hired on 9-5-12. She stated if she did, it might have compromised her chances in gaining employment with theYamaha Motors Corporation
1. Occupation and working ability of the Claimant, if this has changed, since the injury, previous occupation of the Claimant.
Ms. Carter submitted an application on April 17, 2017, to the Philadelphia Regional Office (RO) for Medicaid benefits through the Working Disabled program. On the same day, the RO forwarded the medical records for Ms. Carter to Disability Determination Services (DDS), who has the responsibility of making disability decisions for the Division of Medicaid (DOM). DDS notified the RO on May 24, 2017, that Ms. Carter was not disabled for Medicaid purposes. The RO issued a Notice of Adverse Action on May 26, 2017.
There are various opinions as to permanency on this case. Dr. Rekhala and Dr. Soyer have both found the claimant has a rating of 3-B to the cervical spine. Dr. Soyer indicated the claimant had a 50lb lifting restriction. Dr, Rekhala gave the claimant a 25% temporary partial disability as of 12/15/16.
Ms. Steele has been unable to work. The duration is unknown. On 11/16/16 a current off work slip was obtained. Ms. Steele is off work for 3 months. Vocational counseling was also added by Dr.