Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 02:46 pm Post subject: More about SSR 83-12
I argue here that when there is the right vocational profile, then evidence for an RFC that restricts to seated light work is evidence that makes a case a candidate for an on the record favorable decision under SSR 83-12.
SSR 83-12 talks about when “the exertional level falls between two rules which direct opposite conclusions.” These opposite conclusions are “not disabled” for the upper rule and “disabled” for the lower rule. The ruling goes on:
Quote:
[I]f the exertional capacity is significantly reduced in terms of the regularity definition, it could indicate little more than the occupational base for the lower rule and could justify finding of "Disabled."
An RFC for seated light work is just this kind of thing. I get to this conclusion via SSA’s own regulations and rulings.
20 CFR 404.1567 describes the different ways a job can qualify as light work:
Quote:
Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls.
Social Security Ruling 83-10 quotes the first half of this, up to “a good deal of walking or standing.” At that point it inserts a qualifying phrase, that this good deal of walking and standing is “the primary difference between sedentary and most light jobs.”
SSR 83-12 adds this:
Quote:
Many unskilled light jobs are performed primarily in one location, with the ability to stand being more critical than the ability to walk.
What this tells us is that according to SSA regs and rulings, a job can be light work just because of the standing and walking. What’s more, being up on one’s feet, particularly for standing, is a critical element for “many unskilled light jobs.” In fact, this critical element of standing and walking is the distinguishing factor for “most light jobs.”
So under SSA policy, what is the vocational consequence if standing and walking is limited only to brief periods, not to exceed 2 hours over an 8-hour workday? The consequence is that most light jobs are precluded. And when most light jobs are precluded, then under SSR 83-12, an adjudicator could reasonably conclude that there was “little more than the occupational base for the lower rule.”
Next installment:
1. How this lines up not just SSR 83-12, but also with POMS instructions to the DDSs.
.
2. Why, if we look at what is permitted rather than what is required, this is the same kind of “approximation and comparison” implicitly endorsed in the COSS’s brief for Fast as appropriate for DDS adjudicators.
3. Why the backlog and the informal /dds remands that are going on right now lend themselves to the idea that ALJs are entitled to do this same approximation and comparison.
I cannot say when I will get to this next installment. This first installment took a week of accumulated bits and pieces of time. _________________ I've posted this in my private capacity. What I post might be wrong. Probably, it IS wrong. Any errors are my own. Please don't infer any SSA approval for what I post.
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Traverlaw, Traver Law, Traver Law Offices, S.C., Traver & Traver, S.C.,
Traverlaw.com, SSAConnect,
Attorneys for the disabled and disadvantaged in all areas of Social Security
disability law, http://traverlaw.com,
http://ssaconnect.com, Connect, SSA Connect, Think Bigger,
Social Security Advice Connect, Social Security Disability Advice Connect,
"Social Security Disability Advocacy, Debate, and Professional News,"
the yellow and orange swoosh image, and the square favicon.ico image,
are trademarks and service marks of Attorney David F. Traver.
For information the about use of this copyrighted and trademarked material call
262-594-2096.
CONNECT 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
