CPD: The claim for a 50-year-old utility line repair technician with twelve years of education
was allowed on a medical-vocational basis because the individual could “no longer
work at heights or in hazardous situations due to vertigo, as required in their customary
job.” This was documented in a SSA-416; however, the file did not contain a residual
functional capacity (RFC) assessment at CPD. No other impairment was alleged or discovered
during medical development. The rationale did not discuss the ability to perform other
work, nor did the file include a detailed work history.
CDR decision: The severity of the individual's vertigo remained unchanged.
Explanation: Usually, a substitution of judgment (in this example, regarding the RFC) is involved
in proposing to find error in prior medical-vocational decisions. However, there is
a unique set of circumstances in this example. Neither the rationale nor folder reflected
any attempt to evaluate “other work,” no RFC was prepared, and no vocational rule
cited. Also, there were no other impairments (including no “not severe” impairments)
which could form a basis for finding the individual unable to do other work. The vertigo
alone could not have prevented the individual from doing all other work not involving
working at heights or around machinery. The CPD was in error because of the clear
misapplication (or non-application) of the other work step in the sequential evaluation
process.