Cited occupations must be within the claimant’s RFC. The claimant may be capable of
performing occupations at several exertional levels. For example, we would generally
expect a claimant with a medium RFC to be capable of performing medium, light, and
sedentary occupations that do not exceed their RFC.
While you may cite occupations from the entire pool of unskilled work that the claimant
can perform, it is important to ensure that the occupations cited support the outcome
the adjudicator concludes is appropriate. For example, citing light occupations for
a claimant with a medium RFC may not support a non-disability finding, depending on
the claimant’s age, education, or other vocational factors.
-
EXAMPLE: A 55-year-old claimant with a high school education has an RFC for medium work. Although
the claimant would have an occupational base of medium, light, and sedentary unskilled
work, citing sedentary or light occupations may not support a medical-vocational denial
as clearly as citing medium occupations—because an RFC for only light or sedentary
work would likely be consistent with a finding of “disabled.”
We base our medical-vocational rules on the existence of unskilled work at all levels
of exertion. Rule 204.00 in Appendix 2 addresses a maximum sustained work capability limited to heavy or very heavy work.
If a claimant can perform very heavy work, we presume that they would generally be
capable of adjusting to work at the heavy, medium, light, and sedentary levels, unless
the claimant has additional limiting factors.
-
NOTE: If the claimant has only nonexertional limitations, their occupational base is for
all unskilled occupations, from very heavy down to sedentary. For most claimants with
only nonexertional limitations, you may cite some heavy, some very heavy, and some
medium unskilled occupations. However, when the claimant is age 60 or above with a
marginal education and unskilled work experience, citing sedentary, light, or medium
occupations may not support a medical-vocational denial.