Usually, a substitution of judgment, e.g., regarding residual functional capacity
(RFC), is involved in proposing to find error in prior medical/vocational decisions.
The CPD was in error, however, in this case because of a unique set of circumstances.
Neither the rationale nor folder reflected any attempt to evaluate “other work;” i.e.,
no RFC was prepared and no vocational rule cited. Additionally, there were no other
impairments (even “not severe” impairments) which could form a basis for finding the
beneficiary unable to do other work. The vertigo alone could not have prevented his
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.