The rationale’s medical-vocational discussion should contain, when appropriate, the
following findings of fact:
-
1.
The individual's age. This fact is usually the alleged age, although the field office may develop proof
of age. If other evidence, such as medical records, raised questions about the individual’s
age, address how any material discrepancy was resolved.
-
2.
The individual's education. This fact is usually the individual's allegation, absent evidence to the contrary.
-
3.
The physical and mental demands of the individual's PRW experience.
-
4.
A statement indicating the individual’s residual functional capacity (RFC) or mental residual functional capacity (MRFC) does not permit performing any
PRW.
-
5.
Consideration of the special medical-vocational profiles discussed in DI 25010.001.
If the special medical-vocational profiles are not the basis for the determination,
then the adjudicator must discuss how the findings support an appendix 2 rule (commonly
known as the ”vocational rule(s),” “voc-rule(s),” or “grids”):
-
•
That directs a conclusion of “disabled,” or
-
•
That is used as a “framework” for the conclusion, with a discussion of the vocational
implications of RFC, age, education, work experience, and the remaining occupational
base. The adjudicator must explain why these factors show the inability to adapt to
other work. For more information on using the voc-rule(s) as a framework, see DI 25025.005C.
When disability continues based on medical-vocational factors, and at least one of
the individual’s past relevant jobs was skilled or semiskilled, the adjudicator must
indicate that the Disability Determination Services (DDS) considered transferability
of skills. Similarly, when the individual has recently completed educational courses,
the adjudicator must include a statement showing that the DDS considered if education
would provide for direct entry into skilled work.
In applying the voc-rules, the adjudicator must not consider the age factor mechanically
in borderline situations. In addition, an individual's numerical educational grade
level is not controlling in the presence of evidence to the contrary. When age or
education grade level does not exactly match the cited voc-rule (for example: citing
a rule applicable to an individual of advanced age (55+), when their chronological
age is 54 years, 11 months (approaching advanced age)), the adjudicator must explain
why the cited rule is appropriate to the case.