Nt1310 Unit 3 Case Study

859 Words2 Pages

Group I, Category 19 Incorrect RFC Decision

ISSUE
DDS proposed a medical-vocational allowance on this Concurrent claim. The evidence in file does not support the severity as assessed by DDS.
CASE DISCUSSION & POLICY ANALYSIS (INCLUDING SPECIFIC REFERENCES)

This 61 year old is filing a Concurrent claim alleging disability due to rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic stress disorder, Hepatitis C and Type II diabetes as of 4/1/2015.
The medical evidence shows the claimant has a history of Diabetes, Hepatitis, and asthma. CT scan of the lumbar scan on 12/10/10 showed a herniated disc at L5-S1. On 2/2/15, the claimant reported medical cannabis program has helped his pain and inflammation his joint symptoms are more improved than …show more content…

The study noted osteopenia in the spine and status post bilateral hip replacements. This report does not belong to the claimant and should be discarded in accordance with DI 20503.001.D.5.
The DDS assessed a RFC for 10/10/4/4 with additional postural limitations. These limitations were given in relation to bilateral hip replacements. The claimant has not had bilateral hip replacements. As a result, the medical evidence supports a RFC for 20/10/4/6.
There was evidence was evidence of mental impairment. The DDS did not address the mental impairment since the claimant was allowed based on her physical impairments alone. The evidence in file indicates the claimant’s mental condition is non-severe. No additional development is required.
ADLs show the claimant is able to slowly complete household chores on days when his pain is under control. He sometimes has difficulty with personal care due to paralysis. He is able to drive, shop in stores and walk 2-3 blocks. He walks to the plaza two blocks from his home 1-2 times per week. His allegation are consistent with the evidence in …show more content…

The claimant documents that he was required to use a computer and fax machine; however, he did not provide a description of the technical knowledge/skills or the written reports that were required for this job. The claimant was required to supervise 1-19 people for 5-8 hours of the workday; however, these supervisory tasks were not discussed in the description. The claimant would be unable to perform the physical demands of this work as actually done; however, this description is insufficient to complete DOT matching, as the major tasks of the position were not provided. Prior to completion of Step 4b, DDS will have to obtain a comprehensive description of this work to determine if the claimant is capable of performing this work as done in the national economy.
Therefore, additional development is required. DI 25005.025A states to evaluate a claimant’s work as workers generally perform it in the national economy the examiner must locate the occupational counterpart for the claimant’s job in the DOT. In this case, there are not enough details regarding the claimant’s past work to determine what job in the DOT he performed. The claimant should be contacted for a more through description of his past work as a manager and direct care worker . See SSA 1047 for

More about Nt1310 Unit 3 Case Study

Open Document