Answer: It is no longer necessary to document if job duties are done in terms of percentages or fractions of a work day or to evaluate the work at the higher exertional level. DDS will only determine that an individual cannot do past work as generally performed in the national economy if it is able to find a reasonable occupational counterpart. DDS will not find an individual capable of doing past relevant work if he or she can only do parts of a past job or parts of several past jobs. The adjudicator should provide a rationale why he/she is unable to complete Step 4 of sequential evaluation.

Consider the work activity as actually performed as the claimant describes, including all elements (both exertional and non-exertional) and function-by-function. Compare this work to the RFC assessment to determine if the claimant can perform each activity described. If the answer is yes, find them capable of past work as performed. If not, consider if there is a DOT description that closely corresponds to the job description provided. If there is a comparable DOT description and the claimant can perform the functions as the DOT describes it with the given RFC, find them capable of past work as generally performed. Composite jobs are rare.

The following examples illustrate composite jobs:

Example 1: In one particular state, teacher aides also drive buses as part of their duties. If only one paycheck with no separation in pay for each particular job, this constitutes a composite job with no DOT counterpart. However, if there are two different checks or distinct pay rates for each separate job, further evaluation may be needed to determine if either of the job duties was performed at SGA level.

Example 2: The claimant has an RFC for sedentary work. The past work description is a receptionist at a mobile homes sales lot. For five hours a day, visitors are greeted, phones answered, appointments scheduled and mail opened. For the other 3 hours each day, cleaning of model homes is performed including vacuuming, mopping and dusting. The claimant cannot return to past work as performed with her RFC. A past work denial cannot be done saying she can perform just the receptionist job without the cleaner duties because that was only part of the past job. Since a DOT description that requires both functions cannot be located, DDS will proceed to step 5 of the sequential evaluation.

Question 2: Many small business owners have functioned essentially as owner/operators. Does DDS consider this a composite job?

Answer: Such work does not normally represent a composite job. A valid assessment requires a complete description of the work. How does the individual spend his or her time? Which duties and responsibilities are basic and which are incidental? The reality of the situation will dictate the assessment, but generally speaking, the smaller the business, the more likely it is that the individual functioned as a worker rather than as a manager.

Reference: VG 01-02 Working Supervisors (dated March 7, 2001 )

Answer: Two DOT occupations have been suggested as alternatives for “convenience store clerk” –Cashier-Checker, 211.367-014 and Stock Clerk, 299.367-014. Depending on specific facts of the case, different occupations may be matched to the same job title given by different claimants. How the work was performed, not the job title, is paramount. There may be no DOT occupation that adequately matches the duties performed or, some other occupation may be a closer match (e.g., Sales clerk, 290.477-014).

Answer: In general, an individual aged 55 or older would not be expected to have transferable skills from this work. Occupations utilizing secondary clerical skills are not closely related enough to offset advanced age, unless an individual had obtained specific clerical skills in the performance of their job duties. Most likely these skills would come from additional duties not usually associated with the normal duties of teaching. In order to make this determination it is imperative that a detailed description of the individual teacher’s work is obtained.

This is even more important when the individual is aged 50 to 54. Other work does not have to be as closely related to teaching for this age group and skills obtained from teaching are more likely to transfer to clerical occupations. Carefully consider what duties were actually performed and make a judgment of transferable skills on a case by case basis. A clear explanation of the judgment being made is crucial.

Reference: 20 CFR , Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404, Section 201.00 (f and g), DI 25025.005, SSR 82-41.

Answers: Actuary figures project that a change to only 5 or 10 years of work history would cost five billion dollars over just five years. The 15 year work history requirement will remain. The requirement of completing step 4 prior to completing step 5 of sequential evaluation will remain, also due to the projected high costs that would be incurred if the proposed change were implemented.

Central Office (CO) emphasized that it is the claimant’s the burden of proof at step 4, and responsible for making evidence available to prove disability. If there is insufficient information to complete a vocational analysis, a determination should be made due to insufficient evidence of failure to cooperate. At step 5, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to show other work the claimant can adjust to. A determination that does not proceed through all the steps of sequential evaluation is not defensible as a fully documented decision.

Answer: Fingering abilities are generally most important for sedentary work. When only one hand is limited in sedentary work, look at the extent of the limitation and hand dominance. A dominant hand impairment can be an example of functional adversity to be considered in Borderline Age cases. Hand dominance is not usually important, but in close cases, such as borderline age, DDS does consider it.

Answer: For such individuals it is often more appropriate to cite fields of work rather than specific occupations. Some examples include machine tending, signaling, non-complex clerical support work, etc.

Reference: DI 25020.005 A5

Answer: A restriction on an individual’s ability to reach down and/or out poses a significant limitation on the occupational base. However, if the restriction is confined only to overhead reaching, it would not significantly limit the occupational base, although it might preclude the performance of past work. Unfortunately, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and its associated volumes do not make any discrimination in the function of reaching. If the restriction is only on overhead reaching, it may be necessary to contact the individual for a more detailed description of the physical demands of past work before a determination can be made regarding the individual’s ability to perform it.

Reference: DI 25001.001 B36.; DI 25020.005 A8; and Central Office Memorandum to San Francisco Regional Commissioner “Manipulative Impairments of the Upper Extremities” (dated March 15, 1989 )

Answer: Typical restrictions to consider would be postural ones – stooping, crouching, climbing, balancing, etc.; however, consideration should be given to the claimant’s ability to tolerate the jolting associated with the operation of some trucks or construction equipment. A restriction in this area would not significantly limit the occupational base, but might preclude the performance of past work.

Answer: Generally speaking, a loss of visual fields would have greater impact in this area than a loss of acuity, particularly if the loss is predominately in the inferior fields. However, another important factor that must be considered in this assessment is the nature and extent of environmental hazards of the individual’s past relevant work and any other work that would otherwise fall within his or her remaining functional capacity.

The phrase "inability to avoid ordinary hazards in the workplace” is primarily a reminder that consideration must be given to whether the visual loss (fields or acuity) would likely result in injury to the individual or others by bumping into, tripping over, or being hit by another person or object that commonly exists within the previous or anticipated workplace. Objects that could result in injury will vary depending on the work environment and the individual’s ability to visually detect those objects. For example, the objects could be such things as doors, walls, boxes, chairs or other furniture, dangerous machinery, elevated heights from which the individual could fall, or hot liquids or chemicals that could spill if bumped into.

Reference: DI 24510.006; 25020.005 A10; and Central Office Memorandum to San Francisco Regional Commissioner “Request for Policy Guidance on Evaluation of Claims Involving Reduction of Visual Acuity and Visual Fields” (dated 09/22/03 ).

Answer: No. Multiple studies have shown that there is no such thing as a stressful or non-stressful job. In fact, the use of the terms “low stress unskilled work” or “non-stressful unskilled work” has been the basis for some legal challenges to the disability program. Stress comes from a person’s perception of the work. Therefore, there may be specific functions that an individual cannot tolerate, but not necessarily specific jobs. The mental residual functional capacity (MRFC) assessment is crucial in reaching a decision in such cases. The consultant should specifically describe what causes stress for the individual and what work functions or situations he or she should avoid.

Reference: DI 24510.061B 4b.