Ability to Do Past Relevant Work – A Case Study

The claimant’s past work was as a housekeeper (301.474-010). Although the DOT describes this work as requiring medium exertion, the claimant indicated on the SSA-3368 that she only lifted and carried a maximum of ten pounds.

POMS DI 25005.001 C3 indicates that material discrepancies between the claimant’s job description and that in the DOT must be carefully evaluated, including recontact with the claimant and the employer when necessary. Since the claimant was of advanced age with a light exertional level assigned on residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment, the discrepancy was material in this case.

Recontact with the claimant showed that she had little concept of how much things weigh. She indicated that she had to go up and down stairs carrying items such as laundry, a vacuum cleaner, and a mop and bucket. She also had to push and pull furniture (sofa and chairs) to vacuum under them. These activities are more consistent with a medium level of exertion than the very limited exertion described by the claimant on the SSA-3368.

CO Comments: The exertional levels as defined in the regulations (e.g., light, sedentary, etc.) quantify lifting and carrying as primary elements of each level, but lifting and carrying by themselves do not establish any exertional level. While the degree of pushing and pulling described in a given case may raise a question of whether a claimant understated the lifting and carrying of a past job, it cannot be substituted as an adjudicative equivalent for lifting and carrying. They are separate job demands.

Using the DOT to augment a claimant’s work description

No reference to the DOT is included in the guidelines in DI 25005.001C for evaluating work as performed by the claimant. The Disability Examiner Basic Training Program, however, states that the DOT can be used:

  • to augment the claimant’s job description;
  • to determine tools, products and processes used; and
  • to determine if the claimant’s job description agrees with the DOT.

In this case, the DOT exertional rating raises the question of the accuracy of the claimant’s assessment, but the DQB felt there was no need to go to the DOT until after the claimant’s past relevant work as described had been found to be beyond the limits set in the RFC. There seemed to be a conflict in guidelines.

CO Comments: CO did not agree that the training manual’s guidelines on the use of the DOT at the “past work” step of sequential evaluation conflict with policy guidelines. In stating that the DOT is used at this step to augment the claimant’s description, determine the tools, etc., used, and determine whether the claimant’s description agrees with the DOT, the training manual paraphrases DI 25005.001 C3a which shows that the DOT is used as a comparison tool for investigating and developing the accuracy of the claimant’s description of past work. Once the claimant’s (or third party’s) description has been determined to be accurate, a divergent description in the DOT is not to be used to override the claimant’s description for the purpose of determining the ability to do past relevant work as actually performed.

Using the DOT description and exertional rating as “evidence to the contrary” to question the accuracy of a claimant’s work description listed on the SSA-3368 or SSA-3369

POMS guidelines noted above do not require, or even suggest, that the claimant’s description of his or her work be compared to the DOT description. The RO believed that there is at least as much reason to question a claimant’s accuracy in estimating demands of his or her work when those levels are understated as when they are overstated. Since there is no caution on either of the reporting forms to warn claimants that the descriptions they provide on those forms may become the basis for denial of their claims, they have no reason to believe that their estimates may be crucial to their claims. Consequently, it seemed to the RO that the guidelines should be changed to require that the claimant’s description of his or her work must be compared to the DOT before denying on the ability to do past work, and that any discrepancies that make a difference between allowance and denial must be verified.

CO Comments: The DOT is used as “evidence to the contrary” to question the claimant’s description. In the case that raised these issues, prompted in part by the DOT, the adjudicator properly recontacted the claimant who said that she was “just guessing” as to the lifting requirements. She carried a vacuum cleaner down stairs and mopped floors in addition to her other well-documented duties. Given that most vacuum cleaners exceed ten pounds, and many exceed twenty pounds, a gallon of water weighs approximately eight pounds and a typical household bucket carries two gallons, CO inferred that she originally understated the lifting and carrying requirements of the past job in question. In consideration of the RFC assessment, CO concluded that she was not able to perform those requirements.

However, if the recontact had revealed evidence showing that she used only ultra-light equipment, and otherwise had special assistance to the extent that her original allegations as to lifting and carrying were correct, CO would have determined that she retained the lifting and carrying capacities as actually required by her specific past job. The fact that the DOT reflects heavier lifting and carrying for the occupation as usually performed, or that the claimant used an excessive amount of pushing or pulling in her specific job, would not have disturbed CO’s determination as to her ability to do the lifting and carrying required in that specific past job.

CO – Central Office

RO – Regional Office