The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, finds that the ALJ erred at step four of the sequential evaluation process when he equated the claimant’s past relevant work to sedentary work, without determining whether the claimant could perform the specific duties of the specific jobs she held. The Court further explained:
“The issue is not whether the applicant for benefits can return to the precise job he held, which is hardly likely to have been kept open for him, but whether he can return to a “job” he held that exists at other employers. However, the job must not be described so broadly as to encompass a range of physical and mental abilities some of which the applicant may not have; and that is the case if the job is described merely as “sedentary work.” See also Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 846 (9th Cir. 2001). Picking out the line in an individual case is of course a task for the agency, subject to light judicial review; hence the need for a remand.”
Comments on this entry are closed.