Toll-Free: (888) 234-5758
Phone: (954) 523-3870
Disabilities: Epilepsy seizure disorder; mini strokes, vertigo, and essential hypertension
Notice of Decision: Fully Favorable
Administrative Law Judge: D. Kevin Dugan
Office of Disability Adjudication & Review (ODAR): Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida & Palm Beach County, Florida
Return to page 1 of decision
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are no jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1560(c), 404.1566, 416.960(c), and 416.966).
In determining whether a successful adjustment to other work can be made, the undersigned must consider the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in conjunction with the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. If the claimant can perform all or substantially all of the exertional demands at a given level of exertion, the medical-vocational rules direct a conclusion of either "disabled" or "not disabled" depending upon the claimant's specific vocational profile (SSR 83-11). When the claimant cannot perform substantially all of the exertional demands of work at a given level of exertion and/or has non-exertional limitations, the medical-vocational rules are used as a framework for decision-making unless there is a rule that directs a conclusion of "disabled" without considering the additional exertional and/or non-exertional limitations (SSRs 83-12 and 83-14). If the claimant has solely non-exertional limitations, section 204.00 in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines provides a framework for decision-making (SSR 85-15).
If the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work, considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience, a finding of "not disabled" would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21. However, the additional limitations so narrow the range of work the claimant might otherwise perform that a finding of "disabled" is appropriate under the framework of this rule. Additionally, Social Security Ruling 96-8p, warrants a finding of disability when the claimant's severe impairments make it difficult to perform work activities at all exertional levels on a sustained basis, which is 8 hours a day, 5 days a week or an equivalent schedule, due to chronic pain.
11. The claimant has been under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act since April 12, 2007, the alleged onset date of disability (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
DECISION
Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits filed on September 25, 2007, the claimant has been disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act since April 12, 2007.
Based on the application for supplemental security income filed on September 25, 2007, the claimant has been disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act since April 12, 2007.
The component of the Social Security Administration responsible for authorizing supplemental security income will advise the claimant regarding the non-disability requirements for these payments, and if eligible, the amount and the months for which payment will be made.
Medical improvement is expected with appropriate treatment. Consequently, a continuing disability review is recommended in 24 months.
D. Kevin Dugan
for Dean W. Determan
Administrative Law Judge
Date: November 26, 2008
Return to Case Results
Contact us for a FREE evaluation of your case
*The Law Office of LaVan & Neidenberg represents disabled people across the nation. Our firm advertises on television in: Miami-Dade County, Florida; Broward County, Florida; Palm Beach County, Florida; Fulton County, Georgia; and DeKalb County, Georgia. Click here to watch a television commercial.