I am pleased to bring you another successful outcome for a disabled person who was wrongly denied his social security benefits.

 

In this social security disability claim, the claimant suffered from a myriad of impairments including osteoarthritis, obesity and being blind in one eye.  Due to his impairments and inability to work he applied for social security disability.

 

At the hearing before the SSA Judge, the judge brought in a vocational expert for the SSA.  The expert testified as to what were the claimant's past jobs.  The expert testified that the claimant's past work was that of a "shoe tagger".  The expert testified that the job of shoe tagger was a job listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT").   

 

The DOT is what the SSA uses as one of its official authorities when determining what jobs exist in the United States.

 

With the SSA expert testifying that the claimant's past work as a shoe tagger was a DOT listed job, the SSA Judge agreed and found that the claimant could still return to his past job as a shoe tagger.  Thus according to the SSA Judge the claimant was not disabled and he was denied benefits. 

 

We then appealed this claim to the federal court system.

 

The primary reason for the appeal?   

 

Our review of entire Dictionary of Occupational Titles revealed that there was no such job of "shoe tagger" listed anywhere in the thousands of jobs listings.  In fact we were able to find only two listings involving shoes within the sedentary work capacity of the claimant and neither one of those jobs remotely resembled anything such as a "shoe tagger". 

 

According to federal case law, the SSA Judge and the SSA vocational expert must discuss and explain any discrepancies between the vocational expert's testimony and the DOT listings.  Many claimants wrongly assume that a SSA judge knows what he is doing when he brings in a vocational expert to the hearing.  Many claimant's wrongly assume that a SSA vocational expert also knows what she is doing in a social security hearing.  However to hold such an assumption without verification can lead to disaster.

 

Here we argued that the SSA vocational expert's testimony as to the existence of the job of shoe tagger and its alleged listing in the DOT was completely inaccurate.  Here we argued that the SSA judge's subsequent blind reliance on his expert's testimony was in error.

 

There simply was no evidence whatsoever of any such job being in existence and thus the SSA Judge's decision that the claimant could return to such a nonexistent job was flatly wrong.  

 

On arguing these factual mistakes to the federal court, the US Attorney on behalf of the Commissioner of the SSA fully agreed, so much so that they did not even bother to file any opposition but instead immediately offered to send this claim back to the SSA for a proper hearing.  The federal court fully agreed with this offer and promptly issued an order that the SSA Judge's decision be thrown out due to its multiple errors and the case be sent back to the SSA for a proper hearing.

 

SSA claimants should always remember that just because an expert for the federal government says it is so, does not necessarily make it so.  Always check the facts yourself to make sure they are accurate.