We talk a lot about cases after they go to the district court, but let’s talk about how we pick a case to go to the district court. We can’t take every case… it is a high bar. There has to be an error, that isn’t harmless, and then that error has to be unjustified to defend. Pretty hard, right? So I have to look at cases with a critical eye. Let’s look at this case that came across my desk and I wanted to share my analysis.
Sometimes I am amazed when cases get to me. Basics are basics and everyone at the Agency should be able to apply them. Well, apparently not…
Let’s talk about past relevant work (PRW) and substantial gainful activity (SGA).
For a job to qualify as PRW, it must meet certain criteria: recency, duration, and SGA. The work has to reach SGA levels. This is straightforward.
But someone at the Agency missed the memo.
In this case, the ALJ denied benefits at Step Four, claiming that the claimant could perform his past job as a Realtor. But the ALJ’s Decision showed that the claimant’s work as a Realtor didn’t reach SGA levels. The ALJ specifically found that it did not reach SGA levels for any year he did the work.
So, to sum up, the ALJ acknowledged that the Realtor work wasn’t SGA-level at Step One. Yet, by Step Four, we’re suddenly back to treating it as past relevant work so the ALJ can DENY the case.
I’m sorry, what?
Because here’s the elephant in the room: if you get to Step Five, the claimant would have qualified as disabled based on the ALJ’s assessment under the light Grids.
This Decision is frustrating and unnecessary. It’s a case where a simple, clear review should’ve led to a fully favorable outcome before reaching me. But instead, we’re here, going through rounds of appeals, all for an error that’s basic and well within the guidelines.
Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.
Comments