top of page

Vocational Classifications and Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) Evaluations 

  • Apr 3, 2025
  • 2 min read
social security disability

Let’s unpack this recent affirmance from the 11th Circuit on the Micaud v. Acting Commissioner case. This highlights complex issues surrounding vocational classifications and residual functional capacity (RFC) evaluations.


Micaud challenged the denial of his disability benefits, raising two key arguments:

✦ The ALJ failed to classify his past relevant work as a composite job (a mix of commercial photographer and photographer helper roles).


✧ The ALJ’s RFC finding wasn’t supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding his physical and mental limitations.


Breaking Down the Issues


 ➤ Composite Job Classification: Micaud claimed that his past work included "significant elements" of two different roles, making it a composite job. This distinction matters because composite jobs don’t have clear counterparts in the national economy, which could have changed the outcome.


The court, however, disagreed, citing:


A lack of evidence connecting Micaud’s unique tasks (e.g., lifting heavy weights) to the significant elements of a photographer helper’s role.


The legal burden on claimants to prove composite job status wasn’t met.


 ➤ RFC Assessment: Micaud also argued that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate his physical and mental limitations.


The court found:


✧ The ALJ appropriately used the psychiatric review technique, determining only mild mental limitations.


✦ Medical evidence, particularly records before Micaud’s date last insured, supported the ALJ’s conclusion that his impairments didn’t significantly limit his ability to work.


➤ Key Takeaways :


When arguing composite job issues, it’s vital to document detailed job duties and their alignment (or misalignment) with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). A vague claim won’t suffice and referencing POMS DI 25005.020 is crucial. And push back on vocational experts who fail to consider discrepancies between a client’s actual work and DOT definitions.


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


alt="Tower Law Group homepage"
Phone Icon - TLG Yellow

FLORIDA

800 Executive Drive,

Oviedo, FL 32765

6900 Tavistock Lakes Blvd Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32827

IG Logo - Gold
Facebook Logo - Gold
TLG X Logo
TLG Linked In Footer Logo

INDIANA

201 N. Illinois St.

16th Floor - South Tower

Indianapolis, IN 46204

STAY UP TO DATE

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay up to date with Tower Law Group.

 

Copyright © 2026 Tower Law Group All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy Disclaimer Law Firm Accessibility Statement  |  Terms of Use​​​​​​​​​​​

​​

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: 

The information on this website is provided by Tower Law Group for general informational purposes only regarding Florida probate law, estate administration, social security disability, wills, trusts, and related legal matters. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed Florida probate attorney.

Viewing or using this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship is only formed through a signed agreement with Tower Law Group.

Florida probate laws vary based on the facts of each case and are governed by applicable Florida Statutes and court procedures. You should consult a qualified probate attorney for advice specific to your situation, whether you are an executor, personal representative, heir, or beneficiary.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every estate administration and probate matter is unique and depends on individual circumstances.

 

This website was last updated on April 21, 2026 to reflect current legal information, statutes, and guidance.

bottom of page