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.

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

STAY UP TO DATE

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

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

 

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

 

​​

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: 

We appreciate your interest in Tower Law Group®. This website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Visitors should not act or rely on any information on this site without first consulting a qualified attorney.

Your use of this website or submission of information does not create an attorney-client relationship with Tower Law Group® or any of its attorneys. Please do not send confidential or sensitive information through this website or via email.

An attorney-client relationship is only formed after Tower Law Group® confirms that it does not have a conflict of interest and agrees to represent you.

Any information submitted prior to such confirmation will not be treated as confidential and will not prevent Tower Law Group® from representing other clients with adverse interests.

 

This website was last updated on June 4, 2026 to reflect current legal information, statutes, and guidance.

bottom of page