Nt1310 Unit 3 Case Study

DDS determined the claimant is disabled at step 5 of sequential evaluation, without first completing step 4. A review of the case file shows there is insufficient vocational evidence to make a vocational decision.
CASE DISCUSSION & POLICY ANALYSIS (INCLUDING SPECIFIC REFERENCES)
This 54 year old is filing a Concurrent claim alleging disability due to multiple medical impairments including blindness in the right eye.
The evidence in file reasonably supports the DDS’ RFC, addition, due to decreased right eye vision he should avoid activities requiring normal binocular vision. The claimant is precluded from activities requiring even moderate exposure to operating moving vehicles, working at hazardous unprotected heights, i.e. scaffolds, ladders and rope and with hazardous machinery. This includes avoiding machines with open areas, conveyors, parts that can engage the body or body part of the claimant or fellow worker, machines with blades or combustible parts. Therefore, this RFC equates with a wide range of Light work. There is a work issue.
On the SSA 3368, the claimant listed three jobs. This work is listed on the SSA 3369 and further clarified on the claim communication screen. His past work is adequately described to determine he is unable to return to this work as described nor as can be found in the general economy. The remaining …show more content…
The heaviest weight lifted was 50 lbs. occasionally and 10 lbs. frequently. He supervised 1-4 employees daily. He worked as a supervisor and maintenance technician for the state park, 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. He trained and supervised 1-4 people and did all things required to keep the state park running, including but not limited to ordering and restocking supplies, overseeing activities of employees, keeping an inventory list, operating the mariner, mowing grass, weed eating and doing structural

Show More