It sounds (hypothetically ) like the judge is trying to decide if you are as functional as the "somewhat functional" person described who could do 2 out of the last 3 jobs you've done, who would therefore be denied for SSDI, or if you are further down the functionality score, to confirm that you couldn't do any of those jobs and may be appropriate for approval. Like the judge is trying to slot you in on the functionality score to see if it matches a "not able to do any of the last 3 jobs" designation.

I don't understand why the judge wouldn't just ask the VE if with YOUR level of functioning, it would be possible to do any of your last 3 jobs.

Is there a discrepency in your medical records about how functional you are/could be ? The judge for my hearing questioned me specifically about my functional capacity reports because there were MARKED differences in the answers between what my neuro and my primary said and wanted to know how I explained that. It's been several years, so I forget the specific questions on the form, so I am making up an example and some answers......

How long can patient stand in an 8 hour shift ? (I think it asks how long you can stand per hour and then how much in an 8 hour shift)

Neuro said 0 hours
Primary said 4 hours

I was there when both doctors filled out the form for me. They both asked me how long I could stand. I said, "It depends....sometimes I can't walk to the bathroom without assistance and that's only 10 ft from my bed, but usually I can stand for at least a few minutes, often I can stand for 15 minutes, and occassionally maybe up to 1/2 hour.......so, not at all or up to 1/2 hour"

My problem is I can't predict which days I'll be able to stand for a 1/2 hour.....and I 100% can't do it again every hour on the hour or repeat in several times in the same day....or even week.

My neuro told me I couldn't be "relied on" on stand for any length of time, so that was a zero to him.

My primary wrote 1/2 hour then thought that that should be multiplied by the 8 hours in a shift and got 4 hours total.

I explained to the judge that I had a hard time answering those questions myself on the similar form we fill out when we apply. I KNOW my form had lots of astericks with arrows pointing to a paragraph explanation for MANY things that was only allotted a small space for a number. It gets confusing to figure out. Apparently, my docs tried for the "simple" approach and that didn't work either. I think my neuro opted for the conservative approach of not presuming that I could stand at all that day. I think my primary went for the aggressive/maximum amount and filled in my best time....1/2 hour x 8 = 4 hours. The truth is between their answers.





Back to your question.........Taken at face value, it seems redundant to keep repeating the question and answers for cases with decreasing levels of functionality once the "can't do any of the past 3 jobs" threshhold has been met. Was it an OBVIOUS decreased level of functioning between each case ? By that I mean did the judge say to the VE......one person has no use of his legs, one person has no use of his arms, one person has no use of his legs AND no use his arms but can speak, one person has no use of their legs and no use of his arms and can't speak, etc ......or did the judge give examples of different scenarios that could have more subjective determinations ?