The Intersection of SSDI and ERISA, P2 - Vocational Evaluation

Welcome to Season 4, Episode 29 of Winning Isn't Easy. In this episode, we'll dive into the complicated topic of "The Intersection of SSDI and ERISA, P2 - Vocational Evaluation." 

Host Nancy L. Cavey, a seasoned attorney with extensive experience in disability claims, discusses the intersection of SSDI and ERISA claims. While SSDI and ERISA are completely different things, they do share some similarities in process, and are often intertwined in the course of applying for disability. Often, when you're applying for one, you are required to apply for the other. That is why it is vital to be knowledgeable regarding both. In the second part of this multi-part series, your host Nancy L. Cavey will be diving into the specifics of the vocational evaluations applicants will undergo.

In this episode, we'll cover the following topics:

1 -  The Vocational Denial Toolbox

2 - The Game Played at the Any Occupation Stage

3 - How to Attack the Common Mistakes Made at the Own Occupation Stage of an ERISA Case

Whether you're a claimant, or simply seeking valuable insights into the disability claims landscape, this episode provides essential guidance to help you succeed in your journey. Don't miss it.


Resources Mentioned In This Episode:

LINK TO ROBBED OF YOUR PEACE OF MIND: https://caveylaw.com/get-free-reports/get-disability-book/

LINK TO THE DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIM SURVIVAL GUIDE FOR PROFESSIONALS: https://caveylaw.com/get-free-reports/disability-insurance-claim-survival-guide-professionals/

FREE CONSULT LINK: https://caveylaw.com/contact-us/


Need Help Today?:

Need help with your Long-Term Disability or ERISA claim? Have questions? Please feel welcome to reach out to use for a FREE consultation. Just mention you listened to our podcast.

Review, like, and give us a thumbs up wherever you are listening to Winning Isn't Easy. We love to see your feedback about our podcast, and it helps us grow and improve.

Please remember that the content shared is for informational purposes only, and should not replace personalized legal advice or guidance from qualified professionals.

Transcript

Speaker A [00:00:15]:
 Welcome to winning isn't easy. I'm nationwide ERISA disability attorney Nancy Cavey before we get started, I've got to give you a legal disclaimer. This podcast is not legal advice. The Florida Bar association tells me that I've got to say this, but now I've said it. Nothing will prevent me from giving you an easy to understand overview of the disability insurance world, the games that disability carriers play, and what you need to know to get the disability benefits you deserve. So off we go. Now. Disability carriers employ many denial strategies during the course of a claim, and I'm going to continue in this series of vocational evaluation, denial or termination tools.
 
 Speaker A [00:00:58]:
 And I'm going to be talking specifically about three things. One is the vocational denial toolbox. Two, the games that are played at the any occupation stage and how carriers will misinterpret the claimant's work history based on jobs to purposely arrive at the wrong occupation. Before we get started, let's take a quick break.
 
 Speaker B [00:01:19]:
 Been robbed of your peace of mind by your disability insurance carrier? You owe it to yourself to get a copy of robbed of your peace of mind, which provides you with everything you need to know about the long term disability claims process. Request your free copy of the book@kvlaw.com today.
 
 Speaker A [00:01:43]:
 Welcome back to winning isn't easy ready to get started? We've got a lot to cover. Let's first start out with the vocational denial toolbox. They've got lots of denial tools in their toolbox and at the own occupation stage, the disability carriers in house vocational evaluator will misinterpret the work history based on jobs to arrive at the wrong occupation. They'll misclassify the client's occupation. They'll misapprehend the occupational duties as that term. Occupational duties is defined by the policy or the plan. They'll use the carrier or the plan's peer review or in house providers opinions about the restrictions and limitations to determine that the policyholder or plan beneficiary can perform their occupation. They'll also fail to identify and consider non exertional impairments.
 
 Speaker A [00:02:36]:
 And they'll fail to consider the combination of exertional and non exertional impairments. Any one of those reasons or a combination of reasons are the basis to justify a claims denial or termination. I think that should be vigorously attacked rather in an appeal letter and in litigation. And so one of the crucial areas where there is the game playing is at the transition from the own occupation to any occupation. Now what will happen here is that the definition of occupation is going to change at some point from an inability to do your own occupation to an inability to do any occupation. The claims denial will often come before the termination or conclusion of the own occupation period. And they do that on purpose. What they'll do is deny the claim so that you're forced to file an appeal on the balance of the own occupation benefits and then basically stonewall you in applying for your any occupation benefits.
 
 Speaker A [00:03:47]:
 And of course, what I want to do is to make sure that we're proceeding and appealing and working on both, if you will. Now, there are times when there's going to be where they will actually pay out the full own occupation benefits and then terminate at the any occupation stage. So what happens there? Well, it's the policy language that they will use when there's this transition from own occupation to any occupation. You need to get out the policy or plan and understand the definition of the occupation. Any occupation, whether there's a requirement that any occupation specifically be identified by the carrier or the plan in terms of a geographical requirement, and sometimes there is a requirement in the terms of the policy of the plan that any particular occupation they identify has to generate a certain amount of income so that if that job, or I'm sorry, that occupation pays a wage that's equal to or greater than or even sometimes 80% less than what the before monthly earnings were, then no benefits are paid. So you've got to get out this policy or plan and read the definition of disability, own occupation and any occupation, because those are the parameters that are going to be used in determining your entitlement to benefits and in drafting and creating a successful appeal. Got it? Let's take a quick break stage. Now, what the disability carrier will do is basically doing a one two punch.
 
 Speaker A [00:06:04]:
 And what do I mean by that? They will have their in house liar for hire, doctor or nurse review your claim and determine what in fact they think your restrictions and limitations are. In fact, what they're trying to do is to argue that you can do at least a sedentary job, which is a job sitting down six out of 8 hours, basically lifting between ten and 20 pounds, withstanding at about 2 hours. Because their position is if you can do a sedentary job, you can do any kind of work and therefore no benefits are due and owing. Now they'll get to the vocational conclusions by using their captive in house vocational evaluator. And many times this in house vocational evaluator will make some significant mistakes. They'll misinterpret your work history based on the jobs that you've had in the past, and they'll arrive at the conclusion that you have what's called transferable skills. These are skills that you will have learned by virtue of these occupations, that you could potentially take those skills to other occupations, even in a sedentary capacity. They'll misinterpret the education history to arrive at the conclusion that you can perform other occupations, and they will misapply the plan definition or policy definition of other occupation.
 
 Speaker A [00:07:23]:
 So what we have here is an improper transferable skills analysis, a misapprehension of the occupational duties that you still might be capable of doing based on the transferable skills, and then a failure to consider the impact of both exertional or non exertional impairment that will reduce a person's ability to do even sedentary work. Then, of course, they'll top this off the cherry on top of the cake by failing to perform, if they have to, a proper labor market survey to document that the jobs or occupations exist and that they exist at such a wage that benefits would not be payable. And you can see that any one or a combination of these reasons can be attacked as part of any kind of appeal. So now that I have set the framework for this, I do want to talk about the different exertion levels defined by the US Department of Labor. Now, the different non exertional restrictions that have to be developed to prove that you can't perform your own or any occupation is really crucial. And I will talk about that in a minute. But one of the ways that I go about addressing, in fact, what the correct functional restrictions limitations is to use a Social Security disability, residual functional capacity. And the reason that I do that is that those forms ask the right questions about a person's restrictions and limitations.
 
 Speaker A [00:08:51]:
 And as a Social Security attorney, I want that address specifically. I actually attach these to the AP's forms in my long term disability case. So I've got the carrier's AP's form that doesn't ask the right questions, but then I also have the residual functional capacity form that does ask the right questions. Now, what are those different exertional levels as defined by the Department of Labor? And so the question here is going to be, ultimately, can you perform the material and substantial duties of your own occupation? And then at the, any occupation, based on whatever those restrictions and limitations are now at the own occupation stage, the carrier, or the plan is going to review the work history, determine what occupation you performed at the time you became disabled. Remember, you did not insure a job you insured your occupation. And once the ve's determined the occupation, then the ve will use the dictionary of occupational titles to determine the strength level of that occupation. And then yes. Next, using those restrictions and limitations assigned by their doctor, the ve will determine whether your post disability exertional level matches between the exertional requirements of your own occupation and whatever your current restrictions limitations are.
 
 Speaker A [00:10:19]:
 If you've got the same post disability exertional level that you did when you were doing your own occupation, your claim is going to be denied. Even if the exertional level is different, the carriers or plans will still play games with this. They'll try to whittle things away or add things if you will, so that the restrictions and limitations may be less, but the skills that are required that your client, that you have will transfer to whatever this new occupation is so bit confusing. So let me give you an example. Let's say you're a systems engineer under the DoT. That's defined as a sedentary occupation. Now, if the restrictions and limitations that the carrier is using are sedentary in nature, the VE is going to say that you can do your past occupation as a systems engineer without regard to non exertional impairments, like the need to change positions, maybe issues with bilateral manual dexterity, issues with concentration or pace. They will ignore those types of non exertional restrictions and look solely on the exertional restrictions limitations.
 
 Speaker A [00:11:32]:
 Now, if there is a dispute about the post disability restrictions and there's no match, then my position is that you can't do a full range of your past work which is sedentary in nature, and therefore you're entitled to your benefits. And that analysis holds true at the any occupation stage. So what is this full range of work? You have to be capable of doing a full or a wide range of work at the exertional level assigned preferably by your physician, or even better, the carrier's physician. So you have to be capable of substantially all of the activities of your own occupation at that exertional level. I use in my appeals Social Security regulations 83 ten and 80 311, and I use them to argue that notwithstanding what the disability carriers physician's opinion is that you still can't do the full range of the occupational duties and therefore you're entitled to your benefits. Let's talk again about the exertional levels, particularly when we get to any occupation stage, because the game there, as I said, is the ability to do sedentary work. If, let's say, for example, you did a job working as the manager at a Lowe's, you will be doing heavy physical work and let's say post disability. Your restrictions and limitations are now perhaps light.
 
 Speaker A [00:13:11]:
 What the ve is going to be doing is looking at what the occupation requirements were of a manager at Lowe's to see whether or not the skill level would transfer at the light level, and I'm going to discuss transferable skills in later videos. But in my example of the Lowes manager, that occupation is defined as heavy work. One of the things that you need to understand and become familiar with is the Social Security regulations and the Department of Labor definition of things, because I use these in combination to attack the carrier's determination as to what the exertional level is and whether or not the clients capable of performing their occupation, own occupation, or at the any occupation stage, any other occupation. So let's start out with some definitions. The definition of heavy work is defined as lifting no more than 100 pounds at a time, with frequent lifting and carrying of objects weighing up to 50 pounds. If you can do heavy work, then you can do medium work, light work, and sedentary work. What's the definition of medium work? Well, look at Social Security regulation 83 ten, which defines medium work as lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time, with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. A full range of medium work requires standing or walking for a total of six out of an eight hour day.
 
 Speaker A [00:14:44]:
 In order to meet the requirement of frequent lifting or carrying of objects. How about the use of arms and hands in medium work? Now, medium work requires the ability to grasp cold and turn objects and a lot of impairment keys, in my view, is the ability to do gross and fine motor movements, because that can erode a person's ability to even less than sedentary. So I'm always looking at my clients medical records to see whether or not they have any cervical issues, radiculopathy down their arms, carpal tunnel, tingling, numbness. They might have issues, for example, with MS, that will cause problems with coordination and dexterity. It really doesn't matter the nature of the disease. It's the symptoms that we can establish that impact manual dexterity. Now, there is obviously considerable lifting in the full range of medium work, and that also requires frequent bending and stooping. As a practical matter, most medium work requires being on your feet most of the time, and the ability to frequent lift or carry objects up to 25 pounds.
 
 Speaker A [00:15:56]:
 And being on one's feet all day can really be more critical than being able to lift up to 50 pounds. So in the case of our Lowe's manager, they would potentially be unable to do the work as performed at heavy and probably couldn't do the work as performed at the medium level. So that's the game here, is to basically develop the exertional restrictions and not exertional restrictions that would preclude you from doing the full range of work. Let's, let me give you another example. Let's say you're a tank truck driver and you can lift up to 25 pounds. That occupation is defined as medium. But if you can't stand more than 30 minutes of the time or the dock or while making a delivery and then have to take a ten minute break, that standing and break limitation would preclude you from performing the material and substantial duties, excuse me, of your occupation as a truck driver. Now how about light work? The definition of light work is found in Social Security regulation 83 ten.
 
 Speaker A [00:17:01]:
 And it's lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds. Now there is obviously a great deal of walking and standing. A job does also require sitting most of the time, but that can also require pushing and pulling with your arms, hands, legs, or using foot controls. And that can really increase the exertional level. By the way, frequent means occurring from one third to two thirds of the time during the workday. Now, the full range of light work requires standing or walking off and on for a total of six out of 8 hours a day. And sitting will occur intermittently during the remaining time. So let me give you an example.
 
 Speaker A [00:17:48]:
 Let's say you are a client relations manager. You travel as part of your occupation, attending trade shows. Obviously you're carrying presentation material. You are probably putting up a booth, taking it down. But while you're at the event, you're sitting, you could be sitting, you could be standing, you could be lifting up to 20 pounds. And if you are then lifting up 20 pounds of promotional material, standing at a booth at least 6 hours, sitting intermittently, then perhaps your occupation would be defined as light. But again, we want to work with non exertional impairments, such as the need to alternate sitting and standing, the need for breaks, issues with bilateral manual dexterity, pace and concentration to erode the full range of that. Well, let's talk about sedentary work, because this is, in my view, at least at any occupation stage, the game Social Security regulation 83 ten defines sedentary work as lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time, occasionally lifting or carrying articles like files, ledgers, or small tools.
 
 Speaker A [00:18:55]:
 There is a certain amount of walking and standing necessary even in a sedentary job. But a job is still classified as sedentary if the walking and standing are required only occasionally and the other sedentary criteria are met. Now, there's no significant stooping. Most sedentary jobs require good use of hands and fingers on a repetitive basis, bilateral manual dexterity and occasional means occurring very little or up to one third of the time. Now, since being on one's feet is required occasionally, the periods of standing and walking should total no more than 2 hours in an eight hour day, and sitting generally should total 6 hours in an eight hour workday. Let me give you an example here. Let's say that you're a surgical nurse. That can be classified as meeting work under the dot.
 
 Speaker A [00:19:43]:
 You've had back surgery with a fusion, and allegedly you can sit up to 6 hours a day and lift ten pounds. Now, obviously, your own occupation benefits will be paid, but the game is going to be played here. At the any occupation stage, the carrier or the plans ve will probably opine that you could perform other occupational duties, like a peer review nurse. However, let's say you've got carpal tunnel that limits your bilateral manual dexterity and the use of the computer to occasionally, then you no longer meet the definition of sedentary work. If you've got to get up and move around every 30 to 45 minutes by changing positions, and that's going to put you off task, that will also erode the ability to do sedentary work. So they came here. I think ultimately, at any occupation stage, is less than a full range of sedentary work. And so we want to reduce that by looking at a combination of exertional and non exertional impairments.
 
 Speaker A [00:20:43]:
 Each impairment whittles away at that range of sedentary work. And that's a game we have to play and a game we need to win. Now, I've indicated that one of the ways to do that is with a need to alternate sitting and standing. If you look at Social Security regulations 80, 312, and 96 nine, you will see Social Security guidance on these points. Now, again, this is alternating sitting and standing that can't be accommodated by scheduled breaks and lunch breaks, again, eroding the occupational base. Now, the extent of the erosion will depend on the frequency of the need to alternate sitting and standing and the length of time that this is going to happen. There are a number of times that's going to happen. Most of the time, the peer review doctors will say, well, you can sit six or you can alternate in such a fashion that they would still meet the productivity requirements.
 
 Speaker A [00:21:40]:
 Again, what the game here is, is for them to say, look, you can do some sort of a managerial position that's sedentary in nature that lets you sit or stand as needed, and you can meet the pace and production requirements. That's the first game. The second game is if they're going to say that you've got transferable skills to other occupations. And part of that example was in the nurse, because the nurse had skills that could transfer to peer review, which meant looking at medical records and determining whatever the carrier or employer wanted to be determined. So those are the two games. And the way we go about attacking these is not only to ultimately, if need be, get a functional capacity evaluation and have the doctor, the treating doctor, sign off on it, but we also want to develop the non exertional restrictions to prove that you can't perform your own occupation or any occupation. Exertional abilities involve sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling. Everything else is considered non exertional.
 
 Speaker A [00:22:48]:
 Again, I use Social Security rulings 80 312 80 314 80 515 96 four p 96 eight p and 96 nine pd to attack the non exertional impairment issue. So you might want to go and read those. Now, as a general principle, there are five different types of non exertional limitations, and I want to develop each of these as I can in my claims. First is postural restrictions, including the need to alternate sitting and standing, the need to elevate legs, difficulty turning one's head, balance problems, difficulty with bending, stooping, or squatting. So, for example, if you have pots, you have trouble turning your head side to side, you have balance issues. You may have problems with coordination as you're moving side to side. So we want to develop the postural issues same way if you've got a herniated disc in your back, you may have to get up and move around because of the pain in your legs, you may need to elevate your leg. So we want to develop those as appropriate.
 
 Speaker A [00:24:01]:
 Now, the second category is manipulative restrictions. That includes difficulty with reaching, grasping, handling, and fingering above your head, in front of you, to the side and behind you. We want to develop any manipulative restriction. Environmental restrictions can include difficulty working around fumes, tolerating noise, heights, humidity or temperature, and an inability to be around dangerous machinery. Mental restrictions can include difficulties relating with others, difficulty understanding, remembering, carrying out simple instructions, an inability to maintain concentration or poor stress tolerance. Now, this can be a bit of a trap if there is a mental nervous policy limitation which generally limits benefits to just two years. If you are having psychological or psychiatric problems, the applicability of that mental nervous policy limitation will depend on the policy language. Sometimes there is what I call the Monty Python version, which is if the psychological problems contribute ever so small, then benefits are just limited to two years.
 
 Speaker A [00:25:05]:
 We want to be careful about that. Now, other non exertional impairments are sensory restrictions involving speaking, hearing, feeling, or seeing visual difficulties. Now, carriers and plans rarely ever identify or consider non exertional limitations, much less the combination of exertional and non exertional restrictions and limitations. In my view, this is great grounds to attack a wrongful denial or termination of benefits. Let me give you an example. Let's say you're a software engineer and you've had neck surgery. You have difficulty moving your head side to side. You have difficulty with your arms, particularly with tingling and numbness that radiates into both hands.
 
 Speaker A [00:25:50]:
 Software engineer is classified under the dot as sedentary. Now, carriers will generally say that you can return to that sedentary work since there are no sitting restrictions and deny the claim. However, my argument is since you have difficulty moving your head side to side, you have postural limitations that would impact the ability to turn your head side to side and up and down. You also have issues with bilateral manual dexterity. There are issues with manipulative restrictions that would impact not only the ability to do data entry, but potentially impact their production and pace. So we want the treating physician to address both the exertional and non exertional limitations. Remember, I started this out by saying that I use Social Security residual functionality capacity forms. Well, I do that because those Social Security residual functional capacity forms address both the exertional and non exertional impairments, while the AP's form just doesn't do that.
 
 Speaker A [00:26:44]:
 Now, we've got to tie this all together because the vocational evaluator should address the DoT classification. For example, in this software engineer situation, address the physical and cognitive requirements of the occupation and address both using the carrier's liar for hire restrictions and limitations and the treating physicians restrictions. We want the ve to address why, from a vocational standpoint, you can't perform the material and substantial duties of your own occupation. And the same thing goes in an any occupation claim. You can see developing the exertional and non exertional impairments are key. We want to get to less than a full range of sedentary employment combining both the exertional and non exertional impairments. And then we want to tie it up in a big bow, if you will, with your vocational evaluator's opinion. Now you've got to be giving the doctor a really good history of your symptoms and the impact the symptoms have on your ability to function.
 
 Speaker A [00:27:43]:
 So it's really crucial that you are giving a very good interval history because at the end of the day, everyone is in part relying on your subjective report of your restrictions and limitations, which are hopefully corroborated by the functional capacity evaluation or corroborated by the residual functional capacity forms. Again, you can see how using Social Security regulations and forms can help win your claim and overcome a wrongful claims denial. Got it? Let's take a break.
 
 Speaker B [00:28:21]:
 Are you a professional with questions about your individual disability policy? You need the disability insurance claims survival guide for professionals. This book gives you a comprehensive understanding of your disability policy with tips and to do's that will assist you in submitting a winning disability application. This is one you don't want to miss. For the next 24 hours, we are giving away free copies of the disability insurance claims survival guide for professionals. Order yours Today@disabilityclaimsforprofessionals.com.
 
 Speaker A [00:29:21]:
 Welcome back to winning isn't easy let's talk about how to attack the common mistakes made at the own occupation stage of an ERISA disability claim. Now, at the own occupation stage, the in house vocational evaluator is going to misinterpret your work history based on jobs to arrive at the wrong occupation, misclassify that occupation, misapprehend the duties, use the peer review report about the restrictions and limitations to determine whether you can perform any occupation and then fail to consider non exertional and exertional impairments in determining whether or not there are transferable skills. So you can see that these are common mistakes that can be made. And in doing so, I want to specifically talk about misinterpreting the client's work history based on jobs to arrive at the wrong occupation. Now I will tell you, you guys don't do a very good job of completing the work history forms that explain the physical, cognitive, and social and interpersonal duties of your occupation. And that can lead to a misinterpretation because the vocational evaluator has to look at that work history and classify your jobs into occupations. Now, it can be even more insidious than that. Sometimes ve's will purposely misinterpret the work history, and if that happens, as part of attacking the wrongful denial or termination, is getting an accurate history from you about their duties and then have our vocational evaluator translate that work history into the correct occupation.
 
 Speaker A [00:30:58]:
 Now, how we go about that is going to depend on the policy or plan definition of your own occupation, because that's what we have to prove at the own occupation stage. And that is you can't do your own occupation. But these games go even further. Ves will misclassify the occupation, the strength level or the skills actually required of the alleged own occupation. There should be a match, a match between the material and substantial duties, the strength levels, and the educational requirements of the occupation. And sometimes there just isn't a match. The other mistake is that they'll misapprehend the occupational duties. Now, again, this goes back to the definition of own occupation, because it could be your own occupation as performed for your employer in the local economy or in the national economy or pursuant to the DoT.
 
 Speaker A [00:31:57]:
 So you need to understand how that's defined. You need to understand what's the definition of disability? Is it the material and substantial duties? Is it an inability to do one of the or more of the important duties or essential duties? These words matter. So you've got to get out that policy or plan and look at the definition of disability and the definition of own occupation, because that's the framework. Ultimately, we want our ve to address these issues from an exertional and non exertional standpoint, and then, based on a combination of the occupational duties, correctly identify what it is. The duties are why you couldn't do them from an exertional or non exertional or combined standpoint, whether or not you have even the educational background to do the occupation they identified, because again, it's not always the same occupation occupation. I also want to address the carriers, peer reviewer and in house providers about your restrictions limitations. I rarely see the in house vocational evaluator use the treating physicians assigned restrictions limitations, or the limitations assigned by an FC. Are you surprised? Well, you shouldn't be.
 
 Speaker A [00:33:14]:
 I want my ve to address the carrier or plan physicians restrictions limitations and point out why those restrictions and limitations don't address all of the material and substantial duties or the skills required. We then want our ve to use all of the exertional and non exertional limitations identified by our providers in the RFC forms the IME's FCES CPET exams, because I want them to specifically address all of the occupational duties of your own occupation. As part of the rebuttal, we may want to get an FCE to simulate your own occupational duties during the course of the testing and have the FCE provider comment again. That's particularly true if we've got a definition involving how your employer had you perform it, how it's performed in the local economy or in the national economy or the DoT, because we want to have the testing specifically addressed, the specific standard that you have to meet. Again, to me, this is fodder for the Veda as appropriate. We might want to do a day in the life video and get a statement of you, your family, or your friends or coworkers about the functional, physical, and non exertional impairments that you have. Because we want to obviously attack the peer reviewed doctor's opinions, their IMe opinions, or their FCE opinions, and then use that to wipe away the foundation of the vocational evaluators opinion. Now, as I said, they fail to consider non exertional impairments.
 
 Speaker A [00:34:52]:
 I think that's easy to overcome because, as I explained in an earlier segment in this video podcast, that I want to attack the ability to do the full range of the material and substantial duties. So if you've got to change positions frequently, elevate your legs, you have problems with bilateral manual dexterity, you take frequent breaks, you have problems meeting pace and production requirements, or you have attendance issues. I want to address all of those within the context of not only the restrictions and limitations, but in our vocational providers opinion, if the carrier did not address that, if the carrier's ve didn't address it, that's grounds for attack. Now also, we don't want to forget the issues of side effects of medication, the need to take naps, or the need to use the restroom frequently. We want to develop these in your medical records, the RFC forms, fces, and statements. The most common mistake is the failure to consider the combination of exertional and non exertional impairments. And I aggressively challenge this by developing both the exertional and non exertional impairments and having my VE address it and tie it all together. Now, I want the VE to explain in detail why each of these exertional or non exertional impairments matter based on the material and substantial duties of your occupation as defined by that policy or plan.
 
 Speaker A [00:36:19]:
 Again, we want to be working with you to make sure that the occupation that's been identified by the carrier is in fact correct, or that RV is even correctly identifying it. Because sometimes there might be a combination of duties that broaden what this occupation is, and we might have a dual occupation. Obviously, we want to be speaking with you about the occupational duties, getting the description from your employer, talking with you about your symptoms, how those symptoms interfere with your ability to do the material and substantial duties of your occupation, and if you've been written up or have disciplinary issues have been put on probation, accommodations have been made. We want that to be addressed by you and potentially, if willing, an employer or a co worker. So you can see that it's really important. I want to give my ve a package with a list of questions that I want the ve to address, and as appropriate, I might have the ve perform vocational testing, which of course the carrier's peer review doctor and the venous has not performed. So I want to turn the carrier plans, medical and vocational failures into gold. I know we've covered a ton of information here.
 
 Speaker A [00:37:41]:
 If you have any questions, please call our office. I hope you've enjoyed this episode of winning isn't easy. Please like our page, leave a review and share it with your family or friends. If you subscribe to this podcast, you're going to get notified every time a new episode comes out. I hope that you tune in next week for another insightful episode of Winning isn't easy. Thanks.