Home / Past Relevant Work / A Comprehensive Example of Past Relevant Work

Classifying Past-Relevant Work: Defining Past-Relevant Work “As Performed” and “As Generally Performed” and Using the Claimant’s RFC to Make the Step-Four Determination — A Comprehensive Example

The following comprehensive example concludes the analysis of the vocational issues relevant to classifying past-relevant work.

Please assume the following facts:
The claimant has the following vocational profile:

Age: 57
Education: 8th Grade (No GED certificate)
PAST-RELEVANT WORK: As described below
Vocational Education or schooling beyond 8th Grade: None

The claimant has the following medical profile:

The claimant was involved in an automobile crash in September, 1997. She fractured several bones in her right wrist. She is right hand dominant. She fractured her left hip. Surgery corrected the wrist fractures but left her with sufficient pain upon repetitive use that her treating physician has restricted her to lifting no more than 5 pounds with her right upper extremity and “for no more than 2 hours per day seizing, grasping, holding, turning, or otherwise working with her right hand.” Surgery corrected the hip fracture, but because of residual pain, her treating physician has restricted her to “light” work with no more than 2 hours of standing per 8-hour period.

As a result of her physical injuries, the claimant developed an adjustment disorder. On papers filed with her initial application, she alleged being forgetful and having difficulty concentrating. Accordingly, the agency secured for her a consultative psychiatric examination. Following his mental status examination, the psychiatrist declared the claimant to have no severe mental impairment. He did opine, however, that her adjustment disorder had lasted or was expected to last in excess of 12 months, and while it would not interfere with her ability to perform the basic mental demands of work, it would preclude her from being able to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions. This examiner’s opinion is uncontradicted and supported by the results of his examination.

At the time the claimant seeks representation, she already has received an initial determination denying her claim on the grounds that she can return to her past relevant work as a “bakery manager” and “home companion.”

Form SSA-3369-F6 lists the following information about the claimant’s past work activity and earnings:

Job #1:
The job title is “Bakery Manager.”
The type of business is “Grocery store.”
Dates worked are: From 8/80 to 9/97.
Days per week: “5 to 7.”
Rate of Pay: “Approx. $2500 per month.”

On page 2 of Form SSA-3369-F6, the claimant checked the box indicating she used machines, tools, and equipment. She checked the “Yes” boxes also indicating she used technical knowledge or skills; did writing, completed reports or performed similar duties; and had supervisory responsibilities.

The claimant explained the above and described her basic job duties as follows:

Took inventory once a week. Did scheduling. Trained new workers hired by my employer. Supervised 7 employees who mixed dough, proofed dough, and baked, wrapped, and sliced bread and pastries. I had to examine the dough and batter to make sure it met stated standards. I explained company policy to new workers, and required them to follow safety procedures. Maintained time records. Helped resolve employee disputes. Ordered all supplies from an inventory checklist provided by company. Made and baked French Bread, white and wheat bread, cinnamon rolls, and raised doughnuts. Made brownies, cakes, muffins. Had to lift 50 pound bags of flour and sugar. Ran all equipment: 30 quart mixer, sheeter, revolving oven. Proofed mixed dough. Had to lift dough from bowl to table. Washed 80 quart mixer bowls and paddles. Set up and operated slicing machine.

The claimant described the amount of physical activity the job involved by noting it required 4 hours of walking, 4 hours of standing, 0 hours of sitting, and frequent bending. She checked the box indicating the heaviest weight lifted was 50 pounds, and the weight frequently lifted/carried was up to 50 pounds.

Job #2:
The job title is “Home companion.”
The type of business is “Temporary agency.”
Dates worked are: From 10/98 to 12/98.
Days per week: “Varied.”
Rate of Pay: “Approx. $150 per week.”

On page 3 of Form SSA-3369-F6, the claimant checked the box indicating she used machines, tools, and equipment. She also checked the “Yes” boxes indicating she used technical knowledge or skills, and did writing, completed reports or performed similar duties. She checked the “No” box to indicate she did not have supervisory responsibilities.

She explained the above and described her basic job duties as follows:

I used the stove, oven, and kitchen utensils to prepare meals for an elderly woman. I used my knowledge as a baker to prepare desserts. Most of the time, I just sat in her house to make sure she did not get out of bed and injure herself. Twice a day I completed a report in which I recorded the woman’s temperature and blood pressure. Twice a day I had to assist the woman from her bed to a wheel chair.

The claimant described the amount of physical activity the job involved by noting it required 1 hour of walking, 1 hour of standing, 6 hours of sitting, and occasional bending. She checked the box indicating the heaviest weight lifted was over 50 pounds and the weight frequently lifted/carried was up to 10 pounds.

Using the above-stated facts, the following discussion applies the technical considerations discussed earlier in this chapter to illustrate the 3 distinct phases of the step-four process:

  1. Correctly classifying past work activity as past relevant work (PAST-RELEVANT WORK);
  2. Accurately defining the functional demands and job duties of past relevant work both “as performed” and “as generally performed”; and
  3. Accurately defining the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) so as to permit a function-by-function comparison of that RFC with the physical and mental demands required in past relevant work “as performed” and “as generally performed.”

The claimant’s past work activity consists of two jobs. She has listed them by title, as “Bakery Manager” and “Home Companion.” Pursuant to SSR 82-62, the first step in determining whether these occupations are past-relevant work is to evaluate each job pursuant to the three tests of SGA, recency, and duration. As far as the available evidence establishes, the claimant’s job as “Bakery Manager” passes all three tests. Although the job of “Home Companion” appears to pass the tests of recency and duration, the available information on the earnings and dates/hours worked is insufficient to allow application of the SGA test. Accordingly, it is necessary to recontact the claimant or the employer to obtain additional information.

Assume the claimant is recontacted and asked four questions:

  1. What dates did your employment as a “Home Companion” begin and end?
  2. What days and hours per week did you work at this job?
  3. What were your earnings from this job for each of the 3 months you were employed?
  4. Why did your job as a “Home Companion” end?

Assume the claimant responds to the preceding four questions as follows:

  1. I began working as a home companion on October 25, 1998, and I last worked as a home companion on December 10, 1998.
  2. I worked 8 hours per day every day I worked. I worked October 25, 26, and 30. I worked November 9, 12, 15, 18, and 29. I worked December 5, 7, and 10.
  3. I earned $150 in October, $250 in November, and $150 in December.
  4. I quit this job because I could not safely assist the elderly woman into her wheel chair. It hurt my right wrist to do this, and the pain in my hip got so bad I could hardly walk after an 8-hour shift.

With the foregoing information, two bases for excluding this job as past-relevant work become evident. First, it is not SGA. The claimant’s monthly earnings for the three months averaged $183.33. This is less than the secondary amount of $300 set out in the Earnings Guidelines for employees for the calendar year 1998. Second, pursuant to the criteria of SSR 84-25, assuming the work activity was otherwise considered “substantial,” it would qualify as an unsuccessful work attempt.

Because the claimant’s job as a “Home Companion” was not SGA, it is not properly classified as past relevant work, and in finding otherwise, the agency erred in its initial determination. For the remainder of this example, only the claimant’s past job as a “Bakery Manager” is relevant.

Before using the DOT/SCO to define the claimant’s past job “as generally performed,” it is necessary to define the job “as performed.” This is most easily done by categorizing the details of the job description into functional demands and job duties. From information the claimant has provided, the following functional demands and job duties of “Bakery Manager” are identifiable:

Functional Demands of “Bakery Manager”:
•     Walking: 4 hours
•     Standing: 4 hours
•     Sitting: None
•     Bending: Frequent
•     Lifting: Maximum 50 pounds
•     Frequent lifting/carrying: up to 50 pounds

Note: On Form SSA-3369-F6, the terms “occasionally,” “frequently,” and “constantly” are not defined; however, common sense suggests that when claimants respond to the questions on this form, they interpret these words using everyday usage, not the technical definitions the agency employs. It is advisable, therefore, to ascertain precisely how often in terms of minutes/hours per workday a claimant was required to engage in lifting, carrying and bending.

Job Duties of “Bakery Manager”:
•     Took inventory once a week.
•     Did scheduling.
•     Trained new workers hired by my employer.
•     Supervised 7 employees who mixed dough, proofed dough, and baked, wrapped, and sliced bread and pastries.
•     Examined the dough and batter to make sure it met stated standards.
•     Explained company policy to new workers.
•     Required workers to follow safety procedures.
•     Maintained time records.
•     Helped resolve employee disputes.
•     Ordered all supplies from an inventory checklist provided by company.
•     Made and baked French Bread, white and wheat bread, cinnamon rolls, raised doughnuts, brownies, cakes, and muffins.
•     Ran all equipment: 30 quart mixer, sheeter, revolving oven.
•     Proofed mixed dough.
•     Washed 80 quart mixer bowls and paddles.
•     Set up and operated slicing machine.

Using the claimant’s designated job title, “Bakery Manager,” the next step in accurately defining her past relevant work is to reference the Alphabetical Index of Occupational Titles which begins at page 1225 of the DOT. The title, “Bakery Manager,” appears at page 1317 of the DOT as follows:

MANAGER, BAKERY (bakery products) 189.117-046

The narrative occupational description for this job appears at page 153 in the DOT as follows:

189.117-046 MANAGER, BAKERY (bakery products)

Directs and coordinates activities involved with production, sale, and distribution of bakery products: Determines variety and quantity of bakery products to be produced, according to orders and sales projections. Develops budget for bakery operation, utilizing experience and knowledge of current market conditions. Directs sales activities, following standard business practices. Plans product distribution to customers, and negotiates with suppliers to arrange purchase and delivery of bakery supplies. Implements, through subordinate managerial personnel, policies to utilize human resources, machines, and materials productively. Hires and discharges employees. May train subordinates in all phases of bakery activities. May manage bakery that produces only specialty products, such as bagels or pastries. May manage bakery that sells products to general public. May prepare bakery products.

GOE: 11.05.01 STRENGTH: S GED: R5 M4 L4 SVP: 8 DLU:86

Now that a potential occupation has been identified, its occupational description should be reviewed and its lead statement and task element statements should be compared with the information from the claimant. In this case, the review and comparison strongly suggest that the occupation 189.117-046 MANAGER, BAKERY (bakery products) may not accurately define the job the claimant performed. For example, the lead statement states:

Directs and coordinates activities involved with production, sale, and distribution of bakery products:…

The claimant’s description, however, indicates that she did not perform any of the duties in the lead statement. Because a lead statement summarizes the entire occupation, where that summary diverges entirely from the claimant’s description, it is unlikely that the two occupations correspond. Further, in our example, the task element statements do not generally describe the same or similar job duties “as performed” by the claimant. The task element statements of the occupation 189.117-046 MANAGER, BAKERY (bakery products) are:

  1. Determines variety and quantity of bakery products to be produced, according to orders and sales projections.
  2. Develops budget for bakery operation, utilizing experience and knowledge of current market conditions.
  3. Directs sales activities, following standard business practices.
  4. Plans product distribution to customers, and negotiates with suppliers to arrange purchase and delivery of bakery supplies.
  5. Implements, through subordinate managerial personnel, policies to utilize human resources, machines, and materials productively.
  6. Hires and discharges employees.

Recall that SSR 82-41 provides that an occupational title by itself is not sufficient to define a job. The foregoing example illustrates this fact. Because the claimant’s job title does not accurately identify the claimant’s job as the DOT defines it, it is necessary to continue searching the DOT. In the Alphabetical Index of Occupational Titles at pages 1232—1233 of the DOT, there are listed 35 occupations containing the word bake, or some derivative thereof. These are potential choices. To simplify this illustration, however, I will suggest that the occupation of bakery supervisor may be the occupation most likely to correspond to the claimant’s PAST-RELEVANT WORK. The occupational title, BAKERY SUPERVISOR appears at page 1232, column 2, of the DOT as follows:

BAKERY SUPERVISOR (bakery products) 526.131-010

The narrative occupational description for this job appears at pages 367-68 in the DOT as follows:

526.131-010 BAKERY SUPERVISOR (bakery products)

Supervises and coordinates activities of workers engaged in mixing, dividing, molding, and proofing of dough, and in baking, slicing, and wrapping of bread, pastries, and other bakery products: Examines dough and batter for specified consistency. Reads charts of fermentation room and ovens to verify specified humidity and temperature. Oversees operation of automatic machinery, such as rounding, curling, icing, slicing, and wrapping machines to ensure maintenance of specified quality standards and production schedules. Sets up and adjusts wrapping and slicing machines. Trains new workers. Performs other duties as described under SUPERVISOR (any industry) Master Title. May be designated according to product as Bread Supervisor (bakery products); Cake Supervisor (bakery products).

GOE: 06.01.01 STRENGTH: M GED: R4 M3 L3 SVP: 8 DLU:78

The lead statement from the preceding occupational description is:

Supervises and coordinates activities of workers engaged in mixing, dividing, molding, and proofing of dough, and in baking, slicing, and wrapping of bread, pastries, and other bakery products.

The foregoing lead statement fairly closely corresponds to the job duties the claimant has described. For example she stated:

Supervised 7 employees who mixed dough, proofed dough, and baked, wrapped, and sliced bread and pastries.

Comparing the task element statements of 526.131-010 BAKERY SUPERVISOR (bakery products) also reveals a fairly close match between this occupation and the job “as performed” by the claimant. The task element statements are:

  1. Examines dough and batter for specified consistency.
  2. Reads charts of fermentation room and ovens to verify specified humidity and temperature.
  3. Oversees operation of automatic machinery, such as rounding, curling, icing, slicing, and wrapping machines to ensure maintenance of specified quality standards and production schedules.
  4. Sets up and adjusts wrapping and slicing machines.
  5. Trains new workers.
  6. Performs other duties as described under SUPERVISOR (any industry) Master Title.

To resolve any lingering doubts or questions, the claimant should be contacted to verify whether this description accurately describes the job she performed. Because the claimant’s job description appears to closely match that described in the DOT by 526.131-010 BAKERY SUPERVISOR (bakery products), it is reasonable to assume that her job “as generally performed” in the national economy is performed as described in the DOT.

The last phase of the step-four determination involves comparing the claimant’s RFC with the physical and mental demands of the occupation of Bakery Supervisor both “as performed” and “as generally performed.” On this point, SSR 82-62 requires adjudicators to make the following specific findings of fact to support a step 4 determination that a claimant can perform a past relevant job:

In finding that an individual has the capacity to perform a past relevant job, the determination or decision must contain among the findings the following specific findings of fact:

  1. A finding of fact as to the individual’s RFC.
  2. A finding of fact as to the physical and mental demands of the past job/occupation.
  3. A finding of fact that the individual’s RFC would permit a return to his or her past job or occupation.

SSR 82-62 www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR82-62-di-02.html.

For purposes of the following discussion, the claimant’s representative must step into the role of agency adjudicator.

Assessing RFC requires doing so function-by-function. Given the limited medical facts in our case, we know that the claimant’s treating physician has imposed certain limitations. For current purposes, we will give those limitations “controlling weight” and adopt them. They are:

  1. She can lift no more than 5 pounds with her right upper extremity.
  2. She can engage in “handling” for no more than 2 hours per day. (Handling is defined in the SCO as “Seizing, holding, grasping, turning, or otherwise working with hand or hands.”)
  3. She is restricted to standing no more than 2 hours per 8-hour period.
  4. She is restricted to “light” work.

We also know that the consultative psychiatrist found that the claimant’s non-severe mental impairment did not interfere with her ability to perform basic work activities. However, he also opined that it did impose the following limitation which we will adopt as our mental RFC finding:

(5)  She is precluded from being able to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions.

The foregoing medical profile is sufficient to establish that the claimant cannot perform the job of bakery supervisor “as performed,” as discussed below.

“As performed,” the claimant’s past relevant work as a bakery supervisor required that she stand 4 hours per day. Her exertional RFC restricts her to standing no more than 2 hours per day. Given this single limitation, the claimant cannot perform her past relevant work “as performed.”

Additionally, although the claimant’s mental impairment is non-severe, it does preclude her from being able to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions. The agency recognizes that performance of semiskilled and skilled jobs requires understanding, remembering, and carrying out detailed instructions. “As performed,” the claimant’s job as a bakery supervisor is skilled, having an SVP level of 8. Accordingly, given this non-severe mental limitation, the claimant cannot perform her past relevant work “as performed.”

Although the record undoubtedly could be developed to establish that the other restrictions in the claimant’s function-by-function RFC preclude performing her past relevant work, as the record currently stands, they are insufficient. This is so for three reasons. First, the record does not currently state whether the claimant’s job as a bakery supervisor required the use of both hands to handle, lift, and carry the implements and products weighing more than 5 pounds. Second, neither the DOT nor the SCO (nor any other vocational publication) discloses whether an occupation requires the use of both upper extremities to reach, handle, finger, feel, lift, carry, push, and pull. Third, although her job was performed at the medium level, there is no evidence that when her treating physician restricted her to “light” work he was using that term in the technical sense in which the agency uses it. SSR 96-5p cautions on this point as follows:

From time-to-time, medical sources may provide opinions that an individual is limited to “sedentary work,” “sedentary activity,” “light work,” or similar statements that appear to use the terms set out in our regulations and Rulings to describe exertional levels of maximum sustained work capability. Adjudicators must not assume that a medical source using terms such as “sedentary” and “light” is aware of our definitions of these terms. The judgment regarding the extent to which an individual is able to perform exertional ranges of work goes beyond medical judgment regarding what an individual can still do and is a finding that may be dispositive of the issue of disability.

SSR 96-5p www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-05-di-01.html.

To define the function-by-function demands of the occupation, 526.131-010 BAKERY SUPERVISOR (bakery products), “as generally performed,” it is necessary to refer to the DOT definitional trailer for that occupation:

GOE: 06.01.01 STRENGTH: M GED: R4 M3 L3 SVP: 8 DLU:78

Use of the GOE code allows one to cross-reference the SCO to find the function-by-function worker trait factors of listed occupations. Accordingly, using the GOE code, 06.01.01, cross-reference the SCO to pages 135-138. This leads to the Production Technology Work Group and to the Supervision and Instruction subgroup. Occupations listed are arranged in order of SVP level, from lowest SVP to highest. Because the SVP level of BAKERY SUPERVISOR is 8, that occupation will be listed among the last of the occupations in the GOE 06.06.01 subgroup. In this case, it is listed as the 15th occupation at page 138 of the SCO.

The function-by-function worker trait factors required of BAKERY SUPERVISOR, “as generally performed,” include the physical demands and the environmental conditions listed on page 138 of the SCO. Using the Transferable Skills Worksheet in the Appendix record these data and use them to make a direct comparison, function by function, with the function-by-function elements of the claimant’s assessed RFC. From the worker trait factor list, it is known that the job, BAKERY SUPERVISOR, “as generally performed,” requires:

  • Medium strength demands;
  • Frequent reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling;
  • Frequent talking and hearing;
  • Frequent near acuity; and
  • Occasional color vision.

With the foregoing information, it is possible to directly compare the functional demands of the occupation “as generally performed” only with what is known of the claimant’s RFC in these same areas. In our example, however, several deficiencies in the record preclude a complete function-by-function comparison of the claimant’s RFC with the function-by-function demands of the job “as generally performed.”

As previously noted, neither the DOT nor the SCO discloses whether an occupation requires the use of both upper extremities to reach, handle, finger, feel, lift, carry, push, and pull. Moreover, because the record does not disclose what the claimant’s treating physician meant when he restricted her to “light” work, one may not assume he was using that term in the technical sense in which the agency uses it. Accordingly, although the claimant cannot “frequently handle” with her dominant right hand, it is not known whether “as generally performed” BAKERY SUPERVISOR requires this. It is known only that the job requires frequently handling with one or both hands. If this were critical to the outcome of the case, it would be necessary for the adjudicator to use the services of a vocational expert. SSR 82-61 provides for this as follows:

For those instances where available documentation and vocational resource material are not sufficient to determine how a particular job is usually performed, it may be necessary to utilize the services of a vocational specialist or vocational expert.

SSR 82-61 www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR82-61-di-02.html.

In our example, it is not necessary to use the services of a vocational expert, however. The agency recognizes that in order to perform semiskilled and skilled jobs, an individual must be able to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions. “As generally performed,” the claimant’s job as a bakery supervisor is skilled, having an SVP level of 8. Accordingly, given her non-severe mental limitation, the claimant cannot perform her past relevant work “as generally performed.” It is unnecessary, therefore, to address the other issues in order to make a step-four determination in favor of the claimant.

Were it not for the claimant’s non-severe mental impairment, given the facts in our example, it would have been necessary to use the services of a vocational expert to find that the claimant could not perform the job of bakery supervisor “as generally performed.” This is so because unlike the comparison in the “as performed” example which gave a reference criterion of 4 hours of standing with which to compare the claimant’s RFC for two hours of standing, the DOT describes the strength demands of occupations only in terms of the full range of work at the sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy levels—in this case, Medium. The DOT does not further break down the strength demands into the number of hours required standing, walking, and sitting. It is possible to cross-reference the definitions for the sedentary through medium ranges of work in SSR 83-10 to obtain general information on these issues, but even these definitions do not specify that a job necessarily requires walking, as opposed to standing, occasionally or frequently. The definition of medium work provides:

Medium work. The regulations define 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, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours in an 8-hour workday in order to meet the requirements of frequent lifting or carrying objects weighing up to 25 pounds. As in light work, sitting may occur intermittently during the remaining time. Use of the arms and hands is necessary to grasp, hold, and turn objects, as opposed to the finer activities in much sedentary work, which require precision use of the fingers as well as use of the hands and arms.

The considerable lifting required for the full range of medium work usually requires frequent bending-stooping. (Stooping is a type of bending in which a person bends his or her body downward and forward by bending the spine at the waist.) Flexibility of the knees as well as the torso is important for this activity. (Crouching is bending both the legs and spine in order to bend the body downward and forward.) However, there are relatively few occupations in the national economy which require exertion in terms of weights that must be lifted at times (or involve equivalent exertion in pushing or pulling), but are performed primarily in a sitting position, e.g., taxi driver, bus driver, and tank-truck driver (semiskilled jobs). In most medium jobs, being on one’s feet for most of the workday is critical. Being able to do frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds is often more critical than being able to lift up to 50 pounds at a time.

SSR 83-10 www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR83-10-di-02.html.

From the foregoing definition, it is known that medium work requires “standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours in an 8-hour workday.” In our example, the claimant does not have any restrictions on her ability to walk. Without more information, it is not known whether she can perform the physical demands of the job of BAKERY SUPERVISOR “as generally performed.” Accordingly, if the claimant did not have a non-severe mental impairment which precluded skilled work, it would be necessary to explore these issues either at the reconsideration stage by employing one’s own vocational expert, or at the claimant’s hearing with the vocational expert called by the ALJ.15

Comprehensive Example — Conclusion

The mandatory function-by-function RFC assessment required by SSR 96-8p provides claimants significant opportunities to establish that they cannot perform past relevant work. To facilitate this goal, claimants’ representatives must ensure that the record is sufficiently developed to permit correct classification of past work activity as past-relevant work by identifying and excluding work activity which fails to satisfy any one of the three tests of SGA, duration, and recency.

Once past-relevant work has been correctly identified, claimants’ representatives must ensure that accurate and detailed “function-by-function” descriptions of the claimant’s past-relevant work are in the record. Adequate documentation includes factual information about those work demands which have a bearing on the claimant’s medically established limitations. Detailed information about strength, endurance, manipulative ability, mental demands and other job requirements as appropriate must be obtained. Sources of such job information include the following:

  1. The claimant.
  2. The claimant’s employers.
  3. The claimant’s co-workers.
  4. The claimant’s spouse, other family members, and friends.
  5. The claimant’s detailed earnings query (DEQY).
  6. The claimant’s summary earnings query (SEQY).
  7. The claimant’s Vocational Report (Form SSA-3369-F6).
  8. The claimant’s Disability Report (Form SSA-3368-BK).

Because neither an occupational title by itself nor a skeleton description of a past job is sufficient, and because SSR 82-41 recognizes that the claimant is in the best position to describe just what he or she did in past-relevant work , where necessary, representatives should have the claimant testify how past-relevant work was done, what exertion was involved, what skilled or semiskilled work activities were involved, and what mental demands were involved. The claimant should be prepared to describe the tasks and responsibilities required of each past job and to testify concerning job titles, dates the work was performed, the rate of compensation, tools and machines used, knowledge required, and the extent of supervision and independent judgment required in each job.

For claims involving a mental/emotional impairment, care must be taken to obtain a precise description of the particular job duties which are likely to produce tension and anxiety, e.g., speed, precision, complexity of tasks, independent judgments, working with other people, etc., in order to determine if the claimant’s mental impairment is compatible with the performance of past relevant work. Similarly, claimants with physical disorders such as gastrointestinal or cardiovascular disorders may have performed stressful tasks, and they should be prepared to testify as to why their functional capacities are no longer compatible with the performance of such work. See SSR 82-62.