Louisiana District Court Remands for Further Proceedings
February 26, 2016. In this case, a claimant with severe back pain required the use of a cane to even walk short distances, however, the ALJ neglected to include the use for a cane in her finding that the claimant could perform a reduced range of sedentary work. The district court reversed, holding that the ALJ did not consider how the need for a cane would reduce the range of sedentary work further. The district court went on to undermine the Commissioner’s argument that the vocational expert provided examples of jobs that an individual could perform with a cane, noting that while this may have been true, the ALJ did not rely on that testimony in her ultimate finding, holding that “the Commissioner’s decision ‘must stand or fall within the reasons set forth in the ALJ’s decision”.