Massachusetts District Court Reverses ALJ
September 29, 2016. Here, the ALJ found that the claimant was capable of walking and standing only 2 hours in an 8-hour workday, but limited him to jobs that, by definition, required “a good deal of walking”. The ALJ based his denial on vocational expert testimony that there were a significant number of jobs that existed that would accommodate for the claimant’s limitation to standing and walking only 2 hours a day, but did not provide any basis to support his reasoning. The district court found that there were “substantial questions” about the accuracy and reliability of the vocational expert’s testimony and methodology. It reversed the ALJ’s decision, holding that without clarity as to the methodology used to come with the jobs provided, it was unable to find that the ALJ’s decision was based on substantial evidence.