Opinion ID: 525203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Vocational Expert.

Text: 32 Appellant argues that the vocational expert's opinion that he could work as a dispatcher--of automobiles or security guards, for instance--is inconsistent with the premise, conveyed by the ALJ, that appellant can write for only 15 minutes at a time. Appellant fixes upon the expert's statement that dispatching work might involve continuous writing that could exceed an [sic ] half hour. As the expert explained further, however, a dispatcher would have 10 seconds to 1 full minute of rest between calls and, in many such positions, may use a tape recorder instead of writing messages by hand. 33 Although the ALJ properly relied upon the vocational expert with regard to the writing tasks associated with alternative jobs, the foregoing analyses reveal serious deficiencies in the ALJ's description of appellant's condition, which undercut the expert's opinions in other regards. Specifically, the ALJ did not advise the expert of appellant's complaints of pain, even though the ALJ found those complaints credible to some degree; did not direct the expert to consider that appellant might be drowsy due to medication or, alternatively, that appellant might use a medical device that could limit the usefulness of his remaining arm; and failed to supply information about appellant's limited ability to hold and carry such objects as he could lift. These omissions undermine the foundation for the expert's ultimate conclusion that there are alternative jobs appellant can do. 34