Opinion ID: 218015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vision Impairments

Text: Finally, we turn to McKinzey's argument that the ALJ erred in determining that jobs exist in the national economy that McKinzey could perform. The medical vocational guideline grids provide a means for ALJs to determine whether a person with a particular claimant's exertional limitationstanding, walking, lifting, and the likecan perform any jobs in the national economy. (20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 provides the grids and an introduction to their use). The presence of other, non-exertional limitations, not factored into the grids, may preclude an ALJ from relying on the grids and require a consultation with a vocation expert, but only when the non-exertional limitations substantially reduce a range of work an individual can perform. Luna v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 687, 691, 692 (7th Cir. 1994). The ALJ found that McKinzey's additional non-exertional limitations have little or no effect on the occupational base of unskilled light work and did not consult a vocational expert. McKinzey argues that this was error; she points to a number of non-exertional limitations, but only her claim concerning her vision impairment merits discussion. At the heart of this challenge is the ALJ's unexplained finding that McKinzey requires frequent accommodation for vision problems. This finding, claims McKinzey, is inconsistent with the ALJ's subsequent assertion that such frequent accommodation would have little or no effect on the light unskilled jobs available. Yet again, while we agree with McKinzey that the ALJ's decision was deficient in certain respectswe are left to guess at what frequent accommodation means [4]  we cannot conclude that any error here warrants a remand. We would certainly prefer that the ALJ had provided some detail of what specific vision limitations and accommodations she found that McKinzey had. But here it appears obvious why the ALJ concluded that departing from the grids was unnecessaryand thus equally obvious that any remand would lead to the same result: nothing in the medical records or even in McKinzey's own testimony suggests the type of visual impairment that would have reasonably caused an ALJ to consult a vocational expert. The two Social Security rulings most on point here, 83-14 and 85-15, suggest that in most cases, only visual impairments severe enough to cause safety concerns will have a significant impact on the occupational base of light unskilled work. S.S.R. 83-14 states that visual impairments that would cause a claimant to be a hazard to self and othersusually a constriction of visual fields rather than a loss of acuity the manifestation of tripping over boxes while walking, inability to detect approaching persons or objects, difficulty in walking up and down stairs, etc. will indicate to the decisionmaker that the remaining occupational base is significantly diminished for light work. S.S.R. 85-15 appears to go even slightly further: as long as [a person] retains sufficient visual acuity to be able to handle and work with rather large objects (and has the visual fields to avoid ordinary hazards in a workplace), there would be a substantial number of jobs remaining across all exertional levels. The visual impairments suggested by the medical records and McKinzey's own testimony are hardly of the type or severity contemplated in the relevant Social Security rulings. The medical records cited monovision (one of her eyes was corrected to see distance and the other up close) and dry eye syndrome as causes for her fluctuating vision throughout the day, which the vocational expert and the ALJ took to mean difficulty shifting focus from near to far. McKinzey's own example of how she was limited by her vision was that she required extra time to take measurements during clinical work for her EEG and sleep study program. Moreover, McKinzey drove herself to the hearing with the ALJ, suggesting that her visual impairments did not render her a danger to self and others. Based on the criteria outlined in the relevant Social Security rulings, no ALJ would reasonably find that McKinzey's need for extra time to shift focus from near to far would significantly impact the occupational base for light unskilled work.