Figarelli v. Berryhill

1 Citing case

  1. Dusen v. Kijakazi

    3:20-cv-396 JD (N.D. Ind. Aug. 11, 2021)

    But “[t]o determine whether a claimant is physically capable for returning to his or her past relevant work, the ALJ must ascertain the demands of that work in relation to the claimant's present physical capacities.” Figarelli v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-1017, 2018 WL 6523027, at *7 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2018) (emphasis added) (quoting Strittmatter v. Scheweiker, 729 F.2d 507, 509 (7th Cir. 1984)). Moreover, the ALJ also has a duty to explore any vocational inconsistencies that are apparent at the time of hearing. Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 464 (7th Cir. 2008).