Shawnee Arnott v. Martin O'Malley

discussion of her past relevant work did not match that description.

1 We reject Arnott’s contention that the ALJ reopened the prior ALJ’s decision pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.989(a)(1). Reopening the prior decision would be readjudicating the time period considered by the prior ALJ (i.e., October 10, 2010, through September 15, 2012). See AR 97-4(9). Here, the ALJ did not reopen the prior ALJ decision but rather considered whether Arnott was disabled for a subsequent time period. 2 Moreover, it is not clear how Arnott was harmed by the ALJ using different job classifications. The prior ALJ found that Arnott could do her past relevant work

3 3. The ALJ found that Arnott could not perform her past relevant work

and thus evaluated, at step five, whether she was able to do other work considering

her residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. The ALJ

determined that Arnott “had acquired work skills from past relevant work that were

transferable to other occupations with jobs existing in significant numbers in the

national economy.”

Under the applicable regulations, if a claimant is of advanced age and cannot

do more than sedentary work (like…