George Piemonte, NOSSCR 11th Circuit Board Representative

Winning Disability Claims Without the Grid Rules

I have discussed the six favorable grid rules and how to utilize them to your advantage. But let’s be honest—most claimants don’t fit neatly into a grid. So, what do you do when the grids don’t apply? That’s where the real advocacy begins.

Build Your Case with Layered Proof

When you’re not relying on a grid rule, your job is to build a compelling case from the ground up. That means using every type of evidence available:

• Your claimant’s testimony (this is huge—more on that in a second)
• Written statements
• Medical records that document the claimant’s own reports
• Medical opinions
• Clinical and lab findings
• School records
• Even photographs

The key? Prove each limitation in multiple ways. The more consistent and corroborated the evidence, the harder it is for the ALJ to ignore.

Testimony: Your Claimant’s Superpower

Never underestimate the power of your claimant’s own words. Their testimony should clearly explain how their limitations affect daily life. If they don’t speak up about it, the ALJ might assume the limitations aren’t that serious. So, prep your client well—this is their moment to be heard.

Medical Opinions Matter—A Lot

Yes, getting strong medical opinions can be tough. But don’t skip this step. Push for functional assessments from treating providers. Also, push for the provider to link their opinions to the treatment notes. And coach your clients to be honest and thorough with their doctors—no minimizing, no exaggerating. Remind them: under SSR 16-3p, the ALJ is looking for consistency between testimony and medical evidence.

Lock Down the VE

If you’ve established a limitation through credible evidence, it’s critical to get the VE on record confirming that the limitation would eliminate all competitive employment. Under SSR 24-3p, the Social Security Administration has said that ALJs are no longer required to identify and resolve conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT. However, this doesn’t mean the VE’s testimony is beyond scrutiny. In fact, SSR 24-3p emphasizes that vocational evidence must be specific, tailored to the case, and based on reliable occupational data—whether from the DOT or other accepted sources like the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system.

So, if the ALJ omits a proven limitation from the RFC finding and hypothetical without a clear, evidence-based explanation, you now have even more substantial grounds for appeal. But remember: you must still demonstrate that the omission was harmful—that is, that the VE’s testimony, had it incorporated the limitation, would have precluded all work. This makes it more critical than ever to secure VE testimony during the hearing and ensure the record accurately reflects the impact of each limitation on employability.

SSR 24-3p may streamline some procedural hurdles, but it also raises the bar for the quality and specificity of vocational evidence. Use that to your advantage.

Don’t Forget Lay Witnesses

Statements from friends, family, or even neighbors can be powerful. I once had a pastor testify about a claimant’s panic attacks—he’d seen them firsthand and even helped during episodes. That testimony sealed the deal. Lay evidence adds credibility and shows consistency.

Face Weaknesses Head-On

If there’s a weak spot in your case, don’t ignore it—neutralize it. Look for anything in the record that could be twisted against your client. Assume the ALJ will find it. Address it directly, explain it, and document everything. And yes, that includes being cautious with your own client’s statements. Trust, but verify.

Bottom line: Once you’re off the grid, your real work begins. You can never have too much evidence or too many winning theories. Build your case like you’re preparing for battle—because you are.

Want help drafting a non-grid-based theory for a specific case? We’d be happy to help—just let us know! George: gpiemonte@mjpdisability.com

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.