Here is the opinion in Deere v. Astrue (N.D. Okla.):

Deere v Astrue

From the opinion:

As his third issue, plaintiff argues the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff can perform his past work as a case worker is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to determine the physical and mental demands of his past work as a case worker for the Indian Tribe. The Court agrees.

The evidence is clearly conflicting as to whether plaintiff could meet the mental requirements of his former job as a case worker. As the ALJ pointed out, plaintiff’s activities and social engagement, during the relevant time, supported a finding that he had the capacity to work. However, conflicting evidence shows that plaintiff either quit his former job or was terminated purportedly due to the stress of taking children away from their parents. Dr. Billingsley opined that plaintiff’s PTSD may impact his ability to concentrate. [R. 462]. Although the ALJ entered extensive findings regarding plaintiff’s busy schedule of daily activities and his various social functions, he failed to factor whether plaintiff’s PTSD had any impact on his concentration, pace and persistence to perform his past job as a case worker. Moreover, Dr. Love “surmised” that plaintiff was not able on December 31, 2003 to function well in a stressful work environment. [R. 468]. Dr. Love was plaintiff’s treating physician during the relevant time. On remand, the ALJ is directed to apply the correct legal standard, by rating each of plaintiff’s functional capacities, prior to entering his determination whether plaintiff’s has the mental capacity to return to his past work as a case worker. As noted above, a prerequisite as to whether plaintiff can return to his past work is for the ALJ to complete a proper PTR Form. In addition, the ALJ is directed to analyze Dr. Love’s statement of July 20, 2007 [R. 468] under the treating physician rule; or enter factual findings or legal support to justify rejecting Dr. Love’s classification as plaintiff’s treating physician.