Moore v. Bell

I respectfully dissent. As a reviewing court, we may not simply ignore the unanimous medical conclusion that Mr. Moore is no longer totally and permanently disabled because his significant impairment does *602not prevent him from performing “sedentary” or “light” work with restrictions. I do not agree that a vocational expert, accepting the uncontroverted medical testimony that Moore is capable of performing a broad class of work, could possibly conclude that he is incapable of performing “any occupation” even on a part-time basis. The Board did not abuse its discretion by following the Plan’s…