Would someone care to explain the role of medical experts? Are they to summarize evidence, point out/resolve conflicts, and comment on whether impairment(s) meet or medically equal (or functionally if it's a kid) listed impairments? Or, in addition, are they allowed to offer opinions as to the claimant's ability to perform work (i.e., an RFC)?
I am reading this at home, so I cannot quote any regs or rulings, but practically, a good ME can do all of those things.
In my office, we only use psychologists as MEs. They don't summarize evidence, but they will resolve conflicts in the evidence and will testify as to whether an impairment meets or equals. Our MEs typically fill out a PTRF and mental MSS at the hearing, then follow up by translating the MSS into funcitonal limitations, i.e., the cl's depression would limit the cl to performing simple, repetitive work tasks. The cl should not have contact with the general public. He should not perform quota based work. . . The ME will testify as to onset. They sometimes offer opinions as to likelhood of improvement with treatment. Sometimes, they recommend a rep payee. They also can comment on the impact of DAA.
