In the case of Ball v. Astrue 755 F. Supp. 2d 452 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) as reported in NOSSCR Volume 34, No.2, February 2012 newsletter, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was remanded. In response to the ALJ’s final hypothetical, the Vocational Expert testified there were no jobs available if the claimant required unscheduled breaks. The ALJ still denied benefits, finding there were jobs the plaintiff could perform. The court ruled that since the Vocational Expert’s testimony is essential to a finding of a disability, the ALJ must have reasons for rejecting the hypothetical where there were no jobs available. The court reversed and remanded the case for a re-hearing with instructions that the VE be called to testify, and the ALJ present a hypothetical that accurately reflects all of the plaintiff’s impairments. The decision must outline why the ALJ either accepts or rejects the VE’s determination on each hypothetical.