benefits claimant cannot perform the full range of sedentary work, a strict, mechanical application of the grids is improper; rather, the claimant must be evaluated on an individual basis, and that such evaluation on an individual basis can “can be met only by calling a vocational expert to testify as to the plaintiffs ability to perform some particular job.” Nelson v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 45, 49 (2d Cir.1989) (reversing district court’s decision upholding denial of plaintiffs claim for disability benefits and remanding for further evaluation of plaintiff on an individual basis, including testimony by a vocational expert, given that the grids do not apply to claimants who are unable to perform a full range of sedentary work); see also Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601, 605-06 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). However, the testimony of a vocational expert
holding reliance on the grid proper where claimants nonexertional impairments limited right shoulder range of motion and partial hearing loss did not significantly compromise range of work for which claimant was otherwise qualified holding that at step four the claimant bears the burden of proving that she cannot perform her past relevant work holding that similar impairments do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her impairment rendered the plaintiff unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes within a geographical area to which she had reasonable access holding that application of the grids is inappropriate if a claimant suffers from nonexertional impairments which diminish his or her ability to perform a full range of work holding that the ability to perform a substantial majority of work in rfc assessment suffices for purposes of grids