Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 04-15690.

Decision Date20 September 2006
Docket NumberNo. 04-15690.,04-15690.
PartiesBeatriz V. LOUNSBURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Kelly Dunn, Richmond, CA, for the appellant.

Sarah Ryan, Assistant Regional Counsel, United States Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA, for the appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-03956-JSW.

Before: HUG, ALARCÓN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Opinion filed on September 20, 2006, is amended as follows: on slip opinion page 11744 [464 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2006)], lines 1-3, delete the following text:

An individual with both exertional and non-exertional limitations cannot, however, be found "nondisabled" based only on the grids.

OPINION

HUG, Circuit Judge:

Beatriz V. Lounsburry ("Lounsburry") appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny her disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Lounsburry's application for benefits was denied initially and on reconsideration, and Lounsburry requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). The ALJ found that although Lounsburry had severe exertional and non-exertional impairments that precluded her performing her previous work, these impairments were not disabling because they did not preclude Lounsburry from performing a single occupation that existed in significant numbers in the economy. Lounsburry contends that the ALJ committed legal error because Rule 202.00(c) of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, as applied to the ALJ's uncontested findings of fact, directs as a matter of law a determination that Lounsburry is disabled. We agree, and hereby REVERSE and REMAND WITH INSTRUCTIONS for the payment of benefits.

I. Factual And Procedural Background

On February 24, 2000, Lounsburry filed a claim for Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSDI") under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. Lounsburry alleged that her disability arose on August 16, 1999, when she was sixty-two years of age. As the basis of her disability, Lounsburry alleged "easy fatigue, pains & discomforts on [the] upper and lower extremities, severe pain in both hips, joints, back & shoulder, not feeling well at times,[and] bunionous . . . toes." A series of medical evaluations between May 1999 and December 2000 resulted in diagnoses of (1) degenerative joint disease, resulting in chronic bilateral lower extremity, knee, ankle, heel, and foot pain, and pain in the lumbar spine, (2) adult-onset diabetes mellitus, (3) hypertension, and (4) sick sinus syndrome—for which Lounsburry received a permanent dual-chamber pacemaker implant.

Lounsburry completed high school and two years of post-secondary education. She was employed as a certified nurse's assistant from October 1985 to May 1999 and was employed as a certified home health aide from June 1998 to November 1999. She has not engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time since the alleged onset of her disability.

Lounsburry's application for social security disability insurance was denied initially and on reconsideration. At the hearing before the ALJ on November 20, 2001, medical-vocational testimony revealed Lounsburry to have the residual functional capacity to perform "light work," defined as lifting and/or carrying 15 pounds frequently and 25 pounds occasionally. A vocational expert ("VE") indicated that Lounsburry also had postural limitations preventing her from repetitive stooping, crouching, crawling, kneeling, and climbing activities. Because Lounsburry's past relevant work as a certified nurse's assistant requires a medium exertional capacity, the VE testified she would not be able to return to that job. The VE did find, however, that Lounsburry's past work was semi-skilled and involved skills transferable to other work. Specifically, the VE identified four jobs that Lounsburry could do, but in response to interrogatories propounded by the ALJ, later eliminated all but one as requiring more than "very little [vocational] adjustment," pursuant to the requirements of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Rule 202.00(f) ("the grids").

The VE identified the remaining occupation, "companion," as semi-skilled, requiring light exertional capacity and very little vocational adjustment. He testified that 1,639 companion positions exist in the local economy, and 65,855 nationally. The ALJ followed the five-step sequential evaluation required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. He determined in his written decision dated March 25, 2002 that Lounsburry was not disabled.1

The Social Security Appeals Council declined review and adopted the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner. Having exhausted her administrative remedies, Lounsburry sought review in the Northern District of California. District Judge White rejected Lounsburry's argument that the ALJ was required to apply the Medical-Vocational Guidelines directly, including Rule 202.00(c), denied her motion for summary judgment, and granted the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby upholding the ALJ's decision.

II. A Medical-Vocational Guidelines Analysis

We review de novo the decision of the district court affirming the decision of the ALJ. Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1034-1035 (9th Cir.2001). We may set aside the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits when the ALJ's findings are based on legal error. See Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.1993). In this appeal we are called on to determine Lounsburry's disability status under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, commonly referred to as the grids. 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2.

The Ninth Circuit articulated the five-step sequential process for determining whether a claimant is "disabled" in Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999). The five steps are as follows:

Step 1: Is the claimant presently working in a substantially gainful activity? If so, then the claimant is "not disabled" within the meaning of the Social Security Act and is not entitled to disability insurance benefits. If the claimant is not working in a substantially gainful activity, then the claimant's case cannot be resolved at step one and the evaluation proceeds to step two. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b).

Step 2: Is the claimant's impairment severe? If not, then the claimant is "not disabled" and is not entitled to benefits. If the claimant's impairment is severe, then the claimant's case cannot be resolved at step two and the evaluation proceeds to step three. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Step 3: Does the impairment "meet or equal" one of a list of specific impairments described in the regulations? If so, the claimant is "disabled" and therefore entitled to disability insurance benefits. If the claimant's impairment neither meets nor equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations, then the claimant's case cannot be resolved at step three and the evaluation proceeds to step four. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Step 4: Is the claimant able to do any work that he or she has done in the past? If so, then the claimant is "not disabled" and is not entitled to disability insurance benefits. If the claimant cannot do any work he or she did in the past, then the claimant's case cannot be resolved at step four and the evaluation proceeds to the fifth and final step. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).

Step 5: Is the claimant able to do any other work? If not, then the claimant is "disabled" and therefore entitled to disability insurance benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(1). If the claimant is able to do other work, then the Commissioner must establish that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that claimant can do. There are two ways for the Commissioner to meet the burden of showing that there is other work in "significant numbers" in the national economy that claimant can do: (1) by the testimony of a vocational expert, or (2) by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2. If the Commissioner meets this burden, the claimant is "not disabled" and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1562. If the Commissioner cannot meet this burden, then the claimant is "disabled" and therefore entitled to disability benefits.

Id.; see also Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99.

The grids are applied at the fifth step of the analysis under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, and present, in table form, a short-hand method for determining the availability and numbers of suitable jobs for a claimant. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1101. The grids categorize jobs by their physical-exertional requirements, and set forth a table for each category. A claimant's placement with the appropriate table is determined by applying a matrix of four factors identified by Congress—a claimant's age, education, previous work experience, and physical ability. For each combination of these factors, they direct a finding of either "disabled" or "not disabled" based on the number of jobs in the national economy in that category of physical-exertional requirements. Id. If a claimant is found able to work jobs that exist in significant numbers, the claimant is generally considered not disabled. Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 76 L.Ed.2d 66 (1983).

However, the grids are predicated on a claimant suffering from an impairment which manifests itself by limitations in meeting the strength requirements of jobs ("exertional limitations"); they may not be fully applicable where the nature of a claimant's impairment does not result in such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1326 cases
  • Michael v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • August 31, 2022
    ...do this, the ALJ can use either the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“grids”), or call a VE. See 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpt. P, App. 2; Lounsburry, 468 F.3d at 1114; Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th 2001). “Throughout the five-step evaluation, the ALJ is responsible for determining cre......
  • Bray v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 6, 2009
    ...tables with their concomitant rules/categories are sometimes referenced as "the grids." As to the use of the grids, Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir.2006), cautions [T]he grids are predicated on a claimant suffering from an impairment which manifests itself by limitation......
  • Daniel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • January 30, 2023
    ...do this, the ALJ can use either the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“grids”), or call a VE. See 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpt. P, App. 2; Lounsburry, 468 F.3d at 1114; Osenbrock Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001). “Throughout the five-step evaluation, the ALJ is responsible for determining c......
  • Daniel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • January 30, 2023
    ...do this, the ALJ can use either the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“grids”), or call a VE. See 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpt. P, App. 2; Lounsburry, 468 F.3d at 1114; Osenbrock Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001). “Throughout the five-step evaluation, the ALJ is responsible for determining c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Vocational Evidence at Step Five of the Sequential Evaluation Process
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook Content
    • May 4, 2020
    ...of disability applicable generally for one narrowly tailored by the grids to Lounsburry’s circumstances. Lounsburry v. Barnhart , 468 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (amended). Lounsburry’s footnote 4 states: n4 Section 423(d)(2)(A) provides: An individual shall be determined to be under a disabi......
  • The hearing
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Practice. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 4, 2022
    ...must be so significant as to justify treating the claimant differently from others of his age and education. In Lounsburry v. Barnhart , 468 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2006), an ALJ found that the claimant had transferable skills to one light occupation, which represented 65,855 jobs in the ......
  • The Hearing
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Disability Practice. Volume Two - 2017 Contents
    • August 17, 2017
    ...must be so significant as to justify treating the claimant differently from others of his age and education. In Lounsburry v. Barnhart , 468 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2006), an ALJ found that the claimant had transferable skills to one light occupation, which represented 65,855 jobs in the ......
  • The Hearing
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 1
    • May 5, 2015
    ...must be so significant as to justify treating the claimant differently from others of his age and education. In Lounsburry v. Barnhart , 468 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2006), an ALJ found that the claimant had transferable skills to one light occupation, which represented 65,855 jobs in the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT