Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 04-15690.
Citation | 464 F.3d 944 |
Decision Date | 20 September 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 04-15690.,04-15690. |
Parties | Beatriz V. LOUNSBURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.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.
Before HUG, ALARCÓN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
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.
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.
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:
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 limitations ("non-exertional limitations"). 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart p, Appx. 2 § 200.00(e); 30 Fed. Proc., L.Ed. § 71:205. The reason for this limitation on the grids' application is that, despite having the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of unskilled occupations at a given exertional level, a claimant may not be able to adjust to these jobs because of non-exertional limitations. Soc. Sec. Rul. 83-10 (January 1983). In particular, non-exertional impairments — including...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yarberough v. Colvin
...in a given category, i.e., sedentary work, light work, or medium work") (emphasis in original). The Ninth Circuit in Lounsburry v. Barnart, 464 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2006) held that in cases where the Grid for light work applies, there must be more than one type of job available to a claimant ......
-
JONES v. ASTRUE
...these two jobs do not constitute a "significant range" of work and thus the ALJ's decision violates the holding of "Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2006)." As an initial matter, the citation to Lounsburry offered by plaintiff, and subsequently cited by the Commissioner, is to......
-
Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 04-15690.
...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 An individual with both exertional and non-exertional limitations cannot, however, be found "nondisab......
-
Herman v. Berryhill
...to support the position that a single occupation cannot constitute the "significant range of work" required at step five. 464 F.3d 944, 950 (9th Cir. 2006), amended on other grounds, 468 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2006). Lounsburry is distinguishable because it dealt with whether a claimant of an ......
-
Case Index
...F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2007), 9th-07 Howard v. Barnhart , 379 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. July 29, 2004), 10th-04 Lounsburry v. Barnhart , 464 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2006), on reh’g 468 F.3d 111 (9 th Cir. Nov. 7, 2006), 9th-06 McGeorge v. Barnhart , 321 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. Mar. 11, 2003......
-
Table of cases
...71 F.3d 316, 319 (8th Cir. 1995), § 204.1 Loudermilk v. Barnhart , 290 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. May 7, 2002), 11th-02 Lounsburry v. Barnhart , 464 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2006), on reh’g 468 F.3d 111 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2006), 9th-06 Lovejoy v. Heckler , 790 F.2d 1114, 1116-17 (4th Cir. 1986......
-
Case index
...1071 (9 th Cir. Aug. 27, 2007), 9 th -07 Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945 (10 th Cir. July 29, 2004), 10 th -04 Lounsburry v. Barnhart , 464 F.3d 944 (9 th Cir. Sept. 20, 2006), on reh’g 468 F.3d 111 (9 th Cir. Nov. 7, 2006), 9 th -06 McGeorge v. Barnhart , 321 F.3d 766 (8 th Cir. Mar. 11, ......
-
Table of Cases
...546 (8th Cir. Nov. 28, 2014), 8 th -14 Loudermilk v. Barnhart , 290 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. May 7, 2002), 11th-02 Lounsburry v. Barnhart , 464 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2006), on reh’g 468 F.3d 111 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2006), 9th-06 Lovejoy v. Heckler , 790 F.2d 1114, 1116-17 (4th Cir. 1986), ......