Sykes v. Apfel

Decision Date25 April 2000
Docket NumberNo. 99-5755,99-5755
Citation228 F.3d 259
Parties(3rd Cir. 2000) CLIFTON SYKES, SR., APPELLANT V. KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; FAITH S. HOCHBERG, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY; THE HONORABLE JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Argued:
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey, D.C. Civ. No. 98-cv-00105, District Judge: Honorable Alfred M. Wolin

Jon C. Dubin, Esquire (argued) Professor of Law The State University of New Jersey Rutgers School of Law - Newark Urban Legal Clinic 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102, Counsel for Appellant

Robert J. Cleary, Esquire United States Attorney Peter G. O'malley, Esquire Assistant United States Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, NJ 07102, Barbara I. Spivak, Esquire Chief Counsel - Region II Stephen P. Conte, Esquire (argued) Assistant Regional Counsel Maria Fragassi Santangelo, Esquire Assistant Regional Counsel Office of General Counsel Social Security Administration 26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904 New York, NY 10278, Counsel for Appellees

Before: Becker, Chief Judge, Weis, and OAKES,* Circuit Judges.

OPINION FOR THE COURT

Becker, Chief Judge.

In this appeal, Clifton Sykes, Sr. challenges the judgment of the District Court affirming the Social Security Administration's final decision denying him disability benefits. The case compels us to revisit the use of the medical-vocational guidelines in the regulations promulgated under the Social Security Act to establish that there are jobs in the national economy that a claimant can perform when the claimant has both exertional and non-exertional impairments.

After suffering several job-related injuries, Sykesfiled for Disability Insurance Benefits with the Social Security Administration. The Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") found Sykes to be not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Sykes then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The ALJ concluded that Sykes had several severe impairments, at least one of which (left-eye blindness) is a non-exertional impairment under the regulations. The ALJ nevertheless denied Sykes's application. Applying the medical-vocational guidelines "as a framework" (and without referring to a vocational expert or other evidence), the ALJ concluded that Sykes's exertional impairments left him able to perform light work, and that the exclusion of jobs requiring binocular vision from light work positions in consideration of his non-exertional impairment did not significantly compromise Sykes's broad occupational base under the guidelines. The denial became a final decision when the Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied Sykes's request for a review of the ALJ's decision.

We conclude that, under Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983) (construing the Social Security Act and upholding regulations promulgated thereunder), and in the absence of a rulemaking establishing the fact of an undiminished occupational base, the Commissioner cannot determine that a claimant's non-exertional impairments do not significantly erode his occupational base under the medical-vocational guidelines without either taking additional vocational evidence establishing as much or providing notice to the claimant of his intention to take official notice of this fact (and providing the claimant with an opportunity to counter the conclusion). Accordingly, we will reverse the order of the District Court and remand the case with instructions to return the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. We reject Sykes's claim that the Social Security Administration has failed to acquiesce in this Court's prior decisions.

I.

Prior to filing for disability, Sykes worked for twenty-one years as a tractor-trailer operator. This work was physically strenuous, requiring on most days that Sykes load and unload seventy-five to eighty pound loads. During the course of his employment, Sykes suffered several injuries. In 1986, he tore the rotator cuff in his right shoulder while lifting steel off the side of the highway and putting it on his truck. This injury required surgery, and during his recovery Sykes was unable to work for nine months. Two years later, he injured his right arm and hand and had to take off two weeks to recover. In 1993, he re-injured his rotator cuff while binding steel to his truck. He underwent several months of physical therapy for this injury. Sykes also suffers from an obstructive pulmonary disorder and unstable angina, which cause him chest pain and which required hospitalization in 1993. The final blow to Sykes's employment as a tractor-trailer operator came when a bungee cord snapped as he was securing metal to his truck and ruptured the globe of his left eye. This injury left him permanently blinded in that eye.

Sykes never returned to work after the eye injury, and he filed for Disability Insurance Benefits with the Social Security Administration. In December 1994, the Commissioner found Sykes to be not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, both in the initial determination and on reconsideration. Sykes then requested a hearing before an ALJ. Sykes complained of a variety of disabilities he characterized as severe: left-eye blindness, the inability to lift his right arm above the shoulder, angina, obstructive pulmonary disease, pain, and depression. The ALJ concluded that Sykes's depression was not severe, refused to credit his subjective complaints of pain, and determined that he could reach above his right shoulder. Applying the regulation governing the determination of disability, the ALJ found that Sykes had several severe impairments -- left eye blindness, the residual effects of a torn rotator cuff, angina, and obstructive pulmonary disease -- and that he could not perform his past work. He also concluded that Sykes was not disabled because there was other work in the national economy that Sykes could perform. The Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied Sykes's request for a review of the ALJ's decision.

Sykes then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking review of the ALJ's decision. He argued that the ALJ erred in relying exclusively on the grids in assessing whether there were jobs in the national economy that Sykes could perform when his impairments were both exertional and non-exertional. Sykes also challenged the ALJ's conclusions that he could lift his right arm above his shoulder and that his depression was not severe. The District Court affirmed the ALJ's decision upholding the Commissioner's denial of benefits, concluding that these assessments were supported by substantial evidence.

The District Court had jurisdiction over the final decision denying Sykes's benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 405(g). We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final decision of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1291. We review the factual findings of the Commissioner only to determine whether the administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting the findings. See 42 U.S.C. S 405(g); Simmonds v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 54, 58 (3d Cir. 1986) (even if the record could sustain an alternative conclusion, the ALJ's decision regarding disability will not be overturned as long as there is substantial evidence to support it). Our review of legal issues is plenary. See Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 181 F.3d 429, 431 (3d Cir. 1999).

II.

In addition to other requirements not at issue here, a claimant is entitled to total disability benefits under the Social Security Act "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. S 423(d)(2)(A). The Act contemplates that disability determinations will be individualized and be based on evidence adduced at a hearing. See Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 467 (1983) (noting that the Act requires individualized determination based on evidence adduced at a hearing); see also 42 U.S.C. S 405(b) (requiring consideration of each individual's condition and stating that an individual may request that a disability determination be based on evidence adduced at a hearing). The Act also gives the Social Security Administration authority to develop regulations implementing these provisions. See Campbell, 461 U.S. at 466.

The Social Security Administration has promulgated a five-step process for evaluating disability claims. See 20 C.F.R. S 404.1520 (1999). First, the Commissioner considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, then the Commissioner considers in the second step whether the claimant has a "severe impairment" that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. If the claimant suffers a severe impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based on the medical evidence, the impairment meets the criteria of an impairment listed in the "listing of impairments," 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 (1999), which result in a presumption of disability, or whether the claimant retains the capacity to work. If the impairment does not meet the criteria for a listed impairment, then the Commissioner assesses in the fourth step whether, despite the severe impairment, the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. If the claimant cannot perform his past work, then the final step is to determine whether there is other work in the national economy that the claimant can perform.1 The claimant bears the burden of proof for steps one, two, and four of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1337 cases
  • Jones v. Astrue, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4194
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • July 10, 2012
    ......2012); Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 551-52 (3d Cir. 2005); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). 8 In the first four steps, the burden is on the claimant to ...Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Appendix 2; 11 Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 263 (3d Cir. 2000); Kane, 776 F.2d at 1132; see also Hoopai v. Astrue, ......
  • Deaguilu v. Astrue
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • March 17, 2011
    ......§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3); Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 262 (3d Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla.. ......
  • Bagwell v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 8, 2004
    ......7-8). This rendered the ALJ's opinion the final decision of the Commissioner. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000). Bagwell filed the instant action on ... See Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 263 (3d Cir.2000). Impairments are classified as exertional if they affect ......
  • Robinson v. Barnhart, CIV.A.H-02-1369.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • January 31, 2003
    ...... See Sims v. Apfel 530 U.S. 103, 107, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000). Robinson filed the instant action on ...       "Under the regulations, impairments can be either exertional or nonexertional." Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 263 (3d Cir. 2000). "Impairments are classified as exertional if they ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 books & journal articles
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ..., 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. Apr. 12, 2005), 11th-05 Pinto v. Massanari , 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. May 1, 2001), 9th-01 Sykes v. Apfel , 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. Sept. 18, 2000), 3d-00 Widmark v. Barnhart , 454 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. July 26, 2006), 9th-06 Case Index Wright-Hines v. Comm’r of Soc. Se......
  • Case survey
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ...One, Two, and Four of the sequential evaluation process, and the Commissioner bears the burden of proof at Step Five. Sykes v. Apfel , 228 F.3d 259, 263 (3d Cir. 2000), citing Bowen v. Yuckert , 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987). (2) If the claimant shows he or s......
  • Assessment of disability issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...of the claimant’s husband and her neighbor, and remanded the case with instructions to consider such evidence. Id. (2) In Sykes v. Apfel , 228 F.3d 259, 266 n. 9 (3d Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit held that the ALJ’s finding that the claimant had received only “conservative treatment” for pa......
  • Vocational Evidence at Step Five of the Sequential Evaluation Process
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 18, 2014
    ...Guidelines as a rule, but only as a “framework” for decision making. • SSR 96-4p, 3 • SSR 96-8p, 4 and • SSR 83-14 5 ; Sykes v. Apfel , 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000). 6 3 www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-04-di-01. html. 4 www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-08-di-01. html. 5 www.ss......
  • 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