Disability Law Blog

Haynes v. Barnhart, No. 04-1211, __F.3d__ (7th Cir. July 26, 2005)

The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Joel M. Flaum, affirms a denial of concurrent benefits at step 5. The Court rejects Haynes's contention that because he couldn't perform the full range of light work but could perform the full range of sedentary work, the sedentary rules corresponding to his age, education and vocational factors direct a finding of disabled. The Court held that when a claimant's RFC falls between the sedentary and light ranges of work, the grids are not "mandated" and VE testimony is appropriate to determine whether jobs exist in significant numbers that the claimant can perform, citing SSR 83-10, 83-12 and 83-14:

"In light of these regulations, policy statements, and our caselaw interpreting same, we reject Haynes’s argument that the ALJ was required to apply the grids. The grids were not mandated—Haynes’s RFC did not coincide with the full range of either sedentary or light work, and he suffered from a combination of exertional and nonexertional limitations. See Lee v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[The grids] are only to be applied when they accurately describe a claimant’s abilities and limitations.”). The regulations and abundant caselaw clearly indicate that in such situations it is appropriate to consult with a vocational expert, which is precisely what the ALJ did."

The Court also found that the ALJ properly disregarded an ME's testimony that Haynes would miss up to the 3 workdays per month due to his impairments, stating that the ALJ concluded there was no medical evidence to support this opinion. The Court fudged the requirement that the ALJ "build a logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusion," instead conducting its own survey of the record to find evidence to support the ALJ's conclusion.

An MP3 recording of a very short oral argument is found here.

Boone v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 203 (8th Cir. 2003)

New opinion from the Eighth Circuit reversing DC's entry of summary judgment for Commissioner and remanding to District Court with instructions to return to Commissioner for further proceedings. The holding relates to pre-SSR 00-4p cases as the ALJ decided the case before SSR 00-4p was issued:

Given this hesitation, the conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT — which worked to Boone’s disadvantage — as to each occupation identified by the VE, and the failure of the VE and the ALJ to acknowledge (much less explain) the conflict, we conclude that the VE’s testimony does not by itself provide substantial evidence of a significant number of jobs in the economy that Boone can perform. We must consider, however, whether the record otherwise contains such evidence.

Page 11.

The Court then discusses erosion of the occupational base and SSR 83-12:

[W]e shall not interpret SSR 83-12 to mandate reversal whenever the ALJ does not set out specific findings concerning the erosion of the occupational base if, as here, the ALJ has received the assistance of a VE in considering the more precise question whether there are a significant number of jobs in the economy that the claimant can perform.

Nothing about framework in this opinion.

Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287 (4th Cir. 2002)

The Court holds that substantial evidence, not "special clarity," is all that is required when a VE testifies that a person who needs a sit/stand option can perform unskilled light or sedentary jobs, even though that testimony appears to conflict with Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-12.