Saiz v. Barnhart, No. 03-2168 (10th Cir. May 19, 2004) (Motion to Publish Granted Nov. 15, 2004)

The Tenth Circuit has granted appellant's motion to publish its decision, finding "the appellee's response to be both untimely and unpersuasive."

In its per curiam decision, the Court held that a significant nonexertional limitation--in this case, the claimant's inability to reach--precluded the use of the grids to deny the claim. The ALJ found that the claimant was limited to sedentary work but rejected his contention that pain further restricted his RFC. However, the ALJ had acknowledged that claimant's reaching was restricted but in his dispositive findings "this limitation is completely ignored without any explanation."

The presence of this particular limitation, specifically in connection with a sedentary RFC, is not a technical or formalistic point. A sedentary RFC already “represents a significantly restricted range of work.” Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *3. Thus, the Commissioner’s guidelines not only exclude the grids if there is “more than a slight impact on the individual’s ability to perform the full range of sedentary work,” they affirmatively recognize that “a finding of ‘disabled’ usually applies when the full range of sedentary work is significantly eroded.” Id. at *3, *5. Hence, it is especially significant that reaching is “required in almost all jobs” and that a limitation in this regard “may eliminate a large number of occupations a person could otherwise do.” SSR (Program Policy Statement) 85-15, 1985 WL 56857, at *7; see Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992, 1000-01 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citing SSR 85-15 for significance of reaching limitation in sedentary context and reversing ALJ decision that failed to properly account for evidence of such limitation).

The case is reversed and remanded.