AR 01-1(3)
Acquiescence Ruling 01-1(3)
Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000)-Using the Grid Rules as a Framework for Decisionmaking
When an Individual's Occupational Base is Eroded by a Nonexertional Limitation—Titles
II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
ISSUE
Whether we may apply the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (grid rules) as a framework
to deny disability benefits at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process when a
claimant has a nonexertional limitation(s) without either:
(1) taking or producing vocational evidence, such as testimony from a vocational expert,
reference to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) or other similar evidence; or [3]
(2) providing notice of our intention to take official notice of the fact that the
particular nonexertional limitation(s) does not significantly erode the occupational
job base.
STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION
Sections 205(b), 223(d)(2)(A), 1614(a)(3)(B) and 1631(c)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 405(b), 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B)) and 1383(c)(1)(A); 20 CFR 404.1520(f)(1),
404.1566, 404.1569, 404.1569a, 416.920(f)(1), 416.966, 416.969 and 416.969a; 20 CFR
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, section 200.00(e); Social Security Rulings 83-10,
83-12, 83-14, 85-15 and 96-9p.
CIRCUIT
Third (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands).
Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000).
APPLICABILITY OF RULING
This Ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all levels of the administrative
review process (i.e., initial, reconsideration, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing
and Appeals Council).
DESCRIPTION OF CASE
Clifton Sykes filed an application for disability insurance benefits after suffering
several job-related injuries. After his claim was denied at both the initial and reconsideration
levels of the administrative review process, he requested a hearing before an ALJ.
The ALJ found that Mr. Sykes had several “severe” impairments and that, because of
these impairments, he was unable to do his past relevant work. At least one of these
impairments, blindness in the left eye, resulted in a nonexertional limitation. The
other severe impairments included the residual effects of a torn rotator cuff, angina
and obstructive pulmonary disease. Applying the grid rules in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 2 as a framework for decisionmaking without referring to a vocational
expert or other evidence, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Sykes was not disabled because
he could perform other work existing in the national economy. The ALJ's conclusion
was based on his findings that Mr. Sykes had the exertional capability to perform
“light” work and that the exclusion of jobs requiring binocular vision did not significantly
compromise the “broad base of light work” established under the grid rules.
After the Appeals Council denied Mr. Sykes' request for review of the ALJ's decision,
he sought judicial review. Mr. Sykes argued, among other things, that the ALJ erred
in relying exclusively on the grid rules to determine whether there were jobs in the
national economy that he could perform when his impairments resulted in both exertional
and nonexertional limitations. The district court affirmed the ALJ's decision finding
that it was supported by substantial evidence. On appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the court reversed the judgment of the district
court and remanded the case to us for further proceedings consistent with its decision.
HOLDING
After considering the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983), the court concluded that our “interpretation of 20 CFR Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 section 200.00(e)(2) does not comport with the Social Security
Act * * *.” In view of the ALJ's finding that the claimant had a severe nonexertional
impairment, the court stated that we cannot establish the existence of other “jobs
in the national economy that Sykes can perform by relying on the grids alone, even
if [we use] the grids only as a framework instead of to direct a finding of no disability.”
The court further stated that, “in the absence of a rulemaking establishing the fact
of an undiminished occupational base, the Commissioner cannot determine that a claimant's
nonexertional impairments do not significantly erode his occupational base under the
medical-vocational guidelines [alone].”
The Third Circuit also addressed “the question [of] what additional evidence the Commissioner
must present to meet the burden of establishing that there are jobs in the national
economy that a claimant with exertional and nonexertional impairments can perform.”
The court held that the “sort of evidence the Commissioner must present to meet his
burden of proof * * * when a claimant has exertional and nonexertional impairments
* * * [is] the testimony of a vocational expert or other similar evidence, such as
a learned treatise.”
As an alternative to producing additional vocational evidence, the court held that
we could rely on official administrative notice to establish that a particular nonexertional
limitation does not significantly erode a claimant's occupational job base. The court
stated that, “official [administrative] notice * * * allows an administrative agency
to take notice of technical or scientific facts that are within the agency's area
of expertise,” in addition to commonly acknowledged facts. Under this alternative,
we “would have had to provide Sykes with notice of [our] intent to [take administrative]
notice [of the] fact [that the occupational base is not significantly eroded by the
nonexertional limitation] and, if Sykes raised a substantial objection, an opportunity
to respond * * *.”
The court stated that it was not deciding the issue of “whether Social Security Rulings
can serve the same function as the rulemaking upheld in Campbell.” The court further stated that it need not resolve the issue of whether “the Commissioner
can properly refer to a ruling for guidance as to when nonexertional limitations may
significantly compromise the range of work that an individual can perform.”
STATEMENT AS TO HOW SYKES DIFFERS FROM SSA'S INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATIONS
At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process (or the last step in the sequential
evaluation process in continuing disability review claims), we consider the vocational
factors of age, education and work experience in conjunction with a claimant's residual
functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can do other jobs that exist
in significant numbers in the national economy. Section 200.00(e)(2) of 20 CFR Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 provides that, when an individual has an impairment(s)
“resulting in both strength [exertional] limitations and [nonstrength] nonexertional
limitations,” we use the grid rules first to determine whether a finding of disabled
is possible based on strength limitations alone. If not, we use the same grid rules
reflecting the individual's maximum residual strength capabilities, age, education,
and work experience as a framework for consideration of how much the individual's
nonexertional limitations further erode the occupational job base. As stated in 20
CFR 404.1569a and 416.969a, the grid rules “provide a framework to guide our decision”
in this situation.
SSR 83-14, Capability to do Other Work--The Medical Vocational Rules as a Framework
for Evaluating a Combination of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments, provides
that we use the grid rules to determine how the totality of an individual's limitations
or restrictions reduces the occupational base of administratively noticed unskilled
jobs when a claimant cannot be found disabled based on exertional limitations alone.
In those claims where a person comes very close to meeting the criteria of a grid
rule directing a finding of not disabled because it is clear that the additional nonexertional
limitation(s) has very little effect on the exertional occupational base, we may rely
on the framework of the grid rules to support a finding that the person is not disabled
without consulting a vocational expert or other vocational resource. On the other
hand, an additional nonexertional limitation may substantially reduce a range of work
to the extent that an individual is very close to meeting a grid rule which directs
a conclusion of disabled. Particular nonexertional limitation(s) may significantly
erode or may have very little effect on the occupational base of jobs an individual
can perform.
SSRs 96-9 and 83-14 include examples of nonexertional limitation(s) and provide adjudicative
guidance on their effects on an individual's occupational job base. Some of the nonexertional
limitations described in the SSRs do significantly reduce an individual's occupational
job base and would result in a finding of disability. Other nonexertional limitations
described in the SSRs do not significantly reduce an individual's occupational job
base and would not ordinarily result in a finding of disability if the person's exertional
limitations (or “capabilities”) would result in a finding of not disabled under the
grid rules. Regardless of whether the result is a finding of disability or no disability,
we rely on our regulations and the SSRs to provide adjudicative guidance on the effects
of particular nonexertional limitations on an individual's occupational job base.
Under our interpretation of 20 CFR 404.1569a, 416.969a and section 200.00(e) of Appendix
2 to Subpart P of Part 404, and of SSR 83-14, we are not required to consult a vocational
expert or other vocational resource in all instances in which we decide whether an
individual who has a nonexertional limitation(s) is or is not disabled. For instance,
we are not always required to consult a vocational expert or other vocational resource
to help us determine whether a nonexertional limitation significantly erodes a claimant's
occupational base when adjudicative guidance on the effect of the limitation is provided
in an SSR.
The Third Circuit concluded that, under Campbell, we cannot rely on the framework of our grid rules to deny a claim when a claimant
has a nonexertional impairment(s) “without either taking additional vocational evidence
* * * or providing notice to the claimant of [our] intention to take official notice
of this fact [that the claimant's nonexertional impairment(s) do not significantly
erode his or her occupational base] (and providing the claimant with an opportunity
to counter the conclusion).” The court held that we cannot establish the existence
of other jobs in the national economy that a claimant with a nonexertional limitation
“can perform by relying on the grids alone, even if [we] use the grids as a framework
instead of to direct a finding of no disability.”
EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE SYKES DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT
This Ruling applies only to claims in which the claimant resides in Delaware, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania or the Virgin Islands at the time of the determination or decision
at any level of the administrative review process; i.e., initial, reconsideration,
ALJ hearing or Appeals Council review.
In making a disability determination or decision at step 5 of the sequential evaluation
process (or the last step in the sequential evaluation process in continuing disability
review claims), we cannot use the grid rules exclusively as a framework for decisionmaking
when an individual has a nonexertional limitation(s). Before denying disability benefits
at step five when a claimant has a nonexertional limitation(s), we must:
(1) take or produce vocational evidence such as from a vocational expert, the DOT
or other similar evidence (such as a learned treatise); or
(2) provide notice that we intend to take or are taking administrative notice of the
fact that the particular nonexertional limitation(s) does not significantly erode
the occupational job base, and allow the claimant the opportunity to respond before
we deny the claim.
This Ruling does not apply to claims where we rely on an SSR that includes a statement
explaining how the particular nonexertional limitation(s) under consideration in the
claim being adjudicated affects a claimant's occupational job base. When we rely on
such an SSR to support our finding that jobs exist in the national economy that the
claimant can do, we will include a citation to the SSR in our determination or decision.
We are considering revising our rules regarding our use of the grid rules as a framework
for decisionmaking and may rescind this Ruling once we have made the revision.