AR 88-1(11) (Rescinded 5/8/2000)
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/29/88
AR 88-1(11): Patterson v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir. 1986), reh'g denied, (February 12, 1987) -- Use of the Age Factor in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines in Making Disability Determinations
ISSUE:
Whether the Secretary is required to reevaluate evidence of a physical or mental impairment which has been already considered in assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity in determining if a claimant's age adversely affects his or her ability to adapt to a new work environment.
STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:
Sections 223(d)(2)(A) and 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 423(d)(2)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)); 20 C.F.R. 404.1563, 20 C.F.R. 416.963, and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2; SSR 83-10, SSR 82-46c
CIRCUIT:
ELEVENTH (FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ALABAMA)
APPLICABILITY OF RULING:
- This Ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all administrative levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing and Appeals Council).
- To the extent inconsistent therewith, this Ruling supersedes SSR 82-46c and 83-10 for cases arising in the Eleventh Circuit only.
DESCRIPTION OF CASE:
Mrs. Patterson was awarded disability benefits beginning in May 1983, and the court agreed with the Secretary that she could do her past work prior to January 1981. Thus, the period in contention in her claim was the period from January 1981 to May 1983.
In October 1981, Mrs. Patterson applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The claim was denied at the initial and reconsideration levels. At hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that for the period after January 1981, Mrs. Patterson, then 49 years old, could not do her past work but could do a wide range of light and sedentary jobs and was therefore not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review and Mrs. Patterson filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The magistrate found that the ALJ had applied the medical-vocational guidelines mechanically, and therefore gave Mrs. Patterson an opportunity to present evidence on her ability to adapt to a new work environment. In response, Mrs. Patterson stated that her ability to adapt to a new work environment was less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for persons her age because of her limited education and work experience, her inability to lift or carry any weight with her left hand, and her physical condition. After considering this evidence and the record, the magistrate recommended that the Secretary's finding of no disability be affirmed since the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and since Mrs. Patterson's evidence did not show that her ability to adapt to a new work environment was less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for persons who are her age. After reviewing the record, the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and affirmed the denial of benefits. Mrs. Patterson then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
HOLDING:
The court of appeals found that Mrs. Patterson presented substantial evidence which, if credited by the ALJ, would indicate that her ability to adapt to a new work environment was less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for an individual her age. The court went on to find that once a claimant meets the burden of showing that he/she cannot do past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that the claimant can perform substantial gainful work activity which exists in the national economy. The court pointed out that the Secretary can often meet this burden by relying on the medical-vocational guidelines. The medical-vocational guidelines are based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience, and in cases where they apply, they direct a conclusion on the issue of whether the claimant is capable of performing substantial gainful work activity in the national economy.
In this case, Mrs. Patterson believed that the age factor should not be applied to her in a mechanical fashion and offered several reasons why her ability to adapt to a new work environment was less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for persons her age: (1) limited educational and work experience; (2) lack of ability to lift or carry any weight with her left hand; and (3) her physical condition, including diminished grip strength and limited dexterity in her left hand as the result of carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that the first two categories (her limited educational background and work experience and the restriction on her ability to lift and carry objects), did not relate to the question of whether her ability to adapt was less than that established by the medical-vocational guidelines for persons her age.
With respect to the third category (her physical condition), the court concluded that the evidence concerning Mrs. Patterson's physical condition was sufficient to require a remand to the Secretary on the question of whether her ability to adapt to a new environment was less than the level presumed under the medical-vocational guidelines for claimants her age. The court pointed out that at the time of the ALJ's decision, Mrs. Patterson was 49 years old. The court observed that the ALJ found that she was a younger individual with a tenth grade education, was capable of performing a wide range of light and sedentary work, was unskilled and was not disabled under the medical-vocational guidelines. The court stated that had she been 55 rather than 49, she would have been disabled under the medical-vocational guidelines. The court concluded that the evidence she presented about her physical condition, if credited by the ALJ, would constitute substantial evidence with respect to whether her ability to adapt to a new work environment was less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for claimants her age. For example, Mrs. Patterson had diabetes and the court found that her carpal tunnel syndrome had significantly limited her manual dexterity and grip strength in her left hand. On this basis the court concluded that she would experience more difficulty in adapting to a new job than would other claimants her age without such an impairment. Under these circumstances, the court held that Mrs. Patterson had met her burden of producing substantial evidence with respect to whether her ability to adapt to a new work environment was less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for claimants her age.
STATEMENT AS TO HOW THE DECISION DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) considers medical and other evidence relating to a claimant's ability to perform work-related functions despite his or her physical/mental impairments in its assessment of residual functional capacity. Therefore, SSA does not use evidence of a claimant's physical or mental impairments a second time for the purpose of deciding that the claimant's ability to adapt to new work in terms of age alone is greater or less than that of others of that age. SSA believes that to do so is to give double weight to the same evidence in deciding whether or not a claimant is disabled.
The Patterson court concluded that evidence of physical or mental impairments is relevant to the question of a claimant's ability to adapt to a new work environment and must be used to help establish that a person's ability to adapt is less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for claimants of that age.
EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE PATTERSON DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT:
This Ruling applies only to cases in which the claimant resides in Florida, Georgia or Alabama at the time of the determination or decision at any level of administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council.
In cases where the issue of disability is resolved at the last step of the sequential evaluation process, the medical-vocational guidelines would otherwise direct a decision of "not disabled," and the claimant offers substantial credible evidence of his or her physical or mental impairments as proof that the ability to adapt to other work is less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for individuals of the particular age, a specific finding must be made as to the claimant's ability to adapt to a new work environment.
Because the medical-vocational guidelines would not direct a decision in such a case, the adjudicator must use the guidelines as a framework to establish the existence of jobs within the national economy which the claimant is capable of performing.
SSA intends to clarify the regulation at issue in this case through the rulemaking process. SSA will continue to apply this Ruling until such clarification is made.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Date of Publication (1/29/88)