Brock v. Astrue
674 F.3d 1062
8th Cir.2012Background
- Brock applied for supplemental security income on March 6, 2007; benefits denied on initial review and reconsideration.
- ALJ held a hearing July 14, 2009, Brock then 21, with eighth-grade education and no transferable work skills.
- ALJ found Brock had severe mental impairments (anxiety disorder and untreated ADHD) but RFC to perform full range of medium work.
- Guidelines (grid rules) used to conclude Brock was not disabled, based on Rule 203.25.
- ALJ did not solicit vocational expert testimony at step five; found nonexertional impairments did not affect RFC.
- District court affirmed the denial; Brock appealed arguing guidelines were not controlling for nonexertional impairments and VE testimony was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ could rely solely on the guidelines without VE testimony. | Brock argues nonexertional impairments require VE. | Commissioner argues exception permits exclusive guideline use if nonexertional impairments do not diminish RFC. | ALJ erred; VE testimony required; remand ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 812 (8th Cir. 1993) (nonexertional impairments may require VE testimony)
- King v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 2009) (severe mental impairment case generally requires VE rather than sole reliance on guidelines)
- Wheeler v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 1233 (8th Cir. 1989) (pain vs. mental impairment; guidelines may not govern when mental impairment present)
- Vincent v. Apfel, 264 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ must use VE testimony to determine RFC for severe mental impairment)
- Thompson v. Bowen, 850 F.2d 346 (8th Cir. 1988) (guidelines may be used if nonexertional impairment does not diminish RFC)
- Lucy v. Chater, 113 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1997) (improper use of guidelines without VE for borderline intellectual functioning)
- Tucker v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1985) (early precedent on exertional limitations and guidelines)
- McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138 (8th Cir. 1982) (RFC defined in terms of exertional tasks; nonexertional impairments require consideration beyond guidelines)