Diana Phillips v. Michael J. Astrue
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4073
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Phillips applied for supplemental security income benefits and disabled widow's benefits; the ALJ found her not disabled after a five-step evaluation.
- The ALJ determined Phillips could perform light work with RFC; there was no past relevant work, and a VE testified light work could include a sales clerk position.
- The Appeals Council granted review, moved the onset date to January 1, 2006, and adopted the ALJ’s findings.
- The Council treated Phillips as 54, or closely approaching advanced age, and applied Rule 202.13 to conclude not disabled.
- Phillips contends she was four months from 55 and thus should have been considered for the higher age category; the court remands for further proceedings because the record does not show consideration of the higher age category.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Borderline age existence | Phillips asserts a borderline situation existed four months from 55. | Commissioner argues no bright-line rule but does not require explicit findings. | Remand required; borderline exists and higher age must be considered |
| Consideration of older age category | Phillips argues the older age category was not considered despite close proximity to 55. | Commissioner asserts no requirement to make explicit findings in borderline cases. | Record insufficient to show consideration; remand |
| Substantial evidence support | Record shows additional vocational adversity justifying older age category. | Record supports non-disabled finding under current categorization. | Substantial evidence not shown due to lack of clear consideration; remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Kane v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 1130 (3d Cir. 1985) (premised on need to consider § 404.1563(a) to avoid arbitrary results)
- Daniels v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 1998) (borderline age determination must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Bowie v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 539 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2008) (ALJs not always required to discuss borderline age; must show consideration)
- Lockwood v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to show consideration of older age category undermines substantial evidence)