James Terry v. Andrew Saul
998 F.3d 1010
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background
- James Terry applied for Title II disability benefits alleging onset December 18, 2014; ALJ found him not disabled after hearing and RFC assessment.
- ALJ determined Terry’s RFC was for "medium work" with specific limits: lift/carry 50/25 lbs, sit/stand/walk up to 6 hours in an 8-hour day, occasional left overhead reach, no unprotected heights, no vehicle operation, no moving mechanical parts, simple routine tasks, superficial public contact.
- ALJ asked a vocational expert (VE) whether jobs existed for a hypothetical person who could do "medium work" with the listed nonexertional limits; VE identified order filler, packager, and laundry worker as available in significant numbers.
- Terry argued on appeal that the VE’s testimony was not substantial evidence because the ALJ’s question did not expressly state the 6-hour standing/walking limit and the VE might not have applied it.
- The VE had substantial vocational experience; Terry did not object to her qualifications at hearing. The Appeals Council denied review and district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a vocational expert is presumed to understand the SSA’s interpretation that "medium work" requires ~6 hours standing/walking, so an ALJ’s hypothetical referencing "medium work" conveys that limit | Terry: ALJ failed to state the 6-hour standing/walking restriction; VE may not have applied it, so testimony is inadequate | Commissioner: "Medium work" is a term of art; VE is presumptively familiar with SSR 83-10; ALJ’s use of the term adequately communicated the limitation | Court: VE is presumptively aware of SSR 83-10; ALJ’s question adequately conveyed the standing/walking limit; VE testimony was substantial evidence |
| Whether O*Net/Occupational Requirements Survey data introduced to the Appeals Council show the VE’s job identifications require >6 hours standing/walking, undermining VE testimony | Terry: New occupational data show the identified jobs exceed 6 hours standing/walking, so testimony is unsupported | Commissioner: VE’s unchallenged expertise and DOT references support her conclusions; conflicting data do not necessarily overturn VE evidence | Court: The O*Net/ORS evidence did not establish legal error or lack of substantial evidence; the Commissioner’s reasonable interpretation stands |
| Whether SSR 83‑10 conflicts with the regulatory definition of "medium work" (i.e., whether SSR’s standing/walking limitation is inconsistent with 20 C.F.R. §404.1567(c)) | Terry: SSR 83‑10 adds a standing/walking limitation not expressed in the regulation | Commissioner: Dispute not necessary to decide here because issue is whether ALJ and VE shared an understanding | Court: Declined to decide SSR 83‑10’s validity; held it unnecessary to resolve because the VE would have understood the ALJ’s use of "medium work" to include the limit; noted prior Ninth Circuit citations approving SSR 83‑10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (ALJ reliance on qualified, uncontradicted expert testimony generally constitutes substantial evidence)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for ALJ findings)
- Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (hypothetical questions to VE must include all claimant limitations)
- Flaten v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 44 F.3d 1453 (9th Cir. 1995) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (deference to reasonable agency interpretations when record permits more than one rational view)
- Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing SSR 83‑10)
- Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing SSR 83‑10)
- Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing SSR 83‑10)