King, Bruce v. Kijakazi, Kilolo
3:22-cv-00165-wmc
W.D. Wis.Jan 5, 2023Background:
- Bruce King (age 60, high-school education) applied for SSDI with an alleged onset date of May 1, 2019; he previously worked as a truck operator and supervisor.
- ALJ found severe impairments (bilateral osteoarthritis of knees/shoulders, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation) and adopted an RFC limiting King to light work with several postural, reaching, handling, and environmental restrictions.
- At step 4 the ALJ found King could not perform his past work; at step 5 a vocational expert (VE) identified teacher’s aide (≈21,201 national jobs) and employment training specialist (≈32,411 jobs but erosion for lack of degree) as transferable occupations.
- The ALJ relied on the VE’s teacher’s aide testimony and Grid Rule 202.07/202.00(c) framework and concluded King was not disabled.
- King challenged only the legal interpretation of Grid Rule 202.00(c): whether “significant range of work” requires a significant number of occupational titles (occupations) or merely a significant number of jobs in a single occupation.
- The district court concluded Rule 202.00(c) refers to occupations (not raw job counts), found the ALJ’s reliance on a single occupational title insufficient, and remanded with instructions to award disability benefits from May 1, 2019.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “significant range of work” in Grid Rule 202.00(c) requires multiple occupational titles or may be satisfied by a significant number of jobs in a single occupation | King: means a significant number of occupations; one occupational title is insufficient | Commissioner: refers to a significant number of jobs in the national economy (one or more occupations); Ninth Circuit not controlling here | Court: interprets “significant range of work” to mean occupations (not just job counts); one transferable occupation insufficient under Rule 202.00(c); remanded for award of benefits |
Key Cases Cited:
- Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (interpreting “significant range of work” in Rule 202.00(c) to require a significant number of occupations rather than merely job counts)
- Maxwell v. Saul, 971 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding two or fewer occupations insufficient to meet Rule 202.00(c)’s “significant range” requirement)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (defining the substantial-evidence standard for administrative findings)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the ALJ on factual matters)
- Old Ben Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 292 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2002) (legal questions are reviewed de novo)