Merritt v. Colvin
3:14-cv-05964
W.D. Wash.Jul 2, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Leslie J. Merritt applied for DIB and SSI in June 2010, alleging disability beginning January 31, 2007; applications were denied and an ALJ found her not disabled in April 2013; Appeals Council denied review and plaintiff sought federal review.
- ALJ assessed an RFC described as "light work" but limited standing/walking to 2 hours and sitting to 6 hours in an 8-hour day, with a need to alternate sit/stand at will and additional non-exertional limits.
- At step five the ALJ relied on vocational expert testimony and concluded jobs exist in significant numbers; did not apply Medical-Vocational Guideline (Grids) rules that would favor disability.
- Plaintiff argued the RFC more properly equated to sedentary work (main difference: standing/walking time) so the ALJ should have used sedentary Grid rules (specifically invoking POMS guidance and Grid Rule 201.12 as a framework).
- Court found the RFC’s 2-hour standing/6-hour sitting limitation aligns with sedentary work and therefore the ALJ erred by treating the RFC as light and failing to consult sedentary Grid rules first; remanded for further administrative proceedings to resolve vocational rule application and transferability/skill issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ should have applied sedentary Grid rules at step five | Merritt: RFC (stand/walk 2 hrs; sit 6 hrs; sit/stand at will) equals sedentary and requires using sedentary Grids (e.g., 201.12 as framework) | SSA: Grids apply only if they "completely and accurately" represent limitations; when between rules ALJ may rely on vocational expert | Court: RFC aligns with sedentary level; ALJ erred by using light rules first—remand for further proceedings to apply proper Grid framework and resolve skill/transferability issues |
| Whether ALJ permissibly relied on vocational expert instead of Grids | Merritt: VE reliance was premature because exertional level falls at/near sedentary and Grids should guide analysis | SSA: When exertional limits fall between rules, VE testimony can establish occupational base | Court: VE reliance insufficient here because the exertional RFC more closely matches sedentary work; Grids should have been consulted first |
| Whether plaintiff should be awarded benefits instead of remand | Merritt: POMS example and Grids compel finding of disabled (benefits) | SSA: Additional factual issues exist (e.g., skill transferability), so VE and further analysis needed | Court: Not appropriate to award benefits now; remand for further administrative development rather than immediate award |
| Whether ALJ properly characterized plaintiff's RFC as light | Merritt: standing/walking limitation is dispositive and pushes RFC to sedentary despite some lifting capacity | SSA: lifting capacity suggests light level; ALJ’s RFC was reasonable | Held: Court finds standing/walking limitation is the major distinction and renders RFC effectively sedentary; ALJ’s characterization was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard for reviewing Commissioner findings)
- Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard and review)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (step-five burden to show jobs exist in national economy)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (limitations on exclusive reliance on Grids when non-exertional impairments present)
- Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152 (9th Cir. 1989) (Grids as framework; need for independent analysis when both exertional and nonexertional limits exist)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (vocational expert required when non-exertional limits preclude exclusive Grid reliance)
- Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (when exertional level falls between rules, ALJ should consult lower rule if claimant essentially coincides with it)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (standards for remand for benefits vs. further proceedings)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand ordinarily for further agency proceedings)