Patsy Copeland v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr, 771 F.3d 920

Patsy Copeland applied for DIB and SSI on November 16, 2009, alleging disabling knee, back, shoulder, and heart impairments beginning October 14, 2009. Her claims were denied by the ALJ; the Appeals Council denied review. Copeland appealed after the district court affirmed.
At the administrative hearing Copeland testified she could walk ~½ block, sit ~1 hour, stand ~30 minutes, lift ~10 pounds, used a cane recently, and spent much of the day lying down; she previously worked as a home health aide.
Two agency vocational consultants and a vocational expert identified Copeland’s past work as a home health attendant; the VE characterized the job as medium exertion as generally performed but said Copeland could perform it as she actually performed it at the light level.
The ALJ found Copeland retained RFC for a wide range of light work (with some postural limits), found her subjective complaints not fully credible, and concluded she could do her past relevant work as actually performed, denying benefits.
Copeland challenged only the ALJ’s finding that her past work constituted past relevant work because her earnings were below SGA levels; the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and whether substantial evidence supported the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether low earnings create a rebuttable presumption that past work was not substantial gainful activity (SGA)	Copeland: earnings below the regulatory SGA thresholds create a rebuttable presumption she did not engage in SGA, and the ALJ failed to apply it	Commissioner: current regulatory wording does not create a presumption against SGA for below-threshold earnings; differences in phrasing defeat that presumption	Court: A rebuttable presumption against SGA arises when average monthly earnings fall at or below the regulatory thresholds; ALJ erred by failing to consider/apply it and must remand
Whether Commissioner’s failure to address low-earnings presumption warrants remand	Copeland: omission is reversible error requiring remand for consideration of presumption	Commissioner: argued no presumption and substantial evidence supports decision	Court: Failure to address the earnings-based presumption is reversible error; vacated and remanded (no ruling on ultimate disability entitlement)

Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for Social Security appeals)
Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (treatment of substantial evidence and burden at steps)
Waters v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2002) (description of the five-step sequential evaluation)
Rosello v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (below-threshold earnings trigger a presumption of non-SGA)
Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (earnings below a guideline create a presumptive, rebuttable sign of non-SGA)
Garnett v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 778 (4th Cir. 1990) (recognizing presumption against SGA for low earnings)