Susan Maxwell v. Andrew Saul
971 F.3d 1128
9th Cir.2020Background:
- Susan Maxwell (b. 1957) applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging onset December 6, 2011, just before she turned 55.
- ALJ found Maxwell had severe impairments, a residual functional capacity limited to a reduced range of light work, and could not perform past relevant work.
- A vocational expert identified one transferable skill (merchandising sales) and testified Maxwell could perform only two occupations: commercial equipment & supplies sales representative and burial needs salesperson.
- The ALJ accepted the VE testimony, applied Grid Rule 202.07, and found Maxwell not disabled; Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether identifying only two occupations satisfies the Rule 202.00(c) requirement that a claimant’s skills be transferable to a "significant range of work" for advanced-age claimants.
- Court held two occupations are legally insufficient to meet the "significant range" requirement, reversed as to the period after Maxwell turned 55, and remanded with instructions to award benefits for that period.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identifying two occupations satisfies the Rule 202.00(c) "significant range of work" requirement | Two occupations cannot constitute a "significant range"; claimant should be found disabled | The two occupations correspond to numerous actual jobs in the economy and therefore satisfy the requirement | Two occupations are insufficient; Rule 202.00(c) requires a significant number of distinct occupations; reversal for period after age 55 |
| Forfeiture: did Maxwell fail to preserve challenge to ALJ’s step-five finding | Maxwell could not object to a decision before it was issued and did challenge the step-five conclusion to the Appeals Council | Commissioner: issue was forfeited for failure to raise it below | No forfeiture; the argument raises a pure legal question reviewable on appeal |
| Remedy on remand (benefits vs further proceedings) | Record fully developed; award benefits for period after turning 55 | Commissioner suggested the ALJ’s vocational evidence might differ and further factfinding could be needed | Remand for payment of benefits for period after age 55; no further proceedings required because VE testimony identified precisely two occupations and record is complete |
Key Cases Cited
- Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (interpreting "significant range of work" and holding one occupation insufficient)
- Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152 (9th Cir. 1989) (where application of the grids directs a finding of disability, the Secretary must accept it)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (articulates the five-step sequential disability analysis)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for awarding benefits versus remanding for further proceedings)
- Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing pure legal questions from factual disputes for appellate review)
- Silveira v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2000) (pure legal questions may be raised on appeal)