*2 is intended 15-year guide The apply. BOWMAN, GIBSON, R. Before JOHN experience is remote work insure that LOKEN, Judges. Circuit you If applied. have currently experience or worked work off-and- BOWMAN, Judge. Circuit during the periods of time or for brief on L. denied Flossie Court1 The District consider period, we 15-year disability insurance ben- claims for you If have apply. do not Security Income Supplemental work, efits and through your acquired skills of the Social and XVI Titles II (SSI) under skills these work you to have we consider carefully Having considered Act. Security in other them you cannot use unless The case, we affirm. this you the record skilled or semi-skilled on relied judge properly law your skills administrative use you cannot do. If now expert that testimony of a we will or semi-skilled other skilled skills, the deni- same background transferable Taylor has your work consider legal However, on correct you if have claims even of her as unskilled. by substantial may consider experience, standards we no work as a whole. unskilled record able do you evidence are judgment or no requires little dissenting opinion concurring and The period in a short learned can be disagree- Gibson, expresses Judge time. deny- decision administrative ment with 416.965(a)(1991). (Emphasis posi- 20 C.F.R. Taylor, takes ing SSI benefits anything perceive do original.) We expert, in determin- a vocational tion that Wolle, Iowa. R. Honorable Charles 1. The District of Judge the Southern States District general language precludes
this an determination that ability has the judge, administrative law in the exercise of do work as a short order cook case, or her discretion in particular his and deli cutter-slicer. propounding hypothetical question Accordingly, the decision of the District that includes that fell *3 sustaining Court the Secretary’s denial of gainful employment, short of substantial or Taylor’s claims is affirmed. expert that bars a vocational from consid- ering such in deter- GIBSON, JOHN R. Judge, Circuit mining ability a claimant’s to do other work concurring dissenting. and using skills in the work. I concur in the denial Taylor’s of disabili- Here, based on a in- ty insurance claim. Taylor’s Review of cluded, alia, Taylor’s experi- inter disability claim period prior for the of time during preceding ence fifteen to the Secretary’s final decision on her 1980 (including past relevant work that did not application was barred as did not gainful employment), amount to substantial judicial seek review of the Secretary’s deci- expert plaintiff a vocational testified that sion, Sullivan, 94, see White perform could her former work as a mail (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam), and further- sorter and short order cook “as she [had] more, Taylor’s insured ex- status performed Hearing Transcript them.” at pired 30, 1981, on June she can no 34, reprinted Appeal in Record on at 60. assert a disability insurance claim for expert testified,
The vocational also period of time. See Glassman v. on the same and the skills (8th Cir.1990). cook, Taylor acquired as a short order Taylor’s SSI, As to entitlement to I re- additionally ability she had the to work as a spectfully majority. dissent from the short order cook and 35, reprinted deli cutter-slicer.2 Id. at From 1974until worked as a Appeal Record on foundry. laborer at an iron In March stopped working experienced after she Taylor’s As former work as a mail sorter pains severe chest job. Since that and short order cook did not constitute time, only sporadic she has had employ- gainful employment, and as the cook, ment housekeeper, as a a hotel expert vocational opined could mail sorter. perform jobs those as economy, formed the national hearing AU At the appli- to consider both her found, applying 416.965(a), 20 C.F.R. disability cations for insurance benefits and perform jobs. SSI, she could not those How- testified that she had suffered ever, considering the vocational from arthritis for approximately ten testimony as to the jobs Taylor over, head, other could including arms, and hurt all her do, feet, knees, the AU further hand, found she had from her elbow to her acquired transferable skills and had the jawbone. and her chest and She also ability the other identified occasionally pain testified she has in her by being the vocational back, within middle and goes lower down capacity. her see no legs flaw the AU’s her both and into her feet and toes. reasoning, addition, and we find to be consistent In problems she stated she has reading 416.965(a). with our of section hypertension See with allergies, which are 416.968(d)(1)(1991). also 20 C.F.R. In somewhat controlled medication. She short, arewe satisfied this Court has no pain sharp, hurting described her pain proper setting basis for aside the AU’s which she has all the time. She testified Labor, 84, 96, According 330-31, Department (1981). to the As worked as preparation required time to learn the approximately iden- a short order cook for five months, thirty Activity 1987), tified Report (May is from Work days Department to three reprinted Appeal months. U.S. of La- in Record on at the voca- bor, Occupations expert's testimony Selected Characteristics De- tional is consistent with the Dictionary Occupational Dictionary Occupational Titles at Titles. fined Taylor would have transferra- try to which at four or five blocks walk about she could hurting all skills. ble getting stiff time before for about stand felt she could She over. AU instructed hypothetical three the tired, legs get her hour before one assume the vocational point, she could bend and stated lift no permit her to impairments would She de- squat “some.” stoop or could than pounds, stand no more than more using with problems some scribed time, forty- than sit no more hour at a one carry hands, could not lift stated she time, need at five minutes pick up a ten probably groceries, but standing sitting at between alternate repetitively. although not weight, pound four to five will, no more than and walk at forty-five minutes more than Sitting for time, repetitive bend- at a blocks *4 her, felt would she she time bothered neck, squat- twisting the of ing, stooping, that pull anything push or able to not be firm climbing, repetitive kneeling, ting or daily included heavy. Her activities was heat, to extreme exposure gripping, or radio, television, listening to the watching opined dust, fumes, grass. expert The or blocks, doing reading, and walking a few circumstances, Taylor under these that hypo- apartment. Three her chores around her to of not able would be vocation- posed to a questions thetical or them jobs, performed either as she past expert. and that performed, they generally are as first, assumptions were the In the in her she of the skills none old, rele- with fifty Taylor was her to other within transfer jobs would her included vant work capacity. , job after 1977 employment sporadic claim, the AU the respect to SSI With had the residual that she as a coiljwinder; engaged in sub- Taylor had not found that twenty up lift to capacity to functional since 1977 when gainful activity stantial pounds, up ten routinely lift to pounds and at the working a laborer stopped as she kneeling; bending or continuous no finding by adopting earlier foundry, an iron to ex- exposure avoid she should and that the Security Administration the Social the dust, pollen. grass, Under or treme Taylor engaged of work periods short stated assumptions, the of first set not constitute thereafter did her as could return also found activity. The AU winder, cook sorter, or short-order coil mail evidence established them, the medical actually performed as she had arthritis involv- degenerative cook as suffered sorter or as a mail could not spine and and lumbar ing national the cervical performed jobs are these hy- rhinitis, knees, not and controlled furthermore, could allergic economy; AU, per- the laborer, According as she pertension. either work as lift, ability to Taylor’s limited impairments or job formed that bend, twist, objects; to carry, and handle formed. twist kneel, stoop climb, repetitively; or the ALJ the asked two In work with perform repetitive neck or her Taylor’s assume that expert to overhead; environ- and work arms her up lift her to permit impairments dust, exposed to she would ments where routinely, ab- pounds ten twenty pounds, or they did meet pollens; but grass, or repeti- stooping, bending, sent continuous those described severity any of equal in neck, kneel- continuous twisting of the tive The AU re- Impairments. Listing of the the climbing, repetitive ing, submitted the medical evidence viewed response The arms overhead. that un- testimony, and concluded Taylor’s hypo- first as to the essentially the same Heckler, der Polaski of work exclusion the added thetical with omitted), Tay- history Cir.1984)(subsequent named expert also housekeeper. The disabling pain were of complaints lor’s semiskilled, light positions level, a few low alleged. the extent credible II, food (i.e., order cook short opinion, second AU’s indus- cutter-slicer) in food service deli question posed to the vocational ac- “The law ‘hypothetical ques- is clear that posed tions curately capabilities. experts reflected to vocational ... should Then, precisely particular set out the giving Taylor “the benefit of the claimant’s physical impairments.’ and mental doubt,” If the assuming she could question inadequate, response to it is perform any past jobs, of her the AU not substantial up- evidence sufficient to upon hypothet- noted that the second hold the AU’s decision.” Greene v. Sulli- question, ical identified other van, (8th Cir.1991)(quoted jobs existing economy in the national omitted). case hypo- The AU’s reliance on perform. Accordingly, apparently thetical two was tied to his eval- Ap- could not be considered The disabled. uation Taylor’s allegations pain. Im- peals Taylor’s request Council declined mediately discrediting after severity Taylor sought review and review district pain alleged, the AU stated “[t]he court. greater weight of the evidence establishes The court determined that substantial ev- capable lifting claimant is carrying up or idence in the record the AU’s pounds, to 20 frequently lifting carrying credibility findings and conclusion that pounds, occasionally bending or Accordingly, was not disabled. stooping, twisting with restrictions on *5 court affirmed the denial ap- of SSI. This neck, kneeling climbing, working peal followed. overhead, dust, her arms avoiding and grass pollens.” and opinion AU’s at 5. Our review of a social security case is Even if properly the AU Tay- discredited limited to a determination of whether the allegations pain, lor’s it does not neces- Secretary’s supported final decision is sarily follow that she retains the residual Sullivan, substantial evidence. Hutsell v. capacity functional type the (8th Cir.1989). 748-49 in described two. The standard of review involves more “[TJhis opinion AU’s is of any reasoning devoid supporting than a mere search for evidence support Taylor his conclusion that can lift Secretary’s findings. must exam- etc., up twenty pounds, other than the record, ine all of the evidence on the fact pain that he did not believe her was as fairly take into account whatever detracts alleged. severe as troubling More is that weight.” Sullivan, from its Delrosa v. AU, hypotheticals, all three asked (8th Cir.1991) (cited F.2d cases to assume Taylor’s past that omitted). cook, jobs relevant work included her as a argument I believe decisive is sorter, housekeeper, hotel a mail improperly that the AU determined she coil winder. On the assump- basis of this perform jobs past other than her tion the vocational Tay- found that incomplete skills, relevant work on the basis of lor had particularly from hypotheticals posed cook, job to the vocational ex- her that would be transfer- pert. Taylor argues jobs, namely, able to other hypo- that the third short-order cook cutter-slicer, food assembler and deli all accurately capa- thetical more reflected her positions. semiskilled hypothetical, upon bilities than the second which the AU relied. The vocational ex- found, however, The AU that none of pert opined that under the circumstances jobs, which were all held after two there described stopped working as a laborer at the iron jobs Taylor perform, could still under foundry, gainful constituted substantial ac- hypothetical three Hypo- there were not. tivity. opinion According- See AU’s three thetical contained more details about ly, it was error for the AU to direct the Taylor’s complaints. The main difference consider these hypotheticals, however, between the two past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. 416.- concerned the effect the impair- 965(a) described (prior will be con- Taylor’s ability ments would have on sidered when it was done within last fifteen work. long enough lasted job, to learn the testimony was based The dence activity). where substantial regarding claimant’s assumption turn, upon can false conclusion, that AU’s capacity; no discussion food service functional residual the named 200.00(e)(2)). supported by applicability substantial of section industry, evidence. conclusion ALJ’s I do believe that claim- with a perform jobs left as a short-
Thus, I we are can believe has a limited age, cut- cook, and a deli advanced ant of order relevant education, only unskilled can stand because was ter-slicer longer perform. can no assumption false upon a conclusion Assuming AU’s relevant skills from transferable pounds twenty pounds, up lift Key v. See work. 20 C.F.R. (light work—see frequently Cir.1991). Consequently, I (7th 1062-63 416.967(b)), of SSI benefits remand for an award can be evidence, that the Guidelines 200.00(e)(2), sections in accordance the Guidelines 202.01 of applied, Rule 202.00(c), and Rule 202.01. Taylor is dis- finding that would direct abled. Bowen, 512-513
Frey v. regulations Cir.1987), discussed Guidelines application
governing the exertional has both a claimant when Farms, BROTHERS, Cupples CUPPLES Frey stated impairments. nonexertional Cupples, Hor partnership, M. Gracie Secretary’s regula- “the cases in such Jr., Appellants, Cupples, E. ace applied grids mandate tions *6 the claimant v. first, whether to determine impair- exertional of the reason disabled BANK LAND OF FEDERAL Part alone,” citing 20 C.F.R. ments LOUIS, Appellee. ST. 200.00(e)(2).3 at P, Id. App. Subpt. 91-1126. No. for and remanded reversed The court 513. claimant, of benefits an award Appeals, States Court impair- nonexertional significant Eighth Circuit. conclusively dis- pain, including ments Sept. 1991. Submitted Guidelines. 201.14 of the Rule abled under that noth- noted The court at 517-18. Dec. Id. Decided remanding for fur- gained by ing would be En Denied Rehearing Banc Rehearing proceedings, administrative ther 6, 1992. Feb. receipt long-overdue delay a Id. benefits. applicable most Guideline When disabled, finding of a directs claimant analy- 200.00(e)(2) indicates section the claimant end, whether
sis should impairment. nonexertional significant
has a 821- Ellison Cf. conclusion, (AU’s Cir.1990) testimony that
upon vocational jobs claimant other
there were evi- by substantial
form, finding of light warrants work light restriction limitation 3. Given age who of advanced individuals disabled background, and age, educational vocationally relevant longer perform finding dis- experience, Rule 202.01 directs history unskilled and who have 202.00(c) (limitation in Section also abled. See experience). adaptability represented function-