# AR 14-1(8): AR 14-1(8): Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012): Requiring Vocational Specialist (VS) or Vocational Expert (VE) Evidence When an Individual has a Severe Mental Impairment(s) — Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_14_1_8

## Section

- **Citation:** AR 14-1(8)
- **Heading:** AR 14-1(8): Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012): Requiring Vocational Specialist (VS) or Vocational Expert (VE) Evidence When an Individual has a Severe Mental Impairment(s) — Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Social Security Rulings / AR / Eighth Circuit Court / AR 14-1(8)

## Text

Effective Date: May 22, 2014 Publication Date: May 22, 2014 Federal
Register Vol. 77, No. 172, page 54646

Acquiescence Ruling 14-1(8)

Issue: Must an adjudicator obtain VS or VE evidence to
determine whether a claimant with a severe mental impairment can
perform jobs that exist in significant number in the national
economy, given his or her residual functional capacity (RFC),
age, education and work experience?

Statute/Regulation/Ruling
Citation: Sections 205(b) , 223(d)(2)(A) ; 223(d)(5)(A) ; 1614(a)(3)(B) ; 1614(a)(3)(H)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 423(d)(5)(A);
1382c(a)(3)(B); 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i)); 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(v) , 404.1520(g) , 404.1566 , 404.1569 , 404.1569a , 416.920(a)(4)(v) , 416.920(g) , 416.966 , 416.969 , 416.969a ;
section 200.00(e) of 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2;
Social Security Rulings (SSRs) 83-10 , 83-12 , 83-14 , 85-15 , 96-9p .

Circuit: Eighth (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, and South Dakota).

Applicability of Ruling: This ruling applies to determinations
or decisions made in the Eighth Circuit at all levels of
administrative review.

Description of Case: Michael Brock (Brock) applied for
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments based on disability
alleging he was disabled due to an anxiety disorder and
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. [1] The administrative
law judge (ALJ) found that Brock's mental impairments were
severe at step two of our sequential evaluation process.
Despite the severe mental impairments, the ALJ found that Brock
had the RFC to perform the full range of medium work
contemplated in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the Grid
rules). Considering Brock's RFC, age, education, and work
experience, the ALJ used Medical-Vocational Rule 203.25 as a
framework to find that Brock could adjust to work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy and was “not
disabled.” The ALJ did not request VE testimony.
he RFC to perform the full range of medium work
contemplated in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the Grid
rules). Considering Brock's RFC, age, education, and work
experience, the ALJ used Medical-Vocational Rule 203.25 as a
framework to find that Brock could adjust to work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy and was “not
disabled.” The ALJ did not request VE testimony.

On appeal, Brock argued that because his
impairments were solely
nonexertional, the ALJ erred in relying solely on the Grid rules
and that the ALJ should have sought VE evidence to determine
whether he could adjust to other work. Brock asserted that,
because the Grid rules are premised only on exertional
limitations, they are not meant to direct a conclusion of
“disabled” or “not disabled” for individuals
who have solely
nonexertional limitations. Therefore, Brock asserted that
substantial evidence in the record did not support the ALJ's
decision.

Holding: The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded
that the ALJ erred by relying solely on the Grid rules to
determine that Brock could adjust to work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. The Court held
that “[b]ecause the ALJ determined that Brock suffered from
severe mental impairments, the ALJ should have consulted a [VE]
in determining whether Brock had the RFC to perform other jobs
that exist in significant number in the national economy.”

Statement As to How Brock Differs From the Agency's
Policy:
adjust to work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. The Court held
that “[b]ecause the ALJ determined that Brock suffered from
severe mental impairments, the ALJ should have consulted a [VE]
in determining whether Brock had the RFC to perform other jobs
that exist in significant number in the national economy.”

Statement As to How Brock Differs From the Agency's
Policy:

At step five of the sequential evaluation process
(or the last step in the sequential evaluation process in continuing
disability review claims), we consider the vocational factors of
age, education, and work experience in conjunction with a
claimant's RFC to determine whether the claimant can adjust to
other work that exists in significant numbers in the national
economy. Section 200.00(e)(1) of 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 2 provides that “[i]n the evaluation of disability
where the individual has solely a nonexertional type of
impairment, determination as to whether disability exists shall
be based on the principles in the appropriate sections of the
regulations, giving consideration to the rules for specific case
situations in this appendix 2. The rules do not direct factual
conclusions of disabled or not disabled for individuals with
solely nonexertional types of impairments.” As explained below,
the rules are, however, used as a framework for decision making. Under SSR 85-15 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability To Do Other
Work — The Medical–Vocational (Grid) Rules as a Framework for
Evaluating Solely Nonexertional Impairments, where a person's
only impairment is mental, it is not of listing severity but
does prevent the person from meeting the mental demands of past
relevant work and prevents the transferability of acquired work
skills, the final consideration is whether the person can be
expected to perform unskilled work
ical–Vocational (Grid) Rules as a Framework for
Evaluating Solely Nonexertional Impairments, where a person's
only impairment is mental, it is not of listing severity but
does prevent the person from meeting the mental demands of past
relevant work and prevents the transferability of acquired work
skills, the final consideration is whether the person can be
expected to perform unskilled work. The basic mental demands of
competitive, remunerative, unskilled work include the abilities
(on a sustained basis) to understand, carry out, and remember
simple instructions; to respond appropriately to supervision,
coworkers, and usual work situations; and to deal with changes
in a routine work setting. Where there is no exertional
impairment, unskilled jobs at all levels of exertion constitute
the potential occupational base for persons who can meet the
mental demands of unskilled work. Under our interpretation of
the regulations, an adjudicator is not required to consult a VE
or other vocational resource to determine whether a
nonexertional limitation significantly erodes a claimant's
occupational base when adjudicative guidance on the effect of
the limitation is provided in an
SSR. [2] If the occupational base
is not significantly eroded by non-exertional limitations, the
adjudicator may use the Grid rules as a framework, and VE
testimony is not required.

In Brock, the ALJ found that Brock retained the
ability to perform unskilled work. Pursuant to SSR 85-15 ,
the ALJ found Brock's non-exertional limitations had little or no effect on
the occupational base of medium exertional level unskilled work
before applying the framework of Grid rule 203.25 to find Brock
was not disabled.
the Grid rules as a framework, and VE
testimony is not required.

In Brock, the ALJ found that Brock retained the
ability to perform unskilled work. Pursuant to SSR 85-15 ,
the ALJ found Brock's non-exertional limitations had little or no effect on
the occupational base of medium exertional level unskilled work
before applying the framework of Grid rule 203.25 to find Brock
was not disabled.

The Brock Court's decision differs from our policy
because it held that, because the ALJ found Brock had severe mental
impairments, “the ALJ should have consulted a [VE] in
determining whether Brock had the RFC to perform other jobs that
exist in significant number in the national economy.” The
holding requires the ALJ to consult a VE before denying a claim
at step five of our sequential evaluation process when the claim
involves an individual with a severe mental impairment(s),
regardless of whether adjudicative guidance available in an SSR
holds that the resulting nonexertional limitation(s) does not
significantly erode the occupational base and application of the
applicable Grid rule is appropriate.

Explanation of How We Will Apply the Brock Decision
Within the Circuit:

This Ruling applies only to claims in which the
claimant resides in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, and South Dakota at the time of the determinations or
decision at the initial, reconsideration, and ALJ hearing levels.
In making a disability determination or decision at step five of
the sequential evaluation process (or the last step in the
sequential evaluation process in continuing disability review
claims), we will not rely exclusively on the Grid rules as a
framework for decision making when an individual has a severe
mental impairment(s)
ecision at the initial, reconsideration, and ALJ hearing levels.
In making a disability determination or decision at step five of
the sequential evaluation process (or the last step in the
sequential evaluation process in continuing disability review
claims), we will not rely exclusively on the Grid rules as a
framework for decision making when an individual has a severe
mental impairment(s). Before we deny a claim for disability
benefits at step five (or the last step in the sequential
evaluation process in continuing disability review claims) when
a claimant has a severe mental impairment(s), we will produce VE
evidence in claims at the hearing level. For claims decided at
the initial and reconsideration levels, we will use evidence
from a VS, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), or
another reliable source of job information, such as the ones
listed in 20 CFR 404.1566(d) and 416.966(d) .
At the Appeals Council level, the Appeals Council will use this
AR to determine whether it was correctly applied at the hearing
level. However, when the Appeals Council exercises its
authority to issue a corrective unfavorable decision, the
Appeals Council may rely on vocational evidence adduced at the
hearing.

[1] Although Brock was a Title XVI case, the same
principles apply to Title II. Therefore, this Acquiescence Ruling
applies to both Title II and Title XVI disability claims. [2] For example, the following non-exertional limitations
do not significantly erode an occupational base: limited exposure to
dangerous moving machinery, unprotected heights, and ragweed
allergies (sedentary jobs); limited climbing of ladders and
scaffolding, crouching (sedentary and light jobs), exposure to
feathers, use of a cane for prolonged ambulation and uneven
terrain, or slopes (sedentary), and inability to sense texture
or temperature with fingertips
ficantly erode an occupational base: limited exposure to
dangerous moving machinery, unprotected heights, and ragweed
allergies (sedentary jobs); limited climbing of ladders and
scaffolding, crouching (sedentary and light jobs), exposure to
feathers, use of a cane for prolonged ambulation and uneven
terrain, or slopes (sedentary), and inability to sense texture
or temperature with fingertips. See SSR 83-14 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability To Do Other Work —
The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a Combination
of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments, at *2.
Whereas, the following nonexertional limitations generally do
significantly erode an occupational base: loss of bilateral manual dexterity
(sedentary jobs); constriction of visual field (light and medium
jobs); no stooping, and poor balance when standing or walking on
uneven terrain. See SSR 96-9p :
Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability
To Do Other Work — Implications of a Residual Functional
Capacity for Less Than a
Full Range of Sedentary Work, at *5-6. SSR 83-14 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability To Do Other Work — The
Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a Combination
of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments. SSR 83-10 :
Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability to do Other Work —
The Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix 2 and SSR 83-12 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability to do Other Work-The Medical-Vocational
Rules as a Framework For Evaluating Exertional Limitations Within a
Range of Work or Between Ranges of Work also provide helpful adjudicative
guidance on using the rules and the impact of nonexertional
impairments on the exertional occupational base.
do Other Work —
The Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix 2 and SSR 83-12 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability to do Other Work-The Medical-Vocational
Rules as a Framework For Evaluating Exertional Limitations Within a
Range of Work or Between Ranges of Work also provide helpful adjudicative
guidance on using the rules and the impact of nonexertional
impairments on the exertional occupational base.

[2] For example, the following non-exertional limitations
do not significantly erode an occupational base: limited exposure to
dangerous moving machinery, unprotected heights, and ragweed
allergies (sedentary jobs); limited climbing of ladders and
scaffolding, crouching (sedentary and light jobs), exposure to
feathers, use of a cane for prolonged ambulation and uneven
terrain, or slopes (sedentary), and inability to sense texture
or temperature with fingertips. See SSR 83-14 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability To Do Other Work —
The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a Combination
of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments, at *2.
Whereas, the following nonexertional limitations generally do
significantly erode an occupational base: loss of bilateral manual dexterity
(sedentary jobs); constriction of visual field (light and medium
jobs); no stooping, and poor balance when standing or walking on
uneven terrain. See SSR 96-9p :
Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability
To Do Other Work — Implications of a Residual Functional
Capacity for Less Than a
Full Range of Sedentary Work, at *5-6. SSR 83-14 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability To Do Other Work — The
Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a Combination
of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments
terrain. See SSR 96-9p :
Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability
To Do Other Work — Implications of a Residual Functional
Capacity for Less Than a
Full Range of Sedentary Work, at *5-6. SSR 83-14 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability To Do Other Work — The
Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a Combination
of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments. SSR 83-10 :
Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability to do Other Work —
The Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix 2 and SSR 83-12 :
Titles II and XVI: Capability to do Other Work-The Medical-Vocational
Rules as a Framework For Evaluating Exertional Limitations Within a
Range of Work or Between Ranges of Work also provide helpful adjudicative
guidance on using the rules and the impact of nonexertional
impairments on the exertional occupational base.

## Nearby sections

- [AR 12-1(8) AR 12-1(8): Rescinded](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_12_1_8.md)
- [AR 14-1(8) AR 14-1(8): Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012): Requiring Vocational Specialist (VS) or Vocational Expert (VE) Evidence When an Individual has a Severe Mental Impairment(s) — Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_14_1_8.md)
- [AR 87-4(8) AR 87-4(8): Iamarino v. Heckler, 795 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1986) Positive Presumption of Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) for Sheltered Work](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_87_4_8.md)
- [AR 88-6(8) AR 88-6(8): Levings v. Califano, 604 F.2d 591 (8th Cir. 1979) Definition of an Inmate of a Public Institution -- Title XVI of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_88_6_8.md)
- [AR 93-6(8) AR 93-6(8): Brewster on Behalf of Keller v. Sullivan , 972 F.2d 898 (8th Cir. 1992)-- Interpretation of the Secretary's Regulation Regarding Presumption of Death--Title II of the Social Security Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_93_6_8.md)
- [AR 98-1(8) AR 98-1(8): AR 98-1 (8): Newton v. Chater , 92 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1996) — Entitlement to Trial Work Period Before Approval of an Award for Benefits and Before Twelve Months Have Elapsed Since Onset of Disability — Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_98_1_8.md)
- [AR 98-2(8) AR 98-2(8): AR 98-2 (8): Sird v. Chater , 105 F.3d 401 (8th Cir. 1997) -- Mental Retardation -- What Constitutes an Additional and Significant Work-Related Limitation of Function -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_98_2_8.md)
- [AR 98-5(8) AR 98-5(8): State of Minnesota v. Apfel , 151 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 1998) -- Coverage for Employees Under a Federal-State Section 218 Agreement or Modification and Application of the Student Services Exclusion From Coverage to Services Performed by Medical Residents -- Title II of the Social Security Act.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_98_5_8.md)
- [AR 99-2(8) AR 99-2(8): Kerns v. Apfel , 160 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 1998) -- Definition of Highly Marketable Skills for Individuals Close to Retirement Age -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. [1]](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_99_2_8.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_AR_AR_14_1_8. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.