AR 88-1(11): Patterson v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir. 1986), reh'g denied , (February 12, 1987) -- Use of the Age Factor in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines in Making Disability Determinations

AR 88-1(11) (Rescinded 5/8/2000)

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/29/88

ISSUE:

Whether the Secretary is required to reevaluate evidence of a physical or

mental impairment which has been already considered in assessing a

claimant's residual functional capacity in determining if a claimant's age

adversely affects his or her ability to adapt to a new work

environment.

STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:

Sections 223(d)(2)(A) and 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

Sections 423(d)(2)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)); 20 C.F.R. 404.1563, 20 C.F.R.

416.963, and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2; SSR 83-10 , SSR 82-46c

CIRCUIT:

ELEVENTH (FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ALABAMA)

APPLICABILITY OF RULING:

DESCRIPTION OF CASE:

Mrs. Patterson was awarded disability benefits beginning in May 1983, and

the court agreed with the Secretary that she could do her past work prior

to January 1981. Thus, the period in contention in her claim was the

period from January 1981 to May 1983.

In October 1981, Mrs. Patterson applied for disability insurance benefits

and supplemental security income. The claim was denied at the initial and

reconsideration levels. At hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ)

concluded that for the period after January 1981, Mrs. Patterson, then 49

years old, could not do her past work but could do a wide range of light

and sedentary jobs and was therefore not disabled. The Appeals Council

denied review and Mrs. Patterson filed suit in the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Florida. The magistrate found that the

ALJ had applied the medical-vocational guidelines mechanically, and

therefore gave Mrs. Patterson an opportunity to present evidence on her

ability to adapt to a new work environment. In response, Mrs

therefore not disabled. The Appeals Council

denied review and Mrs. Patterson filed suit in the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Florida. The magistrate found that the

ALJ had applied the medical-vocational guidelines mechanically, and

therefore gave Mrs. Patterson an opportunity to present evidence on her

ability to adapt to a new work environment. In response, Mrs. Patterson

stated that her ability to adapt to a new work environment was less than

the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines for persons

her age because of her limited education and work experience, her

inability to lift or carry any weight with her left hand, and her physical

condition. After considering this evidence and the record, the magistrate

recommended that the Secretary's finding of no disability be affirmed

since the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and

since Mrs. Patterson's evidence did not show that her ability to adapt to

a new work environment was less than the level established under the

medical-vocational guidelines for persons who are her age. After reviewing

the record, the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and

affirmed the denial of benefits. Mrs. Patterson then appealed to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

HOLDING:

The court of appeals found that Mrs. Patterson presented substantial

evidence which, if credited by the ALJ, would indicate that her ability to

adapt to a new work environment was less than the level established under

the medical-vocational guidelines for an individual her age. The court

went on to find that once a claimant meets the burden of showing that

he/she cannot do past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to

prove that the claimant can perform substantial gainful work activity

which exists in the national economy

to a new work environment was less than the level established under

the medical-vocational guidelines for an individual her age. The court

went on to find that once a claimant meets the burden of showing that

he/she cannot do past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to

prove that the claimant can perform substantial gainful work activity

which exists in the national economy. The court pointed out that the

Secretary can often meet this burden by relying on the medical-vocational

guidelines. The medical-vocational guidelines are based on the claimant's

residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience, and in

cases where they apply, they direct a conclusion on the issue of whether

the claimant is capable of performing substantial gainful work activity in

the national economy.

In this case, Mrs. Patterson believed that the age factor should not be

applied to her in a mechanical fashion and offered several reasons why her

ability to adapt to a new work environment was less than the level

established under the medical-vocational guidelines for persons her age:

(1) limited educational and work experience; (2) lack of ability to lift

or carry any weight with her left hand; and (3) her physical condition,

including diminished grip strength and limited dexterity in her left hand

as the result of carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that the first

two categories (her limited educational background and work experience and

the restriction on her ability to lift and carry objects), did not relate

to the question of whether her ability to adapt was less than that

established by the medical-vocational guidelines for persons her age.

mited dexterity in her left hand

as the result of carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that the first

two categories (her limited educational background and work experience and

the restriction on her ability to lift and carry objects), did not relate

to the question of whether her ability to adapt was less than that

established by the medical-vocational guidelines for persons her age.

With respect to the third category (her physical condition), the court

concluded that the evidence concerning Mrs. Patterson's physical condition

was sufficient to require a remand to the Secretary on the question of

whether her ability to adapt to a new environment was less than the level

presumed under the medical-vocational guidelines for claimants her age.

The court pointed out that at the time of the ALJ's decision, Mrs.

Patterson was 49 years old. The court observed that the ALJ found that she

was a younger individual with a tenth grade education, was capable of

performing a wide range of light and sedentary work, was unskilled and was

not disabled under the medical-vocational guidelines. The court stated

that had she been 55 rather than 49, she would have been disabled under

the medical-vocational guidelines. The court concluded that the evidence

she presented about her physical condition, if credited by the ALJ, would

constitute substantial evidence with respect to whether her ability to

adapt to a new work environment was less than the level established under

the medical-vocational guidelines for claimants her age. For example, Mrs.

Patterson had diabetes and the court found that her carpal tunnel syndrome

had significantly limited her manual dexterity and grip strength in her

left hand. On this basis the court concluded that she would experience

more difficulty in adapting to a new job than would other claimants her

age without such an impairment. Under these circumstances, the court held

that Mrs

r example, Mrs.

Patterson had diabetes and the court found that her carpal tunnel syndrome

had significantly limited her manual dexterity and grip strength in her

left hand. On this basis the court concluded that she would experience

more difficulty in adapting to a new job than would other claimants her

age without such an impairment. Under these circumstances, the court held

that Mrs. Patterson had met her burden of producing substantial evidence

with respect to whether her ability to adapt to a new work environment was

less than the level established under the medical-vocational guidelines

for claimants her age.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW THE DECISION DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

POLICY:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) considers medical and other

evidence relating to a claimant's ability to perform work-related

functions despite his or her physical/mental impairments in its assessment

of residual functional capacity. Therefore, SSA does not use evidence of a

claimant's physical or mental impairments a second time for the purpose of

deciding that the claimant's ability to adapt to new work in terms of age

alone is greater or less than that of others of that age. SSA believes

that to do so is to give double weight to the same evidence in deciding

whether or not a claimant is disabled.

The Patterson court concluded that evidence of physical or mental

impairments is relevant to the question of a claimant's ability to adapt

to a new work environment and must be used to help establish that a

person's ability to adapt is less than the level established under the

medical-vocational guidelines for claimants of that age.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE PATTERSON DECISION WITHIN

THE CIRCUIT:

This Ruling applies only to cases in which the claimant resides in

Florida, Georgia or Alabama at the time of the determination or decision

at any level of administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration,

administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council.

-vocational guidelines for claimants of that age.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE PATTERSON DECISION WITHIN

THE CIRCUIT:

This Ruling applies only to cases in which the claimant resides in

Florida, Georgia or Alabama at the time of the determination or decision

at any level of administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration,

administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council.

In cases where the issue of disability is resolved at the last step of the

sequential evaluation process, the medical-vocational guidelines would

otherwise direct a decision of "not disabled," and the claimant offers

substantial credible evidence of his or her physical or mental impairments

as proof that the ability to adapt to other work is less than the level

established under the medical-vocational guidelines for individuals of the

particular age, a specific finding must be made as to the claimant's

ability to adapt to a new work environment.

Because the medical-vocational guidelines would not direct a decision in

such a case, the adjudicator must use the guidelines as a framework to

establish the existence of jobs within the national economy which the

claimant is capable of performing.

SSA intends to clarify the regulation at issue in this case through the

rulemaking process. SSA will continue to apply this Ruling until such

clarification is made.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

Date of Publication (1/29/88)