Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07065/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07065-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amos Emory
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH FILED 

United Sta~ Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ry"',.,.,_,.,,~ -. - . ~. 

AMOS EMORY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., 

Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Submitted on the briefs: 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUN 1 7 1991 

90-7065 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

TIOBER'f L. HOE~KER i..,1er·k· 

J .. ·-

On Appeal From The 

United States District Court 

For The Eastern District 

Of Oklahoma 

(D.C. Civil No. 89-484-C) 

Paul F. McTighe, Jr., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

John W. Raley, Jr., United States Attorney, Sheldon J. Sperling, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Muskogee, Oklahoma, Gayla 

Fuller, Chief Counsel, Region VI, Karen J. Sharp, Chief, Social 

Security Branch, and Toni Schoemann, Assistant Regional Counsel, 

Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Health 

and Human Services, Dallas, Texas, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before McKAY, SETH and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

SETH, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Claimant appeals the district court's order of July 17, 1990, 

affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services to deny claimant's request for social security benefits. 

The issues on appeal are twofold. First, whether the Secretary's 

determinations that claimant can perform his past relevant work as 

a carpentry supervisor or foreman and that claimant can perform 

other light or sedentary work are supported by substantial 

evidence. Second, whether the Secretary applied the correct legal 

standards when evaluating claimant's ability to do other work. 

Claimant filed his application for disability insurance and 

supplemental security income benefits on April 27, 1987, alleging 

he had been disabled since June 10, 1986, due to problems with his 

right lung, high blood pressure, and his heart. Claimant's 

request for benefits was denied administratively. After a de novo 

hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) also denied claimant's 

request for benefits. Claimant sought review before the Appeals 

Council, which remanded the action to the ALJ. The Appeals 

Council instructed the ALJ to obtain vocational testimony on 

claimant's ability to continue his past relevant work around the 

dust and debris associated with construction materials. 

After a second hearing at which both claimant and a 

vocational expert testified, the ALJ again denied claimant's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 2 
request for benefits. The ALJ found that claimant could perform 

his past relevant work provided he used a protective mask or in 

the alternative the claimant could perform other light and 

sedentary jobs identified by the vocational expert. The Appeals 

Council denied claimant's request for review, so the ALJ's 

decision became the final decision of the Secretary. 

We review the Secretary's decision to determine whether his 

findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and 

whether he applied the correct legal standards. Pacheco v. 

Sullivan, No. 90-2265, slip op. at 2 (lOth Cir. Apr. 30, 1991). 

"Evidence is not substantial if it is overwhelmed by other 

evidence or if it is actually mere conclusion." Ellison v. 

Sullivan, 929 F.2d 534, 536 (lOth Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the 

"'[f]ailure to apply the correct legal standard or to provide this 

court with a sufficient basis to determine that appropriate legal 

principles have been followed is grounds for reversal.'" Byron v. 

Heckler, 742 F.2d 1232, 1235 (lOth Cir. 1984) (quoting Smith v. 

Heckler, 707 F.2d 1284, 1285 (11th Cir. 1983)). 

Claimant argues that the Secretary's determination that 

claimant can return to his past relevant work is not supported by 

substantial evidence. We agree. 

The record shows that claimant's past relevant work exposed 

him to respiratory irritants. The Secretary specifically found 

that claimant had a lung condition that would prevent him from 

working around respiratory irritants without sufficient 

protection. The Secretary then found that claimant could do his 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 3 
past relevant work despite his lung condition, because "he could 

use protective devices such as a mask when he had to be around 

dust." Rec. Vol. II at 10. The record, however, contains 

absolutely no evidence about the use or effectiveness of 

protective devices. Without such evidence, one cannot assume that 

a protective mask would be effective against the broad range of 

irritants associated with construction work. Therefore, the 

Secretary's finding that claimant can perform his past relevant 

work by using a protective device is not supported by substantial 

evidence. 

If a claimant cannot perform his past relevant work, the 

burden shifts to the Secretary to establish that the claimant can 

perform other work in the national economy, considering the 

claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work 

experience. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 751 (lOth Cir. 

1988). 

Claimant contends that the Secretary's determination that 

claimant can perform other work must be reversed for two reasons: 

the Secretary failed to apply the correct legal standards, and his 

determination is not supported by substantial evidence. At issue 

is the Secretary's evaluation of claimant's age as a vocational 

factor. 

Claimant was 61 when his disability allegedly began and was 

almost 64 when the Secretary made his final decision denying 

claimant benefits. He is now about 66 years old. Thus, claimant 

was both a person of advanced age (55 or over) and a person close 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 4 
to retirement age (60-65) at all times pertinent to the 

Secretary's inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d). 

"[T]he Secretary faces a more stringent burden when denying 

disability benefits to older claimants." Terry v. Sullivan, 903 

F.2d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1990). Advanced age is considered "the 

point where age significantly affects a person's ability to do 

substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d). 

"Accordingly, it is not enough that persons of advanced age are 

capable of doing unskilled work; to be not disabled, they must 

have acquired skills from their past work that are transferable to 

skilled or semi-skilled work." Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d at 

1275. 

In evaluating whether a claimant who is closely approaching 

retirement age is disabled, the Secretary cannot find that the 

claimant's skills are transferable to light or sedentary work 

unless there is "very little, if any, vocational adjustment 

required in terms of tools, work processes, work settings, or the 

industry," 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Rules 20l.OO(f) 

and 202.00(f), and the claimant's skills are "highly marketable," 

id. at§ 404.1563(d). 

Claimant argues that the Secretary failed to consider whether 

claimant's skills are highly marketable. While we have never 

addressed this issue, our sister circuits have uniformly held that 

when the claimant is close to retirement age, the Secretary must 

specifically evaluate the marketability of his skills in deciding 

whether they are transferable. See Pineault v. Secretary of 

Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 9, 11 (1st Cir. 1988); Varley v. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 5 
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 777, 781-82 (6th Cir. 

1987); Renner v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1986); 

Tom v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1250, 1256-57 (7th Cir. 1985). 

The Secretary argues that the ALJ did consider the 

marketability of claimant's skills. He maintains that "implicit 

in the testimony of the vocational expert was his opinion that 

appellant's skills were highly marketable," and that "it is enough 

if the ALJ articulates the 'approximate number and locations of 

jobs for which he finds [appellant] has transferable skills to 

support a conclusion that despite h[is] age [appellant] would be 

competitive in the job market for those positions.'" Brief of 

Appellee at 23, 24 (quoting Renner v. Heckler, 786 F.2d at 1425). 

We disagree. 

Although the term "highly marketable" is not expressly 

defined in the regulations, the regulations and the Secretary's 

rulings shed some light on its meaning. First, the regulations 

specifically recognize that "age affects [a claimant's] ability to 

adapt to a new work situation and to do work in competition with 

others." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(a). Their structure reflects that 

as a claimant grows older, his age will progressively offset his 

acquired skills so that by the time he is close to retirement age, 

unless his skills are highly marketable, he may not be able to 

obtain any employment. See Varley v. Secretary of Health & Human 

Servs., 820 F.2d at 782; Renner v. Heckler, 786 F.2d at 1425. 

Second, the Secretary has ruled that claimants who are of 

advanced age and are limited to sedentary work or are close to 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 6 
retirement age and are limited to light work 

cannot be expected to make a vocational adjustment to 

substantial changes in work simply because skilled or 

semi-skilled jobs can be identified which have some 

degree of skill similarity with their [past relevant 

work]. In order to establish transferability of skills 

for such individuals, the semiskilled or skilled job 

duties of their past work must be so closely related to 

other jobs which they can perform that they could be 

expected to perform these other identified jobs at a 

high degree of proficiency with a minimal amount of job 

orientation. 

Disability--Transferable skills; applicability under MedicalVocational Guidelines, Soc. Sec. Ruling 82-41, [March 1982-

Feb. 1983 Transfer Binder] Unempl. Ins. Rep. (CCH) 11 14,168 at 

2199-46 (July 1982) (emphasis added). 

The vocational expert who testified at the second hearing 

identified two light, semiskilled jobs and four sedentary, 

semiskilled jobs that he believed claimant could perform in 

addition to his past relevant work (which was primarily light and 

skilled). When asked by claimant's counsel whether claimant's age 

would compromise any of the jobs identified, the expert responded: 

"These jobs that I have mentioned are not within a close proximity 

of the work that he has done previously as a building consultant 

or a foreman, construction." Rec. Vol. II at 73-74 (emphasis 

added). Thus, the vocational expert's own testimony contradicts 

the Secretary's contention that the expert implicitly found 

claimant's skills to be highly marketable. Moreover, "[a] finding 

that [claimant's] transferable skills are highly marketable is 

required even though the Secretary relied on the testimony of the 

vocational expert." Varley v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 

820 F.2d at 781. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 7 
• 

Both the Seventh and the Ninth Circuits have indicated that 

when the marketability of the claimant's skills is at issue, the 

Secretary should at least recite the approximate number and 

location of jobs the claimant is capable of performing in his 

decision. See Renner v. Heckler, 786 F.2d at 1425; Tom v. 

Heckler, 779 F.2d at 1257. Here, the Secretary did recite the 

vocational expert's testimony about the number of jobs available 

within a 150-mile radius that he believed claimant could perform, 

but did not specifically discuss the marketability of claimant's 

skills or even cite the relevant legal standards. Because the 

record does not otherwise reflect whether the Secretary actually 

considered the marketability of claimant's skills, the Secretary's 

recitation of the number and location of available jobs is not 

sufficient to demonstrate that he applied the correct legal 

standard and found claimant's skills to be highly marketable. 

"[T]he absence of a finding that [claimant's] skills are highly 

marketable forecloses the possibility of finding that substantial 

evidence supports the Secretary's decision." Varley v. Secretary 

of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d at 781. 

"In reversing the Secretary's determination, it is within our 

discretion to remand to the Secretary for a further hearing or 

direct the district court to award benefits." Dixon v. Heckler, 

811 F.2d 506, 511 (lOth Cir. 1987). Claimant is now 66 years old, 

and it has been four years since he applied for benefits. The 

Secretary has not shown any good reason why he failed to consider 

whether claimant's skills are highly marketable even though his 

own regulations require him to do so. Moreover, in light of the 

-8-

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 8 
vocational expert's testimony that the jobs he identified are not 

closely related to claimant's previous work, we doubt that the 

Secretary could sustain his burden of proving that claimant's 

skills are highly marketable if we were to remand for further 

proceedings. Under these circumstances, we decline to remand for 

a further hearing. See id.; Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d at 1280; 

Allen v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 37, 43-44 (3d Cir. 1989). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and the action is 

REMANDED with directions to remand to the Secretary for the award 

of benefits. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 90-7065 Document: 01019297972 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 9