## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 24 96

__ __ __ __ __ _

Mi ch ael Bro ck

, *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Mi ch ael J. As tru e, So ci al Secu rit y *
Co m m is si on er, *

*
Defen da nt - App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Ja nu ary 10 , 20 12
Fi le d: Mar ch 28 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Mi ch ael Bro ck ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r affi rm in g th e Co m m is si on er's

de ni al of hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e be ne fit s. Sp eci fic al ly, he

ob jects to th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge 's fin di ng , wit ho ut co ns id eri ng th e te st im on y
of a vo cat io na l ex pe rt, th at Bro ck was ab le to en ga ge in ga in fu l act iv it y

. W e rev ers e

an d i ns tru ct th e d is tri ct co ur t t o re m an d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

Bro ck ap pl ie d fo r su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e on Mar ch 6, 20 07

. The

Co m m is si on er de ni ed be ne fit s up on in it ia l rev ie w of hi s ap p li cat io n an d ag ai n onreco ns id erat io n. Bro ck th en req ue st ed a h eari ng be fo re an ALJ, whi ch was he ld on

Ju ly 1 4

, 2 0 0 9. At th e ti m e of hi s he ari ng , Bro ck was twen ty-on e y ears ol d, ha d an
ei g h t h

- g rad e ed uc at io n, an d ha d no tra ns fera bl e job sk il ls or rel ev an t wor k

ex pe rie nc e. The ALJ fo un d th a t B ro ck ha d se ve re m en ta l im pa irments of an xi et y
di so rd er an d un tre at ed at t e n t i o n de fic it hypera ct iv it y di so rd er. Howev er, th e ALJ

de te rm in ed th at

, de sp it e th e se ve re m en ta l im pa i rm en ts

, Bro ck was ab le to

un de rs ta nd

, rem em

be r, an d carr y ou t si m

ple, unskil le d wor k, an d th at he th eref or e ha d

th e res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty (" RFC" ) to pe rfo rm th e fu ll ran ge of m ed iu m w o rk

co nt em pl at ed in th e th e Med ic al -Vo cat io na l Gui de li ne s ("g ui de li ne s" ). The

gu id el in es co nt ai n th ree "g rid s" in 20 C.F.R. pt

. 40 4, su bp t. P, ap p. 2 th at s e t ou t

co m bi na ti on s of st at ut or y cri te ria , a nd if a c l a i man t fit s on e of th os e co m bi na ti on s,

t h e g r i d s wil l di rect a fin di ng of ei th er "d is ab le d" or "n ot di sa bl ed ." Co ns id eri n g

Bro ck 's RFC, ag e, ed uc at io n, an d wor k ex pe ri e n c e , t h e ALJ ba se d hi s de ci si on on

Ru le 20 3.2 5, whi ch di rect ed a fin di ng th at Bro ck was "n ot di sa bl ed ." The ALJ is su ed

hi s d eci si on on Nov em

be r 18 , 20 09

.

Bro ck ap pe al ed to th e di st ric t co ur t. Bro ck arg ue d th at th e gu id el in e gr id s are

on ly in te nd ed to di rect di sa bi li ty de ci si on s fo r cl ai m an ts wit h ex ert io na l li m it at io ns

. Bec au se hi s im

pa irments were so le ly no ne xertio na l, Bro ck arg ue d th e ALJ sh ou ld no t

h a v e r e l i ed so le ly on th e gu id el in es an d sh ou ld ha ve so ug ht te st im on y fro m a

vo cat io na l ex pe rt be fo re de te rm in in g whe th er he was di sa bl ed

. The m ag is tra te jud ge
is su ed a m em or an du m op in io n on May 31

, 20 11

, fin di ng th at th ere w a s su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce in th e reco rd to su pp or t th e de te rm in at io n th at Bro ck was "n ot di sa bl ed " an d

affi rm in g t he Co m

m is si on er's de ci si on

.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to up ho ld th e Co m m is si on er's

de ni al of su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e be ne fit s. Ell is v. Barh art

, 39 2 F.3 d 98 8, 99 3
(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e affi rm a de ni al of be ne fit s if th e ad jud ic at or ap pl ie d th e co rrec t

le ga l st an da rd s an d th ere is su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce in th e reco rd to su pp or t th e de ci si on

. Co ll in s v. Ast ru e, 64 8 F.3 d 86 9, 87 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce is

-2

-ev id en ce th at a reas on ab le pe rs on m ig ht acce pt as ad eq ua te to su pp or t a de ci si on bu t

is le ss th an a pr ep on de ran ce. Ju sz czyk v. Ast ru e, 54 2 F.3 d 62 6, 63 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

W e co ns id er th e reco rd as a who le

, in cl ud in g ev id en ce th at de tra ct s fro m , as well as

su pp or ts , th e Co m

m is si on er's de ci si on . Elli s, 3 92 F.3d at 9 93

.

On ap pe al

, Bro ck arg ue s th at th e ALJ erre d at st ep fiv e of th e fam il ia r fiv e st ep

an al y si s ou tl in ed in 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4) (i) –( v)

. In th e fir st fo ur st ep s, th e ALJ 1

fo un d th at Bro ck was no t cu rren tl y em pl oyed, ha d se ve re m e n t a l im pa irments th at

were no t am on g th os e li st ed in th e gu id el in es , an d ha d no pr ev io us rel ev an t wor k to

ret ur n to

. Thu s, at st ep fiv e, th e Co m m is si on er bo re th e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng th at

, gi ve n Bro ck 's RFC, ag e, ed uc at io n, an d wor k ex pe rie nc e, th er e w e r e a si gn ifi can t

nu m be r of ot he r job s in th e na ti on al eco no m y th at Bro ck co ul d pe rfo rm . S ee Ell is

, 39 2 F .3d at 9 93

.

Sp eci fic al ly, Bro ck arg ue s th at th e ALJ erre d in rel y in g sol el y on th e gu id el in es

to de te rm in e th at he co ul d pe rfo rm ot he r job s. Bec au s e B ro ck be li ev es th e ALJ

im pr op erl y rel ie d on th e g ui de li ne s, h e as se rts th at th ere i s n ot su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

in th e r e c o r d t o de m on st rat e th e Co m m is si on er m et hi s bu rd en at st ep fiv e. Bro ck

co nt en ds th at be cau se th e gu id el in es are pr em is ed on ly on ex ert io na l li m it at io ns , th ey

are no t m ean t to di rect a c o n c lu si on of "d is ab le d" or "n ot di sa bl ed " fo r in di vi du al s
who su ffer so le ly fro m no ne xe rti on al im pa irments

. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 40 4, su bp t. P,

ap p. 2, § 20 0.0 0( e)(1 ); se e al so McC oy v. Sch weik er, 68 3 F.2 d 11 38

, 11 48 (8 th Ci r.

19 82 ) (en ba nc ) ("R FC is defi ne d who ll y in te rm s of the ph y si cal ab il it y to pe rfo rm

cert ai n ex ert io na l ta sk s. If a cl ai m an t ha s a no ne xe rti on al im pa irment, th e Gui de li ne s

an d gr id are no t co nt ro ll in g an d can no t be us ed to di rect a co nc lu si on of di sa bl ed or

The fiv e-s te p an al y si s as ks (1 ) whe th er th e cl ai m an t is cu rren tl y em pl oyed; (2 ) 1

w h et he r th e cl ai m an t is se ve rel y im pa ire d; (3 ) whe th er th e im pa irment is

, o r
ap pr ox im at es , a li st ed im

pa irment; (4 ) whe th er th e cl ai m an t can pe rfo rm pa st rel ev an t

wor k; an d if not

, (5 ) weth er the cl ai m an t can pe rfo rm an y ot he r ki nd of wor k. Kin g v. As tru e, 56 4 F .3d 97 8, 9 79 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

-3

-no t di sa bl ed wit ho ut reg ard to ot he r ev id en ce, s u ch as vo cat io na l te st im on y ."),

ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Hig gi ns v. Apf el

, 22 2 F.3 d 50 4, 50 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ).

Bro ck co nt en ds hi s cas e fit s wit hi n th e ge ne ral ru le th at

, "i f th e cl ai m an t su ffer s fro m

no ne xe rti on al im

pa irments th at li m it he r ab il it y to pe rfo rm th e fu ll ran ge of wor k

de s c r i b e d in on e of th e sp eci fic cat eg or ie s se t fo rth in th e gu id el in es , th e ALJ is

req ui red to ut il iz e te st im on y of a vo cat io na l ex pe rt." Ree d v. Su ll iv an , 98 8 F.2 d 81 2,

81 6 (8 th Cir . 19 93 ).

The Co m m is si on er arg ue s th at th is cas e m eet s an ack no wled ge d ex cep ti on to

th at ge ne ral ru le

. Bec au se th e ALJ m ad e a fin di ng of fact th at Bro ck 's se ve re m en ta l

im pa irments di d no t li m it hi s ab il it y to pe rfo rm th e rel ev an t ran ge of wor k co ns id ered

in th e g ui de li ne s, t he Co m m is si on er ar gu es th e g ui de li ne s ca n b e u se d e xc lu si ve ly.

The ex cep ti on to th is ge ne ral ru le is th at th e ALJ m ay ex cl us iv el y

rel y

on th e gu id el in es ev en th ou gh th ere are no ne xe rti on al im pa irments if th e ALJ fin ds

, an d th e reco rd su pp or ts th e fin di ng , t h a t th e no ne xe rti on al
im pa irments do no t si

gn if ic an tl y di m in is h th e cl ai m an t's RF C to pe rfo rm th e fu ll ran ge of act iv it ie s li s t e d i n t h e gu id el in es

. In ot he r wor ds , t he
ALJ m ay rel y on th e gu id el in es to di rect a co nc lu si on of ei th er di sa bl ed

or no t di sa bl ed wit ho ut res or ti ng to vo c a t i o na l ex pe rt te st im on y if th e ALJ de te rm in es th at a cl ai m an t's no ne xe rti on al l im it at io ns do no t si gn ifi can tl y

affe ct th e cl ai m an t's RFC.

Ree d, 9 8 8 F.2 d at 81 6 (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al so Ell is , 3 92 F.3 d at 99 6. Thu s, th e

Co m m is si on er arg ue s th at th e ne ed fo r a v o c a t i o na l ex pe rt de pe nd s on th e ALJ's

fact ua l de te rm in at io n th at a cl ai m an t ha s a si gn ifi can tl y di m in is he d RFC, rat he r th an

th e m ere e x i s t e n c e o f no ne xe rti on al li m it at io ns

. In Tho m ps on v. Bo wen , 8 50 F.2 d

34 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ), we sa id th at "an ALJ m ay us e th e Gui de li ne s ev en th ou gh th ere
is a no ne xe rti on al im

pa irment i f th e ALJ fin ds

, an d th e reco rd su pp or ts th e fi nd in g,

th at th e no ne xe rti on al im

pa irm en t doe s not dim ini sh th e cl ai m an t's res id ua l fu nc ti on al

cap aci ty to pe rfo rm th e fu ll ran ge of act iv it ie s li st ed in th e Gui de li ne s." Id

. at

34 9– 50

. Tho m

ps on cl ari fie d th at ou r cas e la w sh ou ld no t be read to ge ne ral ly

-4

-pr ecl ud e an y us e of th e gu id el in es whe n a no ne xe rti on al li m it at io n was pr es en t, ev en

th ou gh so m e la ng ua ge fro m earl ie r cas es m ig ht su gg es t th at ou tc om e. Id

. at 34 9; se e

al so Tuck er v . Heck le r, 77 6 F .2d 79 3, 7 95 –9 6 (8 th Cir . 19 85 ).

W hi le th e la ng ua ge of cas es li ke Tuc ke r, Tho m ps on , an d Ree d do le nd su pp or t

to th e Co m

m is si on er's po si ti on , we ha v e on two oc cas io ns di st in gu is he d th es e

cas es —wh ere th e ex te nt of th e no ne xe rti on al li m it at io n de pe nd s on th e cred ib il it y of

su bjec ti ve te st im on y ab ou t p a i n— fro m cas es whe re th e no ne xe rti on al li m it at io n is

cau se d by se ve re m en ta l im pa irments

. I n Wh e e l e r v. Su ll iv an , 88 8 F.2 d 12 33 (8 th

Ci r. 19 89 ), we ex pl ai ne d th at th e effe ct of p a i n b ears a st ro ng er rel at io ns hi p to th e
cl ai m an t's ex ert io na l ab il it y th an th e effe ct of s ev ere m en ta l i m pa irments :

Object iv e te st s of ph y si cal ab il it y , refl ect ed in th e Gui de li ne s, m ay

res ol ve th e is su e of whe th er the cl ai m an t is di sa bl ed by reas on of pa in

. A cl ai m an t wit h a se ve re m en ta l im pa irment, ho wev er, m ay be in cap ab le
of ho ld in g an y job

, ev en i f th e cl ai m an t's bo dy is so un d an d hi s or he r ph y si cal ab il it y un im

pa ire d by pa in or an y ot he r li m it in g co nd it io n. As

we read Tho m

ps on , it do es no t ap pl y to cl ai m an ts who

, li ke Whe el er, ha ve be en fo un d to ha ve se ve re m en ta l im pa irment, an d we di st in gu is h
Tho m ps on fro m

th e p res en t ca se on th at ba si s.

Id . at 1 23 8– 39

.

W e rev is it ed W he el er' s d i s t i nc ti on rece nt ly in Kin g v. Ast ru e, 56 4 F.3 d 97 8
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Alt ho ug h ne it he r pa rty in Kin g ad dr es se d W he el er, th e pa ne l

m ajor it y fo un d it s di st in ct io n was bi nd in g pr ec ed en t an d ru le d th at an ALJ im pr op erl y
rel ie d ex cl us iv el y on th e Gui de li ne s to de te rm in e a cl ai man t w i t h a se ve re m en ta l

im pa irment was "n ot di sa bl e d ." Id

. at 97 9. The co ur t no te d th at it co ul d "fi nd no

cas e in ou r ci rcu it sa nc ti on in g th e Co m m is si on er's us e of th e [g ui de li ne s] at st ep fiv e,

a s op po se d to [v oc at io na l ex pe rt] te st im on y , in a cas e in vo lv in g a se ve re m en t a l

no ne xe rti on al im

pa i r m en t." Id .; se e al so Vin cen t v. Apf el

, 26 4 F.3 d 76 7, 76 9 (8 th

-5

-Ci r. 20 01 ) (n ot in g th at th e co ur t in W he el er di rect ed an ALJ to us e vo cat io na l ex pe rt

te st im on y to de te rm in e RFC "i f cl ai m an t s uf fers fro m se ve re m en ta l i m pa irment" ).

A di ss en ti ng jud ge in Kin g arg ue d th at W he el er was no t bi nd in g pr eced en t, an d

th at th e ru le in Tho m

ps on sh ou ld ap pl y ev en i f t h e no ne xe rti on al im pa irment in

qu es ti on was a se ve re m en ta l im pa irment. See Kin g, 56 4 F.3 d at 98 0– 81 (Lok en , J.,

di ss en ti ng ). The Co m

m is si on er n ow u rg es th e co ur t t o fol lo w th e Kin g di ss en t and

tre at th at cas e as an ou tl ie r fro m ou r ot he r so ci al sec ur it y

cas es . Howev er, “ a p an el

of th is Co ur t is bo un d by a pr io r Eig ht h Ci rcu it de ci si on un le ss th at cas e is ov erru le d
by th e Co ur t si tt in g en ba n c .” Uni te d St at es v. W rig ht

, 22 F.3 d 78 7, 78 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 94 ).

W e are bo un d by th e m ajor it y op in io n in Kin g. Thu s, fo ll owi ng th e reas on in g

in Kin g an d W he el er, we co nc lu de th at t h e ALJ erre d by rel y in g so le ly on th e

gu id el in es to de te rm in e Bro ck was "n ot di sa bl ed ." Bec au se th e ALJ de te rm in ed th at

Bro ck su ffer ed fro m se ve re m en ta l im pa irments

, th e ALJ sh ou ld ha ve co ns ul te d a

vo cat io na l ex pe rt in de te rm in in g wh et he r Bro ck ha d t he RFC t o p erfo rm ot he r job s

th at ex is t in si gn ifi can t nu m be r in th e na ti on al eco no m y

. See Vin c e n t, 26 4 F.3 d at

76 9 (n ot in g th at an ALJ m us t us e vo cat io na l ex pe rt te st im on y to de te rm in e th e RFC

of a cl ai m an t who su ffe r s fro m se ve re m en ta l im pa irment) ; cf. Luc y v. Ch at er, 11 3

F.3 d 90 5, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (h ol di ng an ALJ im pr op erl y ap pl ie d gu id el in es to di rect

a c o nc lu si on of "n ot di sa bl ed " wit ho ut co ns ul ti ng a vo cat io na l ex pe rt to as se ss
cl ai m an t's RFC i n re la ti on to he r bo rd erl in e in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g)

.

Acco rd in gl y , w e r ev ers e th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t an d in st ru ct th e
di st ric t co ur t to rem an d th e cas e to th e C o mm is si on er fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-