* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 31 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SUSAN GOODWIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-2032

(D.C. No. CIV-96-1748)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and KELLY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Susan Goodwin appeals from an order of the district court affirming the

Commissioner’s decision denying her application for Supplemental Security

Income (SSI) and social security disability benefits. Ms. Goodwin filed for

disability and SSI benefits on December 15, 1993. She alleged disability based

on back problems, back and neck pain, parasthesias involving her extremities,

and impairment of her right hand. The agency denied her applications initially

and on reconsideration.

Ms. Goodwin received a de novo hearing on November 22, 1994, before an

administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ determined that Ms. Goodwin could not

return to her past relevant work but that she retained the residual functional

capacity (RFC) to perform the full range of sedentary work. Applying the

Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, rules 201.18,

201.21 (the grids), he concluded that she was not disabled within the meaning of

the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s

decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Ms. Goodwin thereafter filed a complaint in the district court seeking

review of the Commissioner’s decision. A magistrate judge recommended that

her complaint be dismissed. The district court, after reviewing the magistrate

judge’s recommendations and her objections thereto, adopted the magistrate

judge’s recommendations and dismissed her complaint.
-3-

We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the factual

findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole

and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Andrade v. Secretary

of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1047 (10th Cir. 1993). Substantial

evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.” Fowler v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 1451, 1453

(10th Cir. 1989) (quotations omitted).

Ms. Goodwin contends that the ALJ’s finding that she can perform the full

range of sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree. To

be considered capable of performing the full range of sedentary work, a claimant

“must be able to remain in a seated position for approximately 6 hours of an

8-hour workday, with a morning break, a lunch period, and an afternoon break

at approximately 2-hour intervals .” SSR 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *6

(emphasis added).

The record contains no medical evidence that Ms. Goodwin can sit for two

hours at a time. A physical therapist concluded that she could sit for only one

hour at a time. He noted that while she sat for a total of sixty minutes, she stood

up after thirty-five minutes, placed both hands on her lower back, and started

crying. Dr. Deming, a consultant, estimated that Ms. Goodwin could sit without

interruption for forty-five minutes to one hour, but only on a good day.
-4-

Where an individual is unable to sit for two hours at a time, she may still be

able to perform work at the sedentary level, if her job allows her to alternate

sitting and standing or walking. See id., at *7. In such cases, the ALJ should

consult a vocational expert to determine whether there are jobs which the

individual is capable of performing with a sit/stand restriction. See id. Where the

claimant requires a sit/stand option, it is inappropriate for the ALJ to rely on the

grids, and he must consult a vocational expert. See Ragland v. Shalala , 992 F.2d

1056, 1059 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993). The ALJ relied on the grids in this case, and did

not consult a vocational expert. We must therefore reverse and remand for further

proceedings.

Ms. Goodwin raises the following, additional issues: (1) whether the

district court erred in upholding the ALJ’s assessment of her credibility based on

her failure to seek significant ongoing medical treatment; (2) whether the district

court erred in upholding the ALJ’s reliance on her vocational rehabilitation goals;

and (3) whether the district court erred in upholding the ALJ’s failure to consider

her nonexertional limitations. The first two of these issues lack merit. On

remand, however, the ALJ should take into account any nonexertional limitations

posed by Ms. Goodwin’s complaints of headaches and difficulty in using her

hands, to the extent such limitations are supported by the evidence.
-5-

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New

Mexico is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED with instructions to further

remand to the Commissioner for additional proceedings in accordance with this

order and judgment. 

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge