1The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge, for the Western

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2797

___________

Arthur Doolittle, *

*

 Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, *

*

 Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2001

Filed: May 14, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and FENNER1, District Judge.

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Arthur Doolittle, a 45 year-old male with a college education and past relevant

work experience as an automobile salesperson and plant maintenance engineer, applied

for Social Security disability and supplemental security benefits claiming disability as

a result of an ankle fracture and decreased visual acuity. After his claim was rejected
2

by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Doolittle sought review in the district court.

The district court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, holding

that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a

whole. We reverse and remand to the district court with directions to remand to the

Commissioner to take the testimony of a vocational expert and to make a new disability

determination.

It is agreed that Doolittle has a severe impairment, and that he cannot return to

his past relevant work. It is further agreed that the burden of proof therefore shifts to

the Commissioner to establish that there are substantial numbers of jobs existing in the

national economy that the claimant can perform in light of his multiple disabilities.

The point of disagreement concerns the ALJ’s findings that Doolittle retains the

residual functional capacity to perform light work, and that there are substantial

numbers of jobs in the national economy that he can perform given his abilities and

limitations. In arriving at this finding, the ALJ did not consult a vocational expert, but

instead relied on the Medical Vocational Guidelines.

There can be no doubt that Doolittle suffers from a nonexertional impairment,

the loss of visual acuity in his left eye due to an injury--his best corrected visual acuity

in that eye is 20/400. Given this nonexertional impairment, it was incumbent on the

ALJ to call a vocational expert to determine whether there are jobs in the national

economy which the claimant can perform, and if so, the extent to which that base may

be diminished for persons with such an impairment. Nesselrotte v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d

596, 598 (8th Cir. 1991); Buck v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 451, 454 (8th Cir. 1989). As the

Third Circuit noted in Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000),

[Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 467-68 (1983)] permits the

government to establish through a rulemaking rather than an

individualized fact-finding the fact that there are jobs in the economy for
3

claimants with particular types of impairments. But it does not permit the

government to avoid its burden to establish this fact. To hold otherwise

would be to eviscerate the requirement that disability hearings will be

individualized determinations based on evidence adduced at a hearing. 

Sykes, 238 F.3d at 274 (citation omitted). 

We are also troubled by the ALJ’s conclusion that Doolittle is able to perform

light work. The ALJ’s finding is apparently based on the opinion of Dr. Bryant, who

performed a consultative eye examination and stated that he could not explain

Doolittle’s loss of visual acuity. This testimony does not suggest that Doolittle’s visual

problem was less than genuine; it would be error to interpret it thus.

For the reasons stated, we remand to the district court with directions to remand

to the Commissioner to take the required vocational testimony and then revisit whether

Doolittle is entitled to disability benefits in the light of that testimony and other

evidence in the record as a whole.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.