2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-8-2005 

# Alle n v . C omm S o c i al S ecurity P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2163

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Alle n v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 623. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/623P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N O
. 04- 2163

WI L L I AM D. AL L E N, A ppel l ant

v. J OA NN E B. BA RN HA RT, CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C i vi l N o. 02- cv- 02597) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. D enni s M
. C avana ugh

A r gued M ar ch 8, 2005 Be f o r e : NY GA AR D, M c KEE, a n d REN DELL,

C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed A ugus t8, 2005)2 Ab r a h a m S
. Al t e r[ AR GUE D] L angt on & A l t er 2096 St
. G eor ges A venue P. O
. B ox 1798 R ahw ay , N J 07065 C ouns el f orAppel lant W i l l i am D

. A l l en
A n tho n yJ. L aB run a, Jr. O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 970 B r oad St r eet , R oom 700 N ew ark, N J 07102 Ka r e n T
. Ca l l a h a n [ AR GUE D] Soci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on O ff ice o f G en era l C o u n sel - R eg ion II 26 Feder al Pl aza N ew Y or k, N Y 10278 C ouns el f orAppel l ee C o m m iss io n e r o

f So c ia l Se c u rity

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT3 R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge W i l l i am A l l en compl ai ns of the det erm i nat i on of the S o c ial S e c u rityA d m in istra tio n (“ A g e n c y ” ) th a t A llen is capa bl e of s ubs t ant i al gai nful empl oym ent . A l l en w as aw ar ded s oci al s ecur i tybenef i t s i n 1994 bas ed on hi s m ani cd e p re ss iv e d iso rd e r, an d sc h izo id c o n d iti o n . T h e se b e n e f its w ere d isco n ti n u ed in 1 9 9 8 b ase d o n the A g en cy ’s det erm i nat i on thatA l l en’ s condi t i on had i m pr oved. A l l en appea l ed thi s deci s i on and the A ppeal s C ounci l r emanded the d e c isio n , sp e c if

ica llyre q u irin g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t “if w arr ant ed bythe expa nded r ecor d” the A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law Ju d g e (“ A L J” ) “ o b tain e v id e n c e f ro m a v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt to clarifythe e ff

ec t of the a sses sed li m it ati o n s o n the c lai m an t’ s o c c u p a t i o n a l b a s e . . . ” Al l e n u r g e s th a tth e ru l i n g o f th e ALJ on r emand deny i ng hi s cont i nued bene fi t s w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence beca us e the A L J r el i ed on the m edi cal

- vocat i onal gr i ds notw i ths t andi ng the fa ctthatthe i m pai r m entfr om w hi ch he s uffe r s w as notexert i onal

. A l l en u rge s tha t th e C o m m issi o n er w as re q u ir ed to co m e f o rw ard w i th t es t i m onyfr om a voca t i onal expertr egar di ng the o c c u p a tio n a l b a s e in lig h t o f th e n a tu re o f

A lle n ’s lim ita tio n s . T he 

### Distri ct

Co urt aff i r m ed the det erm i nat i on of the A gencythatA l l en’ s condi t i on had i m pr oved, r eas oni ng that “.
. . beca us e the fi ndi ngs and opi ni ons of Pl ai nt i ff’ s tr eat i ng, ex am ining an d n o n -ex am ining so u rce s co n firm that P lai n ti ff ’s condi t i on i m pr oved t o w her e he c oul d per form s ubs t ant i alT hi s i s an appe al fr om a fi nal orde r o f the U n it ed St at es 1 D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of N ew Jerse y d e n y in g A ll en ’s c la im f o r c o n tin u a tio n o f

S o c ia l S e c u ri ty d i s a b ility b e n e f its

. Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S
. C. § 405( g)

. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 4 gai nful act i vi ty , Pl ai nt i ff f ai l ed t o s how thathi s m edi cal i m pai r m entr es ul t ed i n funct i onal l i m i t at i ons thatpr ecl uded a ll su c c e ss f

u l g a in f u l ac tiv ity .” T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso h e ld th a t re lian c e o n th e g rid s, a s w e ll as o n S o c ial S e c u rity R u lin g s, w a s s u f

f icie n t in o rd e r f

o r th e C o m m iss io n e r to s at i s fyi t s bur den of pr oof and the A L J had di s cr et i on w hether o r n o t to c a ll a v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt. W h ile w e a g re e g e n e ra lly w i th t he 

### Distri ct

Co urt ’ s rul i ng thatthe C om m i s s i onercan sa tisf yh is b u rd e n in th is m a n n e r, w e d isa g re e w ith th e w a yin w hi ch the A L J appl i ed the Soci al Secur i tyR ul i ng ati s s ue her e, and w e w i l l r ever s e the 

### Distri ct Co urt ’ s O r derand r emand fori tt o r efe rthe mat t ert o the A gencyforfur ther fi nd i ng s. 1 W e re v iew th e A g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s o n lyto det erm i ne w hetherthe admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d cont ai ns s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g th e f i n d i n g s . S e e 4 2 U. S
. C. § 4 0 5 (g ); S yk e s v . A p f

e l, 2 2 8 F .3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r a ll le g a l is s u e s . S e e Id

.5 BA CKGROUND A llen ’s g ra n t o f

b e n e f its c a m e u p f

o r p e rio d ic c o n tin u in g d isa b ili tyre v iew in O c to b e r 1 9 9 7 , p u rsu a n t to S e c t i o n s 2 1 6 ( i ) a n d 2 2 3 o f th e S o c i a l S e c u r i tyAc t , 4 2 U. S
. C. § § 4 1 6 (i) a n d 4 2 3 , at w h ich tim e th e iss u e s w e re w h e th e r h is m edi cal condi t i on had i m pr oved, and w hetherhe had the a b i l i tyt o o b t a i n g a i n f

u l e mp l o yme n t . S e e 2 0 C. F
. R. § 4 1 6
. 9 9 4 (20 0 5 ). W hen bene fi t s w er e or i gi nal l yaw ar ded t o hi m i n 1994, A l l en had c om pl et ed a Funct i onal A s s es s m entQ ues t i onnai r e, i n w hi ch he i ndi cat ed thathe l i ved w i th hi s m other , neede d h e lp tak in g c a re o f

h is p e rso n a l n e e d s, a n d d id n o t p re p a re h is ow n m eal s . H e i ndi cat ed thaton s om e day s he di d notgetout of bed. H i s m otherdi d the s hoppi ng, and he ba r el yl eftthe hous e. H e s t at ed, “I thi nk I ’ m G od, s o I w as t e money . ” Fur ther , w i th r es pectt o hi s i nt er es t s and r ecr eat i onal act i vi t i es , he not ed thatal l he di d w as t o “s l eep a nd fa n tasi ze , ” a n d that h e d idn ’tv isi t othe rs be ca u se “ I do n ’t trus thum ans . ” A s ked t o el abor at e on hi s m edi cal condi t i on, he w r ot e: “Som et i m es I thi nk the w or l d i s comi ng t o an end, thatI ’ m G od, thatI ’ m the devi l and thatI ’ m the r i ches tm an i n t he w or l d. I al s o t hi nk the TV i s t al ki ng t o m e. ” A tthatt i m e, D r . E dw ar d T abbanoropi ned thatA l l en had a 15- y earhi s t oryof emot i onal di ffi cul t i es , and that a lth o u g h h e w a s o n m e d ica tio n a n d “ is p lea se d w ith h is6 p re se n t ad

ju stm e n t . . . h e is f

u n c tio n in g m a rg in a llya n d is i nvol ved i n no or gani zed a ct i vi t i es . H e s houl d be enc our aged to se ek the s erv ices o f v o ca ti o n al reh ab il it ati o n . ” D r. T abbanorconcl uded thatA l l en w as “nota good ca ndi dat e” f o r g a in f u l e m p lo ym e n t. T h e A g en cyterm inated A ll en ’s be n ef it s in Ja n u ary 1998, bas ed on i t s ow n det erm i nat i on that , as of N ovember 1997, he had the abi l i tyt o engage i n s ubs t ant i al gai nful empl oym ent . R econs i der at i on of the deni al w as deni ed, but A llen th e n re q u e ste d a h e a rin g b e f o re a n A L J, w h ich w a s h e ld i n M ay1999, atw hi ch he a ppear ed and t es t i fi ed. T h e A L J c o n s i d e r e d th e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d , n a m e l y, that he need ed to det erm i ne w hetherthere had been a decrease i n the m edical severi tybased o n ch ang es i n sym ptom s, si gn s, a n d /o r la b o ra to ryf

in d in g s m a n if

e ste d b yth e im p a irm e n t, n o tin g th a t th e m e d ica l im p ro v e m e n t m u st b e re late d to a b ili ty t o w ork. If there w as a m edical i m provem ent and an i ncrease in the ind ividu al’s fu n cti o n al ca p ac ityto d o b asic w o rk act i vi t i es , the A L J not ed, he w oul d det erm i ne thatm edi cal im p ro v e m e n t r e la te d to th e a b ility to d o w o rk h a s o c c u rr e d

. 2 0 C .F .R . § 1 5 9 4 (b )( 3 ). T h e A L J cit ed ex tens ive im p rov em en t i n A ll en ’s condi t i on, gi vi ng appr opr i at e det ai l s as t o s peci fi c ar eas of i mp r o v e me n t , a n d d e s c r i b i n g th e 1 9 9 7 f i n d i n g s o f

two p h y s i c i a n s , Ed war d Ta b b a n o ra n d Lu i s Ze i g u e r . Th e ALJ7 concl uded, i n s um m aryfas hi on, thatbas ed on the evi dence , “the claim an t has the re sidu al fu n cti o n al ca p ac ityto p erf o rm su b stan ti al ga inf

u l acti v ity , inclu d ing h is pa st r elev an t w o rk a s a sa les p e rso n .” T h e A L J th e n c o n c lu d e d th a t th e b e n e f its had bee n corr ect l yt erm i nat ed. O n ap peal, the A pp eal s C ou ncil t oo k the A L J t o tas k forfai l i ng t o i ncl ude ( 1) an eva l uat i on of the s ever i tyof Al l e n ’ s me n t a l i mp a i r me n to re f f e c t s p u r s u a n tt o 2 0 C. F
. R. § 4 0 4
. 1 5 2 0 (a); ( 2 ) an ev alua ti o n o f th e c red ibil ityo f A ll en ’s s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s as r equi r ed bySoci al Secur i tyR ul i ng 96- 7( p) and 20 C

. F. R
. § 404. 1529; and ( 3) an i ndi cat i on of A llen ’s e x e rtio n a l o r n o n e x e rtio n a l li m itatio n s. T h e A p p e a ls C ounci l s t at ed thati tw as unabl e t o det erm i ne “how the deci s i on has been r eac hed thatthe cl ai m antr et ai ns the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form hi s pas tr el evant w or k. ” T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il th e n re m a n d e d A llen ’s c a se to the A L J, instructing the A L J to f u rth er e v alua te th e c lai m an t’ s su b jec tiv e c o m p lain ts, e v a lu a te h is m e n tal im p a irm e n t in a c c o r d a n c e wi th th e t e c h n i q u e d e s c r i b e d i n 2 0 C. F
. R. § 404. 1520a( c) , cons i derthe maxi m um r es i dual funct i onal c a p a c ity , an d “ if

w a rra n ted b yth e e x p a n d e d re c o rd , o b tain evi dence fr om a voca t i onal expertt o cl ar i fythe ef fec tof the asses sed l i m i t at i on s on the cl ai m ant’ s occup at i on al base (S o c ial S e c u rityR u lin g 8 5 -1 5 ).” T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il i ncl uded the fol l ow i ng i n concl udi ng i t s di r ect i ve: “The8 h yp o th e tica l q u e stio n s s h o u ld re f lec t th e sp e c if

ic c a te g o ry/lim ita tio n s e s ta b lis h e d b yth e re c o rd a s a w h o le

. T h e A d m inistrati v e L aw Ju d g e w il l ask the v o ca ti o n al ex p ert t o i dent i fyexampl es of appr opr i at e j obs and t o s t at e the i n c i d e n c e o f

s u c h j o b s i n th e n a t i o n a l e c o n o my . ( 2 0 C. F
. R. § 404. 1566)

. ” A hear i ng w as hel d on A ugus t13, 2001, atw hi ch A l l en appe ar ed and t es t i fi ed. A l l en t es t i fi ed thathe had c o mp l e t e d c o l l e g e a n d h a d t a k e n s o me g r a d u a t e c o u r s e s . He had hel d a fe w j obs , as a dr aft s m an, a s al es per s on, and a t el emar ket er , butw as fi r ed fr om everyj ob w i thi n thr ee m o n th s. H e w a s o n m e d ica tio n , an d to o k p u b lic tr a n s p o rt a tio n to g e t to th e d o c to r’ s o f f ic e a n d to th e h e a ri n g . H e t es t i fi ed thathe had a “s hor tfus e” a nd s om et i m es co- w or ker s w oul d m ake hi m angry . W or ki ng i n a w or kpl ace s ett i ng w as di ffi cul tw hen he e xper i ence d m ani c epi s odes and he mi s s ed w or k beca us e of l ack of s l eep. T he r ecor d befor e the A L J i ncl uded as s es s m ent s fr om thr ee doc t or s . D r . R obl es , w ho had tr eat ed A l l en i n 1999 at the N ew ark B eth Isra el M ed ical C en ter, n o ted th at A ll en ’s bi pol ardi s or derm ade hi m “l i kel yt o decompens at e i f under pr es s ur e orw i th l ar ge gr oups of peopl e. ” D r . T abbanor , w ho had r ender ed an opi ni on w hen A l l en fi r s tqual i fi ed for benef i t s , opi ned thatA l l en w as “compl i antw i th m edi cal s u p e r v i s i o n a n d l i th i u m m e d i c a t i o n wi th f a i rr e s u l t s . He pr es ent s as a fa i rcandi dat e forr es um pt i on of gai nful9 empl oym ent . ” D r . Z ei guernot ed thatA l l en expl ai ned thathe has no tsust ai ned full -t i m e em ploym ent because “u nd er s tres s of empl oym entpr oduct i on demands he t ends t o devel op par anoi d i deat i on and get s i nt o confl i ct s . ” The opi ni on then w enton t o not e the pot ent i al fors tr es s - r el at ed decompens at i on, al though exper i enci ng veryl i m i t ed ps y chi atr i c hos pi t al i zat i on and conc l uded thatA l l en “s how ed good enough conc entr at i on fors i m pl e r epet i t i ve chor es . ” T he A L J i s s ued hi s opi ni on on N ovember29, 2001, r efe r enci ng the opi ni ons of D r s . T abbanorand Zei guer , and not ed thatthe B eth I s r ael ps y chi atr i c r ecor ds i ndi cat ed that

“ th e c la im a n t w a s d o in g w e ll a n d h is c o n d itio n h a d s ta b iliz e d

. T he A L J di d notr efe rt o the “de compensa t i on” not e cont ai ned in D r. R o b les ’ re p o rt. T h e A L J f o u n d A llen ’s s ym p to m s to be notful l ys upport ed byobj ect i ve medi cal evi dence al one, and hi s al l egat i ons thathe w as unabl e t o w or k aft er N ovember1, 1997 beca us e of hi s m ent al i m pai r m ent s t o be notful l ycr edi bl e. T he A L J then not ed thatA l l en’ s i m pai r m entw as “s ever e, ” butnotof l i s t i ng s ever i ty . H e then fol l ow ed the d ict ates o f 2 0 C
. F
. R
. § § 4 0 4
. 1 5 2 0 (a) an d 4 1 6
. 9 2 0 (a), exami ni ng A l l en’ s R es i dual Funct i onal C apac i ty , not i ng that A l l en had “ m i l d” l i m i t at i ons i n hi s act i vi t i es of dai l yl i vi ng and conc entr at i on, “moder at e” l i m i t at i ons of s oci al fu n cti o n ing (w h ich d ec rea se w h en h e tak es h is m ed icati o n ), a n d th a t h e h a d n o t e x p e ri e n c e d e p is o d e s o f d e c o m p e n s a tio n .10 T he A L J concl uded thatA l l en had made medi cal i m pr ovementi n t he s ym pt om s of bi pol ardi s or der

. T hi s w as bas ed pr i m ar i l yupon D r . T abbanor ’ s opi ni on i n 1997 ( as compar ed t o hi s fi r s topi ni on, i n 1994)

. D r aw i ng on D r . T abbanor ’ s opi ni on that“cl ai m antw as capa bl e of ga i nful empl oym ent , ” and D r . Z ei guer ’ s opi ni on thatcl ai m antw as “ca pabl e of pe r form i ng s i m pl e chor es , ” the A L J concl uded th a t A llen h a d th e R e sid u a l F u n c tio n a l C a p a c ityf o r sim p le r out i ne r epet i t i ve w or k atal l exert i onal l evel s . H ow ever , he w as notcapa bl e of hi s pas tr el evantw or k, as a s al es m an, beca us e i tw as cl as s i fi ed as “s emi

- s ki l l ed, ” and c l ai m antw as no l ongercapa bl e of pe r form i ng s emi

- s ki l l ed w or k. St at i ng thatthe C om m i s s i onerhad the bur den of s how i ng thats i gni fi cantj obs exi s t ed i n the l ocal ornat i onal e c o n o m yth a t cla im a n t w a s c a p a b le o f p e rf o rm in g , g iv e n h is m edi cal l ydet erm i nabl e i m pai r m ent s , and func t i onal l i m i t at i ons , the A L J then conc l uded: T h e c laim a n t h a s a c o lleg e e d u c a tio n a n d a se m is ki l l ed w or k backgr ound. T he cl ai m anti s capa bl e of per form i ng a ful l r ange of uns ki l l ed w or k atal l exert i onal l evel s . A fi ndi ng of notdi s abl ed w as r eac hed byappl i cat i on of medi c a l

- vo c a t i on a l rul e 20 4, A pp e nd i x 2 , s ub pa r tP, R egul at i ons Par t404, us ed as a fr amew or k fordeci s i on m aki ng. T he ment al l i m i t at i ons fors i m pl e, r out i ne, r epet i t i ve w or k do nots i gni fi cant l yer ode the bas e of j obs thatcl ai m ant is cap ab le of

p erf o rm ing

. (S S R 8 5 -15 )11 A ccor di ngl y , i n r eac hi ng the ul t i m at e conc l us i on r egar di ng the ava i l abi l i tyof j obs i n the ec onom ythatA l l en i s capa bl e of per form i ng, the A L J r el i ed on SSR 85- 15 w i thoutr equi r i ng tes tim o n yf

ro m a v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt. O n ap p ea l, the D istri ct C o u rtaf firm ed the A L J’s d ec isi o n , fin d ing su b stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd to su p p o rt th e A L J’s f

in d in g s th a t A llen ’s c o n d iti o n h a d m e d ica lly i m pr oved s i nce N ovember1, 1997, thatthi s m edi cal i m pr ovementw as r el at ed t o A l l en’ s abi l i tyt o w or k and that A ll en h ad the R esid u al F u n cti o n al C ap ac ityto p erf o rm s i m pl e, r epet i t i ve w or k atal l exert i on l evel s . T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our thel d t hatthe A L J w as corr ectt o concl ude that al though A l l en coul d notl i kel yr eturn t o hi s pas tr el evant w or k, ther e exi s t ed otherj obs i n the nat i onal economyatthe sed en taryleve l th at A ll en co u ld p erf o rm . T h e D istri ct C o u rt fur therhel d t hatthe A L J di d nothave t o cons ul ta voca t i onal experti n or dert o m ake hi s det erm i nat i ons as t o w hetherA l l en w as abl e t o per form bas i c ment al w or k- r el at ed func t i ons , as the dec i s i on w hetherthe cons ul ts uch an e xpertw as w i thi n the d i s c r e t i o n o f

th e ALJ
. Th e Di s tr i c tCou r tn o t e d th a tth e ALJ “di s t i nct i vel ynot ed thatbas ed on Soci al Secur i tyR ul i ng 85- 15, he found thatPl ai nt i ff’ s m ent al l i m i t at i ons di d not sig n if ica n tlye ro d e th e b a se o f u n sk ill e d w o rk a v a ilab le. T h is C o u rt m a yd e f

e r to th e S S R sin c e th e re e x ists n o e v id e n c e in the r e c or d, no ra l l e ga t i on s byPl a i nt i ff , t o e s t a bl i s h tha tSSR 85- 15 i s pl ai nl yerr oneous ori ncons i s t entw i th the A ctand

‘ once publ i s hed, [SSR s ] ar e bi ndi ng on al l component s of the12 [Soci al Secur i tyA ct ]
. ’ W al t on v. H al t er , 243 F. 3d 703, 708 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. ” DI S CU S S I ON O n appea l , A l l en cha l l enges the A L J ’ s r el i ance on the m edi cal

- vocat i onal gr i ds w hen pr es ent ed w i th nonexert i onal i m pai r m ent s . A l l en cont ends thatthe A L J ’ s rul i ng runs contr aryt o ouropi ni on i n Sy kes v. A pfel , 228 F. 3d 259 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , i n w hi ch w e s t at ed: T he C om m i s s i onerca n notdet erm i ne that n o n e x e rtio n a l im p a irm e n ts d o n o t sig n if ica n tly er ode occ upat i onal b a s e u n d e rme d i c a l

- v o c a t i onal gui del i nes ( “gr i ds ”) w i thoutt aki ng addi t i onal v o c a tio n a l ev id e n c e e sta b lish in g th a t f a c t. S yk e s a t 2 6 1
. A l l en pos i t s thati n Sy kes , w e s peci fi cal l yforbade the A L J fr om “i nvoki ng the dubi ous ‘ fr amew or k’ exce pt i on by cons i der i ng hi m s el f orher s el f t o be a voc at i onal expert . ” A l l en cont ends , i n addi t i on, thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on vi ol at es the A gen cy ’s ow n rul i ng s and regu l at i on s. W hil e A l l en’s ar gu m ent has an i nit i al app eal , becau se the gr i d’ s “fr amew or k” cl ear l ycl as s i fi es w or k i n t erm s of s tr e n g th , th u s ty i n g i tt o p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n , n o n e th e l e s s , a s weA s the C our t not ed i n Sy kes v. A pfel , 228 F. 3d 259, 262- 63 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ): T he Soci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on has pr om ul gat ed a f

i ve- s t ep proces s foreval uat i ng di s abi l i tycl ai m s . See 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 1520 (19 9 9 ). F ir st, the C o m m issi o n er c o n side rs w h e th e r th e c laim a n t is c u rre n tlye n g a g e d in s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi ty . I f he i s not , then the C o m m i s s i onercons i der s i n the s econd s t ep w h e th e r th e c laim a n t h a s a ‘se v e re im p a irm e n t’ thats i gni fi cant l yl i m i t s hi s phy s i cal orm ent al a b i l i tyt o p e r f

o r m ba s i c work a c t i v i t i e s . I f the claim an t suf

fe rs a se v ere im p airm en t, th e thir d i nqui r yi s w het her , bas ed on the medi cal evi dence , the i m pai r m ent m eet s the cr i t er i a of a n im p a ir m e n t lis te d in th e ‘l is tin g o f im p a ir m e n ts ,’ 20 C
. F. R
. pt . 404, s ubpt

. P, app. 1 ( 1999) , w hi ch r es ul ti n a pr es um pt i on of di s abil i ty , orw hether 13 di s cus s bel ow , the A gencyhas us ed, and the court s ar e thus di r ect ed t o empl oy , the gr i ds as a fr amew or k w hen n o n ex erti o n al l im it ati o n s are also at i ssu e. H ere w e a re pr es ent ed w i th excl us i vel ynonexert i onal l i m i t at i ons byvi r tue of A l l en’s m ental diagnosi s. A ccordi ng l y , w e m ust d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e g rid s s til l ar e a n a p p ro p ria te fra m ew o rk a n d w h ethe r i f n o n ex erti o n al l im it ati o n s are pr es ent , a voca t i onal expertm us tbe ca l l ed bythe C om m i s s i oneri n or derfori tt o m eeti t s bur den atthe 5th s t ep. 2the cl ai m antr et ai ns the ca paci tyt o w or k. I f the i m pai r m entdoes not m eet the cr i t er i a fora l i s t ed im p a irm e n t, th e n th e C o m m iss io n e r a s se ss e s in the f o u rth step w h ethe r, d esp ite the s ev ere i m pai r m ent , the cl ai m anthas the r es i dual fu n cti o n al ca p ac ityto p erf o rm h is pa st w o rk. If the cl ai m antcannotper form hi s pas tw or k, then th e f in a l ste p is to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re is otherw or k i n the nat i onal economythatthe cl ai m antcan pe r form . T he cl aim antbear s the bur d e n o f p r o o f f

o r s t e p s o n e , two, a n d f our of thi s t es t . T he C om m i s s i oner bear s the bur den of p roo f fo r th e last st ep . (Intern al cit ati o n s o m itted).
“Soci al Secur i tyR ul i ngs ar e age ncyrul i ngs publ i s hed under 3 the a u tho ri tyo f th e C o m m issi o n er o f S o cial S ec u ri tyan d are bi ndi ng on al l component s of the A dm i ni s tr at i on. ” Sul l i van v. Z ebl ey , 493 U
. S. 521, 531 n. 9 ( 1990) ( I nt ernal quo ta t i ons om i t t ed)

. “.
. . R ul i ngs do not have t he for ce a nd eff ectof the l aw o r re g u latio n s b u t ar e to b e re lied u p o n a s p re c e d e n ts in det erm i ni ng othercas es w her e t he fa ct s ar e bas i cal l ythe s ame. A rul i ng m ay be s uper s eded, m odi fi ed, or r evoked by lat er l egi s l at i on, r egul at i ons , courtdeci s i ons or rul i ngs . ” H eckl erv. E dw ar ds , 465 U
. S. 870, 87 4 n. 3 ( 1984) ( I nt ernal quot at i ons 14 H ere, the A L J r el i ed o n the r egu l at i on s as a “fr amew or k, ” and then r el i ed on Soci al Secur i tyR ul i ng ( “SSR ”) 85- 15 i n r eac hi ng hi s ul t i m at e conc l us i on thatA l l en coul d engage i n s ubs t ant i al gai nful empl oym ent . A l l en 3o m itte d ). W e not e atthe out s etthatal though A l l en cont ends thatthe 4 r emand or derdi r ect ed the us e of a vocat i onal expert , w e do not r ead the orde r as m andat ory i n thi s r egar d. R ather , the r emand or ders t a t e s t h a tt h e ALJ wi l l : “ I f warr a n t e d b yth e e x panded r ecor d, obt ai n evi dence fr om a vocat ion al exper tt o cl ar i fythe eff ectof t he as s es s ed l i m i t at i ons on the cl ai m ant ’ s occupa t i onal bas e ( Soci al Secur i ty R ul i ng 85- 15)

. . . . ” T hus , i t w as up t o the A L J on r emand t o det erm i ne w hethera voca t i onal ex p ertw as n e c e ss a ry . T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il, in a f f irm in g th e A L J a f

ter its m or e r e c e n t ru l i n g d i d n o t q u e s t i o n th e ALJ ’ s r e l i a n c e o n t he S o c ia l S e c u ri ty ru lin g ra th e r t h a n o n a v o c a tio n a l e x p e rt . 15 con t end s that onl ya vo cat i on al exp ertcou l d m ake thatl ast l i nk, and thatr el y i ng on an A gencyrul i ng does nots at i s fythe A gency ’ s bur den. T he i s s ue bef

or e us , then, i n the br oades ts ens e, r equi r es an i nqui r yi nt o the r ol e thatSoci al Secur i tyR ul i ngs p l a y i n A g e n c y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , a n d , m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, w hether , her e, r efe r ence t o the s peci fi c R ul i ng w as an appr opr i at e s ubs t i tut e forthe t es t i m onyof a voc at i onal e x p e rt. 4 W e start ou r an aly sis w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s opi ni on i n H eckl erv. C ampel l , 461 U
. S. 458 ( 1983) , i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our tcl ear l yes t abl i s hed the gene r al rul e thatthe A gencym ayr el yon rul emaki ng author i tyt o det erm i ne i s s ues16 th a t d o n o t r e q u ir e c a s e -b y -c a s e c o n s id e ra tio n . In th a t c a s e , a chal l enge w as l evel ed atthe medi cal

- vocat i onal gui del i nes themsel ves , w i th C ampbel l ar gui ng thatthe A L J had the o b lig a tio n to e x a m in e sp e c if ic typ e s o f

w o rk in o rd e r to det erm i ne w hethers he coul d obt ai n s ubs t ant i al gai nful empl oym entw hen pr es ent ed w i th the i s s ue as t o w hatj obs s he coul d per form , gi ven herback c ondi t i on, w hi ch perm i t t ed h e r to d o o n lylig h t w o rk . T h e A L J re jec ted th a t ar g u m e n t, and r el i ed on the medi cal

- vocat i onal gui del i nes i n hi s fi ndi ng thata s i gni fi cantnum berof j obs exi s t ed thats om eone i n her condi t i on coul d per form . T he C our tof A ppeal s forthe S econ d C i rcui trever sed, ho l ding t hat the S ecret arym ust engage i n i ndi vi dual i zed s crut i nyof herl i m i t at i ons and pos s i bl e r el evantj obs , and musti dent i fy“s peci fi c al t ernat i ve occupa t i ons avai l abl e i n the nat i onal economythatw oul d be s ui t abl e forthe cl ai m ant . ” 461 U
. S. at464. T he S up rem e C ou rtrej ect ed the C ou rtof A pp eal s’ vi ew , not i ng thataft erthe A L J m akes the as s es s m entas t o the cl ai m ant ’ s i ndi vi dual abi l i t i es , he mustthen det erm i ne w h ethe r j o b s ex istthat a p erso n h av ing claim an t’ s qual i fi cat i ons coul d per form . W i th r es pectt o thats econd i nqui r y , the C our tnot ed: T h e se c o n d in q u iryre q u ire s th e S e c re tar yto det erm i ne an i s s ue thati s notuni que t o eac h cl ai m ant– the types and numberof j obs that exi s ti n t he nat i onal economy . T hi s type ofC ampbel l had r ai s ed an i s s ue r egar di ng due pr oces s and the 5 req u ir em en t of

n o ti ce o f re li an ce o n ru lem ak ing , b u t th e c o u rt decl i ned t o addr es s i t , s i nce C ampbel l had notpr evi ous l yr ai s ed this cl ai m and the C ou rtdid n ot vi ew i tas an ex cepti on al case w her e i s s ues notr ai s ed s houl d no n ethel es s be addr es s ed on appea l

. In al l udi ng t o the i s s ue, how ever , the C our tnot ed the pr i nci pl e of a dm i ni s tr ati ve l aw , “thatw hen an a gencyt akes offi ci al or admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of fac t s , a l i t i gant m us tbe gi ven a n a d e q u a te o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d .” S u c h a n o p p o rtu n ityto r es pond w oul d appea rt o r equi r e not i ce t o the cl ai m antof the agenc y ’ s i nt ent . T hus , the C our tl eftopen the pos s i bi l i tythatan A L J ’ s r el i ance excl us i vel yon rul emaki ng w i thoutnot i ce mi ght b e v iew ed as un fai r t o the cl ai m ant. S ee H ecklerv. C am pb e ll, 4 6 1 U
. S
. 4 5 8 , 4 6 9 n . 1 3 (19 8 3 ). 17 g e n e ra l f a c tu a l issu e m a yb e re so lv e d a s f a irly thr ough rul emaki ng as byi ntr oduci ng the t es t i m onyof voca t i onal expert s ateac h di s abi l i tyhear i ng. Id . a t 4 6 7 -6 8
. T hus , H eckl ers t ands forthe br oad pr opos i t i on thatthe C om m i s s i onercan s at i s fyi t s bur den of pr oof r egar di ng avai l abi l i tyof j obs i n the nat i onal economyvi a rul emaki ng rather than requi ri ng actual evi den ce on a case-by -cas e basi s. 5 T hus , A gencyrul emaki ng, as l ong as i ti s notarbi tr aryor capr i ci ous , i s perm i s s i bl e as a s ubs t i tut e fori ndi vi dual i zed cas e- by

- cas e det erm i nat i ons , thus doi ng aw ayw i th the nee d18 forevi dence t o s uppor tthe det erm i nat i on atSt ep 5. I n Wa l t o n v . Ha l t e r , 2 4 3 F
. 3 d 7 0 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) , we h ad o cc asio n to ex am ine th e e x tent to w h ich th e A g en cy ’s rul es and r egul at i ons ar e bi ndi ng on the A gency . T her e, the C om m i s s i onerr eac hed a c oncl us i on w i th r es pectt o the ons et dat e of the cl ai m ant ’ s di s eas e bas ed upon medi cal evi dence w hi ch w as notcl ear l ydi s pos i t i ve. W e conc l uded thatthe A L J c o u ld n o t, co n sis ten t w ith S S R 8 3 -2 0 a n d th e n e c e ss ity o f e s ta b lis h in g “ a n o n s e t d a te b a s e d o n s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e ,” s i m pl y“dr aw an i nfer ence fr om the r ecor d evi dence [that l acked ] m edical supp ort . ” Id. at70 9. In ot her w ords, becau se SSR 83- 20 r equi r ed a medi cal bas i s forthe A L J ’ s concl us i on, the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatr an af oul of the rul i ng w as not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. I n thi s w ay , w e r equi r ed adher ence t o t he SSR s , fi ndi ng them t o be contr ol l i ng. M o re re c e n tly , in 2 0 0 0 , o u r C o u rt h a d o c c a sio n to cons i derthe appl i cat i on of thes e di r ect i ves i n the cont extof a di ffe r entfac tpatt ern, namel y , one thati nvol ved nonexe r t i onal as w el l as exert i onal l i m i t at i ons . I n Sy kes v. A pfel , Sy kes h a d a n u m b e ro f

s e v e r e i m p a i rm e n t s , i n c l u d i n g l e f te ye bl i ndnes s . T he A L J i n Sy kes r el i ed on the medi cal

- vocat i onal gui del i nes as a “f

r amew or k” and, on r evi ew , w e conc l uded: [U ] nderH eckl erv. C ampbel l

. . . , and i n the a b se n c e o f

th e ru lem a k in g e sta b lish in g th e f a c ts of an undi m i ni s hed occ upat i onal bas e, the19 C o m m iss io n e r c a n n o t d e ter m in e th a t a cl ai m ant ’ s nonexert i onal i m pai r m ent s do not s i gni fi cant l yer ode hi s occupa t i onal bas e under the medi cal

- vocat i onal gui del i nes w i thoutei ther t aki ng addi t i onal vocat i onal evi dence es t abl i s hi ng as m uch orpr ovi di ng not i ce t o the cl ai m antof hi s i nt ent i on t o t ake of fi ci al not i ce of thi s fac t( and pr ovi di ng the cl ai m antw i th an o p p o rtu n ityto co u n ter th e c o n clus ion ). 2 2 8 F
. 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). I n Sy kes , the A L J had deni ed Sykes ’ appl i cat i on, s um m ar i l yconcl udi ng thatthe exc l us i on of j obs r equi r i ng bi nocul arvi s i on fr om l i ghtw or k pos i t i ons di d not s ig n if ic a n tly c o m p ro m is e S yk e s ’ b ro a d o c c u p a tio n a l b a s e . W e di s agr eed, and conc l uded thatei thervocat i onal evi dence or“rul emaki ng es t abl i s hi ng the fa ctof an undi m i ni s hed occupa t i onal bas e” w as nece s s ary . I d. at261. A l l en cont ends thatthe A L J ’ s rul i ng her e, and thus the 

### Distri ct Co urt ’s as w ell , is co n tr aryto S yk es. H o w ev er, w her eas Sy kes s poke t o the s i tuat i on i n w hi ch rul emaki ng regar ding t he d egree of d i m i nu t i on i n the occu pati on al base w a s la c k in g , h e re th e A L J s p e c if ica llyre f e rre d to ru le SSR 85- 15. SSR 85- 15 addr es s es the pr eci s e i s s ue pr es ent ed her e, namel y , the i nt erpl aybetw een none xert i onal im p a irm e n ts a n d th e g rid s, w h ich w e w ill d isc u ss m o re f u lly20 b e l o w. A ft erthe Sykes opi ni on, the A gencyi s s ued an A cqui es cenc e R ul i ng t o s peci fi cal l yaddr es s how the A gency w oul d deal w i th i s s ues of thi s ki nd i n cas es w i thi n the geogr aphi c l i m i t s of the Thi r d C i r cui t . T her e, the A gency not ed that , ther eaf

t er , atSt ep 5, the A gencyw oul d notus e the gr i d fr amew or k excl us i vel yw hen ther e w er e nonexe r t i onal l i m i t at i ons , butw oul d, i n addi t i on: ( 1) T ake orpr oduce voc at i onal evi dence , s uch as fr om a voca t i onal expert , the D O T , orother s i m i l arevi dence ( s uch as a l earned tr eat i s e) ; or (2) P rov ide n o ti ce that w e inten d to tak e o r are t aki ng admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of the fa ctthatthe part i cul arnonexert i onal l i m i t at i on( s ) does not s i gni fi cant l yer ode the occ upat i onal bas e, and al l ow the cl ai m antthe opportuni tyt o r es pond b e f o r e we d e n yth e c l a i m. H o w e v e r, th e A g e n c yth e n w e n t o n to sp e c if ica lly s t at e: T h i s Ru l i n g d o e s n o ta p p l yt o c l a i ms wh e r e we r el yon an SSR thati ncl udes a s t at ement expl ai ni ng how the part i cul arnonexert i onal lim itatio n (s) u n d e r c o n sid e ra tio n in th e c laimInt er es t i ngl y , the A gency then not ed as w el l : “W e a re 6 cons i der i ng r evi s i ng our rul es r egar di ng our us e of the gr i d rul es as a fr amew or k fordeci s i on m aki ng and mayr es ci nd thi s R ul i ng once w e have m ade the r evi s i on. ” A R 01- 1( 3) , 2001 W L 65745 at*5 ( S. S. A
. )

. N o r evi s i on has occurr ed t o dat e. 21 b eing ad jud icated af

fe cts th e c lai m an t’ s occupa t i onal j ob bas e. W hen w e r el yon s uch a n S S R to su p p o rt o u r f in d in g th a t jo b s e x ist in the nat i onal economythatthe cl ai m antcan do, w e w i l l i ncl ude a c i t at i on t o the SSR i n our det erm i nat i on ordeci s i on. 6 A R 0 1 -1(3 ), 2 0 0 1 W L 6 5 7 4 5 at *4 (S

. S
. A
. ). A ccordi ng l y , the A L J’ s use of the guidel i nes as a fr amew or k i n t hi s cas e, and hi s r el i ance upon an SSR at St ep 5 t o det erm i ne A l l en’ s occupa t i onal j ob bas e i s notan i m pr operappl i cat i on of ei therthe ca s e l aw orrul es es t abl i s hed bythe A gency . Fur ther , fr om the s t andpoi ntof c o m m o n se n se , the g rid s’ u se f o r e x e rtio n lev e l ar e n o t to tally irre lev a n t if a c laim a n t h a s o n lya n o n e x e rtio n a l im p a irm e n t, forther e w oul d s t i l l be an a ppl i cabl e exe r t i onal l evel , i

. e. , the c la im a n t c o u ld d o w o rk re q u ir in g h e a v ye x e rt io n . H o w e v e r, th e A L J’s re lian c e o n S S R 8 5 -1 5 in th is i ns t ance , and i n s um m aryfas hi on, gi ves us paus e. W hi l e the A gencyexce rpt ed a c ert ai n por t i on of SSR 85- 15 as22 concl us i ve on the r el at i ons hi p betw een the type and de gr ee of m ent al l i m i t at i on and the s i ze of the occ upat i onal bas e, nonethel es s , the A L J ’ s concl us i on i n thi s r egar d fai l s t o focus o n an yo f A ll en ’s w o rk-related li m it ati o n s. Instea d , the A L J’s opi ni on parr ot s the attr i but es of w or k, notthe l i m i t at i ons exper i ence d byA l l en, not i ng thatA l l en w as capa bl e of per form i ng “a f

ul l r ange of

uns ki l l ed w or k atal l exert i onal l evel s ” butthen s t at i ng, as the compl et e ment al i m pai r m ent anal y s i s , the fol l ow i ng: “The m ent al l i m i t at i ons fors i m pl e, r out i ne, r epet i t i ve w or k do nots i gni fi cant l yer ode the bas e of job s the claim an t i s ca p ab le of p erf o rm ing

. (S S R 8 5 -15
. )” T he di ffi cul tyw e have w i th thi s r eas oni ng i s thatthe A ppeal s C ounci l i n i t s r emand or ders peci fi cal l yadmoni s hed the A L J t o s t at e the cl ai m ant ’ s exert i onal and nonexe r t i onal lim itatio n s. In ste a d , the A L J re f e rs to S S R 8 5 -1 5 a s th o u g h it r es ol ves the i s s ue. H ow ever , SSR 85- 15 i s a t en- page rul i ng thats peci fi cal l yaddr es s es the r el at i ons hi p of di ffe r entm ent al im p a ir m e n ts to jo b a c tiv ity. SSR 85- 15 pr ovi des thatw her e i ndi vi dual s have nonexert i onal l i m i t at i ons of func t i on orenvi r onm ent al re stric tio n s, th e tab le r u les (m e d ica l-v o c a tio n a l ru les ) still pr ovi de a “ fr amew or k” forcons i der at i on of how m uch the i ndi vi dual ’ s w or k capa bi l i tyi s fur therdi m i ni s hed i n t erm s of anytypes of j obs

. W her e a pe r s on has s ol el ya nonexe r t i onal i m pai r m ent : “[T] he t abl e rul es do notdi r ectconcl us i ons of di s abl ed ornotdi s abl ed. C oncl us i ons m us t , i ns t ead, be bas ed23 on the pr i nci pl es i n t he appr opr i at e s ect i ons of the re g u latio n s... ” T h e R u lin g th e n n o tes th a t it s p u rp o se is to cl ar i fypol i ci es appl i cabl e i n cas es i nvol vi ng the eva l uat i on of s ol el ynonexert i onal i m pai r m ent s . 1985 W L 56857 at*1 (S .S .A .). T he p oli cyst at em ent of S S R 85 -15 no t es that the fir st iss u e to b e c o n sid e re d is th e R e sid u a l F u n c tio n a l C a p a c ity r efl ect i ng the s ever i tyof the part i cul arnonexert i onal i m pai r m entw i th i t s l i m i t i ng eff ect s on the br oad w or l d of w or k. I d. at*2. T he SSR m akes cl earthat , w hi l e ther e may be a ne ed t o cons ul ta voca t i onal r es our ce, “the publ i cat i ons l i s t ed i n Sect i ons 404. 1566 and 416. 966 of the R egul at i ons w ill b e su f

f icie n t v o c a tio n a l re so u rc e s f o r re lativ e lysim p le iss u e s. In m o re c o m p lex c a se s, a p e rso n o r p e rso n s w ith s peci al i zed know l edge w oul d be hel pful

. ” I d. at*3. W i thi n t he di s cus s i on of m ent al i m pai r m ent s i n the R ul i ng ar e s ever al exampl es of di ffe r entattr i but es of i ndi vi dual s w hi ch w oul d, orw oul d not , l i m i tthe occ upat i onal base fo r j ob s i n the nat i on al econ om y . T he R uli ng con t ai ns a gener al di s cus s i on thatm er i t s r epea t i ng: G i ven no medi cal l ydet erm i nabl e i m pai r m ent w hi ch l i m i t s exert i on, the fi r s ti s s ue i s how m uch the per s on’ s occupa t i onal bas e – the en ti re e x erti o n al sp an fro m sed en taryw o rk th ro u g h h e a v y(o r v e ryh e a v y ) w o rk – is24 r educe d bythe ef

fec t s of the nonexe r t i onal im p a irm e n t(s). T h is m a yra n g e f ro m v e rylittle t o verym uch, dependi ng upon the natur e and extentof the i m pairm ent( s)

. In m anycases a d e c isio n m a k e r w o u ld n e e d to c o n su lt a v o c a tio n a l r e s o u rc e . I d. T he SSR then pr ocee ds t o addr es s cert ai n exampl es of nonexert i onal i m pai r m ent s , comm ent i ng on thei ri m pacton the occ upat i onal bas e. I n i ntr oduci ng the t opi c of “ m ent al i mp a i r me n t s , ” i ts t a t e s : “ Th e d e c i s i o n ma k e rmu s tn o ta s s u me thatfai l ur e t o m eetorequal a l i s t ed ment al i m pai r m ent e q u a tes w ith c a p a c ityto d o a t lea st u n sk ill e d w o rk . T h is deci s i on r equi r es car eful cons i der at i on of the as s es s m entof R FC
. ” I d. at*4. T he SSR al s o i ncl udes a di s cus s i on of the i m pactof the i nabi l i tyt o handl e s tr es s , and addr es s es how an ind ividu al w ith a d ifficu ltrea cti o n to the d em an d s o f w o rk ma yh a v e d i f

f i c u l tyme e t i n g th e r e q u i r e me n t s o f e v e n a l o wstre ss jo b . F u rth e r, itn o tes th a t th e re a c tio n to stre ss is h ig h ly i ndi vi dual i zed. T he s ect i on ends w i th the not at i on thatany im p airm en t- related li m it ati o n s cre ated b yan ind ividu al’s r es pons e t o demands of the w or kpl ace m us tbe r efl ect ed i n the R F C a s s e s s m e n t. I d . a t * 5 -6
. N otw i ths t andi ng the A L J ’ s r efe r ence t o, and appa r ent r el i ance on, thi s R ul i ng, w e ar e ata l os s t o fi nd w i thi n the25 R ul i ng i t s el f the conc l us i on the A L J s eems t o fi nd r egar di ng the o ccup at i on al base fo r one w i th A l l en’s m ental l i m i t at i on s. T h e A L J m ak es b roa d stat em en ts r eg ard ing A ll en ’s R F C , as w e re f

e re n c e d a b o v e , b u t h is c o n c lu sio n o n ly addr es s es i n gener al fas hi on the “ment al l i m i t at i ons for s i m pl e, r out i ne, r epet i t i ve w or k. ” I tdoes notr efe r ence any as pectof SSR 85- 15 thatr el at es A l l en’ s part i cul ar no nex ert i on al l i m i t at i on s t o the occu pati on al j ob base. T hu s, w e h av e d ifficu ltyin d eterm ining w h at th e A L J b eli ev ed w ere A l l en’ s “ment al l i m i t at i ons fors i m pl e, r out i ne, r epet i t i ve w or k, ” and how theyfi ti nt o the var i ous cat egor i es or exampl es s etfor th i n SSR 85- 15. W hi l e, s ur el y , the A gency can us e i t s rul es as a s ubs t i tut e fori ndi vi dual i zed det erm i nat i on, nonethel es s , ther e mustbe a “ fi t ” betw een the fac t s of a gi ven ca s e, namel y , the s peci fi c nonexe r t i onal i m pai r m ent s , and the w ayi n w hi ch the R ul e di ct at es thats uch nonexert i onal l i m i t at i ons i m pactthe bas e. I n fac t , the A cqui es cenc e R ul i ng s t at es thata rul i ng thati s bei ng r el i ed upon i n l i eu of t es t i m onys houl d s etfor th the “f i t . ” See 2001 W L 65745 at*4 ( s t at i ng thatthe r equi r ementthatthe A gency c o n sid e r v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt tes tim o n yo r p ro v id e n o tice th a t it i s t aki ng admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of the fa ctthata part i cul ar nonexert i onal l i m i t at i on does nots i gni fi cant l yer ode the j ob bas e w hen maki ng a di s abi l i tydet erm i nat i on as t o a no nex ert i on al i m pairm ent atS t ep 5 of the sequen t i al process w oul d notbe nec es s aryi f the “SSR i ncl udes a s t at ement exp l ai ning ho w the p art i cularno nex ert i on al l i m i t at i on (s )26 undercons i der at i on. . . aff ect s the cl ai m ant ’ s occupa t i onal bas e”)

. SSR 85- 15 r efe r s s peci fi cal l yt o as pect s of nonexert i onal l i m i t at i on appar enti n A l l en’ s pr ofi l e, as the d o c to rs’ re p o rts in d ica te, n a m e ly , d if f icu lt res p o n se to su p erv isi o n , im p aired ab il ityto d ea l w ith ch an g es in a w o rk s ett i ng and j ob s tr es s . T he R ul e s t at es , i n concl udi ng the di s cus s i on of thi s type of l i m i t at i on: B e c a u se re sp o n se to th e d e m a n d s o f w o rk is hi ghl yi ndi vi dual i zed, the s ki l l l evel of a pos i t i on i s notnece s s ar i l yr el at ed t o the di ffi cul tyan i ndi vi dual w i l l have i n m eet i ng the demands of the j ob. A cl ai m ant ’ s condi t i on m aym ake pe r form ance of an uns ki l l ed j ob as d if f ic u lt a s a n o b

je c tiv e ly m o re d e m a n d in g jo b

. Forexampl e, a bus boyneed onl ycl eardi s hes fro m tables. B u t an in d ividu al w ith a se v ere m ent al di s or derm ayfi nd unm anage abl e the demands of maki ng s ur e thathe r emoves a l l the d ish e s, d o e s n o t d ro p th e m , an d g e ts th e tab le c le a re d p ro m p tly f

o r t h e w a ite r o r w a itr e s s . S im ilarly , an in d iv id u a l w h o c a n n o t to ler a te bei ng s upervi s ed maynotbe abl e t o w ork even i n t he abs ence of cl os e s upervi s i on; the know l edge thatone’ s w or k i s bei ng j udges and e v a lu a ted , ev e n w h e n th e su p e rv isio n is re m o te o r in d ire c t, ca n b e in to ler a b le f o r so m e m e n tally i m pai r ed per s ons . A nyi m pai r m ent - r el at ed27 l i m i t at i on s cr eat ed b yan indi vidual ’s res po nse t o demands of w or k, how ever , m us tbe r efl ect ed in th e R F C a ss e ss m e n t. 1985 W L 56857 at* 6. T he R FC as s es s m enther e fa i l s t o r eal l yfocus on the l i m i t at i ons ati s s ue. M or eover , the A L J m ade onl ypas s i ng r efe r ence t o t he natur e of A l l en’ s l i m i t at i ons , s t at i ng that“the r ecor d s how s an opi ni on thatpr es s ur e orbei ng i n l ar ge gr oups o f p e o p l e c o u l d a g g r a v a t e h i s s ympt o ms . ” Howev e r , th e ALJ then di s car ded thi s fac tbynot i ng thatA l l en coul d tr avel on hi s ow n and di d notr el at e ei therof thes e fa ct or s as s peci fi cal l ypr obl emat i c. I n fac t , A l l en di d expr es s conce rn as t o t he s oci al i nt er act i on and s tr es s of j obs

. T he A L J di d not con nect these l i m i t at i on s t o an yapp l i cable occup at i on al base di r ect i ves w i thi n SSR 85- 15. W hi l e, admi t t edl y , SSR 85- 15 d o e s in c lu d e sp e c if

ic s tate m e n ts e x p lain in g h o w sp e c if ic n o n ex erti o n al l im it ati o n s w o u ld af fe ct th e c lai m an t’ s o cc u p ati o n al ba se, i t al so inclu d es c ertain a rea s o f c o n ce rn thats houl d r equi r e the A L J t o m ake a n i ndi vi dual i zed det erm i nat i on. T hes e w oul d appea rt o be pr es enther e. L o o k in g a t th e A L J’s c o n c lu so ryre f e re n c e to SSR 85- 15, w e ca nnotdet erm i ne w hetherhe w as r el y i ng upon a sp ec ifi c a sp ec t of

the R u le i n a p erm issi b le w ay , o r w h ethe r, b yc o n tra st, h e f

o u n d c e rta in lim itatio n s to e x ist w h ich w o u ld r equi r e, underthe di ct at es of the R ul e i t s el f, an i ndi vi dual i zed28 det erm i nat i on. L ooki ng atthe r ecor d befor e us , w e ca nnot h elp b u t no te th at ce rt ain a sp ec ts of A ll en ’s m en tal d isord er – in c lu d in g re sp o n se to su p e rv isio n , stre ss , an d th e lik e – w o u ld m o re lik e ly b e s u b

je c te d to a n in d iv id u a liz e d a s s e s s m e n t. I n r evi ew i ng pr ocee di ngs befor e A L J s , w e have been car eful t o ens ur e thata voca t i onal expert ’ s hypothet i cal cont ai n a compl et e and a ccur at e fa ctual bas i s i n or derforthe concl us i on t o cons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. See R ami r ez v. B a rn h a rt, 3 7 2 F .3 d 5 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). Ju st a s w e re q u ire d in R ami r ez thata voca t i onal expert ’ s t es t i m onyw as onl yas val i d as the l i m i t at i ons thatthe A L J had i ncl uded i n the h yp o th e t i c a l , h e r e we wi l l r e q u i r e th a tth e AL J ’ s o wn r efe r ence t o t he SSR rul i ng di s cus s s peci fi cal l ythe l i m i t at i ons pr es ent ed bythe medi cal r ecor d. A s w e s ai d i n R ami r ez, “I f, how ever , an A L J pos es a hypothet i cal ques t i on t o a voca t i onal e x p e rt th a t f

a ils to re f

lec t ‘a ll o f

th e c laim a n t’s im p a irm e n ts thatar e s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d .

. . i tcannotbe cons i der ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. ’ ” I d. at550 ( quot i ng C hrupcal a v. H ec k ler, 8 2 9 F
. 2 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 7 )). R ec en tl y , in B u rns v . B u rnh art, 3 1 2 F
. 3 d 1 1 3 (3d C ir

. 2002) , w her e the voca t i onal expert ’ s t es t i m onydi d nott ouch o n b o rd e rlin e in telle c tu a l f u n c tio n in g , an d th e A L J u se d o n ly the conc eptof “s i m pl e r epet i t i ve one- , tw o- s t ep t as ks ” i n the hypothet i cal , w e coul d notconcl ude thati t s rul i ng w as su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e b e c a u se th e re f e re n c e to sim p le t ask s d id n o t “sp ec ifi ca ll yco n v ey ” the claim an t’ s29 i nt el l ectual l i m i t at i ons and that“gr eat ers peci fi ci ty ” w as r equi r ed. A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld th a t if th e S e c re tar yw ish e s to re lyo n a n S S R a s a re p lac e m e n t f o r a v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt, i t m u st b e c ry sta l-c lea r th a t th e S S R is p ro b a tiv e a s to th e w a yin w hi ch the nonexe r t i onal l i m i t at i ons i m pactthe abi l i tyt o w or k, and thus , the occ upat i onal bas e. H er e, notw i ths t andi ng the fac tthats tr es s w as al l uded t o byone of the doct or s , and that s tr e s s i s s i ng l e d o uta s a n i nd i vi du a l i z e d f a c t ori n the SSR re lied u p o n , the A L J f

a ils to d isc u ss th is a n d , as a re su lt, h is d e ter m in a tio n th a t A llen h a s th e a b ili tyto p e rf o rm sim p le t as ks pr eval enti n t he nat i onal economyi s nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand forfur ther el abor at i on bythe A L J r egar di ng how the s peci fi c l i m i t at i ons ex p erien ce d b yA ll en w o u ld im p ac t his ab il ityto p erf o rm s i m pl e r epet i t i ve t as ks i n a j ob thatcons t i tut es s ubs t ant i al gai nful empl oym ent . T hi s can be acc om pl i s hed bynot i ng h o w S S R 8 5 -1 5 is re lev a n t an d c o n tro lli n g – if in d e e d th a t is the ca s e – orbyobt ai ni ng the i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m entthat S S R 8 5 -1 5 se e m s to p re f e r b yw a yo f

a v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt. W e al s o t ake thi s oppor tuni tyt o addr es s the i s s ue of n o tice , allu d e d to b u t n o t d e c id e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in H eckl er , See s upr a not e 5, and r equi r ed i n s om e s i tuat i ons by th e A c q u ies c e n c e R u lin g re f e rre d to a b o v e . If

a n a g e n c yw ill30 r el yon rul es as a s ubs t i tut e fori ndi vi dual i zed de t erm i nat i on, and thus r el i eve the age ncyfr om the bur den of pr oduci ng evi dence , w e thi nk advanc e not i ce s houl d be gi ven. I n the A cqui es cenc e R ul i ng, how ever , the A gencyexce pt ed out tho s e i ns t a nc e s w he r e the r e l i a nc e w ou l d b e pl a c e d o n a n SSR th a t in c lu d e s a sta tem e n t ex p lain in g h o w th e lim itatio n d id a f f e c tth e o c c u p a t i o n a l j o b b a s e . 2 0 0 1 WL 6 5 7 4 5 a t* 4
. We ques t i on w hetherthi s exce pt i on i s cal l ed forand ur ge that , as a m a tter o f

f a irn e ss , ale rtin g a c laim a n t to th e re lev a n t ru le in advanc e w i l l al w ay s be appr opr i at e. W hi l e the A gencycan me e ti t s b u r d e n b yr e f

e r e n c e t o a Ru l i n g , a s th e S u p r e me C our thas hel d, nonethel es s , the cl ai m ants houl d have the o p p o rtu n ityto c o n sid e r w h e th e r it w ish e s to a ttem p t to u n d erc u t th e C o m m issi o n er’s p rof fe r byca ll ing claim an t’ s ow n expert . O bvi ous l y , thi s r equi r es not i ce i n advanc e of the h e a ri n g . W e th in k it o n lya p p ro p ria te to g iv e c lo se sc ru tin yto the A L J ’ s r el i ance on a R ul i ng as s at i s fy i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s bur den atSt ep 5 w her e the C om m i s s i oner has notpr evi ous l yadvi s ed orar gued the cl earappl i cabi l i tyof the R ul i ng i n advanc e of the hea r i ng. I n thi s w ay , w hi l e the C o m m i s s i o n e rh a s th e a b i l i ty t o s a t i s f y i t s b u r d e n i n th i s w a y, i t s doi ng s o does notcons t i tut e an a m bus h w her ebythe c laim a n t, w h o a ss u m e d h e w o u ld h a v e th e o p p o rtu n ityto cr os s - exami ne a voc at i onal expert , i s l eftas a pr act i cal m att er t o m er el yar gue aga i ns ta R ul i ng i n r es pons e t o the C om m i s s i oner ’ s pr oof.31 CO NC L US I ON I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, w e w i l l r ever s e the 

### Distri ct Co urt ’ s O r derand r emand fori tt o r efe rthe mat t ert o the A gencyforfur therfi ndi ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.