Document: 482 U.S. 137 107 S.Ct. 2287 96 L.Ed.2d 119 Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitionerv.Janet J. YUCKERT. No. 85-1409. Argued Jan. 13, 1987. Decided June 8, Syllabus The Social Security Act (Act) defines "disability" as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason medically determinable physical or mental impairment. . ." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). also provides that an individual "shall be determined under a disability only if his impairment [is] such severity he is not unable do previous work but cannot, considering age, education, experience, other work. 423(d)(2)(A). Services (Secretary) has established five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether person disabled. In step two process, "severity regulation" provides: "If you have which significantly limits your ability basic activities, we will find severe are, therefore, We consider experience." Respondent applied benefits, appropriate state agency she was light medical evidence her Administration (SSA) Administrative Law Judge concluded impairments were regulation, SSA's Appeals Council denied request review. Federal District Court affirmed, reversed remanded, holding does authorize benefits denials based solely on determination claimant severely impaired, 423(d)(2)(A) requires both vocational factors experience considered disability. court rejected Secretary's contention 1984 amendments endorsed invalidated regulation. Held: 1. regulation valid its face language legislative history. Pp. 142-152. (a) inconsistent with 423(d)(1)(A), terms effect person's function workplace. adopts precisely this functional approach effects impairments, when it show "impairment limits" "the abilities aptitudes necessary most jobs." If enough so limit claimant, definition prevent from engaging activity. Moreover, 423(d)(5)(A) expressly gives authority place burden showing claimant. requirement threshold consistent history 146-147. (b) 423(d)(2)(A), restricts benefit eligibility claimants whose them doing their national economy. impairment, eligible there no experience. reinforces understanding statutory language. 147-149. (c) enacting 4(a)(1) Disability Benefits Reform 1984, 423(d)(2)(C), Congress expressed approval statute accompanying Reports, recognizing may make initial severity, need claimant's unless finds "a combination impairments." 149-152. 2. increases efficiency reliability identifying at early stage those are slight unlikely they would found disabled even taken into account. 153—154. 774 F.2d 1365, remanded. POWELL, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, joined, post, p. ----. BLACKMUN, dissenting BRENNAN MARSHALL, Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Carole F. Grossman respondent. Justice POWELL Court. 1 question case deny claim basis suffer perform activities. 2 * Title II (Act), 49 Stat. 620, amended, payment insurance persons who contributed program 423(a)(1)(D) (1982 ed., Supp. III). XVI indigent Supplemental Income (SSI) program. 1382(a). Both titles define can expected result death lasted last continuous period less than 12 months. See 1382c(a)(3)(A). further 3 kind exists economy, regardless immediate area lives, specific job vacancy him, hired work." §§ 1382c(a)(3)(B) ed. 4 20 CFR 404.1520, 416.920 (1986). Step one determines engaged "substantial activity." is, denied. 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). not, decisionmaker proceeds two, impairments. That governed issue case. 5 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). 6 activities defined 404.1521(b), 416.921(b). Such include "[p]hysical functions walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, handling"; "[c]apacities seeing, hearing, speaking"; "[u]nderstanding, carrying out, remembering simple instructions"; "[u]se judgment"; "[r]esponding appropriately supervision, co-workers, usual situations"; "[d]ealing changes routine setting." Ibid. 7 severe, third step, equivalent number listed acknowledges preclude 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); pt. 404, subpt. P, App. meets equals conclusively presumed disabling, fourth prevents performing performed past. able work, 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). cannot fifth final economy view entitled 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). 8 made acting supervision Secretary. 421(a), 1383b(a); 404.1503, 416.903 denies claim, pursue three-stage administrative review process. First, reconsidered de novo agency. 404.909(a), 416.1409(a). Second, hearing before law judge (ALJ) within Bureau Hearings Administration. 405(b)(1), 1383(c)(1) III); 404.929, 416.1429, 422.201 et seq. Third, seek Council. 404.967 seq., 416.1467 Once exhausted these remedies, federal district court. 405(g). generally Bowen v. City New York, 476 467, 472, 106 2022, 2026, 90 462 9 Janet Yuckert SSI October 1980. She alleged inner ear dysfunction, dizzy spells, headaches, inability focus eyes, flatfeet. had been employed travel agent 1963 1977. 1978 1979, worked intermittently real estate salesperson. 45 years old time application. high school business college, training. 10 Washington Department Yuckert's application request, again At next ALJ that, although suffered "episodes dizziness, vision problems," Pet. Cert. 28a, "[m]ultiple tests failed divulge objective clinical findings abnormalities support stated Id., 27a.1 pursuing "relatively difficult" 2-year course computer programming community college drive car 80 miles each week. 27a-28a. 404.1520(c) 416.920(c) ground results additional psychological supported ALJ's finding significant work-related abilities. 22a. then sought United States Western Washington. referred Magistrate, evidence. adopted Magistrate's report affirmed denial claim. 14a. 11 Ninth Circuit remanded without substantiality Heckler, 1370 (1985). held impaired. focused provision "only court's view, "both [i.e., experience] disability." F.2d, 1370. "[t]he suggest intended permit non-disability alone." (citation omitted). Finally, relied upon holdings proof shifts once shows work.2 assignment burdens proof, because allows past requiring Accordingly, (1986).3 Because importance issue, decision conflicts Courts Appeals,4 granted certiorari. 1114, 1967, 652 now reverse. III Our prior decisions recognize "Congress 'conferred exceptionally broad prescribe standards applying certain sections Act.' " Heckler Campbell, 461 458, 466, 103 1952, 1956, 76 66 (1983) (quoting Schweiker Gray Panthers, 453 34, 43, 101 2633, 2639, 69 460 (1981)). authorizes "adopt reasonable proper rules regulations regulate provide nature extent proofs method taking furnishing same" cases. 405(a). "[w]here, here, entrusts responsibility implementing our limited promulgated exceeded arbitrary capricious." supra, U.S., S.Ct., 1956 (footnote citations require "medically determinable" satisfy regulatory standards. 13 As noted above, Amendments 1954 68 1080, 404.1521(b) On face, "defines 'disability' workplace." 459-460, 1953. jobs, Secretary, moreover, express "[a]n shall furnishes existence thereof require." Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 336, 893, 903, 47 18 (1976).5 14 Senate Report states: 15 "The must degree sufficient justify consideration cause failure obtain Standards evaluating disabling conditions out consultation State agencies." S.Rep. 1987, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 21 (1954), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1954, 3730. 16 House Rep. 1698, 23 contains virtually identical Shortly after enacted, stating "medical considerations alone where neurosis, sight similar abnormality abnormalities." 404.1502(a) (1961). This minor revisions, remained until 1978. B 17 placed little weight 423(d)(1)(A) history, holding. Section set forth 140, enacted part 81 868. It states "an words grant them.6 benefits. case, "reemphasize predominant determination." 744, 90th 1st 48 (1967), 2882. 1967 left undisturbed longstanding (1966). Indeed, clear contemplated process: 19 bill [i] shown impairments; [ii] if, despite still disability; [iii] together some type though longer 48-49, H.R.Rep. 544, 30 (1967).7 C lingering doubt think removed 98 1800. true '[t]he remedial legislation, principally assistance large numbers terminated.' 486, n. 14, 2033, York 755 31, 33 (CA2 1985)). But nevertheless Reports.8 Sections 22 "In individual's could section, combined all regard separately, severity. throughout process." 1382c(a)(3)(F) thus recognized 24 endorses 25 "[T]he new rule [requiring multiple impairments] accordance existing interpreted authorizing departure amendment determine first, strictly factors, combination, severe. disallowed. Of course, impact during remaining stages 98-466, (1984). agrees: 26 "[I]n interests flexibility efficiency, judgment warrant presumption seriously affected. current 'sequential process' determination, committee wish eliminate impair use 98-618, (1984), 3045.9 Conference stated: 27 presumption, full [substantial activity] conferees intend either H.R.Conf.Rep. 98-1039, 3088.10 IV 28 aspects contribute uniformity determinations. 461, 1954. particularly acute decides more million claims year, 200,000 reviewed judges. 1986 Annual Congress, pp. 40, 42, 46. Similarly, three streamlines likely background. 29 conceded "de minimis interfere work.11 Brief 22-23; Tr. Oral Arg. 30. apparently means [the claimant's] irrespective 22. contends imposed 1978, required greater since then. noted, however, approved facial validity Act. Particularly conclude face.12 V reversed. agency's 31 ordered. 32 whom STEVENS joins, concurring. I believe, entirely correct "step two" facially Act's III) 34 "[A]n economy." 35 suffers [that] limit[s] activities." 404.1521(a) "Basic activities," says, "walking, handling[,] speaking, [u]nderstanding, instructions[,] [u]se [r]esponding co-workers situations[,] [d]ealing 404.1521(b)(1)-(6). see how limitation areas possibly meet For reasons Part weed individuals concur Court's invalid, lower courts conclusion suffering sufficiently 36 write discuss respondent various amici (including major cities) systematically directs attention chorus judicial criticism concerning well substantially unrefuted statistical Despite heavy deference ordinarily paid promulgation regulations, (1981), regional enjoined regulation1 narrowing construction it.2 frustration dealing particular cases substantial, accounts Appeals' simply enjoin regulation's use. 37 Empirical cited supports inference used manner Before approximately 8% "not severe" process; afterwards 40% stage. Baeder 768 547, 552 (CA3 1985). constructions, rate fallen about 25%. Committee Ways Means, Background Material Data Programs Within Jurisdiction 99th 114 (Comm. Print 1986). Allowance rates increased demanded disqualify statutorily eligible. example, Illinois entry injunction Johnson 769 1202 (CA7 1985), cert. pending sub nom. Johnson, 85-1442, climbed 34.3% 52% screening level 14.8% 34.1% reconsideration level. Alabama al. Amici Curiae 38 To sure faces task staggering proportions provisions Perfection processing millions annually impossible. respondent's suggests statute. himself recently acknowledged "clarify" attempted issuing interpretative guidelines. Ruling 85-28, 37a. 39 my fit employment available him Only "basic activity" undertaking analysis. Evans 734 1012, 1014 (CA4 1984); Estran 745 340, 341 (CA5 1984) (per curiam ); Brady 724 914, 920 (CA11 1984). admonished guideline: 40 "Great care should exercised concept. adjudicator clearly end step. Rather, continued. circumstance, equal relevant listing, evaluate 44a. 41 Applied manner, produce vast majority facilitate expeditious just settlement claims. MARSHALL join, dissenting. 43 purposes disability-insurance 223(d) Act, codified, 423(d) Paragraph (2)(A) section "An work" (emphasis added). program, explains claimant: (1986) very directly contradicts invalid. confirms exceeds authority. reverses correctly dissent. 44 A. today, analyzes interpreting defeats intent through structure. isolates paragraph (1)(A) conflict contained therein. Disregarding fact later amended (2) 423(d), reaches premature "is Ante, 146. After reasoning "statutory disability" bar characterizes merely "limit[ing] them."1 148. already 46 critical error analysis readily apparent considers introducing 423(d). Although purports ante, fails quote key likewise presents abridged version 155. Neither places context. part: "(1) term means— "(A) months; "(B) attained age 55 blind. 50 "(2) (1)(A)— 51 An (except widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, husband 402(e) (f) title) preceding sentence (with respect individual), 'work economy' region lives several regions country. 52 A (for prescribed deemed 53 By employing phrase "for (1)(A)" introduce (2), serves annotation (1)(A), independent requirement, implies. structure plainly indicate afterwards. effect, "to meaning (1)(A).2 54 How cases, including brought insured workers Yuckert, (2)(A), whereas (2)(B) relates category spouses specifically excepted (2)(A). Whether proved "inability" "by of" depends worker [other work]." straightforward reading indicates establish determinable, duration render assess standard. guidance. 56 Under automatically nonsevere If, inquire He whether, 57 comparison leaves whatsoever feature (2)(B), authorized alone. specifies promulgate levels activity, list.3 same included (2)(B). 58 inquiry furthers purpose disability-benefits ensuring individualized assessment workers. takes account affects different characteristics differently. relatively young, well-educated, experienced due transfer skills another much advanced minimal education Thus, first while second. 59 clarity determinations, step-evaluation standard prohibits adjudicators age,4 invalid face.5 60 relies contrary unconvincing. Rather analyze actual statute, relies, 146, description own earlier opinions. 1953, ("The workplace"). important note, quotes description. Based abbreviated description, views "functional impairments," regards adopting approach. 61 Merely mean, respects. examination scheme, reveals general declaration discussion particulars paragraphs analysis, avoids impossible explaining scheme described Campbell represent "precisely" includes not. 62 While focusing between read isolation, jobs [apparently referring 404.1521 ],6 agree implication and, information, "perform interpretation decide covered basic-work responsiveness adaptability change workplace, void. 63 Even affected individuals' extent, guidance what constitutes "significant" ability, adapt conditions, caused Nor explain few, most, "[e]xamples activities" order capable "most appears assume limitations. 155—156. Assuming true, limitations equate overall jobs. sum, determinations mandate. prohibit assessments being vacuum specified work.7 64 There proposition create "severe impairment" disabled-worker exclude directed considered. Whereas perceives "no experience" nonseverity made, 148, compelling factors—the unambiguous so. 65 strong position. roots 1952. guarantee status adversely permanently totally periods retirement. amendment, added 216(i), "period 771, 416(i) (1952 ed.). replaced definitions slightly ones 216(i). IV). When retirement, 216(i) 223 nearly 216(i).8 1965, specify 79 367. congressional adopted. One aims year detailed 223(d). Reports explain: 67 "Paragraph (1) exactly [was] law. special blind, except widow's widower's disability), exists, 263-264 (1967); 163 3102-3103).9 70 "clarify amplify social security program." 263; 163, 3102. 71 felt clarify because, rising cost too broadly. 46-47. particular, concerned narrow geographic existed vacancies opportunity hired. 47-48. See, e.g., Tigner Gardner, 356 647 1966); Wimmer Celebrezze, 355 289 1966). questions arisen "establish impairment," performance constituted 48, 2883. 72 aimed answering questions. local primary tempered restrictiveness specifying component working exempted 423 (d)(2)(A).ss summarized follows: 73 (under rules) absence demonstration requirements met people mentioned above apply 49, 74 nowhere indicated intention 75 Congress' illustrated comparing simpler involving spouses.10 explained: widows dependent widowers test somewhat restrictive childhood beneficiaries. widow widower Determinations nonmedical 49-50, 77 1030, 3179. Clearly, ingredient 78 Out surrounding enactment definition, grasps straws. accompanied 147. record clear, governing Amendments. again, context incomplete, remark "predominant factors." emphasize adequate intent, odds aim worker's remain determination. Report's summary which, points evaluation. 148 149. Expressly evaluation, avoid force contemporaneous (2)(A),12 seeks refuge 4(b) provision, Yet 4(b), says nothing requirements. 149—151. According making isolation rather "approval regulation," say, 150, provision. 82 stand endorsement Each brief disability-determination descriptions, preliminary steps characterized Report, 151, explained Omitted heart quotation, incorporation reference interpretation. "As amendments, 'only impairments.' (1984) Reference back supporting evinces adhere discussed necessarily stands contradiction suggestion Hence, Senate's ambiguous best. 83 reflects dissatisfaction affected." 3045. did undermine entire reservations "slight two. 84 conducted using criteria reflect receive concern criticized basing terminations erroneously 'slight,' according strict criteria, therefore 7, 3044. 85 continued: 86 "However, notes planned re-evaluate non-severe [i.e. two], urges given revising 87 setting onerous desire upset approve 88 position Report. "plan reevaluate impairments" expectation apprise 3087. lenient resulting 89 affected" permitted characterization permitting implicit factors. considered, conferees' statement serve believed be, 91 ambiguity references understandable validity. Examination totality problems system. These termination pain, 92 midst reevaluating willingness await address matter overwhelming faced regarding matters properly it. remarks comments outweigh provisions. 93 makes 145. recognized, "[c]ourts defer 'compelling indications wrong.'" Espinoza Farah Mfg. Co., 414 86, 94-95, 94 334, 339, 287 (1973), quoting Red Lion Broadcasting Co. FCC, 395 367, 381, 1794, 1801, 371 (1969). wrong reflected "cannot supersede chosen Congress." Mohasco Corp. Silver, 447 807, 825, 100 2486, 2497, 532 (1980). Unlike situation presented Lukhard Reed, 481 368, 1807, 95 328 (1987), unambiguously respondent's. attributes Secretary,13 151—152 intent. attempts representing finally every concluded—application 156, nn. adopt "slight" 153. O'CONNOR imposes permits join implicitly draws resolve subsequent adoption aptly demonstrates currently attempting readopt pre-1978 standard, adjudicators. "applied statute." 157; Stone 752 1099 Little themselves inconsistent. Housing Foundation, Inc. Forman, 421 837, 858, 25, 2051, 2063, 621 (1975). 97 describe incorporates fully Yet, ensure stage14 affect ultimate issue. Contrary implications, 147, addressed declined standards, 1369, (CA9 Invalidating frivolous Adoption take procedures regulations. 421(k)(2) Further interpretations value. They alter 99 highly inappropriate continue enforce physician diagnosed condition bilateral labyrinthine dysfunction. 26a. Another "non-specific congestion nasal middle mucous membranes." X rays, electrocardiogram, spinal puncture revealed abnormalities. 27a. E.g., Valencia 751 1082, 1086-1087 1985); Francis 749 1562, 1564 complaint II. invalidate (1986), applicable Some upheld McDonald 795 1118, 1121-1126 (CA1 1986); Hampton Bowen, 785 1308, 1311 Farris 773 85, 89-90 (CA6 Flynn 1273, 1274-1275 1985) ). Others joined face. Wilson 796 36, 40-42 1202, 1209-1213 Brown 786 870, 871-872 (CA8 Hansen 783 170, 174-176 (CA10 settled allocation proceedings. notes, bears five, bear working, four ends never Bluvband 730 886, 891 "exceptionally authority" (1981). unreasonable better information condition, dissent implies unlimited meritorious Post, 160, hardly needs saying carries implication. BLACKMUN's argues "straightforward reading" however trivial. 163. dissent's turn asserts "reasoning begs resolution today discerned 168, ignores below prevented Curiously, bases largely factors," 423(d)(2)(C) novel. applies "whether eligibility. dissenters "says requirements." 174 threshold, low, threshold. decided 423(d)(2)(B); 163-164, imply trivial "straighforward." recognizes, must, Absent showing, unnecessary "age, concludes, "contradicts language" 159. explicitly perceived inconsistency. endorse "claim disallowed" "first, disallowed." S.Rep.No. inconsistent, accord. infra, 151—152. "ambiguous," 175; 177. agreed ambiguity, (1983); observed "been "notes Senator Long, ranking Member Committee, "[s]ome ruled always capacities." 130 Cong.Rec. 25981 Long went bill, followed conference "minor technical nature," ibid., "carefully drawn reaffirm standpoint—that evaluation," ibid. sponsors 2133, 84th 140 (1956), 3877, Chairman Finance 2834. briefed argued parties, concludes excessively vague. 168. severity: "significantly 141, detail. occasion applied. denying 4, supra. urged strict. 9, Subsequent adjudication issued ruling "[t]o policy impairment(s) 'not severe'. severe' disabled' [step two] establishes (i.e., ability(ies) activities)." 41a. "evidence unique features work," conduct "further 43a. undertake construe today. do, reject invalidation remedy allegedly unlawful 44-47. ground. indication drastic remedies effective. Dixon 1102 1986) (preliminary injunction), pending, 86-2; 547 85-1442; 870 1365 (case below); 170 1118 (relying 85-28); 1012 340 Salmi 685 McCruter 791 1544 914 here creates entitlement criteria. begins insured, retirement application, disabled, benefit" 423(a)(1) elsewhere note claimants, respondent, payments 140. contributor plan agreed-upon coverage. strongly reinforced 416(i). Except 402(d), 402(e), 402(f), 423, 425 title, (A) months, (B) blindness. (2)(C), (3), (4), (5), (6) title section." (Emphasis added.) 416(i)(1) pertaining spouses, claimants: "To 404.1577 appendix. 404.1578; 172 (statutory wage earners). Perhaps disturbing disproportionate older categories. realize instant involves young well-educated individual, typical operated claimants. American Diabetes Association 5, 12-13; Retired Persons Amicus 16, 13. survey reported older. id., 12. earliest statements why aging itself healing, prognosis, physiological degeneration, consequence, capacity." 1955 Freeze Manual 325B. Noting chronological "some age," connection claimed Elimination factor calculus inevitably diminishes peremptorily basis" five Appeals, below, blatant plain find. 871 (citing "point[ed] [in regulation] disregard disability"); ("regulation directive" work"); 1212 ("[O]n statute's disability"), 553 (severity analyzed "except uses it"; "[a]s stands, [it] invalid"). Obviously, assertion rested judgments "frustration two." 2298-2299. 404.1521, severe": "(a) Non-severe impairment(s). "(b) Basic talk mean Examples include— Physical handling; Capacities speaking; "(3) Understanding, instructions; "(4) Use judgment; "(5) Responding situations; "(6) Dealing asserting "[i]f benefits." disagree, conclusion, assertion, "[i]n today—whether answers negative. long-continued indefinite duration. required." 815-816, 423(c)(2) 223(d)(2)(A) original bill. recommended Senate, deleted floor. restored accepted 51-52 sets Respondent, challenged foresaw ineligible. (1983), substantive 1983 423(d)(2) substitute "widower, husband" "or widower" paragraph. 117. extensive litigation belies fosters efficiency. ante 145, 4. describes indicating unreliable indicator 157-158. drafted encompassing undoubtedly increase reliability, advances neither. Application internally medical-vocational guidelines impose nonexertional restrictions. level, reverse findings. 13-14 (profiling cases). Listing Impairments irrelevant Williamson 150

Category: 1