Opinion ID: 152300
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Because she is limited to sedentary work,

Text: it is clear that O’Neal was disabled as of her 50th birthday The conclusion that O’Neal is limited to sedentary work mandates a determination that she was disabled as of her 50th birthday on January 8, 2008. That is because the Medical-Vocational Guidelines provide that a 50-54 year old individual with a high school education, past unskilled work or no transferable skills, who is limited to sedentary work is disabled. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, Rule 201.12 & 201.14. This describes O’Neal as of her 50th birthday. Accordingly, she is entitled to benefits as of that date. On remand, the ALJ shall award those benefits. Our conclusion that O’Neal is limited to sedentary work does not resolve the question whether she was disabled prior to her 50th birthday, and was thus entitled to benefits prior to that date. Under the Guidelines, a woman with O’Neal’s exertional limits, education, and work experience who is younger than 50 is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, Rule 201.27. The Guidelines do not, however, take into account O’Neal’s non-exertional limitations. Whether the combination of O’Neal’s exertional and non-exertional limitations rendered her disabled prior to her 50th birthday is a question the ALJ will be required to answer on remand. Page 8 of 11