Opinion ID: 604320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of the Grids

Text: 14 Finally, Bowen challenges the ALJ's use of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (Grids) rather than a vocational expert in reaching a finding of not disabled. In determining whether a disabled claimant can do substantial gainful work, the ALJ may apply the Secretary's medical-vocational guidelines (the grids) in lieu of taking the testimony of a vocational expert, provided the grids accurately describe the claimant's abilities and limitations. Fife v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir.1985). 15 In reaching the conclusion that Bowen was not disabled, the ALJ relied on Grids 201.16 and 201.21, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1501 et. seq., App. 2., and 201.00(g). Id. These Grids provide that 16 Individuals approaching advanced age (age 50-54) may be significantly limited in vocational adaptability if they are restricted to sedentary work. When such individuals have no past work experience or can no longer perform vocationally relevant past work and have no transferable skills, a finding of disabled ordinarily obtains. However, recently completed education which provides for direct entry into sedentary work will preclude such a finding. 17 Id. Specifically, the ALJ concluded that Bowen's recently completed legal education provided him with direct entry into sedentary work. See id. Because we have no quarrel with the application of the Grids, we agree with the ALJ's conclusion that Bowen is not prevented by his age, education, vocational background, or maximum sustained work capacity from performing light and sedentary forms of substantial gainful employment. 18 AFFIRMED.