Opinion ID: 688361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Medical Vocational Grids

Text: 7 Halper argues on appeal that because his impairment is solely non-exertional, the medical-vocational guidelines in Appendix 2 to 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P (commonly known as the grids), cannot be utilized as a framework in determining disability. 1 Arguments not raised before the district court may not be raised on appeal absent exceptional circumstances. Copeland v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 536, 540 (9th Cir. 1988). 2 Halper has made no showing of exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, we hold that claimant has waived this issue on appeal. 8 Where a claimant suffers both exertional and non-exertional impairments, the grids must be consulted to determine if a finding of disability is warranted based solely on the exertional impairments. If the grids do not direct a conclusion of disability, then the grids are only a framework for determining how much the individual's work capability is further diminished by the nonexertional limitations. Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir. 1989). See also Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1498 (9th Cir. 1984) (grids are a framework for determining disability when nonexertional, environmental limitations restrict claimant's ability to tolerate certain work settings). 3 In such a case, the Secretary is required to call a vocational expert to prove the existence of jobs in the national economy that claimant can perform. DesRosiers, 846 F.2d at 579.