Opinion ID: 170149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ALJ's Step-Four Analysis.

Text: Step four of the sequential analysis . . . is comprised of three phases. Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1023 (10th Cir.1996). In the first phase, the ALJ must evaluate a claimant's physical and mental residual functional capacity (RFC), . . . and in the second phase, he must determine the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past relevant work. . . . In the final phase, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has the ability to meet the job demands found in phase two despite the mental and/or physical limitations found in phase one. . . .; Henrie v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 13 F.3d 359, 361 (10th Cir.1993). At each of these phases, the ALJ must make specific findings. See Henrie, 13 F.3d at 361. Id. As set forth above, the ALJ evaluated and made specific findings regarding Ms. Bowman's physical residual functional capacity as required at phase one of the step-four analysis, and concluded that Ms. Bowman retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work with limited use of her left hand and occasional stooping. Aplt.App., Vol. II at 22. After noting, for purposes of phase two, that the VE testified that the claimant's past work as a housekeeper, food preparation worker, cashier, fast food worker and hostess are classified in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles as light work activity, id., the ALJ then found at phase three that Ms. Bowman's past relevant work . . . did not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by her residual functional capacity. . . . Id. We agree with Ms. Bowman that the ALJ's step-four analysis was legally deficient. As Ms. Bowman explains in her opening brief: Here, the ALJ found Ms. Bowman to have limited use of her left hand as part of her RFC. (II Aplt.App. at 22). The ALJ also found that Ms. Bowman could perform her past relevant work as a cashier, housekeeper, food preparer, fast food worker, and hostess. Id. However, not only did he fail to address the impact of this relatively vague restriction on Ms. Bowman's ability to perform her past relevant work with the VE (II Aplt.App. 265-72), but the ALJ also failed to make any findings regarding the handling demands of such work in his decision. (II Aplt.App. at 17-23). Further, because he failed to make the necessary findings at phase two, the ALJ was unable and failed to make the necessary function by function comparison between Ms. Bowman's limited use of her left hand and the demands of her past work as required at phase three. (II Aplt.App. at 17-23). Due to these failures, the record lacks the necessary documentation concerning the impact Ms. Bowman's limited use of her left hand would have on her ability to perform her past relevant work (which all require frequent to constant handling of objects); or any evidence supporting the ALJ's finding that Ms. Bowman could perform such work despite that limitation. Aplt. Br. at 18; see also Winfrey, 92 F.3d at 1024-25 (Having failed to complete phase two appropriately, the ALJ was unable to make the necessary findings at phase three about plaintiff's ability to meet the . . . demands of his past relevant work despite his . . . impairments.). As noted by Ms. Bowman, all of her past jobs require frequent or constant handling, which is defined as [s]eizing, holding, grasping, turning, or otherwise working with hand or hands, and, at the very least, this means that she must be able to perform such handling activities from 1/3 to 2/3 of the time during a normal work-day. See EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ADMIN., U.S. DEP'T OF LABOR, SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF OCCUPATIONS DEFINED IN THE REVISED DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES C-3; see also id. at 132 (food assembler, kitchen and housekeeper  DOT Codes 319.484-010 and 323.687-014), 333 (cashier II  DOT Code 211.462-010), 359 (host/hostess  DOT Code 352.667-010), and 365 (fast-foods worker  DOT Code 311.472-010 (this job requires handling constantly (2/3 or more of the time))). [1] After the VE identified the appropriate DOT Codes for Ms. Bowman's prior jobs, the ALJ could have taken administrative notice of this job information, and then asked the VE to give an opinion concerning whether Ms. Bowman's limited use of her left hand would affect her ability to perform the required handling activities. See Winfrey, 92 F.3d at 1025. The ALJ did not pursue such an inquiry, however, and did not otherwise make the necessary findings at phases two and three of the step-four analysis. As a result, we must remand this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings regarding phases two and three of step four and, if necessary, step five.