Opinion ID: 762156
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: SSR 96-9p

Text: 11 The district court granted Lauer's Rule 59(e) motion on the basis of SSR 96-9p, Determining Capability To Do Other Work--Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of Sedentary Work, 61 Fed.Reg. 34478 (1996). SSRs are interpretive rules intended to offer guidance to agency adjudicators. See Lauer v. Bowen, 818 F.2d 636, 639-40 (7th Cir.1987). While they do not have the force of law or properly promulgated notice and comment regulations, the agency makes SSRs binding on all components of the Social Security Administration. See 20 C.F.R. 402.35(b)(1). The parties do not dispute the application of SSR 96-9p to this case, even though the SSR was not issued until after Lauer's administrative hearing. See Pope v. Shalala, 998 F.2d 473, 483-84 (7th Cir.1993) (applying clarifying regulations retroactively). 12 When ruling on Lauer's Rule 59(e) motion, the district court found that SSR 96-9p mandates a finding of disabled for claimants who are limited to sedentary work who cannot do any stooping regardless of the testimony of a vocational expert. The district court relied on the following language in the SSR: 13 An ability to stoop occasionally; i.e., from very little up to one third of the time, is required in most unskilled sedentary occupations. A complete inability to stoop would significantly erode the unskilled sedentary occupational base and a finding that the individual is disabled would usually apply, but restriction to occasional stooping should, by itself, only minimally erode the unskilled occupational base of sedentary work. Consultation with a vocational resource may be particularly useful for cases where the individual is limited to less than occasional stooping. 14 SSR 96-9p, 61 Fed.Reg. at 34482. 15 On its face, this language does not compel a finding of disability in any of the situations it describes. Rather, it instructs adjudicators to consult with vocational resources when confronted with a claimant who is limited to less than occasional stooping. Lauer argues that the recommendation to consult with a vocational expert applies only to cases when there is a partial ability to stoop, but this interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the ruling. The language less than occasional is an upper limit. It includes both an ability to stoop rarely and no ability to stoop at all. 16 Lauer argues that the SSR's statement that an inability to stoop will significantly erode the unskilled sedentary occupational base constitutes administrative notice that a claimant with that limitation will not be capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the national economy. Lauer argues that similar language in the Social Security regulations has the same meaning and points to 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 201.00(h), which states that [s]ince the inability to perform jobs requiring bilateral manual dexterity significantly compromises the only range of work for which the individual is otherwise qualified (i.e. sedentary), a finding of disabled would be appropriate. Lauer asserts that this language directs a finding of disability, but the only caselaw on point holds that this language is not a mandate, and that appropriate does not mean required. See Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 927 (6th Cir.1990). There is no basis to assert that SSR 96-9p requires a finding of disability in cases where a claimant is unable to stoop. 17