Opinion ID: 791178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Grids

Text: 27 As noted, the ALJ found that for the period outside June 1, 1998, to June 1, 1999, Haynes had an RFC subject to various limitations. Specifically, the ALJ determined that Haynes could stand and walk less than what is required of the full range of light work, 1 but could lift more than the weight required of sedentary work. 2 The ALJ also determined that Haynes was subject to various nonexertional restrictions that limited climbing, balancing, stooping, or crawling. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Haynes could perform a significant number of light-level assembly or packing jobs available in the local economy, consistent with the vocational expert's testimony. 28 Haynes does not challenge the ALJ's assessment of his RFC. Instead, Haynes complains that the ALJ did not, based on that RFC, find that he was restricted to sedentary work outside his one-year closed period of disability. Haynes further asserts that the ALJ was required to apply the so-called grids, a series of tables broken into separate rules which classif[y] a claimant as disabled or not disabled, based on the claimant's physical capacity, age, education, and work experience. Walker v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 635, 640 (7th Cir.1987); see also 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 200.00(a) (Where the findings of fact made with respect to a particular individual's vocational factors and residual functional capacity coincide with all of the criteria of a particular rule, the rule directs a conclusion as to whether the individual is or is not disabled.). 29 In this, Haynes seems to take an all-or-nothing approach to the grids and the different exertional levels—a claimant either is or is not capable of the full range of work within a particular exertional level. Haynes argues that, because he cannot perform the full range of light work, he necessarily falls squarely within the sedentary classification, for which he can perform the full range of work. In the grids table corresponding to the sedentary range of work, Haynes's age, education, and vocational factors line up to a decision of disabled. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 201.14. According to Haynes, the ALJ should have applied the grids in this fashion and committed reversible error by not doing so. 30 We disagree. The regulations do not mandate the use of the grids in all circumstances in which a claimant happens to be capable of performing a full range of work at a given minimal level. Rather, the regulations broadly specify that the grids are to be employed and a conclusion directed regarding disability when a claimant's vocational factors and [RFC] coincide with all of the criteria of a particular rule[.] 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 200.00(a) (emphasis added). In such circumstances, an ALJ need only line up the claimant's RFC and vocational factors in the appropriate grid table, and the grid will direct a finding of disabled or not disabled. But when a claimant does not precisely match the criteria set forth in the grids, the grids are not mandated. SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at  (Where one or more of the criteria of a rule are not met, no decision is directed. . . .). 31 This is the precise situation we are presented with here. Haynes's RFC falls somewhere between the light and sedentary exertional levels, and thus he does not match all of the criteria of the rules set forth in the grids. Appendix 2, which contains and discusses the grids, expressly posits just such a case: 32 [A]n individual's ability to engage in substantial gainful work where his or her residual functional capacity falls between the ranges of work indicated in the rules (e.g., the individual who can perform more than light but less than medium work) is decided on the basis of the principles and definitions in the regulations, giving consideration to the rules for specific case situations in this Appendix 2. 33 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 200.00(d) (emphasis added). Thus, Appendix 2 clearly envisions cases like Haynes's, in which the claimant has a hybrid RFC, and does not mandate the use of the grids in such cases. Indeed, if Haynes's interpretation were correct, the quoted language would make no sense, and Appendix 2 would simply direct the ALJ (as Haynes would have it) to shoehorn the claimant into the minimum full range of work that the claimant can perform and apply the appropriate rule in the grids. Instead, the grids and relevant policy statements speak in terms of maximum sustained work capability, so it would flout the purpose of the grids to stop short at the minimum full range of work that a claimant can perform and make a disability determination on that basis. 34 The regulations and relevant caselaw amply provide for situations in which claimants fall between exertional levels, as Haynes does here. In such cases, the ALJ must give consideration to the grids or use them as a framework. See SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at . In addition, consultation with a vocational expert may be helpful or even required. See SSR 83-12, 1983 WL 31253, at ; see also Books v. Chater, 91 F.3d 972, 980-81 (7th Cir.1996) (where the claimant could perform the full range of light work tasks subject to certain sitting and standing restrictions, it was appropriate for the ALJ to procure testimony from a vocational expert and find the claimant not disabled). 35 Haynes's RFC not only does not precisely coincide with a particular full range of work, it also reflects impairments resulting in both exertional and nonexertional limitations. The grids, however, are designed for cases in which claimants are restricted entirely or mostly from exertional or strength limitations. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 200.00(e); see also Fast, 397 F.3d at 471. Such limitations are those that affect a claimant's ability to meet the strength demands of jobs (sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling)[.] 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(b). Nonexertional limitations, on the other hand, relate to such restrictions as climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, or work environment, among others. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c). 36 When determining Haynes's RFC, the ALJ noted a number of physical limitations regarding lifting and standing restrictions. He also found a sizable number of nonexertional limitations, such as climbing, balancing, crawling, kneeling, and exposure to heights, moving machinery, temperature extremes, humidity, fumes, and dust. Therefore, Haynes's RFC indicated a combination of impairments resulting in both exertional and nonexertional restrictions. Appendix 2 and the relevant policy statements specify that in such cases, the ALJ must first determine whether the claimant may be found disabled based solely on strength limitations alone. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 200.00(e)(2). As noted, this was not the case with Haynes, as his RFC fell between the sedentary and light ranges of work, and therefore did not exactly coincide with Rule 201.14 of the grids, contrary to Haynes's assertion. 37 Appendix 2 requires that in such situations the ALJ use the grids as a framework but otherwise must reach a conclusion based on the factors and principles set forth in the regulations. Id. (noting that in cases which cannot wholly be determined under the rules in . . . Appendix 2, full consideration must be given to all of the relevant facts in the case in accordance with the definitions and discussions of each factor in the appropriate sections of the regulations); see also SSR 83-14, 1983 WL 31254, at . Again, the corresponding policy statement recommends consultation with vocational resources to evaluate cases in which a claimant has a combination of exertional and nonexertional limitations. SSR 83-14, 1983 WL 31254, at ; cf. Cummins v. Schweiker, 670 F.2d 81, 84 (7th Cir.1982) (recognizing that in cases where there is a nonexertional impairment [in addition to exertional impairment] the ALJ must go beyond the grid). The policy statement also specifies that if a vocational expert is consulted and the claimant found not disabled, the ALJ's determination must include (1) citations of examples of occupations/jobs the person can do functionally and vocationally and (2) a statement of the incidence of such work in the region in which the individual resides. . . . SSR 83-14, 1983 WL 31254, at . 38 In light of these regulations, policy statements, and our caselaw interpreting same, we reject Haynes's argument that the ALJ was required to apply the grids. The grids were not mandated—Haynes's RFC did not coincide with the full range of either sedentary or light work, and he suffered from a combination of exertional and nonexertional limitations. See Lee v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 789, 793 (7th Cir.1993) ([The grids] are only to be applied when they accurately describe a claimant's abilities and limitations.). The regulations and abundant caselaw clearly indicate that in such situations it is appropriate to consult with a vocational expert, which is precisely what the ALJ did. See Luna v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir.1994) ([T]his court has said that in cases where a non-exertional limitation might substantially reduce a range of work an individual can perform, the ALJ must consult a vocational expert.) (citing Warmoth v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 1109, 1110 (7th Cir.1986)); Lee, 988 F.2d at 793; accord Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir.2000) (When the grids do not completely describe the claimant's abilities and limitations, such as when the claimant has both exertional and nonexertional limitations. . . , the grids are inapplicable and the ALJ must take the testimony of a [vocational expert].). 39 The ALJ appropriately posed a hypothetical question to Utities, the vocational expert who testified at Haynes's hearing. As required, the ALJ's hypothetical question incorporated Haynes's limitations as reflected at length in the record. See Ehrhart v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 969 F.2d 534, 540 (7th Cir.1992). Utities rendered an opinion based on relevant evidence and the factors included in the hypothetical question, which reflected Haynes's age, education, vocational factors, and RFC. On this basis, the ALJ concluded that Haynes could perform work in a significant number of jobs in the regional economy, including bench assembler and wrapper/packager. 40 In reaching his decision, the ALJ provided detailed factual findings consistent with the requirements set forth in the regulations and applicable policy statements. The ALJ also acted in accord with the common-sense rule that where the grids do not address a particular problem, the ALJ is entitled to rely on the . . . testimony of a [vocational expert]. Fast, 397 F.3d at 472. In sum, the ALJ committed no reversible error with regard to the grids.