Opinion ID: 566676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ssi claim

Text: 8 Regarding plaintiff's Supplemental Security Income claim, we reverse the Secretary's decision and remand for further proceedings. To establish medical eligibility for SSI, plaintiff must show either that he was disabled when he applied for benefits in June 1987, or that he became disabled prior to the Secretary's issuing of the final decision on this claim on March 3, 1989. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.335, 416.330 (1991). Disability may be established by showing that plaintiff is suffering from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to prevent plaintiff from engaging in substantial, gainful employment for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). We agree with the Secretary that substantial evidence existed in the record to support its finding that plaintiff was not physically disabled during this period. Medical evidence from two physicians suggested that plaintiff could perform light or sedentary work; a vocational expert testified in the administrative hearing that a substantial number of such jobs exist in the national economy which plaintiff could physically perform. However, regarding plaintiff's mental impairments during this relevant period, we find fault with the Secretary's determination and therefore remand for further proceedings. 9 In the record, there are two psychological evaluations of plaintiff, one prepared by Dr. Powers and one jointly written by Dr. Smith and Ms. Tyree. Both these reports diagnose plaintiff as suffering from major depression and borderline intellectual functioning during the relevant measuring period for SSI purposes. No other evidence, medical or otherwise, exists in the record to suggest that plaintiff did not suffer from the above-noted mental impairments. 10 As previously discussed, when the Secretary finds that plaintiff can no longer perform his previous work, the Secretary has the burden of showing that plaintiff can perform other substantial gainful employment and that such employment exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (1991). Where the plaintiff has a combination of exertional and nonexertional impairments, as in this case, the Secretary may meet this burden by relying on the favorable testimony of a qualified vocational expert in response to a hypothetical question where the question accurately portrays plaintiff's mental and physical impairments. See Varley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 820 F.2d 777 (6th Cir.1987) (citation omitted). Reviewing the vocational expert's testimony before the ALJ, we cannot say that the Secretary proved the existence of appropriate jobs for plaintiff in the national economy. When asked hypotheticals concerning plaintiff's depression, the vocational expert twice testified that, for a claimant with plaintiff's residual physical capacity who also suffered from severe depression, there would exist no appropriate jobs for such a person in the national economy and accordingly that such a person should be deemed disabled for purposes of SSI benefits. 11 Because of the vocational expert's testimony and the undisputed evidence that plaintiff suffered from major depression, we REVERSE the Secretary's decision denying plaintiff's application for SSI benefits and REMAND for clarification of the question of whether plaintiff's mental impairments were sufficiently severe to warrant a finding that no jobs existed in the economy which plaintiff could perform. The District Court's decision regarding plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits is AFFIRMED.