Court Opinion

ID: 9491314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:10:29.450899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:39.492793
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my view, the ALJ erred by determining that “eye-hand-foot coordination, mathematics, collection of money, use of a radio, and some light maintenance” constitute “skills” under the Social Security Act and by failing to make findings as to whether Fines’ skills are highly marketable. Accordingly, I dissent.
The majority correctly points out that a vocational expert may be used “in determining ... whether .work skills can be used in other work and the specific occupations in which they can be used.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(e). The majority provides no support, however, for the proposition that a vocational expert is capable of determining what qualifies as work skills under the Act.
Fines was fifty-seven-years old at the time of the adverse decision, he had completed the eighth grade, and worked delivering freight *896in the city. At his administrative hearing, Fines described his duties: “I just unloaded trucks in the morning, then I’d load my truck and deliver all day. Then I’d pick up people that were shipping stuff back out, and then I’d unload that into the trucks that were going out on the road. And that’s just what I did basically every day.” (Admin. R. at 33.)
In an attempt to clarify the concepts of “skills” and “transferability of skills” in disability determinations, the Social Security Administration (Administration) issued Social Security Ruling 82-41. (See Appellant’s Addendum at 18.). The Administration defined “sMU” as:
knowledge of a work activity which requires the exercise of significant judgment that goes beyond the carrying out of simple job duties and is acquired through performance of an occupation which is above the unskilled level (requires more than 30 days to learn). It is practical and familiar knowledge of the principles and processes of an art, science or trade, combined with the ability to apply them in practice in a proper and approved manner. This includes activities like making precise measurements, reading blueprints, and setting up and operating complex machinery. A skill gives a person a special advantage over unskilled workers in the labor market.
Id. at 18-19 (emphasis added). “Transferability” is defined as “applying work skills which a person has demonstrated in vocationally relevant past jobs to meet the requirements of other skilled or semiskilled jobs.” Id. at 19. The Administration addressed the determination of whether a job is semiskilled and whether skills are transferable to other jobs, stating:
The regulations!”] definition of semiskilled work in regulations sections 404.1568(b) and 416.968(b) states that semiskilled jobs “may require alertness and close attention ... coordination and dexterity ... as when hands or feet must be moved quickly to do repetitive tasks.” These descriptive terms are not intended, however, to illustrate types of skills, in and of themselves. The terms describe worker traits (aptitudes or abilities) rather than acquired work skills.

Id.

In my view, “eye-hand-foot coordination, mathematics, collection of money, use of a radio, and some light maintenance” are more appropriately classified as aptitudes or abilities.3 Consequently, the ALJ erred as a matter of law and should be reversed.
Even if Fines acquired transferable work skills, the ALJ erred by failing to make findings as to whether Fines’ skills are highly marketable. The regulations state:
[A]dvanced age (55 or over) is the point where age significantly affects a person’s ability to do substantial gainful activity. If you are severely impaired and of advanced age and you cannot do medium work (see § 404.1567(c)), you may not be able to work unless you have skills that can be used in (transferred to) less demanding jobs which exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d). Given the applicability of § 404.1563(d), the disallowance of Fines’ disability benefits can be sustained only upon a finding that Fines’ skills are highly marketable. See Varley v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 820 F.2d 777, 781 (6th Cir.1987) (quoting Tom v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1250, 1256 (7th Cir.1985) (“The language is unmistakably clear. Absent a finding that a claimant who is close to retirement age has acquired skills which are also highly marketable, the regulations do not permit a finding of transferability.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Renner v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam)); see also Emory v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1092, 1094-95 (10th Cir.1991); Pineault v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 848 F.2d 9, 11 (1st Cir.1988) (per curiam)). The ALJ’s failure to make findings with regard to the marketability of Fines’ skills constitutes reversible error.
*897For the reasons stated above, I would reverse.

. While “light maintenance” presents the closest case for a finding of "skill,” the ALJ’s finding that Fines could perform light maintenance is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.