Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • 1999

Tackett v. Apfel

180 F.3d 1094 | 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5063 | 99 Daily Journal DAR 6557 | 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13975

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an ALJ may use the disability grids without vocational testimony only when they fully capture the claimant’s limitations; a medically supported need to change position every thirty minutes requires individualized vocational evidence.

Background

Richard Tackett had longstanding, severe degenerative joint disease in both knees. After surgeries on each knee, his condition worsened following a 1991 workplace fall, forcing him to leave his machinist job. A later attempt to work at a hardware store lasted only about a month because of his knee problems. Treating physicians expected that he would eventually need replacement of both knees, and perhaps a hip replacement.

Tackett applied for disability insurance benefits in 1993, alleging disability beginning September 16, 1991. The ALJ found that his knee impairments were severe and prevented him from returning to his prior machinist work. But the ALJ concluded that, before Tackett turned fifty on February 7, 1995, he could perform the full range of sedentary work. Applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, or “grids,” the ALJ denied benefits for the period from September 1991 through February 6, 1995, while awarding benefits beginning on Tackett’s fiftieth birthday.

The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision final. The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirmed. Tackett appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the denial for the pre-age-fifty period.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Tackett’s knee impairment met or medically equaled Listed Impairment 1.03 at step three of the disability analysis.

Holding

No. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Tackett did not meet or equal the listed impairment for arthritis of a major weight-bearing joint.

Reasoning

To meet Listing 1.03, Tackett had to establish every required characteristic, including marked limitation of motion or abnormal motion of the knee. The ALJ’s medical expert concluded that Tackett satisfied the other relevant characteristics, such as persistent pain, deformity, surgery, and markedly limited walking and standing, but could not find clear evidence of the required limitation or abnormality of motion.

The medical record included examining-physician reports that Tackett retained full range of motion in his left knee. That evidence supported the medical expert’s conclusion and therefore supplied substantial evidence for the ALJ’s finding that Tackett did not meet the listing.

Tackett also failed to establish medical equivalence. A general statement that his knee condition caused significant functional problems was not enough; equivalence must rest on medical findings showing symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings equal in severity and duration to the listed criteria. The court further concluded that the ALJ adequately developed and considered the medical record at this stage.

Issue #2

Whether the ALJ could rely exclusively on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at step five rather than obtain vocational-expert testimony.

Holding

No. The ALJ improperly discounted medical evidence that Tackett needed to change positions about every thirty minutes, a significant non-exertional limitation not accurately or completely addressed by the grids.

Reasoning

Once Tackett showed that his severe impairment prevented him from doing his past work, the burden shifted to the Commissioner at step five. The Commissioner could meet that burden either through vocational-expert testimony or through the grids, but the grids alone are valid only when they accurately and completely describe the claimant’s abilities and limitations.

Tackett’s treating physicians and the ALJ’s own medical expert agreed that he could sit only for roughly thirty minutes at a time before needing to shift, stand, or walk to prevent his knees from locking or “gelling.” The medical expert described this as requiring frequent position changes and no prolonged work in a single position.

The ALJ nevertheless found that Tackett could sit through an eight-hour workday with ordinary breaks every two hours. That finding lacked substantial evidentiary support. The ALJ apparently relied on Tackett’s move to California by car, but the record did not show how much Tackett drove, how often or how long he stopped, or whether he sat upright, reclined, or lay down during the trip. A four-day road trip could not displace the consistent medical opinions about his need for frequent position changes.

The need to change position, stand, or walk every thirty minutes significantly restricts the range of sedentary jobs, many of which require sitting for most of the workday. Because this non-exertional limitation was not accounted for by the grids, the ALJ could not mechanically apply them to find Tackett not disabled before age fifty. The ALJ had to obtain vocational-expert testimony concerning the jobs, if any, that Tackett could perform in significant numbers.

On remand, the ALJ also should consider the Veterans Administration psychiatric report concerning Tackett’s post-traumatic stress disorder. The ALJ had mistakenly believed Tackett was already fifty in 1994, although he was forty-nine, and the report could provide relevant evidence of an additional psychological non-exertional limitation.