F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 31 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SUSAN GOODWIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-2032
(D.C. No. CIV-96-1748)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (D. N.M.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Susan Goodwin appeals from an order of the district court affirming the
Commissioner’s decision denying her application for Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) and social security disability benefits. Ms. Goodwin filed for
disability and SSI benefits on December 15, 1993. She alleged disability based
on back problems, back and neck pain, parasthesias involving her extremities,
and impairment of her right hand. The agency denied her applications initially
and on reconsideration.
Ms. Goodwin received a de novo hearing on November 22, 1994, before an
administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ determined that Ms. Goodwin could not
return to her past relevant work but that she retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform the full range of sedentary work. Applying the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, rules 201.18,
201.21 (the grids), he concluded that she was not disabled within the meaning of
the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s
decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
Ms. Goodwin thereafter filed a complaint in the district court seeking
review of the Commissioner’s decision. A magistrate judge recommended that
her complaint be dismissed. The district court, after reviewing the magistrate
judge’s recommendations and her objections thereto, adopted the magistrate
judge’s recommendations and dismissed her complaint.
-2-
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole
and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Andrade v. Secretary
of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1047 (10th Cir. 1993). Substantial
evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Fowler v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 1451, 1453
(10th Cir. 1989) (quotations omitted).
Ms. Goodwin contends that the ALJ’s finding that she can perform the full
range of sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree. To
be considered capable of performing the full range of sedentary work, a claimant
“must be able to remain in a seated position for approximately 6 hours of an
8-hour workday, with a morning break, a lunch period, and an afternoon break
at approximately 2-hour intervals .” SSR 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *6
(emphasis added).
The record contains no medical evidence that Ms. Goodwin can sit for two
hours at a time. A physical therapist concluded that she could sit for only one
hour at a time. He noted that while she sat for a total of sixty minutes, she stood
up after thirty-five minutes, placed both hands on her lower back, and started
crying. Dr. Deming, a consultant, estimated that Ms. Goodwin could sit without
interruption for forty-five minutes to one hour, but only on a good day.
-3-
Where an individual is unable to sit for two hours at a time, she may still be
able to perform work at the sedentary level, if her job allows her to alternate
sitting and standing or walking. See id. , at *7. In such cases, the ALJ should
consult a vocational expert to determine whether there are jobs which the
individual is capable of performing with a sit/stand restriction. See id. Where the
claimant requires a sit/stand option, it is inappropriate for the ALJ to rely on the
grids, and he must consult a vocational expert. See Ragland v. Shalala , 992 F.2d
1056, 1059 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993). The ALJ relied on the grids in this case, and did
not consult a vocational expert. We must therefore reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
Ms. Goodwin raises the following, additional issues: (1) whether the
district court erred in upholding the ALJ’s assessment of her credibility based on
her failure to seek significant ongoing medical treatment; (2) whether the district
court erred in upholding the ALJ’s reliance on her vocational rehabilitation goals;
and (3) whether the district court erred in upholding the ALJ’s failure to consider
her nonexertional limitations. The first two of these issues lack merit. On
remand, however, the ALJ should take into account any nonexertional limitations
posed by Ms. Goodwin’s complaints of headaches and difficulty in using her
hands, to the extent such limitations are supported by the evidence.
-4-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED with instructions to further
remand to the Commissioner for additional proceedings in accordance with this
order and judgment.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-5-