Case: 12-13243 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13243
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-00632-DNF
PETER OWENS, II,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 28, 2013)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Peter Owens, II, appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Social
Security Administration’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits,
Case: 12-13243 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 2 of 7
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and supplemental security income, 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3).
On appeal, Owens argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erroneously
concluded that Owens’s nonexertional limitations fell short of significantly
affecting the occupational base, without obtaining the testimony of a vocational
expert (“VE”). He further argues that, at a minimum, the ALJ failed to provide
sufficient reasoning to permit a court to conclude that it conducted the proper legal
analysis. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we vacate and
remand to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the
Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We review the Commissioner’s decision for substantial evidence. Winschel
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). Substantial
evidence is “more than a scintilla” and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. (quotations omitted).
Nevertheless, the failure to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court
with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis has been
conducted mandates reversal. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th
Cir. 1991); see also Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (explaining that, when the ALJ
fails to state with at least some measure of clarity the grounds for his decision, we
will decline to affirm simply because some rationale might have supported the
ALJ’s conclusion).
2
Case: 12-13243 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 3 of 7
The Commissioner uses a five-step, sequential evaluation process to
determine whether a claimant is disabled. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The first
three steps ask whether the claimant (i) is currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity and (ii) has a severe impairment or combination of impairments (iii) that
meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of
Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The fourth step asks
whether, based on an assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity
(“RFC”), the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work. Id. The
RFC is that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by
his or her impairments. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir.
2004). The ALJ must consider all of the evidence in the record in determining the
claimant’s RFC. See id.
The final step asks whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the
national economy that the claimant can perform, given his RFC, age, education,
and work experience. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The Commissioner bears the
burden at step five to show the existence of such jobs. See Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d
1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the ALJ has the obligation to develop a
full and fair record with substantial evidence showing that there are specific jobs in
the national economy that the claimant can perform. Allen v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d
1200, 1201 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1227
3
Case: 12-13243 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 4 of 7
(11th Cir. 2002) (“The ALJ must articulate specific jobs that the claimant is able to
perform, and this finding must be supported by substantial evidence, not mere
intuition or conjecture.”).
There are two avenues by which the ALJ may determine whether a claimant
has the ability to adjust to other work in the national economy: (i) by applying the
20 C.F.R. Part 404 Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the “Grids”); and (ii) by the
use of a VE, an expert on the kinds of jobs an individual can perform based on his
capacity and impairments. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1239-40. Exclusive reliance on
the Grids is inappropriate when the claimant is unable to perform a full range of
work at a given RFC. Id. at 1242. If the ALJ concludes that the claimant cannot
perform a full range or unlimited types of work at the claimant’s RFC given his
exertional limitations, then the ALJ must consult a VE to determine whether there
are sufficient jobs at the claimant’s RFC within the national economy that the
claimant can perform. Id.
If the ALJ concludes that the claimant can perform a full range or unlimited
types of work at the claimant’s RFC despite any exertional limitations, the ALJ
next must determine to what extent the claimant’s nonexertional limitations affect
his ability to secure employment at the claimant’s RFC in the national economy.
Id. at 1242-43. If nonexertional impairments exist, the ALJ may use the Grids as a
framework to evaluate vocational factors, but must also introduce independent
4
Case: 12-13243 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 5 of 7
evidence, preferably through VE testimony, of the existence of jobs in the national
economy that the claimant can perform. Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1227; Wolfe v.
Chater, 86 F.3d 1072, 1077-78 (11th Cir. 1996); see also Marbury v. Sullivan, 957
F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992) (“An ALJ’s conclusion that a claimant’s limitations
do not significantly compromise his basic work skills or are not severe enough to
preclude him from performing a wide range of light work is not supported by
substantial evidence unless there is testimony from a [VE].”); Allen, 880 F.2d at
1201 (“Even a mild mental impairment may prevent a claimant from engaging in
the full range of jobs contemplated by the exertional category for which the
claimant otherwise qualifies.” (quotations and alteration omitted)).
Here, once the ALJ determined that Owens was unable to perform any past
relevant work, the burden shifted to the Commissioner to show the existence of
jobs in the national economy which, given Owens’s impairments, he could
perform. See Jones, 190 F.3d at 1228. The ALJ concluded that, based on his
exertional limitations, Owens retained the residual functional capacity to perform
unskilled medium work and that his nonexertional limitations did not significantly
limit his basic work skills at this level. However, despite the existence of
nonexertional impairments, the ALJ did not introduce independent evidence to
support this conclusion—whether by way of VE testimony or otherwise—
articulating specific jobs in the national economy that Owens can perform, and
5
Case: 12-13243 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 6 of 7
therefore failed to develop a full and fair record with substantial evidence on this
issue. See Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1227; Wolfe, 86 F.3d at 1077-78; Allen, 880 F.2d at
1201.
The ALJ’s next conclusion—that “the additional limitations have little or no
effect on the occupational base of unskilled medium work”—lacks sufficient
clarity to allow a reviewing court to determine that the proper legal analysis was
conducted. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; Cornelius, 936 F.2d at 1145-46. Even
if we assume that the ALJ’s vague reference to “the additional limitations” was
intended to refer to Owens’s nonexertional limitations, there is no indication of
which nonexertional limitations the ALJ considered in making this conclusion.
Nor is there any indication of the reason or reasons why the ALJ arrived at this
conclusion.
The ALJ’s final conclusion likewise lacks adequate reasoning to show that
the proper analysis was conducted. The ALJ concluded, “The claimant’s ability to
understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions, use judgment in making
work-related decisions, respond appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual
work situations, and[] deal with changes in a routine work setting does not
substantially limit the occupational base.” Even if we assume that the ALJ
intended in this sentence to refer to Owens’s limitations—as opposed to his
abilities—the ALJ provided no explanation of how he arrived at this conclusion.
6
Case: 12-13243 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 7 of 7
In sum, the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record with substantial
evidence showing that there are specific jobs in the national economy that Owens
can perform, and to provide sufficiently clear reasoning to show that the proper
legal analysis has been conducted. The magistrate therefore erred when he
affirmed the decision of the ALJ. Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the
district court with instructions to remand the case to the Commissioner for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
7