Jack W. INGLE, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 763 F.2d 169 (4th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Jack W. INGLE, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 763 F.2d 169 (4th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: WILLARD v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER (med, 2021-08-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) WILLARD v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER
D. Me. · 2021 · confidence medium
The Court held that assuming recordkeeping qualifies as a skill, remand was required v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 169, 170 (4th Cir. 1985) (affirming district court order finding recordkeeping a skill, among others, that could transfer to other work); Johnson v. Berryhill, 679 F. App’x 682, 688 (10th Cir. 2017) (recordkeeping skill, along with customer service, typing, and computer skills, was transferable); McDermott v. Astrue, 387 Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) RESPER v. BERRYHILL
M.D.N.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
Thus, “[w]orker traits to be relevant must have been used in connection with a work activity,” and “the acquired capacity to perform the work activities with facility (rather than the traits themselves) gives rise to potentially transferable skills.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Draegert v. Barnhart, 311 F.3d 468, 476 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting that “generalized abilities . . . not linked to any particular tasks[] are merely traits or aptitudes, not job skills” (emphasis added)); Anglin v. Massanari, 18 F. App’x 551, 553 (9th Cir. 2001) (defining trait as “an inclination, a natur…
cited Cited as authority (rule) PICKETT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
D.N.J. · 2020 · confidence medium
Aug. 6, 2009) (citing Inge v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 169, 170 (4th Cir. 1985)) (additional citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Linda S. Wayland v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 1
10th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 517-18 (10th Cir.1987); Paulson v. Bowen, 836 F.2d 1249, 1251-52 (9th Cir.1988); Ingle v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 169, 170 (4th Cir.1985); Richardson v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 735 F.2d 962, 964 (6th Cir.1984). 8 Accordingly, we hold that the ALJ's decision does not properly or adequately account for plaintiff's acknowledged mental impairments.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clyde Clemmons v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
The vocational expert's testimony, supported as it is by the record, was sufficient to support a finding of transferable skills, see Ingle v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 169, 170 (4th Cir.1985), and likewise substantially supports the Secretary's finding of alternative available employment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clayton Carlson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
6th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Therefore, this case highly resembles Ingle v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 169, 170 (4th Cir. 1985), where the court held that where the vocational expert lists both aptitudes and skills, such as use of machines and tools, there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary's finding of transferable skills.
discussed Cited "see" Wyrick v. Apfel
M.D.N.C. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ingle v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 169, 170 (4th Cir.1985) (abilities identified by vocational expert such as record keeping, use of firefighting machinery and tools, and responding to emergency situations were transferable skills); Clemmons v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 186 , 1988 WL 86657 (4th Cir.1988) (unpublished opinion) (skills acquired as a maintenance supervisor were transferable to clerk positions at the light and sedentary level).
discussed Cited "see" Virginia Wilkerson v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
10th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ingle v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 169, 170 (4th Cir.1985). 22 A "skill" is defined 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)...." S.S.R. 82-41 (West's Soc.Sec.Rptg.Serv.Admin.Rulings 1975-82 (1983)) at 848.
discussed Cited "see" Charles E. Sicca v. Otis R. Bowen, Department of Health and Human Services
4th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ingle v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 169, 170 (4th Cir.1985). 10 The vocational expert also testified regarding jobs for which Sicca is suited that exist in significant numbers in the area in which Sicca lives.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
10 soc.sec.rep.ser. 38, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 16,124 Jack W. Ingle
v.
Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health & Human Services
84-1886.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 5, 1985.
763 F.2d 169
Julie A. Waltz, Asheville, N.C., for appellant., Clifford C. Marshall, Asst. U.S. Atty., Asheville, N.C. (Charles R. Brewer, U.S. Atty., Asheville, N.C., on brief), for appellee.
Sprouse, Wilkinson, Butzner.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Jack W. Ingle appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Ingle sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405 of the Secretary’s final decision denying his claim for disability. The district court found that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Ingle raises only one issue on appeal, whether the Secretary properly determined that he had sufficient transferable skills so that his impairments would not prevent him from performing other work. Ingle contends that a proper application of the skill requirements, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568 (1984), would result in a finding that he had no transferable skills, and he would be entitled to an affirmative finding of disability based on the residual functional capacity tables. Compare 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table No. 1, Rule 201.06 with Rule 201.07.

After a remand to the administrative law judge by the Social Security Appeals Council, Ingle’s skills were evaluated by a vocational expert who testified at the administrative hearing. Before the district court, Ingle argued that the vocational expert incorrectly categorized some of Ingle's abilities as “skills.” The district court agreed that basic abilities to read, write and count are not skills within the meaning of the Social Security Act. These abilities were not acquired through work experience or through education providing for direct entry into skilled work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d). See also Weaver v. Secretary of HHS, 722 F.2d 310, 311-12 (6th Cir.1983) (dexterity, coordination and other natural talents are not specific job skills); Blake v. Secretary of HHS, 528 F.Supp. 881, 885 (E.D.Mich.1981) (distinguishing “basic work activities” or aptitudes from skills).

Notwithstanding the overbroad classification of Ingle’s abilities, the district court found that other abilities identified by the vocational expert, such as record keeping, use of firefighting machinery and tools, and responding to emergency situations, were skills that the Secretary properly could find to be transferable to other work.

Having considered the entire record, including Ingle’s vocational report and the testimony of the vocational expert, we agree with the district court that the Secretary’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and that Ingle’s skills and impairments were evaluated according to the correct legal standards. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.