Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201 (8th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201 (8th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, 2021–2022 · …this court has previously held that an agency's failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion. at p. 1202 ✓
29 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chamberlin v. Saul (mowd, 2022-07-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#15 20 C.F.R. § 422.408 cited 2× in this case · 43 total citations of statute #18 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) cited 1× in this case · 194 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Chamberlin v. Saul
W.D. Mo. · 2022 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
this court has previously held that an agency's failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Holdeman v. Saul (2×)
W.D. Mo. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
this court has previously held that an agency's failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Brill v. Saul
W.D. Mo. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
this court has previously held that an agency's failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armstrong v. Kijakazi
W.D. Mo. · 2022 · confidence medium
See Passmore v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 658, 665-66 (8th Cir. 2008); Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted); Owsley v. Saul, No. 4:18-CV-01328-SRC, 2020 WL 999203 , at *7 (E.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terrell v. Kijakazi
D. Minnesota · 2021 · confidence medium
The ALJ’s decision to disregard § 12.05(B)(1)(a) was improper as “an agency’s failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion.” Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citations omitted). processing speed index of 92, and working memory index of 58.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Saul
E.D. Mo. · 2020 · confidence medium
Frankl v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 935, 937 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Social Security Ruling 83– 10); Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990); Allen v. Sullivan, 977 F.2d 385, 389 (7th Cir.1992)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ortman v. Berryhill
D.S.D. · 2019 · confidence medium
“Social Security Regulations . . . ‘are binding on all components of the Administration.’ ” Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 422.408 )).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wheeler v. Berryhill
D.S.D. · 2017 · confidence medium
“Social Security Administration regulations . . . ‘are binding on all components of the Administration.’ ” Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing 20 CFR § 422.408 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wheeler v. Berryhill
D.S.D. · 2017 · confidence medium
“Social Security Administration regulations . . . ‘are binding on all components of the Administration.’ ” Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing 20 CFR § 422.408 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Downes v. Barnhart
S.D. Iowa · 2003 · confidence medium
In Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990), the Court noted that 20 C.F.R. § 422.408 states that Social Security Rulings are binding on all components of the Administration.
cited Cited as authority (rule) W. Maine Ctr. For Children v. Dep't of Human Servs.
Me. Super. Ct · 2003 · confidence medium
“This court has previously held that an agency's failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion.” Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8" Cir. 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Teverbaugh v. Commissioner of Social Security
E.D. Mich. · 2003 · confidence medium
Arguing that the ALJ committed reversible error, Plaintiff cites Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990), where the court found that the Secretary’s failure to follow its own binding rules, by determining that the claimant could perform light work despite clear evidence to the contrary, was an abuse of discretion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stoglin v. Apfel
S.D. Iowa · 2000 · confidence medium
(Persons who can adjust to any need to vary sitting and standing by doing so at breaks, lunch periods, etc., would still be able to perform a defined range of work.) In Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990), the Court, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.408 , stated that Social Security Rulings are binding on all components of the Administration.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Strong v. Apfel
S.D. Iowa · 2000 · confidence medium
The Ruling states that if a residual functional capacity falls between two rules that direct opposite conclusions, it must be determined whether or not the capacity for the higher exertional capacity is significantly reduced in terms of the regulatory definition. “[I]f the exertional capacity is significantly reduced in terms of the regulatory definition, it could indicate little more than the occupational base for the lower rule and could justify a finding of ‘Disabled.’ ” In Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990), the Court, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.408 , stated that S…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. Callahan
S.D. Iowa · 1997 · confidence medium
See Social Security Ruling 83-10; Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas J. FRANKL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
8th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Social Security Ruling 83-10; Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Calvin R. CARTER, Appellee, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant
8th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Hayden v. Social Security Administration
E.D. Ark. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 83-10, 1983 WL 31251 , at *5–6 (1983).
cited Cited "see" Cheryl J. Schwandt v. Nancy A. Berryhill
8th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 1202 .
discussed Cited "see" Shanti, Inc. v. Reno
D. Minnesota · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990); Suciu v. INS, 755 F.2d 127, 129 (8th Cir.1985) (“certainly agencies of the federal government, once they have laid down procedures by regulation, are bound to follow them”); Moret v. Karn, 746 F.2d 989, 992 (3d Cir.1984); Shepherd v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 652 F.2d 1040 (D.C.Cir.1981).
discussed Cited "see" Connie L. BAKER, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee (2×)
8th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Vega v. Colvin
N.D. Iowa · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (“an agency’s failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion”); Mayo v. Schiltgen, 921 F.2d 177, 179 (8th Cir.1990) (“A court must consider the agency’s rationale for its decision, and if that rationale is inadequate or improper the court must reverse and remand for the agency to consider whether to pursue a new rationale for its decision or perhaps to change its decision.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bailey v. Colvin
S.D. Iowa · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990)(“... an agency’s failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion.” citing City of Sioux City v. Western Area Power Admin., 793 F.2d 181 , 182 (8th Cir.1986). , The aforementioned SSR and 20 C.F.R. § 416.930 (c) list examples of acceptable reasons for failure to follow prescribed treatment.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Charles E. HAJEK, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, U.S. Department of Labor (1981). 20 C.F.R. § 404 .-1567(e) states that “[mjedium work involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds.” Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-10 elaborates on this definition as follows: “A full range of medium work requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours in an 8-hour workday in order to meet the requirements of frequent lifting or carrying objects weighing up to …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
30 soc.sec.rep.ser. 580, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15588a Calvin R. Carter
v.
Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services
89-5503.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 31, 1990.
909 F.2d 1201
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

909 F.2d 1201

30 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 580, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15588A
Calvin R. CARTER, Appellant,
v.
Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of the United States Department
of Health and Human Services, Appellee.

No. 89-5503.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 1990.
Decided July 31, 1990.

John H. Burns, Marshall, Minn., for appellant.

Donna L. Calvert, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, TIMBERS,[*] Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

[*~1201]1

Calvin Carter appeals the denial of his claim for Social Security disability benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 401-433 (1988). Carter worked for over twenty-five years selling farm equipment parts in an implement dealership in Minnesota. In 1986 he suffered a heart attack and underwent double artery by-pass surgery. After surgery, he could no longer perform the heavy lifting required at his past job. Nevertheless, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Carter could return to his past job as generally performed in the national economy. The ALJ based this conclusion on the testimony of a vocational expert, who stated that Carter's job fit the category "salesperson/parts" as described in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles published by the Department of Labor. The dictionary describes this work as "light", and the ALJ determined Carter could perform "light" work. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision, and the district court upheld the Secretary's final determination that Carter was not disabled.

2

On appeal Carter argues that the Secretary failed to follow its own regulations in finding him not disabled.[1] The regulations define "light" work as follows:

3

Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing * * *.

4

20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1567(b) (1990). The Secretary further interpreted the walking and standing requirement for "light" work in Social Security Ruling 83-10 (SSR 83-10): "[T]he full range of light work requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday."

[*1202]5

In this case it is undisputed that Carter can meet the lifting requirements for light work but not the standing or walking requirements. Thus, the Secretary did not follow SSR 83-10 in determining that Carter could return to the job "salesperson/parts." According to Social Security Administration regulations, "Social Security Rulings * * * are binding on all components of the Administration." 20 C.F.R. Sec. 422.408 (1990). This court has previously held that an agency's failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion. City of Sioux City v. Western Area Power Admin., 793 F.2d 181, 182 (8th Cir.1986); cf. Suciu v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 755 F.2d 127, 129 (8th Cir.1985) (federal agencies are bound to follow their regulations).

6

In this case the Secretary's failure to follow its own regulations is beyond any question. There is no dispute that Carter cannot meet the requirements of light work as defined in SSR 83-10, and there can be no dispute that SSR 83-10 is binding on the Secretary.[2] See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 422.408. The Secretary's failure to consider its own ruling constitutes a plain abuse of discretion.

7

We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand to the Secretary for a determination whether Carter has the residual functional capacity to perform any other substantial gainful activity, as prescribed in the Social Security Act.

*

The HONORABLE WILLIAM H. TIMBERS, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation

1

He also challenges the conclusion that his job fit the category "salesperson/parts." Our disposition of the first issue makes it unnecessary to reach this second one

2

The Secretary asserts that the formal definition of "light" work is irrelevant in this case because the ALJ did not in fact rely on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles category to determine Carter could return to his past work as performed in the national economy. Rather, the Secretary argues, the ALJ relied on the Vocational Expert's independent evaluation of Carter's limitations and the demands of his job in the national economy. The Vocational Expert stated, however, that the sole basis for her opinion was her reading of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. In relying on the vocational witness, therefore, the ALJ as a matter of law was simply relying on the dictionary. As we have said, SSR 83-10 binds interpretation of the exertional requirements of the job categories set for in the dictionary