20 C.F.R. § 404.1562
Medical-vocational profiles showing an inability to make an adjustment to other work
(a) If you have done only arduous unskilled physical labor. If you have no more than a marginal education (see § 404.1564) and work experience of 35 years or more during which you did only arduous unskilled physical labor, and you are not working and are no longer able to do this kind of work because of a severe impairment(s) (see §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521, and 404.1523), we will consider you unable to do lighter work, and therefore, disabled.
(b) If you are at least 55 years old, have no more than a limited education, and have no past relevant work experience. If you have a severe, medically determinable impairment(s) (see §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521, and 404.1523), are of advanced age (age 55 or older, see § 404.1563), have a limited education or less (see § 404.1564), and have no past relevant work experience (see § 404.1565), we will find you disabled. If the evidence shows that you meet this profile, we will not need to assess your residual functional capacity or consider the rules in appendix 2 to this subpart.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Johnny Parks v. Social Security Administration
Johnny Parks v. Social Security Administration (2011)
“He argues that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by sufficient evidence because the ALJ (1) rejected the opinions of two treating sources without providing good reasons for doing so; (2) made no reference to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 , which directs a finding of disability if a…”
Hudson-Kane v. Berryhill (2017)
“The claimant subsequently changed age category to closely approaching retirement age (20 CFR 404.1562 and 416.963). 8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able -to com- ’ municate in English (20 CFR 404.”
Maynor v. Heckler (1984)
“1520 (f)(2) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 ; 2. The Secretary’s decision erroneously finds plaintiff capable of performing light work; 3.”
Leo MITCHELL, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (1994)
“” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1562 , 416.962 (1993). As we see it, however, the ALJ in effect did apply the “worn-out worker rule” when he applied the Medical/Vocational Guidelines (the Grid), 20 C.”
Jack Walston v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1992)
“On Walston’s request for review, the Appeals Council vacated the hearing decision and remanded the claim to the AU for a determination of whether Walston was entitled to benefits under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 . That regulation states: If you have only a marginal education and work…”
John R. SMITH, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (1995)
“I Smith’s first argument is that he qualifies as a worn-out worker under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 . That rule in pertinent part provides that “[i]f you have only a marginal education and work experience of 35 years [at] arduous unskilled physical labor, and you are .”
Leo Mitchell v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (1995)
“’ ” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1562 , 416.962. He offers the following explanation for his delay in submitting the evidence: the evaluation did not exist at the time of the administrative hearing; he was not represented by counsel at the hearing; and he was unable to recognize the…”
Elke STEAHR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee (1998)
“It further found that the ALJ had failed to permit Steahr to develop the issue of whether she was eligible for benefits under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 , which provides that persons with a marginal education who have engaged in arduous, unskilled labor for thirty-five years and are…”
Knepp v. Comm Social Security (2000)
“20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 (1999). In rejecting the testimony of Dr.”
Newsome v. Commissioner of Social Security (2007)
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 (a) (“If you have no more than a marginal education [which is less than a limited education] .”
Stewart v. Heckler (1984)
“” Plaintiff makes three arguments: (1) that the AU improperly applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines; (2) that the AU erred in refusing to admit evidence under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 , which permits a finding of disability if a severely impaired claimant has only a marginal…”
Montgomery v. Schweiker (1981)
“1512 (1980), now codified as 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562 (1981). In that the plaintiff would seem to be entitled to consideration under that section, the ALJ should, on remand, consider whether plaintiff qualifies as disabled under that section.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562(a) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.