The Dictionary of Occupational Titles includes information about jobs (classified by their exertional and skill requirements) that exist in the national economy. Appendix 2 provides rules using this data reflecting major functional and vocational patterns. We apply these rules in cases where a person is not doing substantial gainful activity and is prevented by a severe medically determinable impairment from doing vocationally relevant past work. (See § 404.1520(h) for an exception to this rule.) The rules in appendix 2 do not cover all possible variations of factors. Also, as we explain in § 200.00 of appendix 2, we do not apply these rules if one of the findings of fact about the person's vocational factors and residual functional capacity is not the same as the corresponding criterion of a rule. In these instances, we give full consideration to all relevant facts in accordance with the definitions and discussions under vocational considerations. However, if the findings of fact made about all factors are the same as the rule, we use that rule to decide whether a person is disabled.
[45 FR 55584, Aug. 20, 1980, as amended at 77 FR 43494, July 25, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “In designating the skill requirements of particular occupations as being "unskilled, semi-skilled, [or] skilled," the SSA also uses the materials (such as the DOT) published by the Department of Labor.”
Noreja v. Comm'r, SSA, 952 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2020).
“Absent a constitutional-level objection, this review is neutral as to the appropriateness of the Appeals Council’s directions.”
Caruso v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 99 F. App'x 376 (3rd Cir. 2004).
· cites it 4× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569 (b). Nonexertional impairments are all other impairments that do not affect a claimant’s ability to meet the strength demands of jobs.”
Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005).
“But at step five the ALJ, using the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a framework, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569 and Pt. 404, Subpart P, App.”
McDonaugh v. Astrue, 672 F. Supp. 2d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
· cites it 2× “) Ultimately, based on Plaintiffs residual capacity, as well as her age and education, the ALJ concluded that the applicable Medical-Vocational Guidelines, set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569 , directed the conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled.”
Tommy J. McClanahan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830 (6th Cir. 2006).
“Based on an exertional capacity for light exertion and the claimant’s age, education, and work history, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569 and 416.969 and Medical-Vocational Guideline Rule 202.”
Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004).
“To reach this conclusion, the ALJ ignored the many additional physical and mental restrictions that he found qualified Allen’s RFC and simply applied the grids for light work-contrary to the pertinent regulations and a large body of circuit precedent precluding use of the grids…”
Brent Jensen v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 436 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2006).
“, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569 (requiring agency to “give full consideration to all relevant facts in accordance with the definitions and discussions under vocational considerations” where the applicability of the rules in Appendix 2 are at issue); see also 65 Fed.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569(D)(2) — 1 case
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569(a) — 5 cases
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569(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.