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 § 416.920(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 43495, July 25, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
538
cases (
348 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Seavey v. Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001).
Seavey v. Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “2d 374, 375 (1st Cir.1982). If the applicant’s limitations are exclusively exertional, then the Commissioner can meet her burden through the use of a chart contained in the Social Security regulations.”
April Dominguez v. Carolyn Colvin, 808 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2015).
“The ALJ determined that Dominguez could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, 20 C.F.R. § 416.969 , including a “full array of unskilled light or sedentary jobs” such as first aid attendant, light office helper, order caller, or marker.”
Igor Zavalin v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015).
“1990); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.969 , 416.966(d)(1). The DOT describes the requirements for each listed occupation, including the necessary General Educational Development (“GED”) levels; that is, “aspects of education (formal and informal) .”
Lindsley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2009).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 416.969 . ALJs are also authorized to consider the testimony of so-called “vocational experts” (VEs) as a source of occupational evidence.”
Margaret Wallschlaeger v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 705 F.2d 191 (7th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “Her main argument on appeal to this court is that no vocational expert testified that jobs similar in their requirements of skill and exertion to the light factory work that she did before she stopped working in 1965 still exist in the national economy and that her disability…”
Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. Astrue, 854 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.P.R. 2012).
· cites it 3× “) In relation to plaintiffs residual functional capacity, when a nonexertional limitation is found to impose no significant restriction on the range of work a claimant is exertionally able to perform, reliance on medical-vocational guidelines, known as the GRID, is appropriate.”
Rivera-Tufiño v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 731 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.P.R. 2010).
· cites it 3× “) In relation to plaintiffs residual functional capacity, when a nonexertional limitation is found to impose no significant restriction on the range of work a claimant is exertionally able to perform, reliance on medical-vocational guidelines, known as the GRID, is appropriate.”
Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 193 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Ohio 2016).
“The ALJ determined that, considering the Plaintiffs age, education, work experience, and residual functional- capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform ( 20 C.F.R. § 416.969 and § 416.969(a)). This…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.969(a) — 2 cases
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.