Roditha O. v. Saul

Background

Roditha O. brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows federal-court review of a final Social Security decision. She challenged the denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits. The administrative law judge, Kevin Gill, found that she had severe impairments involving her spine, left shoulder, and left wrist. He determined that she could perform light work with additional restrictions, including lifting and carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, frequent stooping and crawling, and no overhead work on the left non-dominant side.

The administrative law judge found that Roditha O. could not perform her past work as a nurse assistant. At the final step of the disability analysis, however, he found that her skills transferred to work as a companion, an occupation with about 130,000 jobs nationally according to the vocational expert’s testimony. Based on that finding, the administrative law judge concluded that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined review, making the decision final.

The parties’ arguments

Roditha O. argued that relying on transferable skills leading to only one occupation was legally insufficient. She asked the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision and order payment of benefits. The Commissioner agreed that one occupation did not constitute a significant range of work, but argued that further proceedings were needed to determine whether Roditha O.’s skills transferred to two or more additional occupations.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge committed reversible error by treating transferability to the single occupation of companion as enough to establish that Roditha O. was not disabled. Under the Social Security rules governing an individual of advanced age who is limited to light work, cannot perform past relevant work, and has skills that are not readily transferable to a significant range of semi-skilled or skilled work, the rules require a finding of disability.

The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions holding that one occupation cannot constitute a “range” of work and that two occupations also do not constitute a “significant range.” The court noted that the vocational expert identified one occupation but did not testify that companion was the only light-work occupation to which Roditha O.’s skills could transfer.

Remedy and disposition

The court considered whether to order immediate benefits or send the case back for more administrative proceedings. It found that the record had not been fully and fairly developed and did not establish whether Roditha O. could perform a significant range of semi-skilled or skilled work. Further proceedings were therefore necessary to determine whether she was disabled.

The court remanded the case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It ordered entry of a separate judgment in favor of Roditha O., after which the clerk was directed to terminate the case. The court did not order immediate payment of benefits.