Barnhart, Soc. Sec. Commissioner v. Thomas, Pauline (11/12/2003)

Questions presented: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not "disabled" within the meaning of the Social Security Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy?

BY LAUREN FITZPATRICK, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Pauline Thomas used to be an elevator operator, one of two in the Jersey City courthouse. As a heart attack survivor, she had to switch from housekeeping to a less physically demanding job in the late 1980s.

By August 1995, Thomas job and the jobs of elevator operators across the nation were eliminated due to the automation of elevators. The then-54-year-old promptly applied for Social Security disability insurance, confident she would qualify for benefits based on her heart condition and related problems.

Instead, Thomas claim was denied.

It was the position of the Social Security Administration that since Thomas was physically able to carry out her previous work as an elevator operator, the elimination of elevator operators didnt matter.

The Social Security Administration defines a disability as a long-term inability to engage in "any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death." It qualifies an individual as disabled "only if his physical impairment is of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy."

Social Security requires each applicant to proceed through a five-step process. A "no" response to any step along the way is an automatic disqualification.

Deemed ineligible after the fourth step which determines whether or not a person can still do their previous work even though that work doesnt exist anymore, Thomas sued for benefits with the help of her attorney, Abraham Alter, who remembers her working in the courthouse during his law school days.

In a 1996 hearing before an administrative law judge, Thomas testified she suffered from cardiac-related conditions, such as irregular heartbeats, high blood pressure, dizziness, and fatigue. She also claimed her lower-back problems and a recently fractured right ankle prevented her from taking any job more strenuous than elevator operator.

The judge affirmed the commissioners denial of benefits, so Thomas challenged the decision in federal court in New Jersey. That court also held that Thomas was not "disabled," as defined in Social Securitys five-step formula, despite her medical problems. According to the district court, Thomas failed Step 4 -- a person who can perform the tasks of a previous job is not disabled -- and had to be disqualified.

Thomas appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, contesting the district courts decision because its numbered steps excluded her claim before considering Step 5: whether or not a persons previous employment still exists in the economy.

The 3rd Circuit reversed, holding that "a claimants previous work must be substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." Furthermore, the court ruled that "a statute should be read to avoid absurd results," such as the denial of benefits to a person who fits the definition of "disability" when all qualifying factors are logically considered.

On behalf of the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Solicitor General petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court claiming the 3rd Circuits decision misconstrues the Social Security Act, conflicts with decisions from four other circuits, and invalidates longstanding Social Security policies.

The government also emphasized that cases like Thomas would "impose additional administrative burdens and costs" on the Social Security program.

"Given today's dynamic and technological economy, job types are becoming obsolete with increasing frequency," the petition said, explaining that in creating the disability program, Congress never supposed that people were suited only for one narrow type of employment.

But Alter, of Rahway, N.J., said he was concerned, if the Supreme Court reverses, about the precedent the case would set for people who already may be intimidated by the Social Security Administration.

"The danger here is detaching the program itself from the people who it was designed to serve," he said. "If the Supreme Court is going to tell us the government can deny benefits at the 4th step because you can do a fictional job, whats that going to tell people [about Social Security]?"

Alter likened Thomas situation to private insurance policies since the 62-year-old, like all working Americans, had been paying Social Security premiums since she began working. Insurance companies cant sell policies whose rules are too stringent, Alter said. But he was quick to point out that Social Security doesnt have to sell premiums. Instead, he said, "they're making you pay into this insurance."

"[The government] says its because of technology [Thomas] cant do her job," Alter continued. "But that's not the case. She has a severe impairment. Once they say that, the absurd result [of being told to do a job that no longer exists] should not apply.""

On Feb. 24, 2003, the Court accepted review in the case.

Eric Schnaufer, a disability lawyer in Evanston, IL, said he believed the decision rested on whether or nor the standard for disability is realistic or theoretical.

"If it's realistic, it'd be unfair to find someone not disabled at Step 4 based on her ability to do a job that does not exist," he said. "If the standard of disability theoretical, the claim of past relevant work need not exist."

"If the claimant gets beyond step 4, the question is whether she can do a number of similar jobs in the economy," Schnaufer explained. "[Thomas] wants the opportunity to go back and prove to the agency that she's disabled at step 5."

On Nov. 12, 2003, in its first opinion of the 2003-04 term, the Court unanimously reversed, siding with the Social Security Administration. Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the SSA's determination that Thomas was not disabled did not require an investigation into whether the work she once did still existed in significant numbers in the national economy.

The Court's decision rested primarily on a grammatical rendering of the law; specifically the "rule of the last antecedent," according to which a limiting clause or phrase (here, the relative clause 'which exists in the national economy') should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows (here, 'any other kind of substantial gainful work')."