Barnhart v. Thomas
2003 U.S. LEXIS 8348, 124 S. Ct. 376, 540 U.S. 20 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) may determine that a claimant is not disabled if they can perform their previous work, even if that specific previous work no longer exists in significant numbers in the national economy, as the statutory phrase “which exists in the national economy” applies only to “any other kind of substantial gainful work,” not to “previous work.”
Facts:
- Pauline Thomas worked as an elevator operator for six years.
- Her elevator operator job was eliminated in August 1995.
- In June 1996, at age 53, Thomas applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II and Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
- Thomas claimed that she suffered from, and was disabled by, heart disease and cervical and lumbar radiculopathy.
Procedural Posture:
- Pauline Thomas applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income, which was denied initially.
- Thomas's application was denied again on reconsideration by the SSA.
- Thomas requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found she was not under a "disability" because her impairments did not prevent her from performing her past relevant work as an elevator operator.
- The SSA's Appeals Council denied Thomas's request for review of the ALJ's decision.
- Thomas then challenged the ALJ's ruling in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which affirmed the ALJ's decision.
- Thomas appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which, sitting en banc, reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case, holding that the statute unambiguously provides that the ability to perform prior work disqualifies from benefits only if it is "substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy."
- The Social Security Administration (SSA) petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Social Security Act require the Social Security Administration to investigate whether a claimant's previous work exists in significant numbers in the national economy when determining if the claimant is disabled because they are able to perform that previous work?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No, the Social Security Act does not require the SSA to investigate whether a claimant's previous work exists in significant numbers in the national economy when determining disability based on the ability to perform previous work. The Court found the Third Circuit's interpretation disregarded the grammatical “rule of the last antecedent,” which suggests that a limiting clause (like “which exists in the national economy”) ordinarily modifies only the noun or phrase it immediately follows. In this case, that phrase is “any other kind of substantial gainful work,” not “previous work.” The Court deferred to the SSA’s interpretation, applying Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., finding that the statute does not unambiguously require a different interpretation and that the agency's construction is reasonable. The Court acknowledged the SSA’s argument that using a claimant’s capacity to perform previous work as a proxy for their ability to do some work in the national economy is an efficient and effective administrative tool, given the massive volume of disability claims.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle of Chevron deference, allowing administrative agencies substantial latitude in interpreting ambiguous statutes. It clarifies the Social Security Administration's five-step disability evaluation process, specifically at step four, by confirming that the existence of previous work in the national economy is not a prerequisite for denying benefits based on the ability to perform that work. The ruling prioritizes administrative efficiency in handling a vast number of disability claims, even at the cost of potential imprecision in individual cases, underscoring the judiciary's deference to reasonable agency interpretations in complex regulatory schemes.
