Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 18-14669 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-01913-DNF
CARETTA KNIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________
(September 3, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 2 of 9
Caretta Knight appeals the district court’s order affirming the final decision
of the Social Security Commissioner denying her application for disability and
supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. Knight argues on appeal that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in assessing her educational level by
(1) stating in his written decision that she had a high school education, and
(2) finding that she had a ninth-grade, or limited, education, rather than a marginal
education. For the following reasons, we affirm the denial of benefits.
I.
Knight applied for disability and SSI benefits in June 2014, alleging a
disability onset date of March 21, 2013, due to various medical ailments. Knight
answered “9th grade” when asked to select “the highest grade of school
completed.” She also answered “no” to a question asking if she had attended
special education classes.
On September 12, 2016, the ALJ held a disability hearing, at which Knight
was represented by counsel. At the hearing, Knight testified that she “finished the
ninth grade,” and had attended a few months of tenth grade, but that she often had
issues with comprehension and understanding her teacher. She also testified that
she was in special-education classes.1 At the hearing, the vocational expert (“VE”)
1 After the hearing, Knight submitted her academic records. These records did not reflect enrollment in special education classes. 2 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 3 of 9
testified that Knight had a ninth-grade education. He also testified about jobs that
existed in the national economy that a person like Knight could perform
considering Knight’s age, education, and work experience, and certain hypothetical
limitations. The limitations were that Knight could work at a sedentary level, with
such work restricted to only occasionally being able to climb and only performing
unskilled work with a specific vocational preparation (“SVP”) level of 1 or 2 that
entailed no more than simple, routine, repetitive tasks.
The ALJ denied disability and SSI benefits in his October 11, 2016,
decision. After carefully considering the entire record, the ALJ found that despite
some impairments Knight had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a), 2 and could perform unskilled
work with an SVP level 1 or 2. The ALJ found that Knight was able to perform
only simple, routine, repetitive tasks, and in making that finding, the ALJ noted
that Knight was “a 48-year-old female, with a ninth-grade education.” Later in the
decision, however, the ALJ concluded that Knight had “at least a high school
education.”
2 “(a) Sedentary work. Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a). 3 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 4 of 9
The ALJ concluded that, considering Knight’s age, education, work
experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the
national economy that she could perform. In making this finding, the ALJ recalled
that the VE testified that Knight would be able to perform the occupational
requirements of, for example, an order clerk for food and beverage, a microfilm
document preparer, or an addresser. The ALJ determined that the VE’s testimony
was consistent with the information contained in the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles. Based on the VE’s testimony, the ALJ concluded that Knight was “capable
of making a successful adjustment to other work that exist[ed] in significant
numbers in the national economy.” The ALJ therefore found that Knight was not
disabled. On June 14, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Knight’s request for
review.
Knight then challenged the ALJ’s decision before the district court and
consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. In a memorandum opinion and
order, the magistrate judge affirmed the decision that Knight was not disabled. As
relevant to this appeal, the magistrate judge acknowledged that the ALJ’s
numbered finding that Knight had “at least a high school education” was incorrect,
but found that the mistake appeared to be “typographical given the ALJ’s
acknowledgement in the body of the decision that [Knight] had a ninth grade
education” so the error was harmless.
4 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 5 of 9
Knight appealed to this Court, asserting that the ALJ erred in assessing her
educational level. She alleges that there is not substantial evidence to support a
finding that she has a ninth-grade education versus a marginal education. She asks
us to reverse and remand the ALJ’s decision with directions to the Commissioner
to determine her functional grade level, and, if that level is different than her
numerical grade level, to take additional vocational testimony.
II.
We review the Commissioner’s legal conclusions de novo and we review
factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007).
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Winschel v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks
omitted). An erroneous statement of fact by the ALJ is harmless error where the
error does not affect the outcome of the proceedings. Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d
726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983).
In determining whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits, an ALJ
engages in a five-step process.3 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). In
3 The ALJ first determines whether the claimant is currently working. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(a), 416.964(a).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 18-14669 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-01913-DNF
CARETTA KNIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________
(September 3, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 2 of 9
Caretta Knight appeals the district court’s order affirming the final decision
of the Social Security Commissioner denying her application for disability and
supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. Knight argues on appeal that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in assessing her educational level by
(1) stating in his written decision that she had a high school education, and
(2) finding that she had a ninth-grade, or limited, education, rather than a marginal
education. For the following reasons, we affirm the denial of benefits.
I.
Knight applied for disability and SSI benefits in June 2014, alleging a
disability onset date of March 21, 2013, due to various medical ailments. Knight
answered “9th grade” when asked to select “the highest grade of school
completed.” She also answered “no” to a question asking if she had attended
special education classes.
On September 12, 2016, the ALJ held a disability hearing, at which Knight
was represented by counsel. At the hearing, Knight testified that she “finished the
ninth grade,” and had attended a few months of tenth grade, but that she often had
issues with comprehension and understanding her teacher. She also testified that
she was in special-education classes.1 At the hearing, the vocational expert (“VE”)
1 After the hearing, Knight submitted her academic records. These records did not reflect enrollment in special education classes. 2 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 3 of 9
testified that Knight had a ninth-grade education. He also testified about jobs that
existed in the national economy that a person like Knight could perform
considering Knight’s age, education, and work experience, and certain hypothetical
limitations. The limitations were that Knight could work at a sedentary level, with
such work restricted to only occasionally being able to climb and only performing
unskilled work with a specific vocational preparation (“SVP”) level of 1 or 2 that
entailed no more than simple, routine, repetitive tasks.
The ALJ denied disability and SSI benefits in his October 11, 2016,
decision. After carefully considering the entire record, the ALJ found that despite
some impairments Knight had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a), 2 and could perform unskilled
work with an SVP level 1 or 2. The ALJ found that Knight was able to perform
only simple, routine, repetitive tasks, and in making that finding, the ALJ noted
that Knight was “a 48-year-old female, with a ninth-grade education.” Later in the
decision, however, the ALJ concluded that Knight had “at least a high school
education.”
2 “(a) Sedentary work. Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a). 3 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 4 of 9
The ALJ concluded that, considering Knight’s age, education, work
experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the
national economy that she could perform. In making this finding, the ALJ recalled
that the VE testified that Knight would be able to perform the occupational
requirements of, for example, an order clerk for food and beverage, a microfilm
document preparer, or an addresser. The ALJ determined that the VE’s testimony
was consistent with the information contained in the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles. Based on the VE’s testimony, the ALJ concluded that Knight was “capable
of making a successful adjustment to other work that exist[ed] in significant
numbers in the national economy.” The ALJ therefore found that Knight was not
disabled. On June 14, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Knight’s request for
review.
Knight then challenged the ALJ’s decision before the district court and
consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. In a memorandum opinion and
order, the magistrate judge affirmed the decision that Knight was not disabled. As
relevant to this appeal, the magistrate judge acknowledged that the ALJ’s
numbered finding that Knight had “at least a high school education” was incorrect,
but found that the mistake appeared to be “typographical given the ALJ’s
acknowledgement in the body of the decision that [Knight] had a ninth grade
education” so the error was harmless.
4 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 5 of 9
Knight appealed to this Court, asserting that the ALJ erred in assessing her
educational level. She alleges that there is not substantial evidence to support a
finding that she has a ninth-grade education versus a marginal education. She asks
us to reverse and remand the ALJ’s decision with directions to the Commissioner
to determine her functional grade level, and, if that level is different than her
numerical grade level, to take additional vocational testimony.
II.
We review the Commissioner’s legal conclusions de novo and we review
factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007).
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Winschel v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks
omitted). An erroneous statement of fact by the ALJ is harmless error where the
error does not affect the outcome of the proceedings. Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d
726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983).
In determining whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits, an ALJ
engages in a five-step process.3 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). In
3 The ALJ first determines whether the claimant is currently working. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(a), 416.964(a). If she is not currently working, then step two asks whether she has “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets” certain duration requirements 5 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 6 of 9
the fifth step, the only one at issue here, the ALJ must determine whether—
considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work
experience—she can adjust to other work. Id. A claimant’s education means her
“formal schooling or other training that contributes to” her ability to meet
vocational requirements such as reasoning ability, communication skills, and
arithmetical ability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(a), 416.964(a). A claimant’s formal
education that she completed many years before her impairment began, or unused
skills and knowledge that she gained from her formal education, may not
meaningfully contribute to her ability to work. Id. Accordingly, the numerical
grade level that a claimant completed may not represent her actual educational
abilities, which may be higher or lower. Id. Nonetheless, the SSA will use a
claimant’s numerical grade level to determine her educational abilities where there
is no other evidence to contradict it. Id.
The SSA has established several categories to assist in evaluating a
claimant’s educational level. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(b), 416.964(b). Relevant to
this appeal, a claimant has a “marginal education” if she has an ability in
“or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement.” Id. If she does have such an impairment, the ALJ proceeds to step three, which asks whether the impairment meets certain severity requirements. Id. If the impairment is sufficiently severe, then the ALJ must determine, in step four, whether the claimant possesses sufficient RFC to continue doing her past relevant work. Id. Finally, if the claimant does not possess the RFC to do her past relevant work, step five requires the ALJ to determine whether—considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience—she can adjust to other work. Id.
6 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 7 of 9
reasoning, arithmetic, and language skills that allow her to perform simple,
unskilled jobs. Id. §§ 404.1564(b)(2), 416.964(b)(2). Generally, the SSA
considers formal schooling at a sixth-grade level or less as marginal education,
which is needed to do “simple unskilled types of jobs.” Id. In contrast, a claimant
has a “limited education” if she has an ability in reasoning, arithmetic, and
language skills, but not such that would permit her to perform most of the more
“complex job duties needed in semi-skilled or skilled jobs.” Id. §§ 404.1564(b)(3),
416.964(b)(3). The SSA generally considers formal schooling at the seventh-grade
through eleventh-grade levels as a limited education. Id.
At the fifth step of the sequential analysis, the burden shifts to the
Commissioner to determine whether there is other work available “in significant
numbers in the national economy that the claimant could perform in spite of his
impairments.” 4 Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th
Cir. 2018). If such jobs exist, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g)(1); id. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g)(1). While the
Commissioner may prove the existence of jobs that the claimant can perform
through VE testimony, in order for the ALJ to rely on the VE’s testimony
regarding hypothetical jobs that the claimant could perform, the ALJ must pose a
4 The claimant bears the burden in the first four steps of the analysis. Washington, 906 F.3d at 1359. 7 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 8 of 9
hypothetical that adequately describes the claimant’s impairments and accurately
references her educational level, age, work skills, and experience. See Pendley v.
Heckler, 767 F.2d 1561, 1562–63 (11th Cir. 1985).
III.
Here, our affirmance is appropriate for several reasons. First, the ALJ’s
statement in his written decision that Knight had “at least a high school education”
is harmless error. See Diorio, 721 F.2d at 728. As Knight acknowledges in her
brief, the statement is contradicted elsewhere in the decision. Second, substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Knight had a ninth-grade education:
(1) her July 2014 disability report states that she completed the ninth grade and did
not attend special-education courses; (2) she testified that she had completed the
ninth grade and attended some of the tenth grade; (3) although Knight testified that
she had been in special-education classes her school records do not indicate that
she took special-education courses; and (4) her school records do not otherwise
indicate that she functioned significantly below grade level. Lastly, even if
Knight’s school records had indicated that she had only a marginal education, the
VE identified only unskilled jobs for which a marginal education is sufficient. See
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(b)(2), 416.964(b)(2). Thus, any error the ALJ may have
committed in finding that Knight had a limited education—instead of a marginal
8 Case: 18-14669 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 Page: 9 of 9
education—was harmless. See Diorio, 721 F.2d at 728. Accordingly, we affirm
the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
AFFIRMED.