## Facts

- The Social Security Act defines disability as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable impairment and requires an impairment “of such severity” that the claimant cannot do prior work or other substantial work given vocational factors.
- The Secretary of Health and Human Services implemented a five-step sequential disability evaluation process.
- At step two, the “severity regulation” directs a finding of not disabled if the claimant lacks an impairment that significantly limits basic work activities, without considering age, education, or work experience.
- Janet J. Yuckert applied for disability insurance and SSI benefits, alleging inner ear dysfunction, dizziness, headaches, vision-focusing problems, and flatfeet.
- A state agency twice found Yuckert not disabled.
- An ALJ accepted that Yuckert had dizziness and vision problems but found objective testing did not support a severe impairment; the ALJ noted she was taking a computer programming course and driving substantial distances weekly.
- The ALJ denied benefits at step two; the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ decision final.
- The district court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the no-severe-impairment determination.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the Act did not permit denial based solely on a nonseverity finding and required consideration of medical and vocational factors together.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary may deny disability benefits at step two solely because the claimant lacks a “severe” impairment that significantly limits basic work activities.
2. Whether the step-two severity regulation is consistent with 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 423(d)(2)(A).
3. Whether the 1984 disability reform amendments endorsed or disapproved the step-two severity screen.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held the step-two severity regulation is valid on its face and is a permissible construction of the Social Security Act.
- The Court concluded the Act does not require consideration of vocational factors when the claimant has no severe impairment.
- The Court treated step two as a de minimis screening device that identifies claims involving only slight abnormalities with no more than minimal effect on work ability.
- The Court held the statutory scheme places the initial burden on the claimant to show a severe impairment before the agency must proceed to later steps.
- The Court found Congress’s awareness of the sequential process and its decision not to alter the severity standard supported the regulation’s consistency with legislative intent.
- In concurrence, Justice O’Connor agreed the regulation is facially valid but warned it must be applied as a true de minimis test.
- In dissent, Justice Blackmun argued the Act requires combined medical-and-vocational evaluation and that step two impermissibly truncates the statutory inquiry.

## Legal Principles

- The Social Security Administration may use a step-two threshold to deny claims where medically determinable impairments do not significantly limit basic work activities.
- The Act’s reference to an impairment “of such severity” permits an initial medical-only screen before vocational factors are considered.
- The claimant bears the initial burden to produce evidence of an impairment that meaningfully limits work-related functioning; vocational analysis is not triggered absent that showing.
- Courts generally defer to reasonable agency regulations implementing the disability standard, including procedural mechanisms designed to improve administrative efficiency.
- Step two must operate as a de minimis test; only slight abnormalities with no more than minimal effect on work ability may be screened out at that stage.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the step-two “severity” regulation as a lawful, de minimis threshold consistent with the Social Security Act, allowing denial of clearly nonmeritorious claims before vocational factors are considered while placing the initial evidentiary burden on the claimant to show a significant work-related limitation.


Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987)