## Facts

- Alexander Stahovich, Jr. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), alleging disability beginning February 1, 2000, due to “two ruptured discs and depression.”
- Stahovich was born September 13, 1948, had a high school education and an associate degree (environmental technology), and had worked in several jobs, including dishwasher, utility worker, residential counselor, wastewater operator, retail clerk, landscaper, and (according to hearing testimony) gas-station attendant.
- In his written work-history materials, Stahovich did not list gas-station attendant as a prior job.
- At the administrative hearing, Stahovich testified that he worked as a gas-station attendant “for a couple of months a couple of different times,” pumping gas and carrying cash between customers and the cashier, but he did not provide dates for this work.
- The record included medical evidence of chronic back problems and treatment for pain, along with evidence bearing on functional limitations.
- An ALJ first found Stahovich not disabled (May 27, 2004). Stahovich sought judicial review, and the case was remanded so the ALJ could reassess residual functional capacity (RFC) and obtain additional vocational-expert evidence about work Stahovich could perform given his impairments.
- On remand, the ALJ again found Stahovich not disabled, this time denying at Step Four based on a finding that Stahovich could perform past relevant work as a gas-station attendant. The ALJ’s second decision became the Commissioner’s final decision.
- Stahovich filed a new federal action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). The parties filed cross-motions: Stahovich moved to reverse or remand, and the Commissioner moved to affirm.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s Step Four finding that Stahovich’s brief and vaguely dated gas-station work qualified as “past relevant work” for Social Security purposes.
2. Whether the ALJ applied the proper legal standards and adequately developed the record in denying benefits at Step Four after a remand directing renewed RFC and vocational-expert analysis.

## Decision

- The court denied the Commissioner’s motion to affirm.
- The court allowed Stahovich’s motion to reverse or remand to the extent it sought remand.
- The court remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings because the Step Four past-relevant-work finding regarding the gas-station attendant job was not supported by substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A district court reviewing a Social Security decision considers whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence (more than a scintilla and such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate).
- An ALJ may not deny a claim based on past relevant work unless the record supports that the job qualifies as past relevant work under the regulations—generally, work performed within the relevant lookback period, constituting substantial gainful activity, and lasting long enough for the claimant to learn it.
- At Step Four, the analysis requires reliable evidence about the claimant’s RFC and the physical and mental demands of the identified past job; a denial cannot rest on a thin or undeveloped record about the job’s dates, duration, earnings, and duties.
- If the ALJ’s Step Four determination rests on a legally flawed or unsupported past-relevant-work finding, remand is appropriate for further record development and for continuation of the sequential evaluation, including Step Five if Step Four cannot be sustained.

## Conclusion

The court remanded because the ALJ’s Step Four denial depended on treating Stahovich’s sporadic, undated gas-station work as past relevant work without adequate record support for the regulatory requirements and job-demand findings needed to sustain a Step Four decision.


Stahovich v. Astrue, 524 F. Supp. 2d 95 (2007)