Introduction

Preslar v. Secretary of Health and Human Services is a landmark case adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on January 21, 1994. The case centers on Walter Preslar, a 61-year-old light truck driver, who appealed the denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. Preslar contended that his medical conditions—hip and back injuries, osteoarthritis, and the late effects of musculoskeletal and connective tissue injuries—rendered him unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. The crux of the case revolved around whether Preslar's truck driving skills were "highly marketable," a key determinant in the eligibility for disability benefits for individuals aged 60-64.

Summary of the Judgment

The District Court initially denied Preslar's motion for summary judgment while granting it in favor of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had concluded that Preslar could perform light truck driving jobs, deeming his skills "highly marketable" based on vocational expert testimony. However, upon appeal, the Sixth Circuit found that the ALJ applied an improper legal standard in evaluating the marketability of Preslar's skills. The appellate court emphasized that "highly marketable" entails more than mere transferability, requiring specialized, unique, or scarce skills that provide a competitive edge in the job market—criteria not sufficiently met in Preslar's case. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for reevaluation under the correct standard.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several pivotal cases that shape the interpretation of disability claims:

• RICHARDSON v. PERALES, 402 U.S. 389 (1971): Established the standard for evaluating disability claims based on medical and vocational evidence.
• Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1981): Clarified the burden of proof on the Secretary to demonstrate non-disability by showcasing transferable skills.
• RENNER v. HECKLER, 786 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986): Distinguished between "highly marketable" and "transferable" skills, emphasizing that the former entails a higher standard.
• TERRY v. SULLIVAN, 903 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1990): Highlighted that "highly marketable" skills require a competitive edge over younger applicants.
• Stone v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F.2d 553 (6th Cir. 1987): Addressed the impact of age on the marketability of skills, reinforcing the need for specialized qualifications.
• Foster v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. 89-CV-40012-FL (E.D.Mich. 1989): Examined the criteria for "highly marketable" skills, focusing on uniqueness and employer demand.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's intent to ensure that disability benefits are appropriately allocated to those truly unable to engage in gainful employment, considering both medical impairments and the labor market dynamics influenced by age and skill specificity.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning pivots on the proper interpretation of "highly marketable" skills within the Social Security regulatory framework. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d), individuals aged 60-64 must demonstrate that their skills are "highly marketable" to adjust to light or sedentary work despite their impairments.

The appellate court delineated that "highly marketable" encompasses more than having transferable skills. It requires that the skills be specialized, unique, or scarce enough to provide a competitive advantage in the job market, effectively offsetting the vocational disadvantages posed by advancing age. In Preslar's case, the vocational expert merely affirmed the existence of numerous light truck driving positions but failed to substantiate the uniqueness or specialized nature of Preslar's skills that would render them "highly marketable."

Furthermore, the court criticized the lower tribunals for relying solely on the vocational expert's testimony without exploring the depth of Preslar's training, education, or the competitive edge his skills might confer. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that an adequate determination of "highly marketable" should involve an analysis of how Preslar's skills stand out in the labor market, especially in comparison to younger applicants.

Impact

The significance of this judgment lies in its stringent clarification of the "highly marketable" standard for older disability claimants. By setting a higher bar for what constitutes highly marketable skills, the Sixth Circuit ensures that only those with genuinely specialized and competitive qualifications can rebut the Secretary's presumption of employability. This decision potentially narrows the scope for older claimants to qualify for disability benefits, emphasizing the need for robust evidence demonstrating the uniqueness and desirability of their skills in the current labor market.

Additionally, the case underscores the necessity for vocational experts to provide comprehensive assessments that go beyond basic skill transferability, delving into the specific attributes that make a claimant's skills stand out amidst a competitive job pool. This precedent may influence future adjudications, prompting more rigorous evaluations of a claimant's vocational qualifications and the labor market's receptivity to those qualifications.

Complex Concepts Simplified

"Highly Marketable" Skills

The term "highly marketable" is pivotal in determining eligibility for disability benefits for individuals aged 60-64. Unlike "transferable" skills, which merely indicate the ability to perform different types of jobs, "highly marketable" implies that the claimant's skills are in high demand, specialized, or scarce enough to offer a competitive advantage in obtaining employment despite age-related disadvantages.

Five-Step Sequential Process

The Social Security Administration employs a five-step process to evaluate disability claims:

1. Assess if the individual is currently working and engaging in substantial gainful activity.
2. Evaluate if the individual’s impairment significantly limits basic work activities.
3. Determine if the impairment meets the severity and duration criteria outlined in the regulations.
4. Review the individual’s residual functional capacity in relation to their past work.
5. Consider if the individual can perform any other work in the national economy, factoring in skills, age, education, and experience.

The burden of proof shifts between the claimant and the Secretary throughout these steps, with the fifth step being crucial for older claimants to demonstrate that their skills are "highly marketable."

Residual Functional Capacity

This refers to an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities despite their impairments. It assesses what the claimant can still do, rather than what they cannot do, forming a basis for determining the types of jobs they might still be capable of performing.

Conclusion

The Preslar v. Secretary of Health and Human Services decision serves as a critical examination of the standards applied in evaluating the marketability of a claimant's skills within the Social Security disability framework. By meticulously redefining "highly marketable," the Sixth Circuit ensures a more rigorous and equitable assessment of older individuals' eligibility for disability benefits. This case reinforces the necessity for detailed and substantiated vocational evaluations, particularly for claimants nearing retirement age, thereby balancing the need to provide support to the disabled while maintaining the integrity of the Social Security system.