Grid Rule 202.01: Disability Finding and Non-Exertional Postural Limitations

Direct answer

Rule 202.01 does not apply to the claimant as described, and therefore does not itself "direct" a disabled finding—though the disabled outcome is still reached under the correct rule. Two mismatches prevent application of Rule 202.01:

1. Wrong exertional table. Rule 202.01 belongs to the 202.00 series, which governs claimants whose "maximum sustained work capability [is] limited to light work." [1] A claimant with a sedentary RFC is evaluated under the 201.00 series, not 202.00. [1]

1. Wrong work-experience column. Rule 202.01 requires previous work experience of "Unskilled or none." [16] SVP 5 is semiskilled work, so the claimant falls into the "Skilled or semiskilled—skills not transferable" category, not "Unskilled or none."

The correct sedentary-rule match for this profile is Rule 201.02—advanced age, limited or less education, skilled or semiskilled work with nontransferable skills—which directs a finding of Disabled. [3] If the RFC were light rather than sedentary, the analogous light-rule match would be Rule 202.02, which also directs Disabled. [26]

Regarding the second question: when non-exertional postural limitations erode the full range of sedentary work, the rule no longer "directs" a conclusion under the framework of § 200.00(a), because the RFC finding no longer coincides with the rule's criterion of a full sedentary base. [1] The grid then functions as a framework, and the erosion—if anything—reinforces the disabled outcome.

Analysis

Identifying the correct grid rule

Section 200.00(a) establishes that the rules "reflect the analysis of the various vocational factors (i.e., age, education, and work experience) in combination with the individual's residual functional capacity (used to determine his or her maximum sustained work capability for sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work)." [1] The first step is therefore to classify the claimant by maximum sustained work capability:

• Sedentary RFC → 201.00 series [1]
• Light RFC → 202.00 series [1]

The question presents a sedentary RFC, so the 201.00 table is the operative one. Rule 202.01, by contrast, sits in the light-work table and cannot govern a sedentary claimant. [1], [16]

Matching vocational factors to the correct 201.00 rule

The claimant's vocational profile maps as follows:

Rule 201.02 exactly matches all three: "age: Advanced age; education: Limited or less; previous work experience: Skilled or semiskilled—skills not transferable; decision: Disabled." [3]

Rule 201.01 would govern only if the PRW were "Unskilled or none." [2] Because SVP 5 is semiskilled, 201.01 is inapposite. [2]

If the RFC were light: 202.02, not 202.01

Had the RFC been light rather than sedentary, the correct 202.00-series rule would be 202.02—"age: Advanced age; education: Limited or less; previous work experience: Skilled or semiskilled—skills not transferable; decision: Disabled"—not 202.01. [26] Rule 202.01 applies only to "Unskilled or none" work experience. [16]

Effect of non-exertional postural limitations that erode the full sedentary range

Section 200.00(a) supplies the operative test for whether a rule "directs" a conclusion:

> "Where the findings of fact made with respect to a particular individual's vocational factors and residual functional capacity coincide with all of the criteria of a particular rule, the rule directs a conclusion as to whether the individual is or is not disabled. … Where any one of the findings of fact does not coincide with the corresponding criterion of a rule, the rule does not apply in that particular case and, accordingly, does not direct a conclusion[.]" [1]

A sedentary grid rule presumes the claimant retains the full range of sedentary exertional capacity. Postural limitations that are non-exertional in character but erode that full range mean the RFC finding no longer coincides with the rule's threshold criterion. Under the plain language of § 200.00(a), the rule ceases to "direct" a conclusion. [1]

Practically, however, the directional force of the grid is not lost. The rule serves as a framework for decision-making, and the ALJ must consider whether the erosion leaves a sufficient number of jobs in the reduced occupational base. For an advanced-age claimant with limited education and nontransferable semiskilled skills—who is already directed disabled at full sedentary range under Rule 201.02 [3]—any further erosion of the sedentary base only narrows the already marginal job base and supports, rather than undermines, the disabled finding.

Key points

• Rule 202.01 is a light-work rule, not a sedentary rule; it governs maximum sustained capability limited to light work, and it requires "Unskilled or none" work experience. [1], [16]
• The correct sedentary rule is 201.02, which matches advanced age, limited or less education, and skilled/semiskilled work with nontransferable skills, and directs Disabled. [3]
• SVP 5 is semiskilled, so the work-experience column is "Skilled or semiskilled—skills not transferable," not "Unskilled or none." [3]
• If the RFC were light, the proper rule would be 202.02, also directing Disabled. [26]
• Non-exertional postural limitations that erode the full sedentary range prevent the rule from "directing" a conclusion under § 200.00(a), because the RFC no longer coincides with the rule's criteria. [1] The grid then operates as a framework, and the erosion reinforces—not undercuts—the disabled outcome for this vocational profile.