We are at the point where anyone over 55 and more than 5 years from the last day worked should get approved by the Social Security Admininistration with any severe physical impairment. 20 CFR 404.1562(b) states:
If you are at least 55 years old, have no more than a limited education, and have no past relevant work experience. If you have a severe, medically determinable impairment(s) ( see §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521, and 404.1523), are of advanced age (age 55 or older, see § 404.1563), have a limited education or less ( see § 404.1564), and have no past relevant work experience ( see § 404.1565), we will find you disabled.
Appendix 2, Rule 203.10 describes a person of advanced age, limited or less education, and no relevant work history as presumptively disabled. Rule 203.10 is a a simple restatement of the more general holding in 404.1562(b). Rule 203.10 is redundant.
Let's examine a person over 55 and limited to medium work. As a person over 55 blessed with good health for my age, I can testify that standing/walking for six hours a day while remaining productive is not going to happen. I looked for places to sit going to Disneyland when my children were "at that age." The doctors know this intuitively. When was the last time we saw a medium work restriction with unlimited standing/ walking from a consultative examiner or state agency physician? I have seen unlimited sitting, not often but those opinions do exist. FitBit tells me that sitting continuously is unhealthy.
Let's assume that we have the ordinary array of opinion evidence with a severe physical impairment but not that bad, just limited to medium work with six hours of standing/walking and the ability to frequently engage in postural activities. Sometimes the ALJ will say all of that and sometimes the ALJ will omit the standing/walking limitation -- it is implied. Everyone knows that SSR 83-10 defines medium and light work as six hours of standing/walking. The witness identifies 300,000 jobs. Toast!
No, not toast. Ask the question:
Assume the person can stand/walk for a total of six hours in a day maximum, combined. Can that person perform those jobs?
Alternatively,
Can a person performing those jobs sit down for at least two hours in a workday while performing their duties?
Most of the time with a minimal level of honesty, the witness will say "No, these jobs require over six hours and sometimes all day long." Or something like that. We have the ORS to back that statement up. Eliminate the medium jobs and we are down to light work and the 55-year old claimant grids out. Appendix 2, Rule 202.04.
Under 55? Ask the same questions about light work. There are some light jobs that do not require standing/walking for more than six hours. There are not a lot. Coupled with a non-exertional limitation to simple repetitive tasks and those jobs disappeare. That is unless the witness is John Yent or one of his prodigy.
Failure to ask the six hours question or some version of that question is below the standard of care. Conway v. O'Malley, 96 F.4th 1275, 1278-79 (9th Cir. 2024) states that the presumption that the witness properly assumed six hours of standing/walking in a workday is rebuttable. The presumption arises from the longevity of SSR 83-10. Terry v. Saul, 998 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir. 2024). Terry rejected ORS evidence presented to the Appeals Council. That might be different today in light of SSR 24-3p. Don't roll those dice. Ask the witness and sumbit the ORS data.
Don't fall below the standard of care.
___________________________
Suggested Citation:
Lawrence Rohlfing, It Bears Repeating -- Cross-Examine on the Hours of Standing and/or Walking, California Social Security Attorney (May 22, 2026) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com
The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.