Christina Saccomano v. Andrew Saul

Background

Christina Saccomano sought Social Security Disability Insurance benefits based primarily on neck and shoulder problems, cervical-spine conditions, right-arm radiculopathy, and limitations affecting her right hand. She alleged that her disability began on October 8, 2013, when she stopped working as a produce clerk. The Commissioner initially denied her application and denied reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Robert Freedman found that Saccomano was not disabled and could perform light work, with occasional climbing of ladders, ropes, and scaffolds and occasional lateral and overhead reaching with her dominant right upper extremity.

The administrative law judge relied on testimony from vocational expert Ronald W. Morrell, who identified small-products assembler, production-assembler, and bench-assembler jobs. The judge accepted Morrell’s testimony that those jobs required only occasional reaching, even though the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and its companion publication described reaching requirements as frequent.

Issues and Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge improperly discounted the opinion of Saccomano’s treating physician, Dr. Gang Li. Because Dr. Li’s opinion was contradicted by other medical opinions, the judge needed to give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting it. The court found that the reasons given were specific but not legitimate. In particular, the judge mischaracterized Dr. Li’s opinion by focusing on one day of treatment notes, failed to account for other evidence supporting the opinion, and did not provide sufficiently specific interpretations explaining why the other doctors’ views were more persuasive.

The court also held that the judge failed to give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Saccomano’s testimony about pain, medication side effects, and functional limitations. The court found that her reported activities—including restorative yoga, limited dog walking, household chores, shopping, cooking, and short drives—did not establish that she could perform full-time work or contradict her testimony when the accommodations and rest periods were considered. The court further found that the judge improperly relied on a lack of objective medical evidence, selectively described the imaging and medical opinions, and incorrectly characterized Saccomano’s treatment as conservative and her medication as resolving her pain.

The court separately found error in the step-five analysis, which is the stage at which the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Morrell acknowledged that his reaching testimony differed from the occupational descriptions. The court held that his past personal observations, made three or four years earlier and not documented in a report, were not persuasive evidence supporting that departure. The court also found that the judge’s hypotheticals did not include limitations supported by Saccomano’s testimony and Dr. Li’s opinion, including time off-task, missed work, unscheduled breaks, medication side effects, and manipulation difficulties. Because the vocational expert testified that there would be no jobs for a person with certain of those limitations, the court concluded that the errors were not harmless.

Remedy and Disposition

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s credit-as-true rule, which can require an immediate benefits award when the administrative law judge rejected evidence for legally insufficient reasons, no unresolved issues require further proceedings, and the record leaves no serious doubt about disability. The court found those conditions satisfied. It stated that Dr. Li consistently identified disabling limitations, other doctors’ diagnoses supported his opinion, the vocational expert testified that the credited limitations would prevent full-time work, and the record did not contain serious doubt about Saccomano’s disability.

The court therefore granted Saccomano’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for an award of benefits consistent with the order. The clerk was instructed to enter judgment and close the file.