Cracolici v. Kijakazi

Background

Giulio Cracolici appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income. Cracolici alleged limitations related to several conditions, including morbid obesity, degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, anxiety, and depression. An administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on April 6, 2022, and issued an unfavorable decision. The Appeals Council denied review.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record. The court reviewed the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate, and for legal error.

Issues and Analysis

Cracolici raised seven alleged errors in three groups: inadequate explanations for the ALJ’s decision and for discounting his symptom testimony; errors involving vocational-expert testimony and job information; and improper evaluation of his mental impairments and obesity.

The court rejected Cracolici’s general challenge to the ALJ’s explanation, finding that the ALJ’s reasoning could be meaningfully reviewed. The court also rejected Cracolici’s argument concerning testimony about mental symptoms because it found that he had testified about physical, not mental, impairments in the cited portion of the hearing. But the court held that the ALJ inadequately explained why Cracolici’s testimony about his physical symptoms was not fully accepted. The ALJ summarized medical evidence and daily activities but did not connect specific testimony to specific evidence that undermined it. Under controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, that explanation did not satisfy the requirement for specific, clear, and convincing reasons.

The court rejected the challenge to the incorrect Dictionary of Occupational Titles code for the Order Clerk job. It concluded that the record showed a mistake in reciting the code and that the mistake was harmless. Even without the 63,000 Order Clerk jobs, the record identified 50,000 jobs in two other job categories, which the court found sufficient under the cited precedent.

The court also found no unresolved conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles concerning Marker jobs. The vocational expert explained that although Marker jobs generally were classified as light work, a subset could be performed at the sedentary level, based on his experience and vocational resources. The court held that the ALJ adequately asked about the potential discrepancy and the basis for the testimony. The court further held that Cracolici had forfeited his broader challenge to the reliability of the job numbers because his attorney did not challenge those numbers during the administrative hearing.

The court upheld the ALJ’s finding that Cracolici’s mental impairments were non-severe. It explained that scores on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 did not themselves establish the functional limitations required under the applicable disability rules. The court found that the ALJ considered the four relevant areas of mental functioning and supported the conclusions with evidence. It also declined to reweigh the evidence or replace the ALJ’s reasonable interpretation with another interpretation.

Finally, the court rejected Cracolici’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider obesity. The ALJ identified morbid obesity as a severe impairment and discussed obesity and its effects when evaluating residual functional capacity. The court also found that Cracolici had not identified obesity-related functional limitations that the ALJ failed to consider.

Disposition

The court held that the inadequate explanation for discounting Cracolici’s physical-symptom testimony required a remand. It GRANTS Cracolici’s motion for summary judgment, DENIES the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, REVERSES the Commissioner’s final decision, and REMANDS for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not direct an immediate award of benefits.

Affected Parties

The ruling affects Cracolici’s Social Security claim and requires the agency to conduct further proceedings after the court’s reversal. It does not establish that Cracolici is entitled to benefits at this stage.