R.M., et al. v. Kijakazi

Background

R.M. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision finding him not disabled and therefore ineligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits. R.M. applied for benefits in 2020. The administrative law judge found that diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and degenerative joint disease in both knees were severe impairments, but concluded that R.M. could perform other work available in significant numbers in the national economy.

The administrative law judge assessed a residual functional capacity—the most a person can do despite physical and mental limitations—that allowed light work with additional restrictions. Those restrictions included lifting and carrying up to 15 pounds, sitting for six hours, standing for two hours, and walking for two hours during an eight-hour workday, along with restrictions on foot controls, climbing, and other activities.

At the administrative hearing, a vocational expert identified ticket taker, parking lot attendant, and merchandise marker jobs as potentially available. The vocational expert ultimately reported approximately 54,000 merchandise marker jobs after reducing the number of positions to account for standing and walking restrictions.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on a misunderstanding concerning the standing and walking limits. The administrative law judge asked about a person able to stand for two hours and walk for two hours. The vocational expert initially overlooked those restrictions and then discussed jobs involving four hours of standing and walking. When R.M.’s attorney asked whether the restriction totaled four hours, the administrative law judge answered, “No.” Despite that clarification, the vocational expert continued to rely on a four-hour standing-and-walking restriction.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity finding appeared to allow no more than two total hours on R.M.’s feet, whether standing or walking. The vocational expert, however, had not testified about the jobs available to someone with that limitation. Because the administrative law judge relied on testimony that did not address all of R.M.’s assessed restrictions, the finding at the fifth step of the disability process was not supported by substantial evidence.

The court also identified related issues for possible consideration on remand. The vocational expert did not explain whether the ticket taker and parking lot attendant jobs remained available after accounting for the standing and walking limits. The vocational expert also did not specifically address whether the merchandise marker jobs allowed no more than two hours of standing and no more than two hours of walking. In addition, the administrative law judge and vocational expert did not clarify whether the six hours of sitting was cumulative with the time R.M. could spend standing or walking.

The court rejected the need to decide R.M.’s argument that the Medical-Vocational Guidelines required a finding of disability. The court also did not decide whether the administrative law judge separately erred in addressing R.M.’s testimony about hand pain, grip strength, and difficulty grasping objects. Any such error, if material, would require further administrative proceedings rather than a court-ordered award of benefits because the record did not establish the outcome without uncertainty.

Disposition

R.M.’s motion for summary judgment was granted except for the specific relief requested, meaning the court did not award benefits. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment in R.M.’s favor.