T.H. v. Kijakazi

Background

T.H. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s decision denying her claim for supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. This was T.H.’s second petition in the court and followed an earlier remand to the agency. After the earlier remand, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on December 7, 2022, and issued an unfavorable decision on August 7, 2023.

The ALJ found that T.H. had severe impairments including obesity, degenerative disc disease in her cervical and lumbar spine, hypertension, left-shoulder degenerative joint disease with possible bicipital tendonitis, and mild to moderate right-knee osteoarthritis. The ALJ determined that T.H. could perform light work with restrictions, including the ability to alternate between sitting and standing as needed without becoming off task or leaving her workstation. The ALJ found that she had no past relevant work but could perform work as a school-bus monitor, cashier, or silver wrapper, and therefore was not disabled.

Issues and Analysis

T.H. challenged the ALJ’s evaluation of medical evidence, her testimony, observations by Social Security Administration employees, and the residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning the most work a claimant can do despite her limitations.

Medical evidence. The court found no error in the ALJ’s decision to give great weight to Dr. Soheila Benrazavi’s opinion. The ALJ had identified additional reasons for that decision, including that obesity was the only limitation satisfying the duration requirement, physical examinations showed a normal gait, and T.H. had engaged in substantial gainful activity involving medium work.

The court also found no error in the ALJ’s failure to separately weigh records from Dr. Jeff Ritterman and physical therapist Laura Dejesus because the records contained treatment notes rather than medical opinions about T.H.’s functional capacity. But the court remanded for the ALJ to reevaluate Dr. Emily Hunter-Adamson’s opinion. The court concluded that the ALJ’s stated reasons for discounting that opinion did not adequately account for indications that Dr. Hunter-Adamson had consulted T.H.’s records and was familiar with her impairments.

T.H.’s testimony. The court held that the ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting T.H.’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms, including periods of substantial gainful employment, her testimony that she could return to work, and inconsistencies with the medical evidence. But the ALJ did not identify which symptom testimony was being rejected. The court remanded on that ground.

Agency observations. Agency personnel had observed, among other things, T.H.’s arm pain, a slight limp, pain while seated, and difficulty lowering herself into and getting out of a chair. The court found that any failure to discuss the arm-pain observation, limp, and seated-pain observation was harmless because the ALJ had addressed those subjects elsewhere. The court found that the failure to discuss the observation about difficulty using a chair was not harmless because the observation favored T.H. and was not contradicted or otherwise mentioned in the record. The court remanded for consideration of that observation.

RFC. The court rejected T.H.’s argument that the sit-stand option necessarily prevented the jobs identified by the vocational expert. The vocational expert had identified three jobs that a person with the ALJ’s stated sit-stand restriction could perform. However, because the ALJ needed to reevaluate T.H.’s testimony, some medical evidence, and the chair-related agency observation, the court remanded for the ALJ to consider the entire record when formulating the RFC.

Remedy

T.H. requested an order requiring immediate payment of benefits based on Medical-Vocational Rule 202.04. The Commissioner argued that further proceedings were necessary, including to determine T.H.’s alleged onset date. The court remanded for further proceedings because it was not clear from the record that an ALJ would be required to find T.H. disabled and award benefits.

Disposition

The court remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. It did not order immediate payment of benefits.