Chhom C. v. Kijakazi

Background

Chhom C. sought review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision for purposes of judicial review. The parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, and the case was fully briefed.

Chhom C. alleged disability beginning December 15, 2015, and had a date last insured of June 30, 2018. The administrative law judge found that his severe impairments were essential hypertension, type II diabetes mellitus, obesity, and coronary artery disease. The judge found that his other conditions were not severe because they were not of the required duration, were asymptomatic or controlled with treatment, or did not significantly limit basic work activities.

The administrative law judge found that Chhom C. could perform medium work with additional limits, including lifting 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, sitting, standing, or walking for six hours in an eight-hour workday, and certain climbing, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and environmental restrictions. The judge found that Chhom C. could not perform his past relevant work but could perform other jobs, including stores laborer, dining room attendant, and kitchen helper.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed whether the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—and whether the judge made a legal error.

Chhom C. challenged the failure to classify his ongoing back conditions, chronic pain syndrome, depression, and diabetic retinopathy as severe impairments at the second step of the disability analysis. The opinion describes extensive evidence of back pain, restricted movement, radiating pain, numbness, weakness, abnormal testing, and diagnoses involving lumbar discs and radiculopathy. It also describes evidence of chronic pain syndrome and diabetic retinopathy, as well as Chhom C.’s testimony that pain limited his sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and other activities.

The court held that the administrative law judge misunderstood the standard used at the second step. An impairment should be found non-severe at that step only when the evidence shows a slight abnormality with only a minimal effect on the person’s ability to work. The court concluded that the described back conditions, depression, and condition referred to in the discussion as diabetic neuropathy should not have been screened out as plainly groundless or minor. The court stated that the combination of conditions might be disabling, but that the record was not sufficiently developed to decide their effect on Chhom C.’s work-related limitations.

The court also held that the administrative law judge failed to fulfill the duty to develop the record fully and fairly. The record did not contain function reports from Chhom C. or people close to him describing his physical abilities during the relevant period. The administrative law judge also did not seek opinions from treating providers about Chhom C.’s functional limitations and did not adequately develop Chhom C.’s testimony on those limitations at the hearing.

Disposition

The court remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge was ordered to invite Chhom C. and his close relatives or friends to submit detailed function reports; hold a new hearing to develop testimony about the limitations caused by the combination of impairments; and subpoena or submit questions to treating physicians about Chhom C.’s limitations during the relevant disability period.

Because this additional record development was necessary, the court declined to address Chhom C.’s remaining arguments. It instructed the Commissioner to consider those issues on remand and modify any resulting administrative law judge decision as appropriate. The court ordered that the case be remanded for further proceedings and stated that a separate judgment would issue.