Lloyd B. v. O'Malley

Background

Lloyd B. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration denied the application, and an administrative law judge concluded that Lloyd B. was not disabled because he could perform other jobs existing in the economy. After an earlier round of judicial review, the court remanded the case for additional administrative proceedings based on errors involving a treating orthopedic physician's opinion and Lloyd B.'s testimony about pain.

On remand, the same administrative law judge again found that Lloyd B. was not disabled. The judge determined that Lloyd B. could perform sedentary work with additional restrictions, including the ability to stand for ten minutes after every hour of sitting, during which he would be off task. The judge relied on a vocational expert's testimony that a person with the stated restrictions could perform jobs including cashier II and document preparer.

Motions and Issues

Lloyd B. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the administrative decision and remand for an immediate award of benefits. He raised four alleged errors, including errors concerning the vocational expert's step-five testimony, the evaluation of his symptoms, third-party statements, and the opinions of Dr. Fulkerson, his treating orthopedic physician.

The Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge erred in evaluating Dr. Fulkerson's opinions. The Commissioner argued, however, that the proper remedy was a remand for further proceedings so the administrative law judge could reassess those opinions, reconsider the residual functional capacity, and determine whether Lloyd B. could perform any jobs.

Court's Analysis

The court focused on whether the record required further administrative proceedings or instead supported an immediate benefits award. The administrative law judge had expressly adopted Dr. Fulkerson's limitation that Lloyd B. needed to change positions for ten minutes every hour. The judge included that limitation in the residual functional capacity and stated that Lloyd B. would be off task while changing positions.

At the hearing, the vocational expert testified that no jobs would be available for a person with that limitation because the relevant jobs allowed only six minutes of off-task behavior. The court concluded that the administrative law judge therefore erred at step five by finding that Lloyd B. could perform other work.

The court further concluded that the Commissioner did not dispute this argument and that the record was fully developed. Because the accepted off-task limitation would preclude all work, the court determined that additional proceedings would serve no useful purpose. It rejected the possibility that further proceedings could simply give the administrative law judge an opportunity to change the limitation already included in the residual functional capacity to reach a different result.

Disposition

Judge Donna Ryu granted Lloyd B.'s motion for summary judgment and his request for a remand for an award of benefits. The court denied the Commissioner's motion for a remand for further proceedings and remanded the case for an immediate award of benefits.