Eric S. v. Kijakazi

Background

Eric S. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in August 2021, alleging that he became disabled on March 12, 2021. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Michael J. Stacchini denied the application on October 25, 2022. The Appeals Council declined review on May 26, 2023, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Eric S. had severe degenerative disc disease in his lumbar and cervical spine and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The judge found that Eric S. retained the capacity to perform sedentary work with restrictions, including limits on sitting, standing, walking, climbing, postural activities, overhead reaching, handling, and fingering. The judge determined that Eric S. could perform his past relevant work as a consultant, examiner or analyst, banker or financial customer-service representative, and trader.

Eric S., represented by counsel, filed this action seeking judicial review. He moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing administrative record and the parties’ written submissions. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones for a report and recommendation. The opinion is a recommendation to District Judge Kenneth Karas, not a statement that the district judge had already entered the final disposition.

Issues and Analysis

Eric S. raised two principal challenges. First, he argued that the administrative law judge inadequately addressed the medical-opinion evidence and therefore reached an unsupported residual-functional-capacity finding. Second, he argued that the administrative law judge did not adequately account for his carpal tunnel syndrome.

The recommendation explained that, under the regulations applicable to Eric S.’s application, the administrative law judge had to evaluate medical opinions for their persuasiveness, including their supportability and consistency with the record. Treating orthopedic surgeon Dr. Marshal Peris gave several assessments describing substantial work restrictions. The administrative law judge found those opinions generally unpersuasive.

The recommendation upheld that assessment. It cited a consultative examination by Dr. Michael Healy showing a normal gait, full strength and range of motion in the extremities, no fine-motor limitation, and no sensory deficits or muscle atrophy. It also cited the opinions of State Agency review physicians Dr. M. Perrotti and Dr. S. Gandhi, who assessed fewer restrictions than Dr. Peris. The recommendation further relied on imaging, an electromyogram showing borderline carpal tunnel findings, treatment notes showing generally unremarkable clinical findings despite pain and limited neck movement, and Eric S.’s reported activities, including bicycling, kayaking, exercising, cooking, cleaning, and weightlifting.

As to carpal tunnel syndrome, the recommendation noted that the administrative law judge recognized it as a severe impairment and limited Eric S. to frequent bilateral handling and fingering. The administrative law judge considered Eric S.’s testimony about numbness and tingling, a physician’s recommendation to reduce or avoid manual activities, the medical opinions, the borderline electromyogram findings, reported hand-related activities, and examinations showing full grip strength and intact dexterity. The recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge sufficiently supported the handling and fingering limitations.

Recommendation and Procedure

The recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate, and applied the correct legal standard. It recommended that Eric S.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied and that the case be dismissed.

The parties were given fourteen days after service to file objections with the Clerk of Court. The opinion states that failure to file timely objections would prevent a party from raising those objections on appeal. District Judge Kenneth Karas was identified as the judge to whom requests concerning extensions and the recommendation were directed.