Sing O. v. Dudek

Background

Sing O. sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. An administrative law judge found that Sing O. had several severe impairments, including cervical-spine stenosis, bilateral shoulder tendinosis, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes-related eye conditions, left-eye vision loss, and hypertension. The administrative law judge found that Sing O. retained the capacity for a limited range of light work, including frequent bilateral handling and fingering, and could perform past relevant work as a companion. The Appeals Council denied further review, making the administrative law judge’s decision final.

Sing O. challenged the decision on three grounds: the administrative law judge did not properly consider Listing 2.04 for visual impairments; the residual functional capacity, meaning the work a person can still perform despite medical limitations, did not adequately account for his cervical impairments and carpal tunnel syndrome; and the administrative law judge wrongly found that he could perform his past work as a companion and that the work qualified as substantial gainful activity.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the Listing 2.04 argument. It explained that the listing required the relevant visual impairment to satisfy its criteria for, or be expected to satisfy them for, a continuous period of at least 12 months. Sing O.’s right-eye vision measurements varied over time, including a 20/400 measurement in August 2022 and a 20/100 measurement in September 2022. The court found that reliance on the single 20/400 measurement did not establish that the listing’s requirements lasted for the required period. The court also rejected Sing O.’s interpretation of the notation associated with the later 20/100 measurement and concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that Listing 2.04 was not met or medically equaled.

The court also upheld the residual functional capacity findings concerning Sing O.’s cervical impairments and hand use. Regarding the cervical condition, the court pointed to evidence that imaging was largely unchanged over time, examinations sometimes showed normal range of motion, injections and other treatment improved his pain and functioning, and Sing O. declined recommended neck surgery. Regarding hand use, the court recognized the evidence of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and decreased sensation but noted evidence of largely preserved strength, medical opinions supporting frequent non-repetitive handling and fingering, and Sing O.’s continued refusal to undergo recommended carpal tunnel-release surgery. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported these portions of the administrative law judge’s decision.

The court agreed, however, that further proceedings were required concerning past relevant work. Sing O. testified about limited schooling and limited understanding of English. The administrative law judge and vocational expert relied on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles description for companion work, which included reading, writing, and speaking requirements. But the administrative law judge made no findings about Sing O.’s literacy, and the vocational expert did not address whether he could satisfy those language requirements. The court also noted that the parties did not dispute Sing O.’s ability to perform his actual past work caring for his father, regardless of his literacy, but the administrative law judge and vocational expert evaluated only whether he could perform the companion occupation as generally performed. The court therefore ordered further findings and vocational-expert testimony concerning literacy, language fluency, and the ability to perform past work, with continuation of the disability analysis if necessary.

Disposition

The court GRANTED IN PART Sing O.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It DENIED the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision and REMANDED the case to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The court also ordered cancellation of the scheduled March 24, 2025 hearing.