G.F. v. O'Malley

Background

G.F. applied for disability insurance benefits on or about April 20, 2022. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and again on reconsideration. After a February 6, 2024 telephonic hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision on March 26, 2024. The ALJ found that G.F. had severe impairments including left-shoulder degenerative joint disease, obesity, diverticulosis, depression, and anxiety. The ALJ found that G.F. could not perform his past work but retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform light work with limitations. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the ALJ found that G.F. could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, and G.F. sought review in federal court.

Standard of Review

The court could disturb the Commissioner’s decision only if it was unsupported by substantial evidence or based on improper legal standards. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for a conclusion. The court was required to consider the record as a whole, including evidence supporting and detracting from the Commissioner’s decision.

Reported Symptoms

The court rejected G.F.’s challenge to the ALJ’s evaluation of his reported pain and other limitations. The ALJ cited physical examinations, scans, improved shoulder strength and range of motion after surgery, normal unassisted gait, intact coordination, generally unremarkable abdominal findings, daily activities, and conservative treatment. The court concluded that these were specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting G.F.’s reports that he could not lift more than five pounds or sit for more than five minutes and that his impairments substantially affected many activities. The court therefore did not reverse on this ground.

Dr. Bonilla’s Opinions

The court found that the ALJ did not properly address all of the opinions of psychological consultative examiner Pauline Bonilla, Psy.D. The ALJ found Dr. Bonilla’s opinion persuasive but did not incorporate her assessments that G.F.’s ability to complete a normal workday and workweek without interruption was moderately impaired and that his likelihood of emotional deterioration in a work environment was minimal to moderate.

The court held that the RFC restrictions for simple instructions, no specific production rate, and occasional changes in a routine work setting did not account for those distinct limitations. The error was not harmless because the ALJ relied on the incomplete RFC when asking the vocational expert whether G.F. could perform available jobs. The vocational expert testified that adding extra breaks during the day generally would not be acceptable for a supervisor in any of the offered jobs, and the record did not show what jobs would remain available with such a limitation.

Dr. Romo-Gritzewsky’s Opinions

The court upheld the ALJ’s treatment of the opinions of G.F.’s physician, Marylou Romo-Gritzewsky, M.D. The ALJ addressed all of those opinions and found them unpersuasive because they were not supported by objective medical evidence and appeared primarily based on G.F.’s subjective pain reports. The ALJ also found that the opinions were inconsistent with post-surgery examinations and examinations and scans showing normal bowel function. Because the court had already found that the ALJ properly evaluated G.F.’s reported symptoms, it concluded that substantial evidence supported discounting Dr. Romo-Gritzewsky’s opinions.

RFC and Job Findings

The court found that the RFC was not supported by substantial evidence because it omitted the relevant limitations from Dr. Bonilla’s opinions. The court rejected G.F.’s separate argument that the ALJ made an unexplained contradiction by referring to sedentary exertion in one part of the decision and light work in another. The court interpreted the ALJ’s language as describing light work with additional limitations rather than finding that G.F. was limited to defined sedentary work. Any inconsistency on that point would also have been harmless because the vocational-expert hypotheticals used the same light-work limitations underlying the ALJ’s nondisability finding.

Because the vocational-expert testimony did not account for Dr. Bonilla’s opinions, the court also reversed the ALJ’s finding that G.F. could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. G.F.’s two additional challenges to the vocational-expert testimony were moot because new vocational-expert testimony would be required on remand. The court therefore denied as moot G.F.’s request for remand on those additional grounds.

Disposition

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Commissioner’s decision. It reversed the ALJ’s RFC finding to the extent it failed to account for Dr. Bonilla’s medical-source opinions and reversed the related finding of nondisability because the vocational-expert testimony and other evidence did not adequately account for those opinions. The court otherwise affirmed the ALJ’s findings and remanded the case for further proceedings.