Lori A. H. v. Bisignano

Background

Lori A. H. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Her alleged impairments included carpal tunnel syndrome, migraines, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, a thyroid condition, Barrett’s esophagus, depression, anxiety, angina, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The administrative law judge found several severe physical impairments, found that depression and anxiety were not severe, and determined that Lori A. H. could perform light work with restrictions. The judge concluded that she could perform her past work as a medical assistant and office manager and therefore was not disabled at the fourth step of the disability analysis.

The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision for purposes of judicial review. The report applied the standard asking whether substantial evidence supported the decision and whether the administrative law judge made a legal error.

Overhead-Reaching Conflict

The report concluded that the administrative law judge failed to resolve and explain an apparent conflict between vocational expert Marisia Hall’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The administrative law judge limited Lori A. H. to occasional overhead reaching, while the Dictionary of Occupational Titles describes the medical assistant and office manager jobs as requiring frequent reaching. At the hearing, Hall explained that her testimony about occasional overhead reaching was based on her education, training, and experience because the Dictionary does not distinguish overhead reaching from other reaching.

The magistrate judge found that the hearing exchange elicited an explanation but did not determine whether the explanation was reasonable or explain the resolution in the written decision, as required by Social Security Ruling 00-4p. Because the conflict was not properly resolved, the report concluded that the administrative law judge could not rely on Hall’s testimony and that the decision was unsupported as to Lori A. H.’s ability to perform her past work.

Hand Controls and Handling

The report also addressed the finding that Lori A. H. could operate hand controls bilaterally occasionally but could handle bilaterally frequently. It defined handling broadly to include seizing, holding, grasping, turning, or otherwise working with the hands, and concluded that operating hand controls falls within handling. Both past jobs required frequent handling, but the record did not show whether either job required operating hand controls more than occasionally.

The magistrate judge concluded that the administrative law judge neither made the necessary finding nor identified supporting evidence. The report therefore found that the decision that Lori A. H. could perform her past work was not supported by substantial evidence and stated that, on remand, the administrative law judge should address the hand-control requirements of both jobs.

Mental Limitations

At the second step, the administrative law judge found mild limitations in all four broad areas of mental functioning: understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself. The residual functional capacity assessment nevertheless included no mental limitations and did not explain their omission.

The report explained that findings in these broad areas are not themselves a residual functional capacity assessment, but concluded that the administrative law judge should either include the mild limitations in the residual functional capacity or explain why they were unnecessary. The failure to do either was reversible error because it affected the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert.

Recommended Disposition

Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended that Lori A. H.’s requested relief be GRANTED, that the relief requested in the Commissioner’s brief be DENIED, and that the Commissioner’s final decision be REVERSED and the matter REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the report. The document is a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the district court. The notice states that specific written objections may be filed within 14 days after service.