Harry T. v. King

Background

Harry T. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act in June 2022, alleging that he became disabled on March 1, 2020. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Kimberly Schulz denied the claim on March 15, 2024. The Appeals Council denied review, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Harry T. had severe impairments involving both shoulders, the residual effects of shoulder surgeries, the right ankle, diabetes, and obesity. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Harry T. retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work with restrictions, including only occasional overhead reaching, occasional postural activities, and no work involving unprotected heights or moving mechanical parts. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Harry T. could perform his past work as a security guard and corrections officer.

Harry T., represented by counsel, brought this action seeking judicial review. Both sides asked for judgment on the pleadings, which is a decision based on the parties’ written submissions rather than a trial.

Medical-opinion evidence

The court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge did not adequately evaluate the physical-functioning opinions. The Administrative Law Judge found the opinions of treating orthopedist Dr. Arnold Wilson and examining physicians Dr. Manuel Paz and Dr. John Fkiaras unpersuasive, while finding the opinions of non-examining State Agency physicians supported by and consistent with the record.

The court identified several problems with that analysis:

- The Administrative Law Judge considered the treating and examining opinions separately and did not adequately address their significant consistency with one another. - Although the Administrative Law Judge recognized that Dr. Wilson was a treating orthopedist who had seen Harry T. regularly for four years, the decision did not clearly show sufficient consideration of that treatment relationship. - The non-examining State Agency physicians’ opinions did not by themselves adequately support the decision, particularly because those physicians apparently treated their light-work conclusions as consistent with examining doctors’ findings of marked limitations. - The Administrative Law Judge determined that Harry T. could perform light work without adequately assessing his work-related abilities function by function, such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling. The court explained that this omission mattered because the record contained conflicting evidence about those abilities and the deficiencies interfered with meaningful review.

Mental functioning

The court found no error in the Administrative Law Judge’s treatment of Harry T.’s mental functioning. Consultative examiner Dr. John Walsh diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder and assessed some moderate limitations, but clinical findings showed adequate social skills, coherent thought processes, and only mild problems with attention, concentration, and memory. Treatment notes generally described Harry T. as alert and oriented, with normal mood, affect, attention, and concentration. The court also noted that State Agency physicians found no medically determinable mental impairment.

Subjective complaints

Harry T. testified that his ankles and knees gave out, shoulder pain affected his sleep and activities, medication caused nausea, and his surgeries had not relieved his pain. He said he could sit for about 20 minutes, stand or walk for four or five minutes, and lift about half a gallon of juice. He also testified that his fiancée or son performed most household chores.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Harry T.’s impairments could reasonably cause his symptoms but that his statements about their intensity, persistence, and effects were not entirely consistent with the record. The court held that this analysis was undermined by the errors in evaluating the treating and examining physicians’ opinions, which supported Harry T.’s complaints. The court also stated that Harry T.’s extended work history, including demanding work as a security guard and corrections officer, supported his credibility. The court directed that this issue be reconsidered on remand.

Ruling

Judge Gary R. Jones granted Harry T.’s request for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s request for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings consistent with the decision. The court directed the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of Harry T. and close the file. The decision did not award benefits directly; it required further administrative proceedings.