Nai S. v. O'Malley

Background

Kow Nai S. sought review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s decision that he was not disabled from October 2, 2012, through October 31, 2015. The Commissioner had previously found Kow Nai S. disabled beginning November 1, 2015. In this proceeding, Kow Nai S. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the decision, and the Commissioner moved to affirm it.

The administrative law judge found that Kow Nai S. had severe impairments involving both shoulders, his lumbar spine, right carpal tunnel syndrome after surgery, and right wrist surgery. The judge determined that Kow Nai S. retained the capacity to perform a restricted range of light work and, relying on vocational-expert testimony, could perform jobs including garment sorter, mail sorter, and housekeeper.

Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Kow Nai S.’s testimony about his wrist, shoulder, and back pain. The judge appeared to conclude that Kow Nai S.’s pain became manageable based partly on a gap in treatment records. But the court noted evidence that Kow Nai S. continued to report substantial shoulder and back pain after therapy and surgery, including pain during his last therapy assessments and persistent back pain reported in August 2015.

The court also found that the judge improperly relied on a medical examination showing no strength or sensory deficits to discount testimony about wrist pain. The court explained that the testimony described pain and tingling that caused Kow Nai S. to drop objects, not only weakness. The judge also failed to adequately consider Kow Nai S.’s testimony about earlier wrist surgeries and continuing pain.

The court found that the administrative law judge adequately explained why testimony about foot numbness was discounted. The judge relied not only on the lack of medical evidence of nerve impingement or lower-extremity neurological deficits, but also on Kow Nai S.’s reports that he could walk about a mile before resting and had played takraw in November 2015. The court found those activities inconsistent with later testimony about severe foot numbness during the relevant period.

Because the judge improperly evaluated testimony about wrist, shoulder, and back pain, the court held that the residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The error was not harmless because vocational-expert testimony indicated that additional restrictions, including only occasional handling, could prevent Kow Nai S. from performing the jobs identified by the judge. The court therefore also found error in the step-five finding, which determines whether a claimant can perform work available in the economy.

Remedy and Disposition

Kow Nai S. requested an immediate award of benefits under the rule allowing a court to treat improperly rejected evidence as credited. The court found that the first requirement for such an award was satisfied because the administrative law judge gave legally insufficient reasons for rejecting the pain testimony. But the court found that unresolved issues remained, including the extent of any wrist-handling limitation and whether additional restrictions were needed for the shoulder and back impairments. It therefore concluded that further administrative proceedings were appropriate.

Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted Kow Nai S.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The administrative law judge must reconsider Kow Nai S.’s pain testimony and, if necessary, develop the record further regarding the residual functional capacity and step-five analysis.