Martin C. v. Bisignano

Background

Martin C. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income for the period after his alleged disability onset date of September 2, 2018. He applied for benefits on July 21, 2022. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing on February 8, 2024, the administrative law judge decided on March 20, 2024, that Martin C. was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Martin C. identified bilateral knee joint osteoarthritis and patellofemoral syndrome, cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease, left shoulder degenerative joint disease, and major depressive disorder as conditions affecting him. He argued that the administrative law judge improperly assessed his residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—by failing to consider his knee pain and resulting need to use a cane. He also argued that the administrative law judge failed to address conflicts between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, a federal publication describing occupational requirements.

Knee-Pain Issue

The administrative law judge found that Martin C.’s knee pain was not a medically determinable impairment and therefore did not include it in the residual-functional-capacity analysis. The administrative law judge relied on normal knee imaging and largely normal physical examinations.

Judge Docherty concluded that this determination was supported by substantial evidence, meaning enough evidence that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate. The recommendation explained that the medical imaging reviewed by Martin C.’s providers showed no abnormal results, no structural abnormality, no cartilage defect, and no ligament injuries. Although Martin C. was diagnosed with knee joint osteoarthritis by a physician’s assistant and received steroid injections, the recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge had not erred in finding that Martin C. failed to establish a medically determinable knee impairment. The recommendation therefore advised denying Martin C.’s requested relief on this issue.

Vocational-Expert Testimony

At the hearing, vocational expert Brian Womer identified three jobs that a person with Martin C.’s work history and residual functional capacity could perform: document preparer, sack repairer, and touch-up screener. The administrative law judge limited Martin C. to occasional overhead reaching and frequent reaching in other directions.

The Dictionary of Occupational Titles lists frequent reaching for each of the three jobs without specifying the direction of reaching. The recommendation concluded that this created an apparent conflict because the general reaching requirement could include frequent overhead reaching, while Martin C.’s residual functional capacity allowed only occasional overhead reaching.

The administrative law judge asked the vocational expert about the difference. The vocational expert testified that the jobs required little or no overhead reaching and based that opinion on his education, research, training, and experience in job placement and vocational rehabilitation. Judge Docherty found that the administrative law judge properly asked about the possible conflict and obtained an explanation. But the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why the vocational expert’s explanation reasonably resolved the conflict for each job.

The recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge’s written statement adopting the vocational expert’s testimony was insufficient. Because the Commissioner bears the burden at the fifth step of showing that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the administrative law judge could not rely on the vocational expert’s testimony without resolving and explaining the conflict.

Recommended Disposition

Judge Docherty recommended that the relief requested in Martin C.’s memorandum of law be granted in part and denied in part, that the relief requested in the Commissioner’s brief be granted in part and denied in part, 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 and Recommendation.

The document expressly states that it is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It states that the parties may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served and that the recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.