Deena L. Dias v. Nancy A. Berryhill
- Robert Illman
- 1:18-cv-03233
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 20
In Deena L. Dias v. Berryhill, Judge Illman granted Dias’s summary-judgment motion and remanded her Social Security case for further proceedings.
Deena L. Dias and the Social Security Administration’s consideration of her disability-insurance-benefits claim; the case must undergo further administrative proceedings.
What happened
Deena L. Dias v. Nancy A. Berryhill concerned Dias’s request for disability insurance benefits after an administrative law judge found that she was not disabled. Dias challenged the judge’s treatment of her pain testimony, her mother’s statements, and the work limitations presented to a vocational expert.
The court found that the administrative law judge misunderstood and inadequately evaluated Dias’s testimony, gave insufficient reasons for rejecting her mother’s statements, and failed to develop the record about the extent of Dias’s physical limitations. Because the work-capacity finding and the vocational expert’s answers were not adequately supported by the evidence, the disability decision could not stand.
Judge Illman granted Dias’s motion for summary judgment, denied Berryhill’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings rather than ordering an immediate award of benefits.
The detailed version
- Deena L. Dias v. Nancy A. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-03233
- Robert Illman
- Sept. 25, 2019
Background
Deena L. Dias sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Dias alleged that she became disabled on June 21, 2009, after a motorcycle accident caused a burst fracture of her T12 vertebra and other back injuries. She later underwent spinal-fusion surgeries, continued to report chronic back and leg pain, and was diagnosed with conditions including spondylolisthesis, osteoarthritis in both knees, lumbar radiculopathy, failed back surgery syndrome, and post-laminectomy syndrome.
The administrative law judge found that Dias had severe impairments involving spondylolisthesis after fusion and osteoarthritis in both knees. The judge determined that Dias could perform sedentary work with additional restrictions, including standing or walking for three hours in an eight-hour workday, changing positions every 45 minutes to an hour, performing some postural activities occasionally, reaching overhead occasionally, and avoiding certain environmental conditions. The judge found that Dias could not perform her past relevant work but could perform other jobs, including election clerk, charge-account clerk, or call-out operator. The Appeals Council denied review.
Both parties moved for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record.
Issues
Dias argued that the administrative law judge:
- improperly rejected Dias’s testimony about the intensity and limiting effects of her pain;
- improperly rejected statements from Dias’s mother about Dias’s daily limitations; and
- relied on an incomplete and unsupported hypothetical question to the vocational expert when determining that other work was available.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain which portions of Dias’s testimony were rejected and which were accepted. The court also found that the judge misunderstood Dias’s testimony about spending much of the day lying down and reading. Dias had described how she spent her time and what position was most comfortable, but she had not testified that she was completely unable to get out of bed. The court concluded that the judge’s rejection of testimony based on that misunderstanding was erroneous.
The court also rejected the reasons given for discounting Dias’s mother’s function report. The report stated that Dias had back pain, trouble bending, difficulty standing for a long time, and spent a lot of time in bed. It also identified activities affected by Dias’s impairments. The court found that the administrative law judge did not identify which portions of the report were being rejected or provide specific reasons tied to that witness. A general statement that the medical record did not support the described level of dysfunction was not enough.
The court further found that the administrative law judge had not adequately developed the record. The medical evidence showed continuing pain despite surgeries, injections, and medication, as well as additional spinal abnormalities that the administrative law judge did not discuss. The court noted that the record was ambiguous about the precise extent of Dias’s ability to function at work. The judge relied substantially on a one-time consultative examination, but the court found it unclear how the judge modified that examiner’s opinions to create Dias’s residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments.
Because the residual functional capacity was not adequately supported, the hypothetical question given to the vocational expert also lacked an apparent evidentiary basis. The court specifically noted unexplained differences between the consultative examiner’s restrictions and the restrictions adopted by the administrative law judge, as well as the unexplained use of a 20-percent off-task limitation. The court concluded that the Step Five finding—that Dias could perform other work in significant numbers—was not supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition
The court granted Dias’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Berryhill’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. It remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court declined Dias’s request for reversal and calculation and payment of benefits because the record remained undeveloped and incomplete regarding the precise extent of her limitations. The order did not direct an immediate award of benefits.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.