Salinas v. Berryhill

Background

Rosario Salinas sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for Title II Social Security disability benefits. Salinas alleged that he became disabled on November 15, 2011. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Salinas had several severe physical and mental impairments but retained the capacity to perform a limited range of work. At the final step of the disability analysis, the ALJ relied on vocational-expert testimony and found that Salinas could perform jobs such as order caller and ticket taker. The ALJ therefore concluded that Salinas was not disabled.

Salinas moved for summary judgment, arguing that the ALJ improperly evaluated his English abilities, medical opinions, testimony about the severity of his symptoms, and the statement from his fiancée, Josephina Figueroa-Flores. The defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the ALJ erred in evaluating Salinas’s English abilities. Although the ALJ found that Salinas could communicate in English based largely on his ability to speak and understand spoken English, the ALJ made no express finding about whether he could read or write English. The court explained that English communication under the applicable regulations includes speaking, reading, and understanding English. The vocational expert had not testified that the identified jobs required no reading, and the record included Figueroa-Flores’s statements that Salinas could not read or write. The court held that further findings were necessary.

The court also found errors in the ALJ’s treatment of most of the medical opinions. The ALJ repeatedly gave opinions partial weight to the extent they agreed with the opinion of Arthur Lorber, a non-examining medical expert, while stating that Lorber’s opinion was most consistent with the record. The court explained that a non-examining doctor’s opinion alone cannot provide substantial evidence for rejecting a treating or examining doctor’s opinion. The ALJ also failed to explain which clinical findings supported Lorber’s opinion or why the other doctors’ opinions were inconsistent with the record. The court therefore required the ALJ to reconsider the medical evidence and explain how the opinions were weighed. The court separately found no prejudicial error from the ALJ’s failure to discuss Joshua C. Richards’s opinion because Richards’s restrictions were consistent with the residual functional capacity adopted by the ALJ.

The court rejected Salinas’s challenge to the ALJ’s evaluation of his testimony. The ALJ identified inconsistencies between Salinas’s hearing testimony that he depended on his wife for cooking and laundry and his reports to doctors that he performed household chores, cooked, washed dishes, did laundry, and was independent in daily activities. The court held that these inconsistencies were a sufficient basis for rejecting his testimony. The court also found that the ALJ properly addressed the portions of Figueroa-Flores’s statement that repeated limitations described by Salinas, because the reasons for rejecting Salinas’s testimony applied to those portions. But the ALJ had not explained the rejection of other parts of her statement, including her comments about Salinas’s ability to read and write English.

Disposition

Judge Kandis Westmore granted Salinas’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. On remand, the ALJ must make findings about Salinas’s ability to read and write English, provide an adequate explanation for weighing the medical opinions, and reconsider and explain the treatment of Figueroa-Flores’s statement where necessary.