Hubkey v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Michael Sean Hubkey challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. Hubkey alleged that he became disabled on February 1, 2014. His relevant medical issues included lumbar back pain, degenerative spinal changes, neuropathy, and some depression. His work history included construction, garbage collection, and industrial truck driving.

The administrative law judge found that Hubkey had severe impairments involving degenerative disc disease and neuropathy. The judge determined that Hubkey could perform light work with restrictions, including limits on climbing, crawling, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, handling, and fingering. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge concluded that Hubkey could not return to his past work but could perform other jobs, including cleaner housekeeping, Mexican food maker, hand, and sales attendant. The Commissioner therefore found Hubkey not disabled.

Medical opinions at issue

Dr. John Schweifler, Hubkey’s treating physician, provided 2014 opinions stating that Hubkey had significant limitations involving pain, standing, sitting, walking, lifting, handling, fingering, reaching, breaks, and regular attendance. Dr. Schweifler also completed a January 2015 questionnaire, which stated that Hubkey’s symptoms would constantly interfere with concentration, that he needed regular unscheduled breaks, and that he had additional limitations involving handling, fingering, and reaching. The administrative law judge did not address the 2015 questionnaire.

Dr. Robert Tang examined Hubkey in 2014 and assessed less restrictive limitations than Dr. Schweifler. Dr. Tang stated that Hubkey could stand and walk for up to six hours only with alternating sitting and standing and maximum allowable breaks. The administrative law judge generally gave Dr. Tang’s opinions great weight but omitted those sitting, standing, and break restrictions from the residual functional capacity assessment without explaining why.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Under that review, the court considers whether the decision was free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate when considering the record as a whole.

The court held that the administrative law judge erred by failing to explain the omission of Dr. Tang’s restrictions. The court noted that an administrative law judge must give legally sufficient reasons for rejecting or failing to credit an examining physician’s opinion. The fact that a non-examining consultant did not identify the same restrictions was not, by itself, enough to justify rejecting Dr. Tang’s opinion, and the administrative law judge gave no reason for doing so.

The court also held that the administrative law judge erred by failing to address Dr. Schweifler’s January 2015 questionnaire. The Commissioner argued that the omission was harmless because the questionnaire was similar to Dr. Schweifler’s 2014 opinions, which the administrative law judge had rejected. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the administrative law judge had not provided any reason for rejecting the 2015 opinions and that the administrative process should first determine whether sufficient reasons existed to discount them.

The court did not decide in detail whether the reasons given for discounting the 2014 opinions were sufficient. It noted, however, that the administrative law judge provided little explanation for favoring non-treating physicians even though the judge recognized that those physicians had not sufficiently accounted for some of Hubkey’s conditions. The court also noted that the administrative law judge criticized Hubkey for not obtaining more extensive treatment without considering evidence that he may not have had financial access to that treatment.

Disposition

The court granted Hubkey’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings consistent with the decision. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in Hubkey’s favor and close the file. The court did not order an immediate award of benefits.