Bazan v. Berryhill

Background

Gloria Bazan sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the denial of her applications for Title II and Title XVI disability benefits. She alleged disability beginning December 28, 2013. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found severe impairments including fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, post-thyroidectomy condition, cervical and lumbar disc bulges, and diabetes. The ALJ determined that Bazan could perform sedentary work with restrictions, including simple, repetitive tasks and limited interaction with coworkers and the public. The ALJ found that she could not return to her past work as a caregiver home health aide but could perform work as an addresser, document preparer, or hand packager.

The Appeals Council denied review and did not consider additional evidence, including hand-examination records and a supplemental report from Dr. Large concerning Bazan’s depression and ability to work. Bazan then filed this action and moved for summary judgment. Berryhill opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Appeals Council properly rejected the additional evidence about Bazan’s back pain and hands. Bazan did not explain how the back-pain evidence would have changed the ALJ’s decision, and the hand evidence indicated a likely treatment period of five to six weeks with good rehabilitation potential, rather than an impairment expected to last at least twelve months. But the court found that Dr. Large’s supplemental report was material and related to the relevant period because it addressed the doctor’s August through October 2016 treatment notes. The report contradicted the ALJ’s interpretation that Bazan’s depression had improved and stated that her depression remained severe and poorly controlled. The court concluded that the report created a reasonable probability of a different outcome and required remand for the ALJ to consider it.

The court also found errors in the ALJ’s step-five findings. It held that the addresser job was obsolete and therefore did not exist in significant numbers in the national economy. It further held that the ALJ failed to address the apparent conflict between Bazan’s residual functional capacity for simple, repetitive tasks and the document-preparer job’s Level 3 reasoning requirement. The court found no error in the finding that Bazan could perform the hand-packager position because the submitted hand evidence did not show an impairment lasting at least twelve months.

The court found that the ALJ did not adequately explain the weight given to the opinions of Dr. Large, a treating medical source, and Dr. Salvador-Moses, an examining medical source. The ALJ’s explanation for discounting Dr. Large’s opinion had to be reconsidered in light of the supplemental report. As to Dr. Salvador-Moses, the ALJ stated that the evaluation and overall medical evidence did not support more restrictive limitations but did not identify the evidence or explain why it conflicted with her opinion. The court also rejected the ALJ’s analysis of fibromyalgia and the combined effects of Bazan’s impairments, finding that the ALJ considered her statements and testimony and that Bazan identified no evidence showing that nausea or high blood pressure affected her ability to work.

Finally, the court held that the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for discounting Bazan’s statements about the severity of her symptoms. The ALJ relied on Bazan’s driver’s license, household activities, alleged evasiveness about meals and monitoring her son’s schooling, and her sons’ receipt of disability benefits. The court found that the ALJ did not adequately explain the relevance of the driver’s license or household activities, and that Bazan’s answers about meals and school contacts were direct rather than evasive. The court also found that the ALJ could not rely on explanations offered later by Berryhill that the ALJ had not given in the decision.

Disposition

The court granted Bazan’s motion for summary judgment and denied Berryhill’s cross-motion for summary judgment. It remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not order payment of benefits because it found no error concerning the hand-packager job and concluded that further proceedings were appropriate.