Guzman v. Berryhill

Background

Ruben C. Guzman sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. Guzman alleged that he became disabled on November 12, 2014. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found severe impairments including degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder, diverticulitis, hepatitis C, obesity, and major depressive disorder.

The administrative law judge determined that Guzman had the residual functional capacity to perform light work with additional restrictions. Although he could not perform his past work as a laborer, the administrative law judge found that he could perform jobs such as swatch clerk, mail sorter, and bench assembler. After the Social Security Appeals Council denied review, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Medical evidence

Guzman challenged the administrative law judge’s treatment of opinions from examining psychologist Elizabeth Whelchel and treating psychiatrist Nang Du.

The court rejected Guzman’s challenge concerning Dr. Whelchel. The administrative law judge gave her opinion great or full weight and addressed each category of limitation she identified. The administrative law judge included restrictions concerning simple and complex tasks, attention, interaction with others, supervision, production requirements, and attendance. The court concluded that Guzman had not shown that the residual-functional-capacity assessment failed to capture Dr. Whelchel’s findings.

The court found error in the treatment of Dr. Du’s opinion. The administrative law judge gave that opinion little weight for two reasons: an inference that Dr. Du relied on Guzman’s history rather than independently reviewed earlier records, and concern about the form’s definition of the term moderate. The court concluded that the first reason was not adequately explained, particularly because Dr. Du and other practitioners had treated Guzman before Dr. Du completed the questionnaire. The administrative law judge also did not adequately explain why a lack of review of records from before April 2014 justified rejecting Dr. Du’s opinion about Guzman’s condition as of the alleged onset date.

The court also held that the form’s definition of moderate limitations was not, by itself, a specific and legitimate reason to reject Dr. Du’s opinion. The administrative law judge did not identify evidence showing that Dr. Du had been misled by the definition or identify inconsistencies between Dr. Du’s opinion and the medical record. If clarification was needed, the administrative law judge had a duty to further develop the record. The court therefore concluded that the administrative law judge had not provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Du’s opinion.

Credibility and step-five decision

Because the administrative law judge relied in part on an alleged inconsistency between Guzman’s complaints and the medical evidence, the error concerning Dr. Du’s opinion also required reevaluation of Guzman’s reported symptoms and limitations. The court did not separately decide that Guzman was disabled.

At step five of the disability analysis, the Commissioner must identify jobs existing in significant numbers that the claimant can perform, generally using testimony from a vocational expert responding to a hypothetical that includes the claimant’s limitations. Guzman argued that the hypothetical questions omitted his credible allegations and limitations identified by Drs. Whelchel and Du. Because the medical evidence and symptom evaluation had to be reconsidered, the court directed the administrative law judge to consider whether the vocational expert’s hypotheticals also needed revision.

Disposition

The court held that further proceedings were appropriate because unresolved issues remained and the record did not establish that the administrative law judge would be required to find Guzman disabled after properly evaluating the evidence. Judge Susan Van Keulen therefore GRANTED Guzman’s motion for summary judgment, DENIED the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and REMANDED the case for further proceedings.