Kirkendoll, Sr. v. Saul
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:18-cv-07649
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Kirkendoll, Sr. v. Saul, Judge Corley granted Kirkendoll’s summary-judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s, and remanded because the ALJ mishandled medical evidence.
James Ray Kirkendoll, Sr.’s disability-benefits claim was sent back to the Commissioner for further proceedings; the Commissioner’s denial was not upheld, and the order did not award benefits.
What happened
In Kirkendoll, Sr. v. Saul, James Ray Kirkendoll, Sr. asked the court to review the denial of his Social Security disability benefits. The administrative law judge found that Kirkendoll had several serious physical and mental impairments but could perform light work and therefore was not disabled.
Kirkendoll argued that the administrative law judge wrongly discounted the opinions of his treating physician, Dr. Frank Fine, and made an unsupported finding about his ability to perform other work. He also argued that the case should be heard by a different administrative law judge because of an appointment problem. The Commissioner opposed Kirkendoll’s request.
Judge Corley granted Kirkendoll’s summary-judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the administrative law judge did not give adequate, evidence-based reasons for discounting Dr. Fine’s opinions. The court did not decide the other arguments, including whether a different administrative law judge was required.
The detailed version
- Kirkendoll, Sr. v. Saul · No. 3:18-cv-07649
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Jan. 28, 2020
Background
James Ray Kirkendoll, Sr. sought disability insurance benefits based on physical and mental impairments, including shoulder, back, and neck problems, depression, and anxiety. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Kirkendoll had severe impairments, including degenerative disc disease, the effects of lumbar-fusion surgery, shoulder impingement, depression, and anxiety. The ALJ nevertheless found that Kirkendoll could perform light work with restrictions and was capable of performing jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Kirkendoll then sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Issues and ruling
Kirkendoll argued that the ALJ improperly gave reduced weight to the opinions of his treating physician, Dr. Frank Fine. The ALJ had discounted Dr. Fine’s opinions that Kirkendoll was restricted from repeatedly rotating or holding his neck in certain positions, lifting or pushing more than five to ten pounds at or above shoulder height, and repeatedly gripping or grasping with both upper extremities.
The court held that the ALJ failed to provide the required reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Dr. Fine’s opinions. The ALJ referred generally to imaging, clinical examinations, treatment, improvement with treatment, Kirkendoll’s activities, his statement that he could lift 15 pounds, and normal gait and lower-extremity strength. But the ALJ did not adequately explain how those matters undermined Dr. Fine’s opinions, did not provide sufficient record citations, and relied on evidence that did not address the relevant neck and upper-extremity limitations. The court also found that the record did not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Kirkendoll’s neck pain and range of motion improved with treatment.
The court concluded that the error was not harmless because it went to the heart of the disability determination. It therefore did not reach Kirkendoll’s separate argument concerning the ALJ’s Step Five finding, which asks whether a claimant can adjust to other work.
Appointments Clause argument
Kirkendoll also argued that the case should be remanded to a different ALJ because the ALJ was not properly appointed under the Constitution. The Commissioner argued that Kirkendoll had not timely raised that issue before the ALJ or the Appeals Council. Because the court was already remanding the case based on the medical-evidence error, it did not decide the appointment issue. The court stated that, if the Commissioner used the same ALJ on remand, Kirkendoll could raise the argument at that time.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted Kirkendoll’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not award benefits in this order.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.