Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Johnny Brooks applied for Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability based on physical and mental impairments. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that Brooks had a severe back disorder but that his affective mood disorder was nonsevere. The judge determined that Brooks had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his limitations—to perform medium work, including standing or walking for about six hours in an eight-hour workday. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found Brooks could perform jobs such as aircraft cleaner, packager, and grocery store bagger, and denied his application. The Social Security Appeals Council denied review.

Medical-opinion issues

Brooks challenged the administrative law judge’s treatment of three groups of medical evidence.

First, the judge gave little weight to the opinion of examining psychologist Katherine Wiebe, who identified marked and moderate mental limitations. The court found that the judge gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting that opinion, including that Wiebe had not reviewed Brooks’s entire medical record and had not seen later treatment notes indicating improvement in some symptoms. The court therefore found no error in the treatment of Wiebe’s opinion.

Second, the judge gave little weight to therapist John Edwards’s opinion that Brooks was unlikely to enter the workplace effectively. The court found that the judge reasonably determined the letter was inconsistent with Edwards’s progress notes, which described Brooks’s functional status as average and did not identify significant ongoing effects on his daily work, training, or educational activities.

Third, treating physician Michael Wang stated that Brooks could stand and walk for less than two hours in an eight-hour workday because of plantar fasciitis. The administrative law judge gave Wang’s opinion little weight and gave significant weight to opinions stating that Brooks could stand and walk for about six hours.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the reasons given for rejecting Wang’s opinion were partly based on an inaccurate reading of the record. The judge said a 2017 treatment note showed that Brooks’s heel pain was relieved by ice, ibuprofen, and prior injections, but the note actually stated that the pain was unrelieved by those measures. The judge also characterized Brooks’s treatment as conservative without addressing the prescription of gabapentin for heel pain. A later podiatric note continued to document pain when Brooks’s right heel was touched.

The court also rejected the judge’s reliance on allegedly mild diagnostic tests and physical examinations, explaining that the tests did not show plantar fasciitis and that the record did not describe Brooks’s heel pain as mild. The court found that Brooks’s ability to use transportation and perform household chores was not inconsistent with Wang’s stated limits on standing and walking. The court concluded that the administrative law judge erred in rejecting Wang’s opinion.

The error was not harmless. The jobs identified by the vocational expert in both the medium-work and light-work categories generally required standing or walking for approximately six hours in an eight-hour workday. The vocational expert had not been asked whether jobs existed for a person who could stand and walk for less than two hours. The court therefore could not uphold the denial based on the existing vocational testimony.

Remedy and disposition

Brooks asked for an immediate award of benefits or, alternatively, further administrative proceedings. The court found that further proceedings could serve a useful purpose because the record did not establish whether Brooks’s limitations could be accommodated in another category of work, such as sedentary work, and additional medical evidence might be available.

The court granted Brooks’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not decide that Brooks was entitled to immediate benefits.