Gutierrez v. Berryhill

Background

The ALJ determined that Gutierrez had the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform less than the full range of sedentary work. The RFC allowed occasional balancing, kneeling, and crawling; no climbing of ladders; frequent handling and fingering; simple routine tasks; and occasional public contact. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the ALJ found that a person with this RFC could perform jobs including tube operator, addresser, and document preparer. The ALJ therefore found Gutierrez not disabled.

After the Social Security Appeals Council denied review, Gutierrez sought review in the district court. He moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asking the court to affirm it.

Dr. Montano’s Opinion

Dr. Arturo Montano diagnosed Gutierrez with chronic, progressive small-fiber neuropathy involving severe neuropathic pain and allodynia. Montano opined that Gutierrez could stand or walk for two to four hours and sit without limitation. He also assessed limits on balancing, kneeling, crawling, twisting, stooping, crouching or squatting, and climbing stairs. Montano stated that Gutierrez had significant limitations in reaching, handling, and fingering. In particular, Montano limited each hand’s grasping, turning, and twisting to 50 percent of an eight-hour workday and limited fine finger manipulation to 50 percent of that workday. Montano also opined that Gutierrez would likely be absent about four days per month and might need lengthy breaks if his pain worsened.

The ALJ said she gave great weight to Montano’s exertional and manipulative limitations because they were generally consistent with the medical record. She rejected the proposed absences and breaks as unsupported, vague, or speculative. But the RFC allowed frequent handling and fingering. The court explained that Social Security rules define “frequent” as occurring from one-third to two-thirds of the workday. Because frequent handling and fingering could require more than 50 percent of the workday, the court held that the RFC did not match Montano’s specific handling and fingering limits.

The court further held that the ALJ implicitly rejected Montano’s handling and fingering limitations without explaining why. Although an ALJ need not adopt every limitation assessed by a treating or examining physician, the ALJ must explain the reasons for rejecting portions of the opinion that are not adopted. The court found that the ALJ also should have determined whether other medical evidence contradicted or supported Montano’s opinions. The court concluded that these failures were legal error and that the vocational expert’s testimony was based on an inaccurate RFC.

Dr. Forman’s Opinion

Dr. Jenny Forman evaluated Gutierrez and opined that his ability to follow simple instructions and perform one- or two-step repetitive tasks was unimpaired. She assessed mild to moderate limitations in following complex or detailed instructions, performing complex tasks, tolerating the stress of an eight-hour workday, interacting appropriately with others, and adapting to workplace changes, hazards, or stressors. In response to a question asking how many hours per day Gutierrez could work, Forman wrote, “4-8 (simple tasks, low stress).”

The ALJ stated that she gave great weight to Forman’s opinion and included the statement that Gutierrez could work four to eight hours per day at simple, low-stress tasks. The RFC, however, stated only that he could perform simple routine tasks with occasional public contact, and the ALJ did not include the four-to-eight-hour limitation in the hypothetical questions to the vocational expert.

The court found Forman’s four-to-eight-hour statement ambiguous. It could mean that Gutierrez could regularly work up to eight hours per day, or it could mean that he could work eight hours only occasionally. The ALJ did not identify or resolve that ambiguity and did not explain whether she rejected or discounted that part of Forman’s opinion. The court held that the ALJ had a duty to conduct an appropriate inquiry into ambiguous or inadequate evidence and that the relevant RFC finding was not supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The court granted Gutierrez’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. It remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, specifically reconsideration of the step-four analysis.