Alston, Jr. v. Berryhill

Background

Barnett Alston, Jr. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the denial of his application for Title XVI disability benefits. He alleged disability beginning January 1, 2010. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the application on June 9, 2017.

Alston moved for summary judgment and requested either payment of benefits or further proceedings. Nancy A. Berryhill filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Alston challenged the ALJ’s decision on three grounds: the rejection of medical opinions, the evaluation of his testimony about the severity of his symptoms, and the use of an incomplete hypothetical question at the fifth step of the disability evaluation.

Medical opinions

The ALJ found that Alston could perform medium work but gave less weight to opinions from treating physicians Smriti Shrestha, M.D., and Swapnaja Chandrachood, M.D. Those doctors described significant limitations involving Alston’s right knee and lower back, including limited walking, sitting, and standing; restrictions on lifting and certain movements; the need for position changes and unscheduled breaks; and likely work absences.

The court held that the ALJ did not give specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting those opinions. The ALJ referred generally to the longitudinal medical evidence and conservative treatment but did not explain the medical evidence, interpret the test results, or explain why the ALJ’s interpretation was correct. The court also rejected Berryhill’s attempt to rely on explanations that the ALJ had not given in the decision.

The ALJ also gave less weight to the opinion of Darrell Cacciaroni, M.S., Alston’s treating therapist. Cacciaroni diagnosed major depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder and described limitations involving employment, concentration, and interactions with people outside Alston’s close relationships. The court found that the ALJ did not identify a sufficient reason specific to Cacciaroni for discounting his opinion.

The ALJ did not address the opinion of occupational therapist Jeff Kauffman, who found limitations involving stooping, squatting, crouching, heavy lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, and prolonged standing and believed Alston would benefit from sedentary work. The court held that the ALJ erred by providing no explanation for rejecting that opinion.

Alston’s testimony

The court also found error in the ALJ’s treatment of Alston’s testimony about his symptoms. The ALJ stated that Alston’s statements were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence but did not identify which statements were discredited or explain the specific inconsistencies. The court held that a general summary of the evidence was not enough to provide the required clear and convincing reasons for rejecting testimony about symptoms.

The court declined to consider additional reasons Berryhill offered in the litigation because the ALJ had not relied on those reasons in the decision. The court concluded that the ALJ’s failure to identify specific testimony and explain the inconsistencies prevented meaningful review.

Step-five finding and disposition

The ALJ’s hypothetical questions to a vocational expert did not include the limitations described by Alston’s treating doctors, treating therapist, and occupational therapist. Because the ALJ had erred in discounting or failing to address those opinions, the court found that the hypotheticals were incomplete and that the step-five determination was also erroneous.

The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Judge Kandis Westmore determined that the record did not clearly establish that the ALJ would be required to find Alston disabled if the evidence were properly evaluated. The court therefore found that remand was appropriate for further proceedings and directed the ALJ to properly evaluate the medical evidence under applicable law and consistently with the opinion.