Herbert G., et al. v. Saul

Background

Herbert G. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. He alleged that Type II diabetes, left shoulder pain, back pain, and right leg pain prevented him from working. At the administrative hearing, his counsel amended the alleged disability-onset date to September 12, 2013, but the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) continued to use June 1, 2011 in the written decision.

The ALJ found that Herbert G. had severe impairments involving diabetes, prior left shoulder surgery, and left shoulder osteoarthritis. The ALJ determined that he could perform a limited range of light work, including lifting 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, sitting for four hours total, standing or walking for four hours total, taking one additional 10-minute break, and rarely reaching or working overhead with his left arm. The ALJ found that he could not return to his past construction work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Medical-opinion evidence

Herbert G. argued that the ALJ improperly gave only partial weight to the opinion attributed to his treating physician, Dr. Catherina Fu. That opinion imposed substantially greater limits on sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and reaching with the left arm, and stated that Herbert G. would miss more than four workdays per month.

The court held that the ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting those limitations. The ALJ relied on treatment records showing moderate or mild shoulder limitations, later examinations showing relatively normal findings apart from skin problems, and evidence that the shoulder condition appeared to improve after a June 2015 examination. Regarding the diabetes-related limits, the ALJ relied on records showing no fatigue, pain, or lower-extremity limitations on several examinations, stable diabetes when Herbert G. took his medication, and no medical evidence supporting the extreme sitting, standing, and walking restrictions.

The opinion notes uncertainty about who actually wrote the medical-source statement attributed to Dr. Fu. The statement did not contain her name, and its signature appeared to be that of Nurse Practitioner Edward Liu. The court nevertheless analyzed it as Dr. Fu’s opinion because the ALJ and the parties treated it that way.

Subjective symptom testimony

The ALJ found that Herbert G.’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably cause his alleged symptoms but concluded that his statements about their intensity and limiting effects were not fully consistent with the record. The court upheld that assessment. It cited the treatment history, objective medical findings, and Herbert G.’s reported activities, including riding a bicycle for transportation, lifting the bicycle several times a day, shopping for groceries, doing laundry and cleaning, and using a push mower for yardwork.

The court concluded that these reasons were specific, clear, and convincing and were supported by substantial evidence. It therefore found no reversible error in the ALJ’s treatment of Herbert G.’s symptom testimony.

Step-five job finding

Herbert G. argued that the ALJ could not classify his residual functional capacity as light work because he was limited to four total hours of standing or walking in an eight-hour day. The court rejected that argument. A vocational expert testified that a person with Herbert G.’s limitations could perform identified light-work occupations that allowed sitting or standing as needed. The ALJ confirmed that the jobs were suitable for someone limited to four total hours of standing or walking and found that the testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

The court also explained that the ALJ did not find that Herbert G. could perform the full range of light work. Instead, the ALJ found that he could perform less than the full range of light work with additional restrictions, including a sit-or-stand option. The court further rejected the argument that the residual functional capacity described sedentary work, noting that the stated four hours of sitting and four hours of standing or walking exceeded the general sitting requirement described for sedentary work.

Disposition

The court concluded that the ALJ’s denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. It denied Herbert G.’s motion for summary judgment and granted Andrew Saul’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 24 and 25.