Turner v. Berryhill

Background

Illya S. Turner appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Turner sought disability benefits beginning October 10, 2010, and applied on August 24, 2015. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge issued an unfavorable decision on May 8, 2018. The Appeals Council denied review.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Turner had several severe impairments, including degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, a history of a left-knee partial medial collateral ligament tear, traumatic instability of the left thumb joint, right-hand osteoarthritis, a history of hand fractures, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Turner had the residual functional capacity—his remaining ability to work despite his impairments—for medium work, with restrictions on climbing, kneeling, and other postural activities, as well as frequent reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling. The judge concluded that Turner could perform jobs existing in the national economy, including floor waxer, dining room attendant, and laundry worker.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule based on the administrative record without a trial.

Analysis of Turner’s Symptom Testimony

Turner argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly rejected his testimony about the intensity and effects of his symptoms. Because the Administrative Law Judge did not find that Turner was pretending to have symptoms, she was required to give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting his testimony.

The court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge met that standard by relying on medical records, objective medical evidence, conservative treatment, reports of improvement, and the stability of some conditions. The court rejected Turner’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge had improperly omitted significant findings from a 2016 neck scan. The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge reasonably relied on treatment records showing improvement and pain managed with ibuprofen and a muscle relaxer.

The court agreed that the Administrative Law Judge did not adequately explain which daily activities undermined Turner’s testimony. It nevertheless held that this error was harmless because the medical and other evidence independently provided sufficient reasons for the decision. On this issue, the court denied Turner’s summary judgment motion and granted the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion.

Residual Functional Capacity and Vocational-Expert Questions

A consultative examiner, Teresita Degamo, M.D., indicated that Turner should limit forceful grasping or gripping to occasional use. The Administrative Law Judge’s residual functional capacity did not expressly include that restriction. Instead, the Administrative Law Judge stated that the limitation was addressed by restricting Turner to medium work.

The court found that explanation inadequate. The regulation defining medium work addresses activities such as sitting, walking, standing, lifting, and carrying, but does not discuss grasping or gripping. The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge did not explain whether she believed lifting and carrying included grasping and gripping or whether she believed forceful grasping meant grasping more than 50 pounds. The Commissioner offered additional explanations, but the court could not rely on reasons supplied after the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.

Because the residual functional capacity did not adequately address the supported grasping and gripping limitation, the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert also omitted a relevant limitation. The court therefore held that the vocational expert’s testimony lacked evidentiary value. On this issue, the court granted Turner’s summary judgment motion and denied the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion.

Step-Five Job Findings

Turner also argued that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. He contended that the dining room attendant and floor waxer positions required more reaching, handling, or kneeling than the Administrative Law Judge’s proposed limitations allowed. The Commissioner argued that any error was harmless because Turner could still perform the laundry-worker position.

The court did not resolve whether the job descriptions independently created a harmless error because the vocational expert had not received accurate hypothetical questions in the first place. The court held that the Administrative Law Judge therefore erred in relying on the vocational expert’s testimony concerning any of the listed positions. On this issue, the court granted Turner’s summary judgment motion and denied the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion.

Disposition

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for finding that medium work accounted for Turner’s occasional forceful-grasping and gripping limitation. The court also found that unresolved issues remained concerning the proper residual functional capacity and the jobs Turner could perform. It therefore remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings rather than ordering an immediate award of benefits.

The court granted in part and denied in part Turner’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order.