Gerhard v. Saul

Background

Christina L Gerhard asked the court to review the denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged that she became unable to work beginning February 11, 2016, because of myelofibrosis, bone pain, fatigue, anemia, depression, anxiety, diarrhea, gout, and difficulty concentrating.

The administrative law judge found that Gerhard’s myelofibrosis was a severe impairment but concluded that she was not disabled. The administrative law judge determined that she could perform sedentary work with additional restrictions, including no more than four hours of standing and walking in an eight-hour day, occasional climbing of ladders, ropes, and scaffolds, frequent performance of other postural activities, limited exposure to hazards, approximately three percent off-task time, and frequent manipulation. The administrative law judge then found that Gerhard could perform the equivalent of her past work as an administrative assistant.

Gerhard moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule based on the record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. Andrew Saul also moved for summary judgment. Gerhard challenged the administrative law judge’s rejection of her testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms.

The court’s analysis

The court explained that, when there is no evidence of malingering, an administrative law judge must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence before rejecting a claimant’s testimony about symptoms. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not identify which portions of Gerhard’s testimony were being rejected. The administrative law judge stated generally that Gerhard’s allegations were inconsistent with her medical evidence and daily activities, but did not explain the specific testimony or evidence supporting that conclusion.

The court determined that Gerhard’s daily activities did not provide sufficient support for rejecting her testimony. Although she could grocery shop with assistance, perform limited household tasks, drive, and volunteer while seated, the record also showed that these activities occurred for short periods and were followed by limitations or rest. For example, she performed light household work for about one hour on four days each week, grocery-shopped every two weeks with assistance, needed to rest after shopping, and volunteered for only about one and a half to two hours while seated. The court found that these limited activities did not amount to clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her testimony about her symptoms.

The court also rejected the administrative law judge’s reliance on minimal changes in the medical record after January 2018 and Gerhard’s reduced need for blood transfusions. The court noted that Gerhard still required some transfusions and that the record showed the transfusions affected her ability to work. The court further found that the administrative law judge discussed the medical evidence too imprecisely for the court to determine the basis of the decision.

The court criticized the treatment of the medical opinions as well. The administrative law judge partially rejected opinions from agency consultants and an examining consultant that allowed more functioning than sedentary work, but did not adequately identify the evidence supporting the selected restrictions. The administrative law judge also gave only partial weight to treating oncologist Ethan Schram’s opinion that Gerhard could sit, stand, or walk for about two hours total in an eight-hour workday and would need to elevate her legs for 20 to 30 percent of the workday. The court said the administrative law judge’s statement that leg elevation could occur outside work hours was not substantial evidence.

Because of these problems, the court concluded that the residual functional capacity finding had no adequate medical evidentiary basis. The court held that the rejection of Gerhard’s testimony failed both because it did not specify what testimony was rejected and because it relied on a simplified view of her testimony, third-party evidence, and medical records.

Disposition

The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court did not award benefits in this order. A separate judgment was to issue.