Gordon v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Charlene Gordon sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Appeals Council denied her request for review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner for purposes of district-court review. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which is a decision based on the administrative record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Gordon alleged disability beginning January 31, 2010, although the administrative law judge later used December 28, 2014, as the amended alleged onset date. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including stage II chronic kidney disease, obesity, osteoarthritis in both knees, degenerative changes in the lumbar spine and hips, and carpal tunnel syndrome. The administrative law judge found that Gordon could perform light work with stated limitations and could work as a clerical assistant or reception clerk, so the applications were denied.

The parties’ arguments

Gordon argued that the administrative law judge failed to identify her transferable skills, made findings that conflicted with the residual functional capacity assessment, and failed to explain how her skills transferred to clerical work given her carpal tunnel syndrome. She also argued that the residual functional capacity assessment was unsupported because it did not adequately account for her inability to use her hands for writing or typing. Gordon asked for an immediate award of benefits rather than another administrative hearing.

The Commissioner argued that Gordon’s past office-manager work gave her transferable skills, including keyboarding and operating computer systems, and that the administrative law judge properly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony. The Commissioner maintained that substantial evidence supported the decision and argued that any remand should be for further administrative proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the residual functional capacity assessment was flawed and that its limitations were not based on substantial evidence. The court concluded that the administrative law judge improperly rejected Gordon’s testimony and the well-supported opinions and findings of her treating physicians. The administrative law judge had relied primarily on two non-examining consultants and on a one-time examination by an internist.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not give legally sufficient reasons for discounting the opinions of Gordon’s treating physicians. In particular, the administrative law judge gave little weight to Dr. Grace Lat’s opinions that Gordon’s carpal tunnel syndrome prevented certain lifting and twisting actions, prevented computer use and typing, and required her wrists to remain immobilized. The court found that the administrative law judge relied on isolated evidence, mischaracterized Gordon’s testimony about grocery shopping, and did not adequately address the medical evidence, including abnormal nerve-conduction and electromyography results.

The court also found that the administrative law judge improperly rejected Gordon’s pain and symptom testimony. The decision used general language stating that her testimony was not entirely consistent with the evidence but failed to identify which testimony was being rejected and why. The court found that the reasons involving her use of stairs, riding the bus, grocery shopping, and cooking did not adequately address the limitations caused by her wrist and hand problems. The court therefore credited Gordon’s testimony as true as a matter of law.

Remedy and disposition

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s credit-as-true rule. Under that rule, immediate payment of benefits may be ordered when the administrative law judge failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, no factual issues remain to be resolved, and the record shows that the claimant would be found disabled if the evidence were credited.

The court found that these conditions were met. It relied on the treating medical evidence, Gordon’s credited testimony, and the vocational expert’s testimony that less-than-occasional use of the dominant right upper extremity for fine and gross manipulation would preclude all employment. The court found no reason to doubt that Gordon was disabled and concluded that further administrative proceedings were not warranted.

The court granted Gordon’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. It reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the matter for the immediate calculation and payment of benefits.