Long v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Andralynn Long sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning May 1, 2015. The administrative law judge denied the applications on May 18, 2018, and the Appeals Council denied review on March 28, 2019.

The administrative law judge found that Long had severe rheumatoid arthritis and severe osteoarthritis. The judge determined that she retained the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform sedentary work with restrictions. Those restrictions included frequent handling and fingering. Based on that assessment, the judge concluded that Long could perform her past work as a collection clerk as generally performed.

Long’s treating rheumatologist, Eleanor Anderson-Williams, M.D., stated that Long could perform reaching, grasping, handling, feeling, and fine-finger manipulation for only 25 percent of an eight-hour workday, and for no more than 60 minutes at a time. The administrative law judge rejected those limits, relying on physical examinations, Long’s reported activities, and her work activity after applying for benefits. The judge also found that Long had engaged in substantial gainful activity during portions of 2016 and 2017.

Ruling on the Treating-Provider Opinion and Record Development

The court held that, assuming Anderson-Williams’s opinion was contradicted by the opinion of state-agency consultant H. Samplay, M.D., the administrative law judge needed specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject the treating provider’s assessment. The court found that the administrative law judge did not meet that standard.

The court concluded that the physical examinations did not support the administrative law judge’s finding that Long had greater hand function. Instead, the examinations repeatedly documented an inability to make a fist, decreased grip strength, positive nerve-related tests, pain, tenderness, and swelling. The court explained that a negative nerve study ruled out one possible cause of the symptoms but did not resolve the other abnormalities shown by imaging and angiograms or establish that Long’s hand condition had improved.

The court also found that Long’s reported activities did not undermine the treating provider’s limitations. The activities included mostly microwaving frozen meals or soup, limited housework, online shopping, and occasional church attendance. The court noted that Long reported difficulty feeding herself, dressing, caring for her hair, and using her hands during symptom flares. The court further found the administrative law judge’s discussion contradictory because the judge cited medical evidence supporting additional hand limitations but concluded that the residual functional capacity required no additional manipulative limitations.

The court likewise determined that Long’s temporary work in 2016 and 2017 did not adequately contradict the treating provider’s opinion. Long testified that she worked to pay bills while her application was pending, experienced worsening symptoms, missed work, needed breaks after about 15 minutes of hand use, and lost a job because she could not meet its demands.

The court found that the residual functional capacity assessment depended entirely on Samplay’s 2015 opinion, even though later evidence was available. In 2016, another state-agency consultant, S. M. Niknia, M.D., found insufficient medical evidence to assess Long’s functional limitations. The court held that the administrative law judge had a duty to investigate and develop the record when the evidence was ambiguous or inadequate. Because further administrative proceedings would serve a useful purpose, the court ordered a remand for further development of the record, particularly regarding Long’s manipulative limitations and the appropriate residual functional capacity.

Occupational-Data Argument

Long separately argued that the administrative law judge had to resolve an alleged conflict between the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the Occupational Requirements Survey concerning the sitting requirements of her past work. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the applicable Social Security ruling requires an administrative law judge to resolve conflicts between vocational-expert testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, but courts in the Ninth Circuit had not extended that duty to other occupational-data sources.

The court declined to create a duty requiring administrative law judges to identify every potentially relevant employment-data source, take notice of it, and resolve discrepancies among that source, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and vocational-expert testimony. The court therefore found no error concerning the alleged conflict between the Occupational Requirements Survey, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and the vocational expert’s testimony, regardless of whether Long had preserved the issue.

Disposition

The court granted Long’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The remand required further development of the record and evaluation of Long’s hand-use limitations and residual functional capacity; the court did not order an immediate award of benefits.