E.M. v. Berryhill

Background

E.M. challenged the final decision denying his application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the application, finding that E.M. was not disabled from his alleged onset date of April 2, 2015. The Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The ALJ found severe impairments including degenerative disc disease, a thoracic-spine compression fracture, right-knee dysfunction, obesity, and arthritis in both thumbs. The ALJ determined that E.M. had the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most he could do despite his limitations—to perform sedentary work with restrictions on climbing, postural activities, handling, and fingering. The ALJ found that E.M. could not perform his past work but could perform other jobs identified by a vocational expert.

E.M. argued that the ALJ improperly rejected his testimony about the intensity and effects of his pain and improperly discounted the opinion of examining physician Dr. Andrew Burt. Dr. Burt opined that E.M. had more extensive limitations, including limited ability to sit, stand, and walk; a need for unscheduled breaks; and likely absences from work.

Analysis

The court held that the ALJ improperly rejected E.M.’s testimony about his symptoms. Because the ALJ found that E.M.’s impairments could reasonably cause the claimed symptoms and did not find that E.M. was pretending to be ill, the ALJ was required to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting the testimony.

The ALJ relied on the supposed conservative nature and effectiveness of E.M.’s treatment and on his daily activities. The court found that the record did not support those reasons. E.M. had undergone spinal fusion surgery, received repeated epidural injections, and used narcotic pain medication. The record also showed that his pain and muscle spasms continued despite treatment. The court further found that the ALJ did not explain how E.M.’s gardening, keeping a few chickens, or part-time Uber driving was inconsistent with his claimed limitations. The ALJ had not established what tasks E.M. performed involving the garden or chickens, and E.M. testified that his Uber driving involved short periods, frequent breaks, and days when he could not drive.

The court also held that the ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Burt’s opinion. An examining doctor’s opinion may be rejected only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate. The court found that the ALJ’s reliance on conservative treatment, improvement after surgery, E.M.’s subjective reports, and his Uber work did not meet that standard. The court also declined to consider an additional reason raised by the Commissioner because the ALJ had not relied on it.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted E.M.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court declined to order an immediate award of benefits because conflicts and uncertainties remained concerning E.M.’s limitations and further administrative proceedings could help resolve them. The clerk was instructed to enter judgment accordingly.