Ojeda v. Berryhill

Background

Juan Ojeda appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He sought benefits beginning June 23, 2014. After a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Ojeda had lumbar degenerative disc disease, diabetes, and hypertension, but was not disabled.

The ALJ determined that Ojeda could perform a limited range of light work. Although he could not perform his past relevant work, the ALJ found that he could perform inspector, electrical assembler, and sealer jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ identified 13,000 inspector jobs, 15,000 electrical assembler jobs, and 15,000 sealer jobs nationally. The Appeals Council denied review.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision based on the record when the court determines that no trial is needed to resolve the motion.

Step-Three Listing Analysis

Ojeda argued that his lumbar degenerative disc disease met Listing 1.04A, which concerns certain disabling spine disorders. The listing requires, among other things, nerve-root compression, pain in a specific nerve distribution, restricted spinal movement, motor loss accompanied by sensory or reflex loss, and—when the lower back is involved—positive straight-leg-raising tests. The requirements must last for the required period.

The court found that the ALJ’s discussion of Listing 1.04 consisted of a single sentence and did not adequately evaluate the medical evidence. The ALJ mentioned a lumbar magnetic-resonance imaging scan showing disc protrusions and nerve impingement and one examination showing normal gait and motor function, but did not discuss evidence concerning several listing criteria, including pain distribution, restricted spinal movement, sensory or reflex loss, or straight-leg-raising results.

The court nevertheless held that this error was harmless. After reviewing the medical record, the court found evidence supporting each Listing 1.04A criterion for at least 12 months except motor loss. The record contained some findings of reduced muscle strength, but other examinations showed normal strength, and the most recent examinations showed normal motor strength. The doctor on whose examinations Ojeda principally relied saw him during only a four-month period, which was shorter than the required 12 months. Because the record did not establish all the requirements for the necessary duration, the court denied Ojeda’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion on this issue.

Step-Five Work Finding

Ojeda also argued that the ALJ failed to show that a significant number of suitable jobs existed. He contended that 15,000 jobs or fewer in each occupation was not enough and that the ALJ should have obtained additional information about regional job availability.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that the relevant job total is calculated collectively across the occupations identified, rather than separately for each occupation. The three occupations together accounted for 43,000 jobs nationally. The court also stated that the required showing may be based on jobs existing in the claimant’s region or in several regions of the country; Ojeda did not establish that the ALJ was required to obtain regional information in addition to nationwide information.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied Ojeda’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The opinion therefore left the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits in place.