Nai S. v. Saul

Background

Kow Nai S. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging that he became disabled on October 2, 2012. An administrative law judge found that he had several severe impairments, including arthritis in both knees and shoulders, lumbar-spine disorders, right carpal tunnel syndrome, and right wrist and shoulder problems. The administrative law judge concluded that Kow Nai S. could perform his past work as a jewelry preparer and therefore was not disabled.

After the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied review, Kow Nai S. sought review in the district court. He argued that the administrative law judge improperly found that he could perform his past work and improperly evaluated his testimony about his symptoms. Kow Nai S. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the administrative decision. The Commissioner cross-moved to affirm.

Past Relevant Work

The court rejected Kow Nai S.’s argument that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding allowed Kow Nai S. to sit for one hour at a time, sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday, and change positions or stand for five minutes every hour while remaining on task.

The Dictionary of Occupational Titles classifies jewelry preparer as sedentary work and states that the job involves sitting most of the time, but may involve walking or standing briefly. The court explained that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles does not require uninterrupted two-hour periods of sitting for that occupation. Because the publication was silent about the need to change positions or stand every hour, the court found no conflict between it and the vocational expert’s testimony. The administrative law judge had also asked the vocational expert about the limitation and whether her testimony was inconsistent with the publication; she identified no inconsistency. The court therefore held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Kow Nai S. could perform his past work as generally performed.

Evaluation of Symptom Testimony

The court reached a different conclusion about the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Kow Nai S.’s testimony. The administrative law judge gave two reasons for discounting the testimony: Kow Nai S.’s statements were allegedly inconsistent with his daily activities and presentation, and they were allegedly inconsistent with the evidence in the record.

The court held that the daily-activities rationale was not a sufficiently specific, clear, and convincing reason to reject the testimony. The administrative law judge cited Kow Nai S.’s ability to shower, prepare simple meals, drive short distances, and pick up his daughter and grandson, but did not make specific findings about whether those activities were transferable to a work setting. The judge also did not address Kow Nai S.’s testimony about the limits on those activities, including numbness while showering, the short driving distances, difficulty using utensils when his wrist hurt, and difficulty lifting coins from a flat surface.

The court also held that substantial evidence did not support the administrative law judge’s characterization of the medical evidence as showing non-severe symptoms, well-managed pain, and conservative treatment. The record described multiple surgeries, months of physical therapy, continuing pain, spinal stenosis, and two steroid injections for lower-back pain. The court concluded that the evidence did not provide a specific, clear, and convincing reason for rejecting Kow Nai S.’s testimony.

Disposition

The court granted Kow Nai S.’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The opinion text does not clearly identify the judge by name.