McCarthy v. Berryhill

Background

McCarthy had been found disabled as of March 1, 2008, based on a mood disorder and back disorders. After a continuing disability review, the Social Security Administration found that he was no longer disabled as of May 19, 2014. The decision was upheld on reconsideration.

An administrative law judge held a hearing and issued an unfavorable decision on June 21, 2017. The administrative law judge found that McCarthy had experienced medical improvement and determined that he could perform light work with restrictions, including the ability to alternate between sitting and standing every 30 minutes, limits to simple repetitive tasks, and access to a bathroom within two minutes of urgency. Relying on testimony from a vocational expert, the administrative law judge found that McCarthy could perform jobs such as bench assembler, paper pattern folder, and microfilm document scanner.

Issues

McCarthy moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the Commissioner’s final decision. He argued that the administrative law judge improperly weighed the medical opinions and improperly assessed his credibility. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asking the court to affirm the decision. The court stated that the Commissioner’s arguments concerning McCarthy’s mental limitations were moot because McCarthy appeared to challenge only the findings about his physical limitations.

Medical-opinion analysis

The court focused on the administrative law judge’s treatment of three categories of medical evidence. Calvin Pon, M.D., performed an orthopedic examination and concluded that McCarthy could stand or walk for about four hours and sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday, with additional lifting and movement restrictions. State agency medical consultants concluded that McCarthy could perform light work with several postural and safety restrictions. Irene Minkowsky, M.D., examined McCarthy at the request of his attorney and described substantially more serious physical limitations, including severe spinal stenosis, chronic severe back pain, limited sitting, standing, and walking, and bladder and bowel problems. She concluded that McCarthy could not work in any capacity.

The administrative law judge gave significant weight to the state agency consultants’ opinions, some weight to Dr. Pon’s opinion, and little weight to Dr. Minkowsky’s opinion. The court held that the reasons given for discounting Dr. Minkowsky’s opinion were not supported by substantial evidence. First, the fact that she was an examining doctor rather than a treating doctor was not enough to prefer the opinions of doctors who had never examined McCarthy. Second, the administrative law judge said that her opinion conflicted with and lacked support from the rest of the record but did not identify the medical evidence supporting that conclusion. Third, the fact that McCarthy’s attorney had retained and presumably paid Dr. Minkowsky did not provide a valid reason to reject her opinion absent evidence of actual impropriety.

The court also identified a problem with the administrative law judge’s treatment of the state agency consultants’ opinions. Although the administrative law judge gave those opinions significant weight, he did not include all of their assessed restrictions in McCarthy’s residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—or explain why he omitted them. The court found that this evaluation did not adequately support the residual functional capacity finding.

Other argument and disposition

The court did not reach McCarthy’s argument about the administrative law judge’s adverse credibility determination because the errors in evaluating the medical opinions required further proceedings. The court noted that reconsideration of the medical opinions could affect whether McCarthy’s testimony was supported by the medical evidence and could lead to a more restrictive residual functional capacity.

The court granted McCarthy’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings.