David G. v. Saul

Background

David G. sought review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s final decision denying his applications for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. He alleged disability beginning September 10, 2014. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found severe impairments including left shoulder degenerative joint disease, diabetes with diabetic neuropathy, a condition following cervical spine fusion surgery, lumbar degenerative disc disease, plantar fasciitis, and obesity. The judge found obstructive sleep apnea non-severe.

The administrative law judge determined that David G. could perform light work with restrictions, including limits on climbing, overhead reaching, feeling, standing, walking, and exposure to workplace hazards. Based on a vocational expert’s testimony, the judge concluded that he could perform jobs such as cafeteria attendant and retail sales assistant and therefore was not disabled. David G. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the decision. The Commissioner cross-moved for summary judgment, asking the court to affirm it.

Issues

The court considered whether the administrative law judge erred by finding that sleep apnea was not severe, by evaluating David G.’s testimony about his symptoms, by weighing medical opinions, and by finding at the final step that he could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Court’s analysis

Sleep apnea

At the second step of the disability analysis, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. The court held that substantial evidence did not support the finding that David G.’s obstructive sleep apnea was non-severe. The record showed that he had been diagnosed with sleep apnea, continued to use a continuous positive airway pressure machine, and testified that the machine was no longer effective, that he experienced daytime fatigue, and that he needed to nap during the day.

The court found that the administrative law judge relied on a single 2014 medical record while failing to address David G.’s later testimony about continuing sleep problems and fatigue. The court held that the administrative law judge erred and directed that, on remand, the judge further address sleep apnea at the second step and include any resulting limitations in a new residual functional capacity assessment. A residual functional capacity assessment describes the work-related activities a claimant can still perform despite medical limitations.

Evaluation of David G.’s testimony

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to discount portions of David G.’s testimony about the limiting effects of his symptoms. The judge identified medical records showing full motor strength, normal muscle tone, a normal gait, and the ability to tandem and walk heel-to-to-toe. The court held that these findings were a clear and convincing reason to conclude that his testimony overstated his ability to stand and walk.

The court also upheld the judge’s reliance on David G.’s reported activities, including walking daily, exercising, and previously hanging approximately 100 political signs per day while traveling between Oakland and Sacramento. The court concluded that these reports were inconsistent with his hearing testimony about his physical limitations and were another permissible reason to discount his testimony.

The court rejected a third reason given by the administrative law judge: that David G.’s request for a return-to-work letter and discussion of other work showed that his symptoms were less severe than alleged. The court found that the record instead showed confusion about the requirements for receiving unemployment benefits while his disability application was pending. The court also found that a provider’s note indicated the provider had asked about other work, rather than showing that David G. reported he was seeking it.

Despite that error, the court held that the adverse assessment of David G.’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence. The remaining reasons were sufficiently related to his ability to perform work activities, and the error concerning the return-to-work letter did not undermine the ultimate conclusion.

Medical opinions

David G. argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated treating physician Eunice Liu’s opinions. The record included a July 2015 work activity status form and a May 31, 2017 work status report. The administrative law judge gave significant weight to the July 2015 form and little weight to the May 2017 report.

David G. specifically challenged the failure to address Dr. Liu’s assessment that he could grip and grasp with each hand only occasionally, meaning up to 25 percent of a work shift. The court held that any error was harmless because that restriction applied only from May 31, 2017, through November 30, 2017, and did not express limitations beyond that six-month period. The court therefore did not disturb the decision on this ground.

Final-step finding about available jobs

The court held that the finding at the final step was not supported by substantial evidence because the error concerning sleep apnea may have affected the residual functional capacity assessment. The hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert had to include all of David G.’s limitations. Because the administrative law judge had not properly evaluated sleep apnea, the court could not determine that the vocational expert’s testimony established that David G. could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part David G.’s motion for summary judgment. It denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order.