Kimberly M. v. Saul

Background

Kimberly M. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The administrative law judge found that she had several severe impairments, including lumbar-spine disease, migraine headaches, radiculopathy, and chronic joint problems. The administrative law judge determined that she could perform her past work as an administrative assistant and therefore was not disabled. After the Social Security Appeals Council denied review, Kimberly M. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Kimberly M. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner cross-moved for summary judgment, asking the court to affirm it.

Rulings on the Issues

Subjective pain testimony. The court held that the administrative law judge improperly rejected Kimberly M.’s testimony about the severity and effects of her back pain. Kimberly M. testified that she sometimes spent significant time in bed and could not sit or stand for more than ten minutes at a time, even on good days. The administrative law judge found that she could sit or stand for up to six hours in an eight-hour workday, with an opportunity to change positions once every hour.

Because the administrative law judge did not find that Kimberly M. was pretending to have symptoms, the judge had to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting her testimony. The court found that the administrative law judge’s explanation—that the record did not show limitations completely preventing daily activities or lighter work—was too general and appeared to mischaracterize Kimberly M.’s testimony. Her ability to perform some activities, such as showering, preparing simple meals, doing dishes, driving short distances, and grocery shopping, did not necessarily conflict with her testimony that she could not sit or stand for more than ten minutes at a time.

Medication effects. The court rejected Kimberly M.’s argument that the administrative law judge erred by failing to consider medication side effects in determining her residual functional capacity. Although Kimberly M. reported that some medications made her sleepy and testified that heavy doses of morphine had affected her ability to do anything when she stopped working, the court found that she did not clearly identify medication side effects as a significant work limitation in her function report or hearing testimony.

Cane limitation. The court also held that the administrative law judge improperly limited Kimberly M.’s use of a cane to walking distances over 100 yards. Kimberly M. testified that she needed the cane to prevent falls when her back locked up, including when walking short distances. The court found that the administrative law judge gave no specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting that testimony or for adding the 100-yard condition.

The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that this error was harmless. The vocational expert testified about cane use for shorter walking distances but did not testify about whether Kimberly M. could work if she needed a cane while standing or getting up from a seated position. The court therefore could not conclude that the error had no effect on the disability determination.

Disposition

The court granted Kimberly M.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. On remand, if the administrative law judge again rejects Kimberly M.’s testimony or does not include a cane limitation consistent with it, the administrative law judge must identify the testimony being rejected and provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by record citations. The court did not order an award of benefits.