Abraham A. v. Kijakazi

Background

Abraham A. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the final agency decision for purposes of court review. Both parties moved for summary judgment.

Abraham A. alleged disability based on osteoarthritis and knee replacements in both legs, degenerative disc disease and nerve-root symptoms in the lower back, carpal tunnel syndrome, and diabetes. He reported that a fall from a ladder in November 2015 worsened his back pain. He also described unsuccessful attempts to return to work in 2016 and 2017 because of pain in his back and legs.

Administrative Decision

The administrative law judge found that Abraham A. had severe impairments including osteoarthritis in both knees, the results of bilateral knee replacements, lumbar degenerative disc disease with nerve-root symptoms, and diabetes. The judge found carpal tunnel syndrome non-severe and determined that none of the impairments met or equaled a listed impairment.

The administrative law judge found that Abraham A. retained the capacity for medium-level work, with limits including lifting or carrying up to 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently; sitting, standing, or walking for six hours in an eight-hour workday; and specified limits on climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. The judge concluded at the fourth step of the disability analysis that Abraham A. could perform past relevant work as an industrial assembler or wirer.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Abraham A.’s testimony about the severity and effects of his pain. The judge relied on a preoperative notation describing activities before Abraham A.’s second knee replacement, treated isolated references to a normal gait as significant, and criticized the lack of treatments such as acupuncture. The court found that this reasoning was unfair, out of context, and unsupported by the record. The court also noted that the administrative law judge did not adequately consider the possible effects of narcotic pain medication on concentration and focus.

The court further held that the administrative law judge failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the restrictions stated by Abraham A.’s treating physician, Dr. Zhao. Dr. Zhao limited Abraham A. to standing and walking for no more than five cumulative minutes per hour, lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling no more than five pounds, and other restrictions. The administrative law judge instead relied entirely on opinions from non-examining state-agency consultants. The court determined that those opinions, standing alone, could not provide substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Zhao’s opinion, particularly because the administrative law judge relied on outdated or incomplete evidence about Abraham A.’s activities.

The court therefore credited Abraham A.’s testimony and Dr. Zhao’s restrictions as true as a matter of law. It directed the administrative law judge to restart the sequential disability evaluation from the formulation of the residual functional capacity—the claimant’s remaining ability to work—forward. The administrative law judge was directed to use Abraham A.’s testimony and Dr. Zhao’s opinions as credited evidence.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman granted Abraham A.’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The case was remanded pursuant to the court’s instructions. The opinion did not state that benefits were immediately awarded.