I.R. v. Saul

Background

I.R. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability benefits. She alleged disability based on hypertension, type 2 diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, restless leg syndrome, trigger finger and pain in both hands, and a torn retina in her left eye. She appeared with an attorney at the hearing before administrative law judge E. Alis.

The administrative law judge found that I.R. had severe impairments consisting of diabetes with diabetic nerve damage in the lower extremities, arthritis or trigger finger in the left thumb, and obesity. The judge found that she had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform medium work, with occasional handling and fingering using her left hand and frequent handling and fingering using her right hand. The judge concluded that I.R. could perform her past work as a fast food worker and could also perform work as a hand packager, machine packager, or home attendant.

The Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. I.R. primarily argued that the administrative law judge failed to address an apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, a reference describing the requirements of listed occupations.

The vocational expert testified that a person limited to occasional handling and fingering with the nondominant hand and frequent handling and fingering with the dominant hand could perform the four identified occupations. The expert said that his testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and related occupational materials. But the expert also testified that a person limited to occasional handling with both hands could not perform those jobs because each required using at least one hand more than one-third of the time.

The court held that the testimony created an apparent conflict that the administrative law judge was required to investigate and resolve before relying on it. The occupational descriptions and related materials indicated that the jobs involved substantial use of both hands. They indicated that fast food workers, hand packagers, and machine packagers must handle items constantly and finger items frequently, while home attendants must handle items frequently and finger them occasionally. The court also concluded that common experience did not establish that a person with I.R.’s hand limitations could perform those duties without further explanation.

The court did not decide I.R.’s other arguments concerning the evaluation of her symptom testimony or medical opinion evidence. It also declined to order an immediate award of benefits. The court stated that further proceedings were needed to reconcile the vocational expert’s testimony with the occupational requirements and to consider whether the other parts of the administrative law judge’s decision were supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The court granted I.R.’s motion for summary judgment in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of I.R. and close the case.

I.R. also requested attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court denied that request without prejudice and stated that the parties should try to reach an agreement before I.R. or her counsel filed a separate fee motion.