N.B. v. Saul

Background

N.B. sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her claim for Social Security disability-insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability based on a back injury, urinary incontinence, depression, and leg fractures. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held hearings, found that N.B. was not disabled, and determined that she could perform certain other jobs. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final administrative decision.

N.B. and the Commissioner each moved for summary judgment. N.B. argued that the ALJ improperly weighed the medical evidence and incorrectly matched her residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to jobs identified by a vocational expert. N.B. was not represented by counsel during the administrative proceedings.

Medical-evidence ruling

Dr. Kyle Van Gaasbeek, an examining psychologist, found marked limitations in N.B.’s ability to interact with coworkers and the public, maintain regular workplace attendance, complete a normal workday without psychiatric interruptions, and handle ordinary workplace stress. He found lesser or no impairment in several other areas, including performing simple, repetitive tasks.

The ALJ gave Dr. Van Gaasbeek’s opinion no weight for three reasons: the opinion was allegedly inconsistent with the mental examination, N.B.’s mental-health treatment was allegedly conservative, and N.B. later returned to seasonal fragrance-sales work. The court held that the first reason was conclusory because the ALJ did not explain how the examination conflicted with the psychologist’s findings. The court also held that the treatment rationale was insufficient because the record showed that N.B.’s treatment ended after her physician moved away, rather than because treatment had improved her condition or because she voluntarily stopped pursuing care.

The court recognized that work activity can sometimes conflict with a medical opinion. But, given the other errors and the record concerning N.B.’s limited public contact, the court remanded for the ALJ to reconsider the significance of N.B.’s seasonal work and her interactions with customers.

Step-five ruling

At the fifth step of the disability analysis, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. The ALJ identified sub-assembler, paper-pattern folder, and addresser jobs. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the ALJ found 10,000 sub-assembler jobs, 8,000 paper-pattern folder jobs, and 6,000 addresser jobs nationally.

The court held that these numbers were not significant under precedent followed in the district. The court also held that the addresser job was obsolete. It did not resolve the paper-pattern-folder obsolescence issue in N.B.’s favor; instead, it noted that other courts had reached different conclusions about that job.

The ALJ had assigned N.B. an RFC allowing modified light work, including standing and walking for a total of four hours per eight-hour day and performing simple, repetitive tasks. Two identified jobs were classified as light work. The court held that the ALJ was required to ask the vocational expert to explain any conflict between that testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Because the expert did not provide the necessary explanation, the error was not harmless. Without those jobs, the only remaining identified job was addresser, which the court found obsolete and not available in significant numbers.

Disposition

The court granted N.B.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court remanded rather than ordering an immediate award of benefits because additional administrative proceedings could remedy the identified defects.