K.G. v. Saul
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:21-cv-02953
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In K.G. v. Saul, Judge Cousins remanded the Social Security benefits case because the administrative judge improperly rejected K.G.’s symptom testimony.
K.G. and the Social Security Administration. The remand requires the Administrative Law Judge to reassess K.G.’s symptom testimony and possibly reconsider whether she can perform other work; the order does not itself award benefits.
What happened
K.G. asked the court to review the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. She argued that the administrative judge failed to develop the record, improperly rejected her testimony about her symptoms, and omitted limitations from the work-capacity assessment and questions posed to a vocational expert.
The court found no error in the administrative judge’s handling of statements from witnesses and medical sources or in failing to question the vocational expert on her testimony’s basis. But it found that the judge relied on ambiguous evidence about K.G.’s activities, medication, and travel without adequately clarifying it. The court concluded that none of the five reasons for rejecting K.G.’s symptom testimony met the required standard and that the resulting finding about available work might not include all her limitations. It did not consider K.G.’s challenge to the Appeals Council’s refusal to review her labor-market study.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins remanded K.G. v. Saul for further proceedings. The administrative judge must reassess K.G.’s symptom testimony and, if any of it is credited, reconsider the finding about whether she could perform other work.
The detailed version
- K.G. v. Saul · No. 5:21-cv-02953
- Nathanael Cousins
- June 21, 2022
Background
K.G. appealed an Administrative Law Judge’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. The Administrative Law Judge denied the claim after a hearing, and the Appeals Council denied K.G.’s request for review. K.G. argued that the Administrative Law Judge failed to fully and fairly develop the record, improperly rejected her testimony about the intensity and effects of her symptoms, failed to include all her limitations in her residual functional capacity assessment and vocational-expert questions, and that the Appeals Council improperly refused to review a labor-market study.
Record development
The court rejected two of K.G.’s record-development arguments. It found that the Administrative Law Judge obtained the required medical records, considered a consultative examination, and received evidence about suitable work through vocational-expert testimony. The court also held that the Administrative Law Judge was not required to question the vocational expert on the basis for her testimony on his own initiative.
The court did, however, find that the Administrative Law Judge failed to fully and fairly develop the record by not asking K.G. about ambiguous statements concerning her ability to ride a bicycle and travel to Mexico. The Administrative Law Judge later relied on those activities to reject K.G.’s symptom testimony, but had not asked questions that could clarify whether the activities were inconsistent with her claimed limitations.
Symptom testimony
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting K.G.’s testimony. K.G. testified about persistent pain in her hands and feet, limits on computer use, sitting, standing, walking, writing, grasping, and dressing, and the need for help with some activities.
The court examined each of the five reasons given for discounting that testimony:
- K.G.’s statement that she could walk two miles did not necessarily conflict with her testimony that she could not walk for more than ten or fifteen minutes without resting, because the questionnaire did not ask how long she could walk without a break.
- K.G.’s statement that she could go to the grocery store without assistance did not necessarily conflict with her later testimony that she needed help with groceries, because going to the store and unloading groceries are different activities and her symptoms had worsened.
- A medical note about bicycle riding did not establish when, how often, or how long K.G. rode a bicycle, and therefore did not show that the activity conflicted with her testimony.
- K.G.’s earlier report that her joints felt better after starting medication did not conflict with her later testimony that the medication was no longer effective, because the statements concerned different points in time and rheumatoid arthritis symptoms can improve and worsen.
- K.G.’s trip to Mexico did not show that her testimony was overstated because the Administrative Law Judge identified no specific activities during the trip or evidence about how much she used her hands.
The court concluded that all five reasons failed to satisfy the required standard for rejecting K.G.’s symptom testimony.
Residual functional capacity and vocational evidence
Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite her impairments. The court held that because the Administrative Law Judge improperly rejected K.G.’s testimony, the Step Five finding about whether she could adjust to other work might not include all of her limitations and therefore was not supported by substantial evidence.
Appeals Council evidence
K.G. also challenged the Appeals Council’s refusal to review her claim after she submitted a labor-market study. The court did not consider that challenge, stating that the Appeals Council’s decision not to review the additional evidence was not reviewable by the court.
Disposition
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins remanded the case for further proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge must reassess K.G.’s testimony about her symptoms. If the Administrative Law Judge credits any of that testimony, the Administrative Law Judge must reevaluate the Step Five finding. The order did not award benefits to K.G.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.