Gerold v. Kijakazi

Background

Laura Adriana Gerold applied for Social Security disability benefits on February 11, 2019. She identified fibromyalgia, kidney disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, high blood pressure, back problems, a uterine fibroid, varicose veins, heart problems, insomnia, and a hip problem. After her application was denied twice, Administrative Law Judge Cheryl Tompkin held a hearing and found that Gerold was not disabled.

The administrative judge found that Gerold had severe impairments including fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, the condition following treatment for a brain aneurysm, and mild neurocognitive disorder. The judge nevertheless determined that Gerold could perform a range of light work. Although the judge found that Gerold could not return to her past work, a vocational expert testified that a person with the limitations identified by the judge could work as an office helper, cashier, or housekeeper.

Gerold sought judicial review and argued that the administrative judge improperly rejected the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Sophia Chen. Dr. Chen stated that Gerold could walk only two blocks without rest or significant pain, could not sit or stand/walk during an eight-hour workday, would need frequent unscheduled breaks, and would be absent from work more than four times per month. The defendant argued that the administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the regulation governing medical opinions for disability claims filed after March 27, 2017. Under that regulation, an administrative judge must explain how the judge considered the opinions’ supportability and consistency with the record.

The court concluded that the administrative judge improperly discounted Dr. Chen’s opinion. The administrative judge had described Dr. Chen’s findings as unsupported by objective findings or an explanation for the severe limitations. But the court found that Dr. Chen’s assessment was consistent with Gerold’s reports of chronic fatigue and with the examination by occupational therapist Joseph Sinay. Sinay documented pain, reduced strength, impaired posture tolerance, limitations involving the hands and shoulders, and difficulty with prolonged sitting and walking.

The court also found that the administrative judge improperly relied on Gerold’s daily activities. Gerold reported doing household chores, shopping, attending church, caring for her parents, and preparing meals, but also testified that these activities caused discomfort or pain. She testified that sitting for 15 to 20 minutes caused hip pain, that she could stand for less than five minutes, that walking two blocks took about 30 minutes, that she had difficulty lifting a 20-pound cat-litter box, and that she leaned on the oven while cooking. The court held that these activities did not undermine Dr. Chen’s opinion.

The court further determined that the administrative judge had not provided legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Dr. Chen’s evidence while relying on the opinion of a non-examining consultant. The vocational expert’s testimony was based on a hypothetical that did not include Dr. Chen’s limitations. Because it was unclear whether the vocational expert would have identified the same jobs if those limitations had been included, the court found that further administrative proceedings were necessary.

Disposition

The court granted Gerold’s motion for remand for a new hearing and decision that considers Dr. Chen’s opinions. It denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court did not award benefits because the record contained unresolved questions about the effect of Gerold’s limitations on the available-work analysis.

The opinion’s conclusion also states that the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, while the opening order identifies the plaintiff’s motion as a motion for summary judgment or remand and states that the motion for remand was granted.