A.G. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

A.G. sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her applications for disability-insurance benefits and supplemental-security-income benefits. She identified carpal-tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, diabetes, high blood pressure, back and knee problems, osteoarthritis in the back, and a neck problem as medical conditions supporting her applications.

An administrative law judge held a hearing on May 26, 2020, at which A.G. and vocational expert K. Diane Kramer testified. The administrative law judge found that A.G. had severe impairments including bilateral carpal-tunnel syndrome, morbid obesity, adult-onset diabetes, and right-knee osteoarthritis. The judge determined that A.G. could perform a limited range of light work, could not perform her past work, but could perform jobs such as office helper and collator operator. The judge therefore found that A.G. was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the final administrative decision.

Issue

A.G. argued that the administrative law judge failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her testimony about the severity and effects of her hand and finger impairments. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge relied on permissible factors and adequately explained the decision. The Commissioner alternatively argued that any error was harmless.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that, when a claimant provides objective medical evidence of an impairment that could cause the alleged symptoms and there is no evidence of malingering, the administrative law judge must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony about symptom severity.

The court found the reasoning inadequate in several respects:

- The administrative law judge relied on an early postoperative note stating that A.G. was doing well after right-hand carpal-tunnel-release surgery. But later records described chronic and severe pain, the surgery involved only one hand, and medical evidence continued to support bilateral carpal-tunnel syndrome. - The administrative law judge characterized A.G.’s treatment as conservative because it involved medication, including Tylenol-Codeine #3. The court noted that Tylenol-Codeine #3 is an opioid and that the record did not show the successful postsurgery recovery or other additional factors present in a case the Commissioner cited. - The administrative law judge treated A.G.’s statements about why she stopped working for her mother as conflicting. The court found that the statements could be consistent because A.G. could have moved away and her sister could have taken over the work after A.G.’s hands became, in her words, “out of commission.” - The court was not clear that the administrative law judge relied on A.G.’s light cooking and cleaning as a reason to reject her testimony. Even if the judge did rely on those activities, the court found that the judge did not make the specific findings required to show that the activities were transferable to a work setting.

The court also rejected the argument that the error was harmless. The administrative law judge limited A.G. to frequent, but not constant, bilateral handling. The vocational expert testified that no jobs would be available if A.G. could perform bilateral handling, fingering, and gripping only occasionally. The court therefore concluded that accepting A.G.’s testimony could have changed the ultimate disability determination.

Remand

The court exercised its discretion to remand for further proceedings rather than award benefits. It concluded that additional administrative proceedings could remedy the defects in the original decision and directed the administrative law judge to reconsider A.G.’s testimony about her hand and finger impairments.

Disposition

The court granted A.G.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order.