Pacheco v. Kijakazi

Background

Cecilia Pacheco sought Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. An administrative law judge (ALJ) initially found her not disabled. After the Appeals Council remanded the matter, a second hearing was held in December 2019. The ALJ again found Pacheco not disabled.

The ALJ found that Pacheco could perform a range of light work, including lifting 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, standing or walking for six hours and sitting for six hours during an eight-hour workday, and occasionally working at unprotected heights, around dangerous moving machinery, or operating a motor vehicle. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the ALJ found that she could perform her past work as actually performed. In the alternative, the ALJ found that she could perform other occupations, including general office clerk, receptionist, bench assembler, cashier, and housekeeping cleaner.

Arguments and Analysis

Pacheco argued that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of her treating physician, Dr. Japra Romesh, improperly discounted her testimony about her symptoms, and failed to properly evaluate her residual functional capacity and transferable work skills. She asked for an award of benefits or, alternatively, further proceedings.

Dr. Romesh had opined that Pacheco’s heart disease caused marked physical limitations. Among other things, he stated that she could lift less than 10 pounds occasionally, could sit, stand, or walk for less than two hours in an eight-hour workday, could not twist, stoop, or crouch, could rarely climb stairs or ladders, and would be absent more than four days per month. The ALJ gave these opinions little weight, reasoning that they were inconsistent with medical evidence showing mild, controlled symptoms, the lack of longitudinal treatment records, and Pacheco’s testimony about volunteering for her church.

The court held that the ALJ did not adequately address medical evidence showing that Pacheco’s echocardiogram results worsened through 2018. The court explained that evidence that Pacheco may not have been disabled in 2016 did not resolve whether her condition had become sufficiently limiting by 2018 or 2019, when Dr. Romesh provided his opinion.

The court also held that the ALJ relied improperly on Pacheco’s church volunteering when discounting both the doctor’s limitations and Pacheco’s testimony. Pacheco testified that she traveled by van, took breaks, and volunteered once a week for about four hours. The ALJ did not ask how much of that time involved walking, standing, or sitting, how far she walked, or how often she walked. Without that information, the volunteering did not undermine her testimony that she could walk only about a block or the doctor’s opinion that she could not sit or stand for more than two hours in a workday.

The court concluded that the ALJ’s evaluation of Pacheco’s testimony and the treating physician’s limitations was legally erroneous and that the decision was not otherwise supported by substantial evidence. Because further proceedings could help determine whether the worsening condition supported the doctor’s limitations and whether Pacheco became disabled only as of a particular date, the court declined to order immediate payment of benefits. The court did not reach Pacheco’s arguments concerning the ALJ’s step-four and step-five findings, although it noted that the argument about identifying transferable skills had merit.

Disposition

Judge William Orrick granted Pacheco’s motion in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.