Huey v. Kijakazi

Background

Shawn Huey sought review of an administrative law judge’s November 9, 2020 decision denying his application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. Huey alleged that he became disabled after an explosion at work on June 27, 2018, caused him to fall onto concrete and injure his left side. The Social Security Administration denied his application and his request for reconsideration. After a telephone hearing, the administrative law judge found that Huey had severe back impairment and a condition resulting from traumatic brain injury, but found obesity, depression, and several other alleged conditions—including left-knee pain—non-severe or otherwise unsupported. The administrative law judge determined that Huey had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work, could not perform his past work, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers.

Huey moved for summary judgment, arguing that the administrative law judge erred by rejecting his left-knee impairment, evaluating his testimony about his symptoms, and rejecting his wife’s third-party statement. The Commissioner opposed Huey’s motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Left-Knee Impairment

The court held that the administrative law judge’s rejection of Huey’s left-knee impairment was not supported by substantial evidence. The record included an MRI report documenting cartilage deterioration in the knee and repeated medical records noting positive knee tests, reduced strength, and reduced range of motion. The record also showed continuing knee pain from September 2018 through June 2020 and limited improvement after treatment.

The court found that the error was not harmless. Huey testified that knee pain interfered with walking and sometimes kept him from leaving home. A vocational expert testified that consistently missing three or more workdays per month would prevent Huey from performing his past work or any other work. Because sedentary work can require some standing and walking, the court concluded that the error could have affected the residual-functional-capacity finding and the ultimate disability determination.

The court did not decide whether the administrative law judge separately erred in finding Huey’s depression non-severe. It found that any such error would have been harmless because the administrative law judge continued through the evaluation process and stated that all impairments were considered together when assessing residual functional capacity.

Huey’s Testimony

The court also found that the administrative law judge’s reasons for discounting Huey’s testimony about the severity of his symptoms did not satisfy the requirement for specific, clear, and convincing reasons. The administrative law judge relied on normal neurological and brain-imaging findings, but the record also included a computed-tomography scan showing a closed head injury with likely post-concussion syndrome. The court further found that the administrative law judge improperly relied on the absence of cane use to discount balance problems even though Huey attributed his falls to dizziness.

The court also found that the administrative law judge selectively relied on a treatment note saying Huey could perform activities of daily living while overlooking the note’s statement that those activities increased his pain and its references to headaches, dizziness, and difficulty concentrating. On remand, if the administrative law judge again discounts Huey’s testimony about symptom severity, the administrative law judge must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons.

Wife’s Third-Party Statement

The administrative law judge rejected Huey’s wife’s statement in its entirety, describing it generally as inconsistent with the record and other relevant factors. The court held that this generalized explanation was insufficient. If the administrative law judge rejects the statement again, the administrative law judge must give reasons that are specific and tied to that witness.

Disposition

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Huey’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the order. The order did not award benefits.