Werts v. Saul

Background

Sarah Werts sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her claim for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning January 8, 2016, based on multiple conditions, including foot, hip, knee, neck, wrist, migraine, and tinnitus-related problems.

An administrative law judge held a hearing on February 7, 2019, at which Werts, who was represented by counsel, and a vocational expert testified. The administrative law judge found that Werts had not engaged in substantial gainful activity, had several severe impairments, and did not meet a listed impairment. The judge determined that Werts could perform light work with restrictions, including standing or walking for four hours in an eight-hour workday, avoiding concentrated noise and constant head movement, frequently handling and fingering with her right hand, and changing positions every 30 minutes. The judge then found that Werts could perform past relevant work and was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making that decision final.

Werts moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the decision and award benefits or, alternatively, remand the case. The Commissioner moved for summary judgment affirming the denial.

Court’s Analysis

Department of Veterans Affairs rating. The court held that the administrative law judge failed to give the Department of Veterans Affairs’ disability rating the required great weight and did not provide persuasive, specific, and valid reasons for discounting it. The administrative law judge noted that the Veterans Affairs and Social Security systems use different standards, but the court ruled that this explanation was not enough. The record included a 90% service-connected disability rating and a determination that Werts was considered totally and permanently disabled and was paid at the 100% rate because she was unemployable due to service-connected disabilities.

Werts’s symptom testimony. The court held that the administrative law judge did not provide the specific, clear, and convincing reasons required to reject Werts’s testimony about the severity and effects of her symptoms. The judge did not identify which parts of Werts’s testimony were being rejected. The court also found that the reasons given—Werts’s lack of preventive migraine medication, lack of an assistive device, running in April 2016, and activities involving a home, animals, and household tasks—did not establish the required inconsistency. The court noted that the administrative law judge had not sufficiently developed the record about those activities.

Statement from Werts’s husband. The court held that the administrative law judge improperly gave little weight to Mr. Werts’s statement about Werts’s everyday limitations. A lay witness’s lack of medical training was not a sufficient reason to discount observations about how a claimant’s conditions affect daily activities. The court also ruled that the administrative law judge’s improper rejection of Werts’s testimony was not a valid reason to reject similar testimony from her husband.

Residual functional capacity and vocational testimony. Residual functional capacity means what a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations. The court found that the errors concerning the Veterans Affairs rating, Werts’s testimony, and Mr. Werts’s statement affected the residual-capacity finding and the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert. The questions did not include limitations such as Werts’s need to lie down in a dark, quiet room or leave tasks unfinished while recovering from pain. Because the residual-capacity finding and step-four work determination were not supported by substantial evidence, the court required a new evaluation. The court did not decide Werts’s separate argument concerning the Department of Labor’s O*Net database.

Disposition

The court granted Werts’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. It reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. Judgment was entered in Werts’s favor, and the clerk was directed to close the file. The order did not directly award benefits.