Cruz v. Kijakazi

Background

Eric Cruz applied for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits on December 24, 2015, alleging disability beginning December 19, 2014, based primarily on cervical and lumbar spine impairments. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his claim in 2018. After an earlier case in this court, the court approved a voluntary remand requiring the ALJ to reconsider medical-opinion evidence, Cruz’s residual functional capacity, his symptom testimony, and whether he could perform other work.

After a second hearing, the ALJ again found Cruz not disabled. The ALJ determined that Cruz could perform sedentary work with restrictions, could not perform his past relevant work, but could perform jobs such as assembler, interviewer, and document specialist. The ALJ gave little weight to important portions of the opinions of treating physicians Dr. Shian-Yeng Lai and Dr. John P. Pham, including their opinions that Cruz would need frequent breaks, would need to change positions, and would miss work regularly. The ALJ also discounted Cruz’s testimony about pain, walking difficulty, and limited daily activities.

Parties’ Positions

The Commissioner conceded that Cruz should have been found disabled beginning January 10, 2021, when he turned 50. The Commissioner argued, however, that the case should be sent back for further proceedings concerning the period from December 21, 2015, until Cruz turned 50. Cruz argued that the court should apply the credit-as-true rule and remand only for calculation and payment of benefits for the entire period.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of Dr. Lai and Dr. Pham. The ALJ relied on general medical findings from a later consultative examination but did not explain how those findings conflicted with the doctors’ opinions about Cruz’s need for unscheduled breaks, walking periods, position changes, and absences from work. The court also held that the ALJ overstated Cruz’s daily activities. Cruz testified that walking to a bus stop was difficult, required him to walk slowly and stop to rest, and that his assistance to family members was limited. The ALJ also failed to account for the assistance Cruz received with shopping, laundry, cleaning, and transportation.

The court separately held that the ALJ improperly discounted Cruz’s subjective testimony about the intensity and effects of his symptoms. The ALJ’s references to Cruz’s activities, the overall record, and conservative treatment did not provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting that testimony. The court noted that Cruz had undergone spinal surgery, received epidural treatment, and continued taking pain medication that helped but did not eliminate his severe pain and other symptoms.

Remedy and Disposition

The court applied the credit-as-true rule, which can require an immediate benefits award when the record is fully developed, the ALJ legally failed to reject evidence, and crediting that evidence would require a finding of disability. The court found all three conditions satisfied. The record included extensive medical evidence, testimony from two hearings, opinions from two long-term treating physicians, and vocational-expert testimony that a person with the limitations described by Drs. Lai and Pham could not perform the identified jobs.

The court found no serious doubt that Cruz was disabled during the period before he turned 50 and concluded that further proceedings would serve no useful purpose. It therefore granted Cruz’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for calculation and award of SSI benefits from December 21, 2015, to the present.