P.J.P. v. Kilakazi

Background

P.J.P. sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her applications for Title II disability insurance benefits. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that P.J.P. had severe impairments including cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease, peripheral neuropathy in both hands, right shoulder impingement syndrome, and cervicogenic headaches. The ALJ determined that P.J.P. had the residual functional capacity (RFC)—her ability to work despite her impairments—to perform light work with additional limitations. Although the ALJ found that she could not perform her past work as a produce stock clerk, the ALJ found that she could perform jobs such as Cashier II, Marker, and Routing Clerk.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule based on the administrative record.

Medical-evidence and RFC analysis

The court held that the ALJ failed to account for limitations in medical opinions that the ALJ had credited.

First, the ALJ found Dr. S. Amon’s opinion partially persuasive. Dr. Amon had stated that P.J.P. was limited in reaching overhead with both arms. But the ALJ’s RFC allowed frequent overhead reaching. The ALJ did not incorporate Dr. Amon’s limitation or explain why it was omitted. The Commissioner argued that this error was harmless because P.J.P. could still perform the cashier job. The court rejected that argument on the existing record, noting that the vocational expert had been asked about a person able to perform frequent overhead reaching and had testified that reaching or handling less than frequently would eliminate the identified jobs.

Second, Dr. Thomas Paul Miles opined that P.J.P. should be restricted from prolonged and repetitive bending and head rotation, prolonged and very heavy lifting, repetitive and forceful work above the right shoulder, and forceful gripping with the right hand. The ALJ described these opinions as somewhat vague but generally persuasive. The court found that the ALJ did not explain how those limitations were incorporated into the RFC or why they were not incorporated. The vocational expert’s testimony did not address those limitations. The court therefore could not find the error harmless.

Evaluation of symptom statements

The court also found error in the ALJ’s evaluation of P.J.P.’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. Because the record contained medical evidence of impairments that could reasonably produce the reported symptoms, the ALJ was required to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting those statements.

The court determined that the ALJ selectively quoted reports about P.J.P.’s daily activities and did not reconcile conflicting information. For example, the ALJ stated that P.J.P. could climb one flight of stairs, but did not address later reports that she did not climb stairs or did so only occasionally because of pain. The ALJ also described P.J.P. as performing light cleaning without fully addressing her statements that she cleaned only when necessary, spread chores across multiple days, and limited the amount she did to avoid overexertion and pain. Because daily activities were important to the ALJ’s symptom analysis and RFC determination, the court found that the error was not harmless.

Disposition

The court GRANTED P.J.P.’s motion for summary judgment and DENIED the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. It REMANDED the case for further proceedings. The court stated that the record did not establish that the ALJ would be required to find P.J.P. disabled after properly evaluating the evidence.