Kaeder v. Berryhill

Background

Ann Marie Kaeder sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged that degenerative disk disease, arthritis, insomnia, and fatigue prevented her from working beginning September 20, 2013.

After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that Kaeder had several severe impairments but did not have an impairment meeting or medically equaling a listed impairment. The judge determined that Kaeder retained the residual functional capacity—the most she could do despite her limitations—to perform a restricted range of light work. The judge concluded that she could perform her past relevant work as a telephone solicitor and therefore was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

Kaeder argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated her reports of pain and other symptoms, gave too little weight to opinions from Dr. Anne Nadine F. Maurer and Dr. Kenneth D. Olsen, and gave too much weight to testimony from medical expert Dr. Andrew M. Steiner.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Kaeder’s symptoms. Although the judge referred to the relevant factors, the judge stated only that Kaeder’s reports were not generally consistent with the overall evidence, including Dr. Steiner’s testimony. The court explained that an administrative law judge may not reject subjective symptom reports solely because objective medical evidence does not fully support them. The judge needed to evaluate Kaeder’s statements in relation to the medical and other evidence and connect that evidence to the claimed limitations.

The court upheld the decision to give little weight to Dr. Maurer’s February 2014, October 2014, and March 2015 opinions. The court found that the administrative law judge identified valid reasons, including inconsistencies with the record, limited or conservative treatment, lack of supporting clinical findings, normal strength or gait findings in various examinations, and inconsistencies within the March 2015 opinion itself. The court also stated that opinions about whether Kaeder was disabled or unable to work were issues reserved to the Commissioner.

The court likewise upheld the decision to give little weight to Dr. Olsen’s opinion. Dr. Olsen had not treated Kaeder for more than a year, provided no contemporaneous examination findings, and did not clearly quantify the severity of the restrictions he described. The court found that the administrative law judge’s improper reliance on the alleged lack of credibility of Kaeder’s subjective complaints was harmless because other sufficient reasons supported the reduced weight.

The court rejected Kaeder’s challenges to Dr. Steiner’s testimony. It found that the record contained no clinical or objective findings supporting a need to lie down frequently, use a cane, or frequently change positions. The court also concluded that Kaeder’s argument about the success of her knee replacement misconstrued Dr. Steiner’s testimony, which concerned whether the surgery precluded a finding that she met or equaled a listed impairment.

The court found that the Appeals Council had not adequately addressed a physical performance test completed by physical therapist Nathan Ryan. The test was relevant “other” evidence from a medical source, and the court rejected the Commissioner’s asserted reasons for discounting it. Because the administrative law judge had not properly evaluated Kaeder’s subjective complaints, the test’s reliance on her reported pain could not by itself justify discounting the test. On remand, the administrative law judge was required to evaluate the test and explain the weight assigned to it.

Disposition

The court ordered that Kaeder’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The matter was remanded to the Social Security Administration for a proper assessment of Kaeder’s subjective complaints and consideration of the physical performance test dated April 18, 2016. The order did not award benefits or determine that Kaeder was disabled.