Emery v. Berryhill

Background

Jean Paul R. Emery sought supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. An administrative law judge found that Emery had severe impairments including peripheral neuropathy, osteoarthritis, obesity, depression, and anxiety. The administrative law judge determined that Emery had the residual functional capacity—the work he could still perform despite his limitations—to do sedentary work with several restrictions, and concluded that jobs existed in significant numbers that he could perform. The administrative law judge therefore denied benefits.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide whether the administrative decision was legally supported by the record.

Cane use and residual functional capacity

Emery argued that the administrative law judge failed to account for his cane use when determining his residual functional capacity. Social Security Ruling 96-9p requires consideration of a hand-held assistive device when medical documentation establishes that it is needed for walking or standing and describes the circumstances in which it is needed.

The administrative law judge mentioned that Emery used a cane during two medical examinations but did not decide whether the cane was medically required. The administrative law judge also did not address another medical-record reference to the cane or Emery’s reports that he used a prescribed cane. The court noted that several medical providers observed Emery using a cane and that the record showed consistent use. The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the medical record was inconsistent with Emery’s claimed need for a cane because the administrative law judge had made no finding for the court to review.

Ruling

The court held that the administrative law judge erred by failing to determine whether Emery’s cane was medically required under Social Security Ruling 96-9p. That omission prevented the court from conducting substantial-evidence review of the overall decision. The court vacated the Commissioner’s decision as to steps four and five and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings.

The court did not reach Emery’s arguments about the administrative law judge’s evaluation of opinions from physician’s assistant Claude Erickson and Dr. A. Neil Johnson because the residual-functional-capacity analysis would have to be conducted again. Judge Tony N. Leung granted Emery’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.