Willing v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Background

Stephen R. Willing sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after the Appeals Council affirmed an administrative law judge’s decision that he was not disabled under the Social Security Act. Willing alleged disability beginning November 26, 2013, based on back problems, arthritis in his ankles and hip, gastrointestinal issues, hearing loss, tinnitus, and obesity. His initial application identified only his back issues, arthritis, and obesity as impairments preventing him from working.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision based on the record when there is no need for a trial to resolve the motion. The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence means enough evidence that a reasonable person would find it adequate to support the decision.

Transfer of Skills

Willing argued that the administrative law judge wrongly found that skills from his past relevant work as a store manager could transfer to the semi-skilled occupation of information clerk. He contended that, because of his age and sedentary-work limitations, the regulations required a finding of disability unless his skills transferred to skilled work rather than semi-skilled work.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that the regulations allow a person of advanced age or approaching retirement age who is limited to sedentary or light work to avoid a finding of disability if the person has skills transferable to other skilled or semiskilled work. The court also concluded that the rule cited by Willing did not require transfer only to skilled work.

The court further rejected Willing’s argument that his skills could not transfer to information clerk work because the occupations did not share codes in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Willing testified that his store-manager work included payroll, scheduling, ordering supplies, and conference calls. The court found that this testimony was substantial evidence supporting the vocational expert’s conclusion that his skills transferred to information clerk work.

The court also rejected Willing’s argument that the administrative law judge had to identify a range of occupations. Because Willing did not dispute that information-clerk positions existed in significant numbers in the national and regional economies, the court concluded that identifying that single occupation was sufficient under the applicable statute and regulations.

Severity of Impairments

Willing argued that his gastrointestinal problems, hearing loss, and tinnitus were severe impairments and that the administrative law judge should have considered them in determining his residual functional capacity. Residual functional capacity is the most a person can still do despite physical or mental limitations.

The administrative law judge found that Willing’s hearing loss was adequately controlled with hearing aids. She found that his gastrointestinal impairments did not more than minimally limit work-related activities and that his urinary-retention issues did not significantly limit his ability to complete work-like tasks. The administrative law judge also found that Willing did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment.

The court noted that Willing had not identified these conditions as severe impairments in his benefits application and had discussed them only briefly with the administrative law judge. His testimony described fewer diarrhea episodes than before, occasional incontinence, going to the bathroom three or four times after eating, and occasional difficulty using the telephone because of hearing problems. The court concluded that this testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the finding that the impairments were not severe. The court also noted that Willing’s later reconsideration report did not clearly describe the alleged severity and was part of his appeal rather than information provided to the administrative law judge.

Disposition

The court concluded that Willing’s objections lacked merit and that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. It ordered:

1. Willing’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED. 2. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED.

The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.