Michael D. v. Saul

Background

Michael D. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record.

Michael D. argued that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate evidence concerning his right-hand grip, pinch strength, coordination, and fine motor dexterity. He also argued that the administrative law judge improperly relied on a normal hand x-ray and equivocal Phalen’s and Tinel’s tests when rejecting a proposed restriction allowing only occasional handling and fingering with the right hand.

Administrative Decision

The administrative law judge found that Michael D. had several severe impairments, including right-hand paresthesias and weakness of unknown cause. The judge determined that, if Michael D. stopped using substances, he had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform sedentary work. The assessment allowed frequent handling and fingering with the right upper extremity but prohibited power gripping and torque with tools.

The administrative law judge found that Michael D. could not perform his past relevant work but could perform other jobs, including call-out operator, document preparer, and touch-up screener for printed circuits. The judge therefore found him not disabled.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Michael D.’s argument that the therapy records showed a marked limitation in right-hand grip and pinch strength. The physical and occupational therapy records showed improvement, and the occupational therapy records indicated that he met his right-hand strengthening and functioning goals ahead of schedule. The court found no evidence that a marked limitation lasted at least twelve months.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Eric Waldron’s findings concerning fine motor dexterity. The court noted that Dr. Waldron did not conduct a physical examination focused on the right hand or arm, met Michael D. only once, did not treat him, and did not provide a function-by-function assessment. The court also found that his findings were inconsistent with contemporaneous therapy records.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge did not reject the proposed occasional handling and fingering restriction because of the normal x-ray or equivocal testing. Instead, the administrative law judge relied on uncertainty about the diagnosis and Michael D.’s failure to complete a recommended electromyography test. The court found that the record supported that reasoning, including the lack of right-hand complaints for more than a year and the absence of grip or pinch weakness in Dr. Grothe’s November 2017 examination.

The court further found that the administrative law judge did not improperly rely on medical expert Dr. Andrew M. Steiner’s testimony. Although Dr. Steiner initially testified that there was no evidence of ongoing right-hand weakness, the administrative law judge asked about other medical records, and Dr. Steiner explained that those records did not grade the severity of the weakness or assess remaining function. The court observed that the administrative law judge included right-hand limitations in the residual functional capacity assessment.

Disposition

Judge Hildy Bowbeer concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision. The court denied Michael D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.