Jordan S.H. v. Saul

Background

Jordan S.H. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits. The court reviewed the administrative law judge’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), asking whether substantial evidence supported the decision and whether the administrative law judge made an error of law. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for the agency’s conclusion.

The administrative law judge assigned significant weight to psychologist Dr. Marlin Trulsen’s February 2017 consultative opinion. That opinion identified limitations involving remembering and following instructions; sustaining attention, concentrating, and carrying out work-like tasks with reasonable persistence and pace; responding appropriately to brief and superficial contact with coworkers and supervisors; and tolerating workplace stress and pressure. The administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity assessment limited Jordan S.H. to short, simple instructions, occasional interaction with coworkers and the general public, and responding appropriately to work pressures and routine changes.

The parties’ arguments

Jordan S.H. argued that the residual functional capacity assessment did not include all of Dr. Trulsen’s limitations, particularly the limitations involving persistence and pace and tolerating entry-level workplace stress. Jordan S.H. also argued that the administrative law judge did not explain why those limitations were omitted despite giving Dr. Trulsen’s opinion significant weight.

The Commissioner argued that the residual functional capacity assessment was consistent with Dr. Trulsen’s opinion and the record as a whole.

Court’s analysis

The court held that remand was appropriate because the residual functional capacity assessment did not adequately incorporate the limitations that the administrative law judge had credited. The court stated that it could not determine whether the administrative law judge believed the limitations were addressed by restrictions to usual and routine work settings and simple tasks, or whether the administrative law judge had rejected those portions of Dr. Trulsen’s opinion. The administrative law judge’s decision did not explain either possibility.

The court also said it could not affirm the decision based on a rationale that the administrative law judge had not stated. It directed the administrative law judge to clarify the residual functional capacity regarding Dr. Trulsen’s opinion and obtain further testimony from a vocational expert using a revised hypothetical that accounts for all impairments supported by the record. The court noted that the administrative law judge could either reopen the record if needed or clarify the existing record.

Disposition

The court ordered:

- Jordan S.H.’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. - Commissioner Andrew Saul’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED. - The case was REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. - The case was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.