Thong T. v. Saul

Background

Thong T. applied in 2016 for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She claimed that neck and back injuries had left her disabled beginning in 2014. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing at which a vocational expert testified, Administrative Law Judge Erin Schmidt found that Thong T. had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform light work, subject to restrictions including occasional overhead reaching with both arms, frequent reaching in other directions, no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and no exposure to certain hazards. The administrative law judge found that Thong T. could perform her past relevant work as a circuit-board solderer and therefore was not disabled.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule based on the administrative record. At the April 7, 2021 hearing, the court announced that it was denying Thong T.’s motion and granting Commissioner Andrew Saul’s motion. This order briefly summarized the reasoning stated at the hearing.

Cervical-spine movement restriction

Thong T.’s main argument was that the residual functional capacity should have included a limitation on the range of motion of her cervical spine. The vocational expert testified that her past soldering work required nearly constant neck positioning while looking through a microscope and that even a cervical-spine range-of-motion limitation would prevent her from performing that job. The court accepted that testimony but held that the important question was whether the absence of such a limitation in the residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence.

The court rejected Thong T.’s argument that the administrative law judge’s finding of severe impairments automatically required a range-of-motion restriction. The administrative law judge had found chronic myofascial cervical pain and mild cervical degenerative disc disease to be severe impairments, but the court concluded that this finding did not itself require the additional restriction.

The court also rejected Thong T.’s interpretation of the opinions from agency doctors Shayne Small and Paul Ossmann. Although their reports referred to chronic neck pain with decreased range of motion, the court found that the phrase appeared in sections describing evidence supporting their recommendations, rather than as a recommendation for an additional residual-functional-capacity limitation. The court noted that the doctors used more specific terminology when identifying actual exertional and postural restrictions.

The court further held that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the record as a whole. The record included medical evidence of cervical-spine symptoms, but it also contained inconsistencies, reports of generally normal function, conservative treatment with gaps, and daily activities such as cooking, cleaning, laundry, driving, shopping, errands, walking, and light chores. The court concluded that the residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence, even though some evidence might have supported additional restrictions.

Testimony argument

Thong T. separately argued that the administrative law judge had effectively denied her the opportunity to testify after saying, “I think that will do it” at the end of the vocational expert’s testimony. The court found that the record showed she did testify, including about her past employment and medical bills. It also noted that the administrative law judge later asked whether there was anything else she wanted to add, and both Thong T. and her attorney answered that there was not. The court concluded that the record did not suggest that the administrative law judge prevented her from testifying.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no other reason to remand the matter. It ordered that Thong T.’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED and Commissioner Andrew Saul’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, with judgment to be entered accordingly.