Deanna T. v. Kijakazi

Background

Deanna T. sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning July 29, 2016, based primarily on nerve damage or sensory neuropathy in her hands and feet, fetal alcohol syndrome, and learning or cognitive limitations.

After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Micah Pharris found that Deanna T. was not disabled. The judge found severe impairments involving intellectual functioning, mood, Sjogren’s syndrome, and related peripheral neuropathy. The judge found that she could perform sedentary work with restrictions, including no climbing of ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; only occasional postural activities; no exposure to vibration, unprotected heights, or hazards; frequent handling, fingering, and feeling; and simple, routine tasks at a nonproduction pace. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that she could perform jobs such as order clerk, document preparer, and dowel inspector.

Issues

Deanna T. raised three issues: whether the administrative law judge incorrectly found that her impairments did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.05 for intellectual disability; whether the residual functional capacity improperly allowed frequent handling, fingering, and feeling; and whether the Appeals Council improperly failed to consider medical evidence submitted after the hearing.

Court’s analysis

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s findings concerning Listing 12.05. Although the record contained full-scale IQ scores of 57 and 62, the court found substantial evidence supporting moderate, rather than marked, limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information and in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace. The court relied in part on evidence that Deanna T. had completed high school and nursing-assistant training, had worked in jobs involving more than one- or two-step reasoning, could understand simplified instructions, and had managed her mother’s medications. The court also found that the record supported the moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace.

The court did not uphold the administrative law judge’s handling of the hand-use issue. The record showed continuing numbness, tingling, and abnormal sensations in Deanna T.’s hands, as well as testing showing average fine-motor speed in her right hand, severely impaired fine-motor speed in her left hand, and low-average manual dexterity in both hands. The court explained that grip strength does not necessarily determine a person’s ability to finger, handle, and feel, particularly in sedentary work. Because the vocational expert testified that no jobs would be available if those activities were limited to occasional use, the court directed the agency to develop the medical evidence further, determine Deanna T.’s ability to perform fingering and fine-dexterity tasks, and revise the residual functional capacity and vocational-expert hypothetical as necessary.

The court also addressed records submitted to the Appeals Council concerning mental-health symptoms and gait. The court found that the records diagnosing depressive and anxiety disorders and recommending a partial-hospitalization or day-treatment program had to be considered on remand when deciding whether anxiety and depression were severe impairments and whether further steps in the disability analysis were required. The court found no basis for remand based on the gait and balance evidence, noting the generally stable gait, lack of falls, lack of an assistive device, and ability to walk somewhat less than two blocks before needing a break.

Disposition

The court ordered that Deanna T.’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The court remanded the case to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The opinion does not state that either motion or the case was dismissed with or without prejudice.