John A. J. v. Kijakazi

Background

John A. J. challenged the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and supplemental security income under Title XVI. He alleged disability beginning in July 2018. The administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing, issued an unfavorable decision, and found that John A. J. was not disabled. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied review.

The ALJ found that John A. J. had the severe impairment of being status post stroke with remaining left-side deficits. The ALJ determined that he could perform light work, with these additional restrictions: no power gripping or power torquing with his left, nondominant hand; frequent handling with that hand; and no use of the left hand for manipulating small objects or performing rapid, coordinated finger movements. Relying on a vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ found that he could perform the representative job of shipping-and-receiving weigher.

The court’s review

The court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court considered both evidence supporting and evidence detracting from the ALJ’s decision, but it could not reverse merely because the record might also support a different conclusion.

Left-hand handling limitation

John A. J. argued that the ALJ should have limited him to occasional, rather than frequent, handling with his left hand. Frequent handling means handling activities occur from one-third to two-thirds of the workday; occasional handling means they occur from very little up to one-third of the workday.

The court acknowledged medical evidence showing continuing left-hand sensory and coordination problems after the stroke. The occupational therapy records documented difficulty with fine motor coordination and manipulating small objects. Dr. Melanie D. Swift also found weakness, sensory loss, and coordination problems in the left hand and recommended restrictions on tight gripping, safety-sensitive tasks requiring fine motor coordination or sensation, rapid coordinated finger movements, and manipulation of small objects.

The court concluded, however, that the ALJ reasonably considered both the limitations and the evidence of improvement. John A. J. completed occupational therapy, met all therapy goals, became independent with self-care and other activities, and showed improved strength and coordination. Other medical records showed left-arm strength ranging from 4/5 to 5/5, and providers did not believe his deficits prevented all work. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that John A. J. could frequently handle with his left hand.

Availability of other work

John A. J. also argued that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of Kate Schrot, a rehabilitation consultant. Schrot concluded that the shipping-and-receiving weigher job could not be performed by someone limited in the frequency of using one upper extremity. She relied in part on the Occupational Information Network, or O*NET, which described the job as requiring continuous use of the hands and arms.

The court explained that the Social Security Administration primarily relies on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) for information about job requirements. The DOT described the shipping-and-receiving weigher job as light, unskilled work requiring frequent handling, occasional reaching and fingering, and no feeling. The court noted that ONET is not listed in the regulations as a reliable source for this purpose, although the court did not say that ONET can never provide reliable job information.

The vocational expert testified that a person with the ALJ’s restrictions could perform the shipping-and-receiving weigher job and that about 25,000 such jobs existed nationally. The court found no conflict between that testimony and the DOT’s description. It therefore held that the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony and that substantial evidence supported the finding that other work was available.

Disposition

The court ordered that John A. J.’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, was DENIED, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 21, was GRANTED. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.