R.H.A. v. Kijakazi

Background

R.H.A. sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged that she had been disabled beginning June 30, 2017, which was also the last date on which she met the Social Security Act’s insured-status requirement. Administrative Law Judge Lyle Olson held telephonic hearings on August 12 and November 17, 2020. R.H.A. was told about her right to a lawyer but chose to proceed without one. The administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision on January 7, 2021, and the Appeals Council declined review.

The administrative law judge found that R.H.A. had several severe impairments, including essential tremors, but determined that they did not meet or equal a listed impairment. He found that she could perform light work with restrictions, including frequent handling, fingering, and feeling with both hands and occasional overhead reaching with her left arm. He further found that she could perform her past work as a Project Director as both generally performed and as she had performed it. The administrative law judge therefore concluded that she was not disabled during the relevant period.

Issues and analysis

R.H.A. raised three main arguments: that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the severity of her hand tremors; that the residual functional capacity, meaning the most work she could still perform, did not adequately account for the tremors; and that the administrative law judge should not have proceeded with the hearings because she did not understand the relevant insured-status period and lacked a lawyer.

The court held that substantial evidence supported the evaluation of the tremors. The record included evidence that medication improved or controlled the tremors, examinations showing no, mild, or occasional tremor, and activities such as dressing, bathing, driving, traveling, shopping, washing dishes, washing clothes, and using buttons and zippers. The court also considered earlier records submitted after the hearings, including records describing significant tremors and difficulty writing and keyboarding in 2009. It concluded that this evidence still supported the administrative law judge’s decision because the work-related problems in 2009 were relatively short-lived, medication improved the tremors, R.H.A. continued working except for a one-month leave, and she did not pursue treatment beyond medication or a disability evaluation.

The court rejected R.H.A.’s argument that the residual functional capacity omitted a hand-use limitation. It noted that the assessment expressly limited her to frequent handling, fingering, and feeling with both hands. The court also concluded that the administrative law judge did not err by relying on the record concerning a physical therapist’s observations because, even if those observations were disregarded as a medical opinion, the remaining evidence substantially supported the decision.

The court also found that R.H.A. knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to a lawyer. She received written notices, confirmed at the first hearing that she intended to proceed without a representative, and reaffirmed that choice at the second hearing. The court found no evidence that she or her husband failed to understand that she had to prove disability on or before June 30, 2017. Because R.H.A. was unrepresented, the administrative law judge had a heightened duty to develop a reasonably complete record, but the court concluded that he met that duty by giving her time to obtain records, holding a second hearing, and asking about missing evidence. The court also found no unfairness or prejudice from the additional records obtained after the hearings.

Disposition

The court denied R.H.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted the Acting Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, canceled the scheduled announcement, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.