Remme v. Kijakazi

Background

Jessica M. Remme sought disability insurance benefits, alleging disability from rheumatoid arthritis, bladder issues, a history of kidney stones, depression, anxiety, and thyroid issues. The Social Security Administration denied her application initially, on reconsideration, and after a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that Remme was not disabled and could perform jobs available in the national economy.

The ALJ assigned Remme a residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning the work-related activities she could still perform despite her impairments. The RFC limited her to sedentary work and required an opportunity to change positions approximately every 30 minutes, among other restrictions. Remme’s treating physician, Ingrid Chan, M.D., stated that Remme could sit for about six hours and stand and walk for about two hours during an eight-hour day. Dr. Chan also stated that Remme could sit or stand for 30 minutes before changing position and needed to walk for five minutes every 30 minutes.

Proceedings and arguments

Remme appealed the ALJ’s decision to the district court and argued that the RFC did not include all of Dr. Chan’s sitting, standing, and walking limitations. Both sides moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide the case based on the record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended granting Remme’s motion for summary judgment in part, denying the Commissioner’s motion, and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. The magistrate judge found that the phrase “opportunity to change positions approximately every 30 minutes” was vague because it could mean that Remme could change positions every 30 minutes or sooner, or that she could change positions only every 30 minutes. The magistrate judge also found that the RFC did not explain whether Remme could walk for five minutes every 30 minutes, despite the ALJ’s statement that Dr. Chan’s sitting, standing, and walking limits had been adopted in vocationally relevant terms.

The Commissioner objected to the recommendation. Remme did not object but asked the court to reverse the ALJ’s decision rather than remand for clarification.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s specific objections independently. It agreed that the RFC was vague. The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the RFC could be understood to allow Remme to change positions at least every 30 minutes because that language was not actually included in the RFC, and the court could not add it after the fact.

The court also concluded that the RFC did not clearly adopt Dr. Chan’s recommendation that Remme walk for five minutes every 30 minutes. The court noted that the ALJ appeared to have adopted Dr. Chan’s sitting, standing, and walking limits but did not include the walking requirement in the RFC. The court stated that both the position-change language and the walking requirement could conflict with the maximum sitting and standing periods the ALJ had adopted.

Disposition

The court overruled the Commissioner’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and granted Remme’s motion for summary judgment in part. The court remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. The ALJ was directed to clarify the persuasiveness of the medical opinions, formulate a new RFC addressing when and how often Remme could change positions and whether she needed to walk for five minutes every 30 minutes, and provide a new hypothetical to the vocational expert. The court did not itself award benefits or reverse the ALJ’s decision.