Tereather T. v. O'Malley

Background

Tereather T. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. She alleged disability based on several physical and mental conditions. The administrative law judge found that her severe impairments included gastroesophageal reflux disease, irritable bowel syndrome with chronic constipation, pelvic-floor dysfunction, and fecal and urinary incontinence. The administrative law judge determined that she had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform light work with certain limitations, including access to a bathroom within 100 feet of her workstation.

The administrative law judge found that Tereather T. could not perform her past relevant work as a cook because that work exceeded her residual functional capacity. At the next step, however, the administrative law judge found that she had acquired skills that could transfer to a light, semiskilled short-order-cook position. A vocational expert testified that approximately 300,000 such jobs existed nationally and that the transfer would require little, if any, vocational adjustment. Based on that testimony, the administrative law judge concluded that Tereather T. was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review the decision.

Issue and analysis

Tereather T. argued that the administrative law judge improperly determined that her cooking skills transferred to short-order cooking. She emphasized that her past work involved preparing pre-planned meals in a cafeteria setting and did not involve short-order cooking. The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the finding that her large-quantity food-preparation skills transferred to the less physically demanding short-order-cook job.

The court agreed with Tereather T. The court explained that, because skill transferability was material to the disability determination, the administrative law judge had to identify the acquired work skills and the specific occupations to which those skills transferred. The court found that the decision did not provide a sufficient logical connection between the evidence and the conclusion.

First, the court found it unclear how the administrative law judge reconciled the vocational expert’s initial identification of Tereather T.’s skill as “knowledge of preparation of food in large quantity” with the administrative law judge’s later description of the skill as “working and preparing food in the environment of cooking.” Second, the court found that the decision did not explain how either description prepared Tereather T. to perform the different duties of a short-order cook, including taking individual customer orders and preparing food requiring short preparation times. The court noted that the record did not show that Tereather T.’s past work required those abilities.

Because Tereather T. was rapidly approaching retirement age, the regulations required the proposed work to be sufficiently similar that she would need very little, if any, vocational adjustment. The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s explanation was inadequate to permit meaningful review of whether that requirement was met.

Disposition

The court stated that it vacated the administrative decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. The court directed the administrative law judge to create a logical explanation addressing the material inconsistencies and supporting any finding that Tereather T. had transferable skills requiring only limited vocational adjustment. The court also directed the administrative law judge, if necessary, to obtain additional testimony from a vocational expert.

The order granted Plaintiff’s Request for Relief, denied Defendant’s Request for Relief, reversed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings. The order also stated that the matter was “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”