Samantha M. A. v. O'Malley

Background

Samantha M. A. sought disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning in June 2019, based among other things on a herniated lower-back disc and arthritis in her knees and back. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After two hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that she was not disabled through December 31, 2020, the date she was last insured.

The ALJ found severe impairments including lumbar degenerative disc disease, morbid obesity, degenerative knee joint disease, and residuals of pneumonia. The ALJ determined that Samantha M. A. could perform sedentary work with several physical and environmental limitations. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the ALJ identified work as an optical goods polisher, inspector of electronic components and accessories, and laminator of leather products.

The Parties’ Arguments

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Samantha M. A. argued that the ALJ failed to evaluate the opinion of Karie Soost, P.A.C., under the governing regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. Soost opined that Samantha M. A. could sit for less than two hours total and stand or walk for less than two hours total during an eight-hour workday. The ALJ found the opinion unpersuasive, stating that it was inconsistent with the greater weight of the record, including objective findings and the course of care.

Samantha M. A. also argued that the vocational expert’s testimony did not establish that a significant number of suitable jobs existed because the expert provided nationwide numbers but no numbers for Minnesota or several regions of the country. The Commissioner argued that the ALJ properly evaluated the opinion and that the nationwide job numbers satisfied the Commissioner’s burden.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an ALJ must evaluate medical opinions for persuasiveness. The two most important factors are supportability—whether the opinion is supported by objective medical evidence and explanations—and consistency with other evidence. The ALJ must explain how those two factors were considered.

The court concluded that the ALJ did not adequately explain how the supportability of Soost’s opinion was evaluated. Although the ALJ discussed consistency with the record, the decision did not make clear how the ALJ considered whether Soost’s opinion was supported by objective evidence and supporting explanations. That failure was legal error. The court rejected the Commissioner’s attempt to supply reasons that the ALJ had not stated, explaining that the decision could not be upheld on a later explanation by the Commissioner’s lawyers.

The court also held that the ALJ was not required to separately explain the other regulatory factors because the ALJ had not found two opinions equally well supported and consistent with the record. On remand, the ALJ must reconsider Soost’s opinion and, if it remains unpersuasive, explain the supportability and consistency factors and any other relevant factors. If the residual functional capacity changes, the ALJ may ask a vocational expert a new question based on the limitations supported by the record.

Regarding the vocational expert, the court held that the testimony about 30,000 optical goods polisher jobs, 180,000 inspector jobs, and 25,000 laminator jobs—235,000 jobs in total nationwide—was substantial evidence that a significant number of jobs existed. The court therefore rejected Samantha M. A.’s challenge to the vocational evidence, although it noted that testimony about regional job numbers would have been preferable.

Disposition

The court ordered that Samantha M. A.’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was also granted in part and denied in part. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings.