Hardy v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Antonieta Hardy sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. Hardy alleged that back and knee problems prevented her from working. The administrative law judge found that she had several severe impairments, including degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the back and both knees, and the effects of knee surgeries. The administrative law judge determined that Hardy had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her limitations—to perform sedentary work, with restrictions on certain occasional postural activities. He concluded that she could perform her past work as a data-entry clerk and cashier.

Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the parties’ written submissions and the administrative record.

Issues and analysis

Hardy argued that the administrative law judge was improperly appointed and that the residual-functional-capacity finding lacked support. The court rejected the appointment argument for the reasons given in an earlier decision, Bonilla-Bukhari v. Berryhill.

The court focused on the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Kumar, who examined Hardy after the administrative hearing. Dr. Kumar stated that Hardy could sit for a total of four hours in a workday. Dr. Kumar also found restrictions involving postural activities and the use of her hands. The administrative law judge expressly rejected the postural and hand-use restrictions, but did not reject or discuss the four-hour sitting limitation.

The court explained that sedentary work generally requires about six hours of sitting during an eight-hour workday. Because the administrative law judge found that Hardy could perform sedentary work, the four-hour sitting limitation directly conflicted with the residual-functional-capacity finding. The Commissioner offered reasons why the administrative law judge might have been entitled to reject Dr. Kumar’s sitting assessment, including the assessment’s lack of identified supporting clinical findings and possible inconsistency with treatment records. But the administrative law judge did not actually reject that limitation or explain the conflict. Social Security rules require an adjudicator to explain why a medical-source opinion is not adopted when the residual-functional-capacity assessment conflicts with it.

The court did not find it necessary to decide Hardy’s remaining challenges to the evaluation of her reported symptoms because those issues could be affected by new findings or analysis after remand. The court also rejected Hardy’s argument that the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity analysis was necessarily invalid because it did not expressly assess every function one by one; such an explicit format is not required when the reasoning otherwise permits meaningful review.

Disposition

The court granted Hardy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and order. The opinion does not itself award Hardy benefits or determine that she is disabled.