Cohen-Aikens v. Berryhill

Background

Ruthann Cohen-Aikens sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning December 12, 2015. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Mark Solomon found that she had severe impairments including conditions following left and right knee replacements, lumbar degenerative disc disease, and cervical spondylosis. He determined that she retained the capacity to perform the full range of light work and could perform her past relevant work as a receptionist.

The record included treatment for knee, back, and neck problems; knee replacement surgeries; epidural injections; and opinions from treating physicians Dr. Robert Griffin and Dr. Martin Frankel. Dr. Griffin stated that Cohen-Aikens had significant limits on sitting, lifting, bending, breaks, attention, and concentration. Dr. Frankel reviewed and agreed with Dr. Griffin’s assessment. Other medical sources, including Dr. Aurelio Salon and state-agency consultant Dr. R. Gauthier, gave opinions reflecting fewer limitations.

Arguments

Cohen-Aikens moved for judgment on the pleadings and argued that the administrative judge improperly evaluated her treating physicians’ opinions, failed to analyze the applicable disability listing, and failed to compare her residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of her past work. The Commissioner opposed her motion and sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the administrative judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and contained no legal error.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative judge failed to follow the treating-physician rule. Under that rule, an administrative judge must determine whether a treating physician’s opinion deserves controlling weight and, if it does not, must evaluate specified factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

The court found that the administrative judge gave Dr. Griffin’s opinion little weight without adequately explaining the decision. The judge cited the fact that epidural injections provided relief for several months and characterized the limitations as disproportionate to the clinical findings, but did not sufficiently discuss medical evidence supporting Dr. Griffin’s opinion, including Dr. Griffin’s examinations and diagnostic testing, Dr. Frankel’s supporting opinion, and Dr. Russel Huang’s assessment and related imaging. The judge also did not address Dr. Griffin’s opinion about pain-related limits on attention and concentration.

The court further held that the administrative judge gave an inadequate explanation for relying more heavily on Dr. Salon’s opinions, which were based on consultative examinations, including a single examination. It also concluded that the judge’s characterization of Cohen-Aikens’s treatment as conservative was not a sufficient reason to discount Dr. Griffin’s opinion. In addition, the court stated that Dr. Griffin’s specialization in pain management supported giving his opinion greater weight rather than less.

The court noted that the administrative judge had not discussed the disability listing for spinal disorders identified by Cohen-Aikens. On remand, the judge was directed to reconsider the treating physicians’ opinions and determine whether Cohen-Aikens’s impairments met that listing. The court declined to decide Cohen-Aikens’s remaining arguments because the administrative analysis could change after remand.

Disposition

The court held that remand for further administrative proceedings, rather than an immediate calculation of benefits, was appropriate. It granted in part and denied in part Cohen-Aikens’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case to the administrative law judge under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for proceedings consistent with the opinion. The opinion’s caption reflects that Andrew M. Saul had been substituted for Nancy Ann Berryhill as Commissioner, while the action had originally been filed against Berryhill.