Kande v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Peggy Kande sought review under the Social Security Act of an administrative law judge’s April 25, 2018 decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. The administrative law judge found that Kande had severe impairments including spinal conditions, left-shoulder and left-hip joint disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, obesity, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The administrative law judge found that Kande could perform light work with restrictions. Those restrictions included limited overhead reaching, climbing, stooping, crouching, kneeling, and crawling; no ladder, rope, or scaffold climbing; limited neck movement; simple, routine, low-stress work; limits on exposure to certain environmental conditions; and permission to be off task for 5 percent of the workday in addition to regular breaks. The administrative law judge found that Kande could not perform her past relevant work but could perform jobs such as hostess, usher, and recreation aide that existed in significant numbers in the national economy.

The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). A judgment-on-the-pleadings motion asks the court to decide the case based on the pleadings and the administrative record, without a trial.

Kande’s Arguments

Kande argued that the administrative law judge failed to properly evaluate opinions from examining and consulting medical sources, a chiropractor, and a consulting psychologist. She challenged the administrative law judge’s reliance on a nonexamining state-agency physician’s opinion that she could perform light work while rejecting or discounting opinions that imposed greater lifting or carrying restrictions.

Kande specifically argued that the administrative law judge improperly rejected Alexios Apazidis, M.D.’s opinion that she should not lift more than 15 pounds and Steven C. Weinstein, M.D.’s opinion limiting her to sedentary work with exertion up to 10 pounds. She also challenged the treatment of Harry Goldmark, M.D.’s opinions, including his later explanation that Kande’s condition deteriorated after cervical injections.

Kande further argued that the administrative law judge improperly rejected chiropractor Lucas Bottcher’s opinion, failed to explain which portions of Cheryl Archbald, M.D.’s opinion received weight, and improperly discounted W. Amory Carr, Ph.D.’s opinion that Kande had moderate-to-marked limitations in relating to others.

Commissioner’s Arguments

The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical opinions and reasonably relied on examination findings showing normal gait, full or largely full strength, intact sensation, treatment records, daily activities, and Kande’s testimony. The Commissioner also argued that the administrative law judge properly relied on vocational-expert testimony identifying jobs Kande could perform.

The Commissioner maintained that some opinions were expressed in workers’ compensation terms, were issued before the relevant period, were not based on examinations, or were inconsistent with other evidence. The Commissioner also argued that the administrative law judge properly gave little weight to Carr’s social-limitations opinion because it was based entirely on Kande’s reported symptoms and conflicted with her testimony that she had no difficulty getting along with others.

Court’s Analysis

A district court may uphold the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion, and if the correct legal standards were applied. The court may set the decision aside when it rests on legal error or lacks substantial evidence.

Physical Medical Opinions

The court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why she rejected Apazidis’s 15-pound lifting restriction as being expressed in workers’ compensation terminology and as having limited usefulness. The administrative law judge also did not explain why she accepted the nonexamining state-agency physician’s opinion that Kande could occasionally lift 20 pounds, even though that opinion lacked an explanation identifying supporting evidence.

The court also found that the administrative law judge did not reasonably reconcile Apazidis’s examination findings with the lifting restriction. Normal appearance, posture, gait, and full strength did not, without explanation, show that Kande could lift more than 15 pounds. The court held that rejecting Apazidis’s opinion without a good reason was improper.

The court reached a similar conclusion about Weinstein’s opinion limiting Kande to sedentary work with exertion up to 10 pounds. The administrative law judge relied on the same unexplained workers’ compensation rationale and on an alleged inconsistency with Goldmark’s May 2014 opinion. But Goldmark’s later examination findings showed reduced cervical range of motion, and Goldmark’s supplemental report explained that Kande’s condition had deteriorated after cervical injections. The administrative law judge did not explain why that examination evidence and explanation were not credible.

The court also found that the administrative law judge selectively relied on parts of treating physician Ranga Krishna’s findings—such as normal gait and intact strength and sensation—while ignoring findings of reduced spinal range of motion, muscle spasms, and shoulder tenderness. The administrative law judge similarly failed to explain why she relied on some portions of Maury Harris, M.D.’s opinion while ignoring Harris’s lifting and overhead-activity restrictions. According to the court, those unexplained choices did not provide a good reason for rejecting Bottcher’s opinion.

The court found that the administrative law judge gave only “some weight” to Archbald’s opinion without identifying which portions she accepted or rejected. This was especially important because Archbald identified marked or moderate limitations involving lifting and carrying, and the court found that the opinion was consistent with Archbald’s examination and objective medical evidence, including imaging studies. The court therefore found the explanation for the weight assigned to Archbald’s opinion inadequate.

Carr’s Psychological Opinion

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of Carr’s opinion concerning Kande’s ability to relate to others. The administrative law judge gave little weight to that portion of Carr’s opinion because it was based entirely on Kande’s symptom allegations and conflicted with Kande’s testimony that she had no difficulty getting along with others. The court found that the administrative law judge explained this decision and supported it with substantial evidence.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge erred in weighing medical opinions and that the residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The court granted Kande’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox signed the memorandum and order.