Douglas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Sandra Denise Douglas sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge found that Douglas had severe impairments consisting of arthritis in both knees, obesity, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The judge found diabetes, hepatitis C, hypertension, decreased visual acuity, asthma, and plantar fasciitis non-severe.

The administrative law judge assessed Douglas as able to perform a limited range of light work. The residual functional capacity allowed six hours of sitting and two hours of standing during an eight-hour workday, along with other restrictions involving climbing, postural activities, workplace interactions, and production quotas. The administrative law judge concluded at step four that Douglas could perform her past work as a night cleaner. Alternatively, at step five, the judge found that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers, including marker, router, and silver wrapper.

Douglas argued that the administrative law judge failed to give controlling weight to the opinion of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. James Herivaux; failed to account for asthma and decreased visual acuity; incorrectly found that she could perform her past work; and relied on flawed vocational-expert testimony concerning other jobs. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supported the decision.

Treating psychiatrist’s opinion

The court rejected Douglas’s challenge to the treatment of Dr. Herivaux’s opinion. The administrative law judge gave that opinion only partial weight, citing its inconsistency with Dr. Herivaux’s treatment notes, which stated that Douglas’s symptoms were adequately controlled by medication, and with evidence concerning her childcare responsibilities and reasons for not working.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge considered the required factors and gave adequate reasons for discounting the treating psychiatrist’s opinion. The court also found that the administrative law judge properly evaluated consultative psychiatrist Dr. Ruby Phillips’s opinion, including giving greater weight to portions supported by the examination and record while discounting the opinion that Douglas had a marked limitation in dealing with stress.

Asthma and decreased visual acuity

The court held that the administrative law judge was required to consider all medically determinable impairments, including impairments classified as non-severe, when determining residual functional capacity. The administrative law judge acknowledged Douglas’s asthma and decreased visual acuity but did not specifically explain whether either impairment affected the residual functional capacity.

The court found the omission concerning visual acuity harmless because the record showed that Douglas’s blurred vision was transitory and occurred during a four-week period in 2016. The court reached a different conclusion regarding asthma. The record described ongoing mild asthma with acute exacerbations treated with medication, including inhalers. Because the administrative law judge did not explain whether asthma required environmental restrictions, the court found the error was not harmless and required remand. The court stated that on remand the administrative law judge could determine that asthma required no additional restrictions, but would have to explain that conclusion.

Past relevant work

The court found that the administrative law judge’s step-four finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The vocational expert testified that a person with several restrictions could perform night-cleaner work, but the hypothetical question did not include Douglas’s limitation to six hours of sitting and two hours of standing. Because the hypothetical did not accurately reflect the residual functional capacity adopted by the administrative law judge, the vocational testimony could not support the finding that Douglas could perform her past work.

Other work in the national economy

The court also found an error at step five. The vocational expert identified the marker, router, and silver-wrapper jobs in response to a hypothetical that likewise omitted the sitting-and-standing limitation. During questioning by Douglas’s lawyer, the expert said that a person who could sit for six hours and stand for two hours could perform those jobs and could sit or stand at will.

But the expert also testified that the jobs were classified as light work because they required lifting up to 20 pounds occasionally or up to 10 pounds frequently. The court found an apparent conflict between that testimony and the occupational information stating that frequent lifting generally requires being on one’s feet for up to two-thirds of the workday. Under the applicable agency rule, the administrative law judge had to obtain a reasonable explanation for the conflict and explain how it was resolved before relying on the vocational testimony. The administrative law judge did not do so.

Disposition

The court denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Douglas’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The remand requires reconsideration of the asthma issue, whether Douglas could perform her past work, the effect of her sitting-and-standing limitation on the identified jobs, and the conflict between the vocational testimony and occupational information. The court also noted that Douglas reached age 55 after the administrative law judge’s decision and directed the administrative law judge to consider the changed circumstances on remand. The court did not decide that Douglas was entitled to benefits.