Jamison v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Regina B. Jamison sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning February 8, 2017, based on several physical conditions, including back, shoulder, ankle, knee, and hand problems. The Administrative Law Judge, Sharda Singh, held a hearing on January 9, 2019, at which Jamison testified without an attorney or other representative. The Administrative Law Judge denied benefits on June 10, 2019, and the Appeals Council denied review on July 31, 2020.

The Administrative Law Judge found severe impairments involving Jamison’s left ankle, neck, lower back, and right shoulder. The judge determined that Jamison could perform sedentary work with restrictions, could not perform her past relevant work, but could perform jobs such as information clerk, correspondence clerk, and office clerk. The decision therefore concluded that Jamison was not disabled from February 8, 2017, through June 10, 2019.

Issue

Jamison argued that the Administrative Law Judge failed to properly evaluate medical-opinion evidence when determining her residual functional capacity, meaning her remaining ability to perform work-related activities.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge failed to adequately develop the administrative record. The only functional assessment relied on by the Administrative Law Judge came from Trevor Litchmore, a consultative examiner who examined Jamison once in April 2017, shortly after her right-shoulder surgery. The court found that Litchmore’s report used terms such as “marked limitations” without explaining what those terms meant in terms of Jamison’s actual abilities. The report also did not adequately discuss her surgery, treatment, or prognosis.

The court further found that Litchmore’s observations conflicted with treatment records from Jamison’s treating orthopedist, Dr. Michael Cushner, and with other evidence. Litchmore reported, among other things, a normal gait, no assistive-device use, and normal lumbar-spine movement, while the treating records described abnormal spine examinations, acute distress, an antalgic gait, and continuing pain. The court concluded that Litchmore’s report did not resolve the gaps created by these conflicts.

The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge did not properly apply the treating-physician rule. That rule required consideration of factors including the length and nature of the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the overall record, specialization, and other relevant factors. The Administrative Law Judge gave “little” weight to Dr. Cushner’s opinion because it did not provide function-by-function assessments and because the ultimate question of ability to work was reserved for the Commissioner. The court found that explanation insufficient because the Administrative Law Judge did not discuss the relevant factors or explain the relationship between the treating doctors’ findings, Jamison’s reported limitations, and the consultative examiner’s findings. The court also stated that the Administrative Law Judge failed to address significant records from Dr. David Dynof.

Disposition

The court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge failed both to develop the record properly and to satisfy the treating-physician rule. Under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The court granted Jamison’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments. The opinion did not award benefits or decide that Jamison was disabled.