Hilton v. Saul

Background

Jennifer Hilton sought review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision that she was not entitled to disability insurance benefits. Hilton claimed disability based on injuries involving her right knee, hip, shoulder, wrist, and hand, as well as insomnia. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Robert Schriver found that Hilton was not disabled and could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

The administrative law judge found that Hilton had severe impairments involving her right knee, left shoulder, and left wrist. He determined that she could perform sedentary work with restrictions, including frequent overhead reaching with her right arm, occasional crouching, kneeling, crawling, climbing, or stooping, no exposure to unprotected heights, and use of a cane while walking. He relied principally on the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Olga Yevsikova and found the opinions of Dr. A. Lee and treating physician Dr. Robert Kramberg unpersuasive.

The Parties’ Arguments

Hilton moved for summary judgment, asking the court to vacate the administrative decision and remand the case. She argued that the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding—the determination of what work activities she could still perform despite her impairments—was not supported by substantial evidence. Her arguments focused on the finding that she could sit and reach enough to perform sedentary work and on the alleged failure to consider medication side effects.

The Commissioner cross-moved for summary judgment and asked the court to affirm the administrative decision. The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the finding that Hilton could perform sedentary work and that the record did not support significant functional restrictions from medication side effects.

Sitting and Sedentary Work

The court held that the finding that Hilton could satisfy the sitting requirements of sedentary work was not supported by substantial evidence. Sedentary work generally requires sitting for approximately six hours during an eight-hour workday. The administrative law judge did not discuss Hilton’s sitting ability in the decision.

The only medical opinion the administrative law judge found persuasive—Dr. Yevsikova’s opinion—did not assess how long Hilton could sit at one time or in total during a workday. The administrative law judge rejected Dr. Kramberg’s opinion that Hilton could sit for no more than one hour in a workday, and also rejected Dr. Lee’s opinion that she could sit for six hours. The court concluded that, after discounting those opinions and Hilton’s testimony, the administrative law judge had improperly relied on his own judgment rather than affirmative evidence showing that Hilton could meet the sitting demands of sedentary work.

Reaching and Conflicting Evidence

The court also found that the administrative law judge’s reaching findings were inconsistent and insufficiently explained. The administrative law judge limited Hilton to frequent overhead reaching with her right arm but imposed no stated limitation on reaching with her left arm.

The record included evidence of left shoulder injury, reduced range of motion, pain, and difficulty with overhead activity. Hilton also testified that pain began when her arms reached approximately eye level. In contrast, Dr. Yevsikova found full range of motion in Hilton’s left shoulder and identified a mild limitation involving overhead activity with the right arm. The court held that the administrative law judge failed to explain these conflicts and relied on clinical findings concerning the left shoulder while adopting a limitation concerning the right shoulder.

The court also held that the administrative law judge improperly treated activities such as driving, shopping by mail, paying bills, handling money, talking on the phone, watching television, listening to the radio, and reading as inconsistent with additional physical restrictions. The court explained that those activities did not, by themselves, establish that Hilton could reach overhead or remain seated for the periods required by sedentary work.

Medication Side Effects

The court rejected Hilton’s argument that the administrative law judge erred by finding that she had not alleged medication side effects. The administrative law judge did not make such a finding, so that argument was based on an incorrect premise.

The court also held that the administrative law judge did not commit reversible error by failing to discuss medication side effects. Although Hilton testified that Vicodin and Valium caused nausea, sleepiness, and difficulty concentrating, the record contained no supporting medical evidence. The court noted that Hilton had checked “no” when asked whether those medications caused side effects, and Dr. Kramberg’s functional assessment did not mention side effects. The court nevertheless stated that, on remand, the administrative law judge would do well to expressly evaluate any medication side effects.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge erred in analyzing Hilton’s residual functional capacity concerning sitting and reaching. It did not decide that Hilton was entitled to benefits or direct an award of benefits. Pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court granted Hilton’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Judge

The decision was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.