Tammy J. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Tammy J. applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits in November 2017, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2014. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After two hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits on May 22, 2020. The Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The ALJ found severe impairments including the effects of a right knee replacement, left-knee osteoarthritis, opioid dependence in remission, depression, and anxiety. The ALJ determined that Tammy J. retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)—her ability to work despite her impairments—to perform light work with restrictions, including standing and walking for no more than three hours in an eight-hour workday, limits on climbing and other physical activities, and limits on workplace hazards, task complexity, interactions, and changes. The ALJ found that she could not return to her past work as a gas attendant but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Tammy J., represented by counsel, sought judicial review. The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), asking the court to decide the case based on the existing administrative record.

Physical medical opinions

The court held that the ALJ’s evaluation of the physical medical opinions was not supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Treating orthopedist Dr. Jonathan Lee, treating nurse practitioner Patricia Giurleo, and consultative examiner Dr. John Fkiaras each assessed physical limitations more serious than those included in the ALJ’s RFC, especially concerning prolonged sitting, standing, and walking.

The court identified several problems with the ALJ’s analysis. The ALJ did not adequately address the consistency among those treating and examining sources. Although the record showed some improvement after treatment and surgery, the ALJ did not sufficiently account for continuing pain and limitations. The ALJ also relied on Tammy J.’s ability to use public transportation and perform daily activities without explaining how those activities showed that she could sit or stand for an eight-hour workday.

The court acknowledged that non-examining sources, including Dr. Saeed and hearing medical expert Dr. Kwock, provided some support for the ALJ’s RFC. But those opinions differed substantially from the treating and examining sources. The court concluded that the ALJ needed to give a more detailed, evidence-based explanation for relying on the outlying non-examining opinions, especially because Dr. Saeed had reviewed only part of the record and had not reviewed the treating-source assessments.

Mental-health evidence

The court upheld the ALJ’s treatment of the mental-health evidence. The ALJ found that Tammy J. had meaningful mental limitations and restricted her to simple, routine work that was not performed at a production-rate pace, with limits on workplace interactions and changes. The court concluded that treatment notes and other evidence supported the ALJ’s finding of mild-to-moderate mental limitations and that the RFC adequately addressed them.

The court therefore found no reversible error in the ALJ’s evaluation of treating nurse practitioner Grace Adeola Adepoju’s opinions about mental limitations and absenteeism. It also upheld the ALJ’s consideration of Tammy J.’s testimony about her mental-health symptoms.

Subjective complaints

The ALJ found that Tammy J.’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably cause her alleged symptoms but concluded that her statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects were not fully credible. The court held that the ALJ must reconsider Tammy J.’s testimony about physical limitations because the ALJ’s inadequate analysis of the physical medical opinions affected the evaluation of that testimony. The court did not find error in the ALJ’s evaluation of her mental-health complaints.

Disposition

Judge Gary R. Jones granted Tammy J. judgment on the pleadings, reversed the Commissioner’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ must apply the proper legal standard to the treating and examining sources’ assessments of Tammy J.’s physical limitations and then reconsider her subjective complaints about physical pain and limitation. The court directed the Clerk to enter final judgment and close the file.