McVicker v. Kijakazi

Background

Michael McVicker sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. He alleged disability based mainly on chronic back and knee pain after a work injury and surgeries involving his right leg. An administrative law judge found that McVicker had several severe impairments, including a cervical spine fracture, lumbar degenerative disc disease, a knee condition following surgery, and migraines. The administrative law judge determined that McVicker could perform sedentary work with several restrictions, could not return to his past work as an ironworker, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record. McVicker argued that the administrative law judge incorrectly found that his impairments did not satisfy Listing 1.04A, a regulatory standard for certain serious spinal disorders. He also argued that additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council supported a more restrictive assessment of his ability to work.

The Listing 1.04A Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to adequately explain the finding that McVicker did not meet Listing 1.04A. That listing requires evidence of nerve-root compression, pain following a nerve pattern, limited spinal movement, motor loss accompanied by sensory or reflex loss, and positive straight-leg-raise tests in both sitting and lying positions when the lower back is involved.

The court identified evidence potentially supporting several of these requirements:

- Medical records documented radiculopathy, meaning symptoms caused by a damaged or compressed spinal nerve root, as well as limited spinal movement. - The record included evidence of muscle wasting and weakness, including weakness in the ankle dorsiflexors, quadriceps, hip muscles, and a foot muscle. The record also showed that McVicker could not walk on his toes and could squat only halfway during one examination. - Several doctors documented numbness or reduced sensation to pinprick, contrary to the administrative law judge’s statement that there was no evidence of sensory loss. - The record contained repeated positive straight-leg-raise tests from November 2018 through October 2019, although some examinations were negative.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately evaluate this conflicting evidence or explain why the evidence did not satisfy Listing 1.04A. In particular, the administrative law judge relied on brief conclusions about motor loss, sensory loss, and inconsistent straight-leg-raise tests without providing a specific explanation. The court stated that it was the administrative law judge’s responsibility—not the court’s—to evaluate the conflicting medical evidence and determine whether the listing was met.

Additional Evidence and Residual Functional Capacity

The court treated the additional medical records submitted to the Appeals Council as part of the administrative record because they related to the period before the administrative law judge’s decision. The court declined to decide whether that evidence independently required a more restrictive residual functional capacity, meaning a claimant’s maximum ability to work despite medical limitations. Instead, the court directed the administrative law judge to assess the additional evidence on remand as part of a complete record.

Disposition

The court granted McVicker’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court did not award benefits or determine that McVicker was disabled.