Giron v. Kijakazi

Background

Marta Giron sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Giron alleged disability beginning January 17, 2018, after a motor vehicle accident that caused neck, back, shoulder, hip, and right-hand problems. Her medical treatment included right shoulder arthroscopy, surgery for Kienböck’s disease of the right wrist, treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome, and a right carpal tunnel release.

An administrative law judge held hearings in 2019 and 2020 and found Giron not disabled. The judge determined that she had severe impairments involving her right wrist and hand, both wrists’ carpal tunnel syndrome, her cervical and lumbar spine, and her shoulders. The judge found that Giron could perform sedentary work, with no more than occasional crouching, crawling, stooping, kneeling, balancing, or stair climbing, and with up to frequent fine fingering and handling using her right dominant hand. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that Giron could perform jobs such as assembler, polisher, and inspector. The Appeals Council denied review.

Giron’s Arguments

Giron argued that the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Residual functional capacity means the most a person can still do despite physical or mental limitations. She contended that the judge failed to properly consider her testimony about pain and limitations, selectively relied on favorable evidence, and improperly relied on an outdated medical opinion.

Giron also argued that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles because the identified jobs required basic language skills, while Giron could not read or write simple English messages and used an interpreter at the hearings.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied deferential review, asking whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision and whether the correct legal standards were used. The court found substantial evidence supporting the residual functional capacity finding. It relied on evidence that Giron’s right hand remained functional with limitations, that symptoms improved after injections and surgery, that later examinations showed intact sensation and the ability to flex and extend her digits, and that she generally denied back pain during later treatment visits.

The court held that the administrative law judge properly considered Giron’s subjective complaints. The judge accepted that her medically determinable impairments could cause the alleged symptoms but found that the intensity and limiting effects she described were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence. The court also held that the judge did not improperly substitute personal medical judgment when observing that Giron’s symptoms had been managed with treatment and that she generally used only Ibuprofen and Tylenol for pain.

The court rejected Giron’s selective-evidence argument. Although the judge did not discuss every item of evidence, the court found that the decision addressed the significant medical developments Giron identified, including her diagnoses, surgeries, injections, nerve testing, and later wrist findings. The court also concluded that the October 2018 consultative opinion was not rendered unreliable by later evidence because the later treatment records were consistent with the opinion and supported the judge’s residual functional capacity finding. Even if reliance on that opinion had been improper, the court said any error would have been harmless because the later treatment records independently supported the same result.

On the vocational issue, the court found no conflict requiring resolution. The three identified jobs had the language requirements listed in the occupational descriptions, but those descriptions did not expressly state that English-language skills were required. The court also explained that a 2020 regulatory amendment removed the requirement that the administrative law judge consider a person’s ability to communicate in English when evaluating education for this purpose.

Disposition

Judge Victoria Reznik granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Giron’s motion. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case.