Pope v. Kijakazi

Background

Tashia L. Pope brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), asking the court to review the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Pope alleged disability beginning April 1, 2015. After two administrative hearings, Administrative Law Judge Sharda Singh again found that Pope was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative decision ready for judicial review.

Pope’s relevant medical evidence included a surgically treated left humerus fracture, left ulnar neuropathy, cervical disc herniations, and right shoulder impingement. The administrative law judge found that these and other conditions were severe impairments but determined that Pope retained the capacity to perform sedentary work with restrictions, including a sit/stand option, limits on climbing and other postural activities, limited handling and fingering with the left hand, and avoidance of concentrated exposure to certain irritants. The administrative law judge found that Pope could not perform her past work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Issues and arguments

Pope asked for reversal and a remand for further proceedings. She argued that the administrative law judge wrongly found that her left-arm fracture did not meet Listing 1.23, that her peripheral neuropathy did not meet Listing 11.14, that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and that the administrative law judge failed to assess her limitations function by function, including reaching limitations.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Court’s analysis

The court first found that the administrative record had no obvious gaps. It therefore concluded that the administrative law judge satisfied the duty to develop the record, even though Social Security proceedings are generally non-adversarial and the administrative law judge has an affirmative responsibility to gather relevant evidence.

As to Listing 1.23, the court accepted that Pope’s elbow injury was a complex fracture. But the listing also required continuing surgical management directed toward restoring functional use for the required period and medical documentation of an inability to independently perform work-related fine and gross movements for at least 12 months. The court held that the administrative law judge reasonably relied on the January 2016 hardware-removal surgery, which occurred nine months after Pope’s alleged onset date, and on later examinations showing healing, good or full elbow movement, grip strength, intact dexterity, and the ability to perform certain daily activities. The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly found that Pope did not meet Listing 1.23.

The court also upheld the finding that Pope’s peripheral neuropathy did not meet Listing 11.14. That listing required, among other alternatives, an extreme limitation in using both upper extremities. The court pointed to evidence of generally good or full range of motion, 4/5 upper-extremity strength, no muscle atrophy, 5/5 bilateral grip strength, and intact hand and finger dexterity. It also found that the administrative law judge reasonably gave limited weight to treatment-source statements advising Pope to avoid activities because those statements did not explain the extent of the limitations or whether the advice was temporary or ongoing.

Regarding residual functional capacity, the court recognized that the administrative law judge did not provide a separate function-by-function analysis. But it held that an explicit analysis of every function is not automatically required when the decision as a whole adequately evaluates the claimant’s abilities and explains the conclusion. The court found that the administrative law judge discussed the medical records, imaging, testing, medical opinions, testimony, daily activities, and upper-extremity limitations sufficiently to support the sedentary-work finding.

Finally, the court rejected Pope’s challenge to the vocational expert’s testimony. The identified sedentary jobs required frequent handling or fingering, but their descriptions did not say that those activities had to be performed with both hands or with the non-dominant left hand. The vocational expert also testified that her testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and her job-placement experience. The court further held that the sit/stand option did not create an apparent conflict because the Dictionary of Occupational Titles did not address that limitation.

Disposition

The court denied Pope’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. It directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case.