Tafazwa S. v. Kijakazi

Background

Tafazwa S. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in August 2019, alleging disability beginning November 9, 2018. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Vincent M. Cascio denied benefits on November 4, 2020. The Appeals Council declined review, and Tafazwa S. filed an earlier related case. A stipulation approved on February 24, 2022, sent the matter back for further administrative proceedings.

After a second hearing on July 14, 2022, the ALJ again denied benefits. The ALJ considered the requested closed period from November 9, 2018, through November 16, 2021, when Tafazwa S. returned to work. The ALJ found severe impairments involving the right shoulder, right elbow, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and obesity. But the ALJ found that none of these impairments, alone or together, met the regulatory requirements for automatic disability.

The ALJ determined that Tafazwa S. retained residual functional capacity (RFC)—her maximum ability to perform work-related activities—to do sedentary work with several restrictions. These included occasional climbing of ramps and stairs, no climbing of ladders, scaffolds, or ropes, occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, and crouching, no crawling, occasional reaching with the right arm, and frequent handling and fingering with the right hand and wrist. Although she could not return to her past work as a nurse assistant, the ALJ found that other jobs existed in significant numbers that she could perform.

Arguments and Analysis

Tafazwa S. challenged the RFC determination, arguing that it should have included a need to alternate sitting and standing, limits on neck movement, and more restrictive limits on handling, fingering, and feeling. The court reviewed whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and whether substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—supported the decision.

The court concluded that the RFC was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ relied in part on examinations and record reviews by Dr. Donald Cally, who described Tafazwa S. as capable of mainly sedentary modified work. The ALJ also considered opinions from state-agency reviewing doctors, treatment records showing generally normal gait and station, and findings concerning strength, sensation, reflexes, and the shoulder and elbow. The court also upheld the ALJ’s consideration of Tafazwa S.’s daily activities, including light cleaning, cooking, grocery shopping with assistance, and driving. The court explained that the ALJ was not required to accept conclusory workers’ compensation assessments stating that Tafazwa S. was temporarily 100 percent impaired.

Tafazwa S. also challenged the ALJ’s step-five finding. At step five, the Commissioner must show that a claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. A vocational expert identified document preparer, addresser, and call-out operator as representative occupations. Tafazwa S. argued that the vocational testimony conflicted with the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles because some jobs required frequent reaching while her RFC allowed only occasional reaching with the right arm.

The court rejected that challenge. It noted that call-out operator required only occasional reaching, that the RFC did not limit reaching with the left arm, and that the job descriptions did not state that frequent reaching had to be performed with both arms. The court further held that, even if an arguable conflict existed, the ALJ adequately addressed it by asking the vocational expert about possible conflicts. The expert explained that the job descriptions did not distinguish between reaching with one arm and reaching with both arms and that her testimony was based on her training and experience. The court also rejected the challenge to the number of jobs because the vocational expert testified that more than 60,000 jobs existed across the three occupations.

Disposition

Judge Gary R. Jones denied Tafazwa S.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the case. The clerk was directed to enter final judgment for the Commissioner and close the file.