Taveras v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Elvira Taveras sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner’s final decision that she was not disabled as of her amended alleged onset date in June 2018 and was not entitled to Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income benefits. Taveras was represented by counsel. After two administrative hearings, the administrative law judge found that she had severe impairments involving her sacroiliac joint, lumbar spine, left knee, and ulnar nerves. The administrative law judge found that she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)—her ability to perform work-related activities despite her impairments—to do the full range of light work. He found that she could not return to her past work as a home attendant but could perform work as a companion, and therefore denied her claims.

Taveras moved for judgment on the pleadings. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions and her statements about her symptoms, and that the administrative law judge improperly identified only one occupation at the final step of the disability analysis. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the evidence and that one job could satisfy the requirement to show work existing in the national economy.

Medical opinions and symptom statements

The court found no error in the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical opinions. The administrative law judge considered the opinions of the physicians who addressed Taveras’s physical impairments and evaluated their supportability—how well each opinion was explained and supported by that source’s findings—and consistency with the other evidence. The court also found no error in the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Taveras’s statements about her pain and limitations. The administrative law judge applied the required two-step process, considered whether her impairments could cause the alleged symptoms, and then compared her statements with the medical and other evidence.

RFC determination

The court nevertheless held that the RFC finding for the full range of light work was not supported by substantial evidence. Light work generally requires the ability to stand or walk for about six hours in an eight-hour workday and to lift up to 20 pounds occasionally and up to 10 pounds frequently. The court noted that no medical evidence showed that Taveras could lift more than 10 pounds or regularly perform the amount of standing and walking required for the full range of light work. The medical opinions instead described more restrictive lifting, sitting, standing, or walking limitations.

Because the administrative law judge rejected all of the medical opinions as unpersuasive, the court held that he could not supply the missing support by interpreting raw medical findings himself. Findings such as full strength in the extremities, mild imaging changes, and some improved examinations did not establish how much Taveras could lift or how long she could sit, stand, or walk. The court therefore concluded that the RFC assessment was not supported by substantial evidence and required remand.

Step-five work finding

The court also held that the administrative law judge erred by identifying only one occupation—companion—as work Taveras could perform. Because Taveras was 55 at the alleged onset date, she fell within the regulatory category of a person of advanced age. The court interpreted the applicable regulation for people of advanced age limited to light work as requiring identification of more than one occupation to show that a significant range of work existed in the national economy. The court adopted that interpretation as a matter of first impression in the district and found that the single occupation identified here did not satisfy the requirement.

Disposition

The court granted Taveras’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration consistent with the opinion. The opinion did not direct an award of benefits.