Lynch v. Kijakazi

Background

Kevin P. Lynch sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. The administrative law judge found that Lynch was not disabled from August 15, 2010, through December 31, 2015, the date on which he was last insured for benefits. The administrative law judge found that Lynch could perform sedentary work with restrictions and could perform jobs such as addresser, stuffer, and table worker.

This case followed several earlier administrative and federal-court proceedings. The parties agreed that another remand was necessary, but Lynch requested a remand solely for calculating benefits. The Commissioner requested a remand for further administrative proceedings, including reevaluation of Lynch’s symptoms, residual functional capacity, and vocational evidence.

Reasons for Remand

The court identified several problems with the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity analysis. First, the administrative law judge discounted Lynch’s statements about his back pain while stating that the record lacked findings such as muscle spasms and reduced range of motion. The court found that the record contained numerous such findings and required the administrative law judge to reconsider them or adequately explain why they should not be credited.

Second, the court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately evaluate Lynch’s complaints of severe daytime fatigue related to obstructive sleep apnea. The decision relied on a limited portion of the record suggesting that his condition was controlled, while other evidence described continuing sleepiness and problems with his continuous positive airway pressure machine. The court required further consideration of how the sleep-apnea symptoms affected Lynch’s ability to work.

Third, the court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why Lynch could frequently reach with his left arm in directions other than overhead, despite medical opinions describing broader reaching limitations. On remand, the administrative law judge must reevaluate the left-arm evidence and explain the resulting residual functional capacity.

Arguments the Court Rejected

The court rejected Lynch’s argument that the administrative law judge improperly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony. The administrative law judge had asked about the apparent conflict between the testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles concerning reaching, and the vocational expert provided an explanation based on professional experience. The court also rejected Lynch’s argument that the identified occupations did not exist in significant numbers, concluding that the nearly 21,000 identified jobs were sufficient for the Commissioner to meet that burden. The court noted concerns about potentially outdated job information but said those concerns did not provide a basis for remand in this case.

Disposition

The court concluded that the existing record did not conclusively establish disability and that it could not determine whether correcting the administrative errors would change the residual functional capacity or the availability of jobs. It therefore ordered a remand for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), rather than a remand solely for calculating benefits. The order granted the Commissioner’s motion to remand, granted in part and denied in part Lynch’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The opinion includes a report and recommendation dated February 6, 2024, signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause, followed by Judge Seibel’s February 21, 2024 order reflected at the beginning of the provided text.