James G.L. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Lionel James G.L. received Supplemental Security Income benefits as a child. After he turned 18, the Commissioner of Social Security determined that he was not entitled to benefits under the adult disability standard as of April 4, 2018. An administrative law judge later found that he was not disabled between April 4, 2018, and February 4, 2022.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including intellectual disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, right-ear hearing loss, and asthma. The judge determined that Lionel James G.L. could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits including simple, routine, repetitive tasks; low-stress work; limited contact with coworkers and the public; restrictions on certain environmental conditions; and no more than moderate noise. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge identified jobs that Lionel James G.L. could perform.

Lionel James G.L., represented by counsel, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision. The report and recommendation was written by United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones.

Issues and analysis

Lionel James G.L. raised three main arguments. First, he argued that the administrative law judge’s questions to the vocational expert did not include all of his mental limitations, particularly limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace. The court rejected this argument. It explained that findings at the earlier step-three listing analysis do not automatically become identical findings in the residual-functional-capacity assessment. The court concluded that the limits to simple, repetitive, low-stress work adequately addressed the accepted moderate limitations and were included in the vocational expert’s hypothetical.

Second, Lionel James G.L. challenged the finding that his impairments did not meet or equal Listing 12.05(B), which concerns intellectual disorder. The record included a full-scale IQ score of 56, although the administrative law judge questioned its validity because the testing occurred while Lionel James G.L. was not taking his attention-deficit medication. The court did not decide whether the IQ score should have been accepted. Instead, it held that even if the score were valid, substantial evidence supported the finding that Lionel James G.L. did not have the required extreme limitation in one functional area or marked limitations in two areas. The court therefore sustained the listing analysis.

Third, Lionel James G.L. argued that the residual functional capacity did not account for his ability to maintain a schedule or interact with supervisors. The court upheld the findings concerning his ability to maintain a schedule, relying on medical opinions finding no limitation in sustaining an ordinary routine and regular attendance. But the court found an error concerning supervisors.

The residual functional capacity limited contact with coworkers and the general public but did not address interaction with supervisors or the ability to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors. The court treated the public, coworkers, and supervisors as separate groups for purposes of evaluating work-related social limitations. It found that the administrative law judge gave no explanation for imposing limits on two groups while imposing no limit on supervisors, despite evidence including a treating psychiatrist’s assessment of moderate to marked limitations in responding to supervisors.

Disposition

Judge Seibel is identified in the case metadata, while the report and recommendation was signed by Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. The recommendation states that Lionel James G.L.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings under sentence four of Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act. On remand, the administrative law judge must address whether Lionel James G.L. has a limitation involving workplace supervision, explain why no such limitation is needed, or include an appropriate limitation and reconsider whether he can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The text also provides that the parties had 14 days after service to file objections to the recommendation.