Roy H. v. Saul

547 F.Supp.3d 864

ROY H., Plaintiff,

v.Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

8:20-CV-287

United States District Court, D. Nebraska.

Signed July 8, 2021

Sean D. Cuddigan, Brodkey, Cuddigan Law Firm, Omaha, NE, Wes Kappelman, Kappelman Law Firm, Ames, IA, for Plaintiff.

Robert L. Homan, U.S. Attorney's Office, Omaha, NE, Steven A. Russell, U.S. Attorney's Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge

Roy H. ("Petitioner") filed his Complaint (Filing 1) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and moved this Court for an order reversing the Commissioner's final decision. Filing 13. The Commissioner filed a motion to affirm the agency's final decision denying benefits. Filing 15. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Petitioner's motion and denies the Commissioner's motion.

I. SUMMARY OF CASE

For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Petitioner's motion seeking social security disability benefits and denies the Commissioner's motion seeking to affirm the ALJ's decision to deny benefits. In reviewing this case, this Court finds as a matter of law that the one occupation the ALJ concluded the Petitioner could perform despite his limitations does not constitute a "significant range of semi-skilled or skilled work" supporting the ALJ's finding of no disability. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, § 202.00(c).

Although the misapplication of law supports the Court's ruling in this case, the facts of this case support an appropriate award of social security disability benefits. Petitioner was gainfully employed for 27 years where he performed work at a satisfactory level. During at least part of his employment, Petitioner endured pain and was severely limited in his ability to work, but he kept working anyway. Petitioner's limitations, as diagnosed by medical professionals and found by the ALJ, included bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and peripheral neuropathy in his bilateral arms and hands—injuries that were contributed to by Petitioner's work.

Petitioner worked until the age of 56, presumably paying his social security taxes during his long-time employment as a productive member of society. Petitioner's claims and disability illustrate an appropriate situation for awarding social security benefits.

II. BACKGROUND

As is relevant for the purposes of this case, Petitioner was born on October 18, 1957. Tr. 19. The alleged onset date of disability is July 14, 2014, which was his last day of employment. Tr. 19, 304. Petitioner completed his undergraduate degree in Industrial Technologies in May 1987 and is able to communicate in English. Tr. 19, 88, 348. Petitioner's past relevant work consists of his occupations as an eligibility worker and a lead eligibility worker. Tr. 19.

A. Procedural History

Petitioner applied for disability benefits in June 2015. Tr. 98. The Social Security Administration denied his claim on March 18, 2016, finding that Petitioner had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform his past relevant work as an eligibility worker. Tr. 110, 154-57. Petitioner timely requested reconsideration on March 23, 2016, with his attorney. Tr. 160. This reconsideration yielded the same result: Petitioner's condition did not prevent him from performing his past work. Tr. 161.

On June 17, 2016, Petitioner and his attorney timely requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") to contest the determination by the Social Security Administration. Tr. 170. ALJ Chris Yokus held a hearing on December 21, 2017. Petitioner and vocational expert Gail Leonhardt testified. Tr. 29-60. On March 30, 2018, the ALJ determined Petitioner was able to perform his past work and denied Petitioner's application for disability benefits, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (stating that if a claimant is capable of performing past relevant work, the claimant will be found not disabled). Tr. 143-144.

Petitioner again timely appealed, and the Appeals Council remanded the case on October 16, 2018, because the ALJ failed to consider objective medical evidence and Petitioner's subjective testimony regarding the use of his hands. Tr. 150-52. The Appeals Council instructed the ALJ to obtain additional records, give further consideration to Petitioner's RFC during the entire period, consider whether Petitioner had past relevant work and whether Petitioner could perform past relevant work, and obtain additional supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to determine whether Petitioner had acquired any transferable skills. Tr. 151-52. The ALJ held a second hearing on July 12, 2019, nearly four years after Petitioner first applied for benefits and five years after he stopped working. Tr. 65-97. Petitioner and a new vocational expert, Robin Cook, testified. Tr. 65-97. The ALJ again denied Petitioner's claim, though this time he found Petitioner was unable to perform past work but was able to perform work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Tr. 10-21. Petitioner timely appealed, and the appeals council denied review on May 21, 2020. Tr. 1-4. Petitioner now brings his claim before this Court. Filing 1.

B. Relevant Work and Medical History

Petitioner worked for over two decades for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services ("NDHHS"). Tr. 40. He worked as a vocational instructor at the Nebraska Center for Children and Youth prior to his tenure at NDHHS. Tr. 40-41. Petitioner started at NDHHS in 1990 and became a social service worker in 2002. Tr. 355. In 2010, his job changed to social service lead worker. Tr. 355. The vocational expert identified these jobs as "eligibility worker," DOT 195.267-010, a skilled job. Tr. 89. His job consisted of preparing cases and appeal hearing information. Tr. 80. Petitioner did not engage in any counseling, nor did he have a master's degree in social work. Tr. 88. As a lead worker, Petitioner assisted other employees, though the amount of time he needed to spend typing at a computer was unchanged. Tr. 72-73, 80.

Petitioner began experiencing pain in his arms and hands as early as 2012, though perhaps even earlier.¹ Tr. 493. Petitioner's doctors recommended surgery in 2012 and in 2013, but he ran into problems with his insurance refusing to cover the cost of the surgery. Tr. 42, 73, 609-13, 620. His complaints of pain became more frequent in late 2013 and early 2014. Tr. 597, 550, 549, 570, 538-540, 545. Petitioner saw Dr. Christopher Ihle on April 21, 2014, who restricted Petitioner's keyboarding to "a maximum of one to two hours a day." Tr. 540. A month later, Dr. Manjula Tella instructed Petitioner to avoid repetitious use of his left hand due to carpal tunnel syndrome. Tr. 715. Despite his pain and work restrictions, Petitioner's supervisor stated Petitioner was able to keep up with other employees’ levels of productivity. Tr. 307-08. However, Petitioner was unhappy with his own performance, feeling he was not fulfilling the standards he thought he needed to perform. Tr 83-84. Petitioner then took early retirement, giving up significant pension benefits. Tr. 84-85.

Petitioner's medical records show he has regularly experienced back pain since 2004, for which he was conservatively treated, usually with pain medication. Tr. 533, 577, 449-50, 453, 724, 837-38, 842, 971, 1053-54, 1045. Petitioner described the pain as occasional and not a regular problem. Tr. 533. The record further indicates Petitioner has a history of anxiety and adjustment disorder. Tr. 492, 611, 743, 845, 969. Petitioner met with Elizabeth Morell, Ph.D., in 2015 for a consultative psychological interview and report for the Nebraska Department of Education, Disability Determination Services as part of his application for disability benefits. Tr. 844-47. Petitioner denied any present depression or anxiety, and Dr. Morell concluded Petitioner's mental health did not raise any concerns. Tr. 847.

Dr. Meryl Severson examined Petitioner on February 9, 2016, at the request of the Disability Determination Section. Tr. 832. Dr. Severson stated that Petitioner had full strength and full range of motion in his arms and could "hold objects in his hands and perform fine motor tasks with his fingers for a short period of time." Tr. 838. Dr. Severson further commented that Petitioner could sit and rise easily, could easily transition from standing to sitting, had a normal gait, and could lift and carry up to forty pounds. Tr. 838.

On April 19, 2016, Petitioner reported to the Disability Determinations Section that his daily activities included mowing the lawn, watering and picking fruit from his garden, daily chores such as laundry and cooking dinner, and working on his car. Tr. 401. Petitioner described that he is only able to do these activities in short bursts, usually 30 minutes to an hour depending on the chore. Tr. 74-79, 401-03, 833.

Since the alleged onset date of his disability, Petitioner has continued to seek treatment for pain in his arms, hands, and back. Tr. 724, 307-08, 853, 862-63, 971, 973-74, 1015-17, 1029-36, 1038, 1053-54, 1042-45, 1020-21. Since leaving his job, Petitioner has utilized speech-to-text on his tablet in order to avoid typing, trying to prevent pain in his wrists and arms. Tr. 44. The ALJ points out that after 2014, no doctors had recommended work restrictions for Petitioner for the pain in his arms, hands, or back. Tr. 17. However, after July 2014, Petitioner was no longer gainfully employed, so he had more control of his schedule could regulate his own pain and activities without a doctor's note. Tr. 13.

C. ALJ's Findings

An ALJ must follow a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) ; see also Goff v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) ("During the five-step process, the ALJ considers (1) whether the claimant is gainfully employed, (2) whether the...