Stephen B. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin reviews a partially favorable Social Security disability determination concerning Stephen B. The court reverses the denial of benefits for the period before March 29, 2023, and remands under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), finding that the ALJ inadequately addressed sitting limitations, reaching restrictions, mental concentration limitations, and the evaluation of subjective symptoms. The court also provides guidance concerning the reliability of vocational evidence and reliance on occupations listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

Holdings

1. The ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s ability to perform sedentary work was inadequate because the ALJ misstated the functional-capacity evaluator’s sitting limitation and failed to reconcile substantial evidence indicating that prolonged sitting significantly aggravated Plaintiff’s symptoms.
2. On remand, the ALJ must address whether the evidence warrants a limitation on forward reaching in addition to the limitation on occasional overhead reaching and, if so, whether that limitation changes the available jobs.
3. The ALJ must reexamine whether the mental RFC adequately accounts for Plaintiff’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace and must explain the logical connection between the evidence and the RFC limitations.
4. The ALJ must reevaluate Plaintiff’s activities of daily living in the context of the entire record before relying on those activities to discount allegations of disabling symptoms.
5. The ALJ erred in relying on the lens inserter occupation without eliciting an explanation for the apparent conflict between the occupation’s conveyor-belt requirements and the RFC restriction against dangerous moving machinery.
6. The court declined to hold that 24,000 nationally available jobs was an insignificant number under the circumstances, but noted that the step-five analysis could change after reconsideration of the RFC and vocational evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ adequately evaluated evidence concerning Plaintiff’s ability to sit when assessing his sedentary residual functional capacity.
2. Whether the ALJ adequately explained the limitation to occasional overhead reaching while omitting a corresponding limitation for forward reaching.
3. Whether the ALJ built a logical bridge between Plaintiff’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace and the mental residual functional capacity assessment.
4. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and activities of daily living.
5. Whether the ALJ’s step-five reliance on vocational-expert testimony concerning document preparer and lens inserter occupations was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded