Jessica R.G. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted Jessica R.G.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the Social Security disability matter for further proceedings. The court held that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding included frequent handling and fingering limitations that were not presented in the vocational expert’s hypothetical, so the step-five determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The court also identified additional concerns for remand, including contradictory statements regarding the claimant’s disability status and the evaluation of her liver disease and mental limitations.

Holdings

1. The ALJ erred because the RFC included a frequent-handling-and-fingering limitation that was omitted from the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert. The vocational-expert testimony therefore could not constitute substantial evidence supporting the step-five finding.
2. Remand was warranted because the ALJ's statements at the hearing that Plaintiff would receive benefits conflicted with the later unfavorable written decision, and the ALJ's treatment of the December 2022 hospitalization and restriction of testimony prevented meaningful review of the reasoning.
3. On remand, the ALJ must clearly explain the evidentiary basis for any mental restrictions included in the RFC, particularly where the ALJ found only a mild paragraph-B limitation and stated that the restrictions were intended to prevent potential exacerbation.
4. The court did not decide whether Plaintiff met Listing 5.05(G), but stated that thorough consideration of all subsections of Listing 5.05 would be prudent on remand.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ's step-five finding was supported by substantial evidence when the RFC included a frequent-handling-and-fingering limitation that was not included in the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert.
2. Whether the ALJ's contradictory statements at the hearing and in the written decision, restrictions on testimony, and treatment of post-December 2022 evidence required further proceedings.
3. Whether the ALJ adequately explained the mental restrictions included in the RFC despite finding only a mild paragraph-B limitation.
4. Whether the ALJ adequately considered all potentially applicable subsections of Listing 5.05 concerning chronic liver disease.

Disposition

remanded