Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York held that the Administrative Law Judge improperly crafted a specific sit/stand limitation in the claimant’s residual functional capacity without adequately explaining its evidentiary basis. The court found the error prejudicial, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, granted the claimant’s motion in part, vacated the Commissioner’s decision, and remanded for further administrative proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the ALJ's highly specific sit/stand limitation was supported by substantial evidence.
- Whether the ALJ could adopt a less restrictive, specific sit/stand limitation than those identified by medical providers without medical opinion or other record evidence supporting that limitation.
- Whether any error in formulating the sit/stand limitation was harmless in light of the vocational expert's testimony.
Holdings
- An ALJ may not formulate a highly specific sit/stand limitation without identifying evidence in the medical record supporting the particular limitation. The ALJ's limitation allowing Marie to change position every sixty minutes for up to five minutes was unsupported because the decision did not explain its evidentiary basis.
- The error was not harmless because the vocational expert testified that work would be preclusive if the sit/stand limitation caused more than twelve percent off-task time, and the record did not establish how much off-task time a more restrictive limitation would require.
Key quotations
““Substantial evidence” means “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”” (at 2)
“If an ALJ includes a “highly[ ]specific” limitation in a claimant’s RFC, that limitation cannot come from whole cloth.” (at 4)
“Why the ALJ chose sixty minutes—rather than, say, thirty minutes or an hour and a half—is anyone’s guess. How the ALJ determined that a five-minute positional change would suffice—as opposed to three minutes or ten minutes—likewise is unclear.” (at 6)
Factual background
Marie alleged disability beginning December 1, 2013, and was insured through March 31, 2015. The ALJ found severe impairments including cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease, migraine headaches, GERD, dysphagia, and asthma, but determined that Marie retained the capacity for light work with a sit/stand option allowing a position change every sixty minutes for up to five minutes. Several physicians opined that Marie needed to change among sitting, standing, and walking at will, and Marie testified that she needed to change positions every twenty to twenty-five minutes. The district court concluded that the ALJ had not explained the evidentiary basis for the less restrictive, highly specific sit/stand limitation.
Procedural history
Marie C. brought this action on March 8, 2023, challenging the Commissioner's determination that she was not disabled. The ALJ found that she was not disabled from December 1, 2013, through March 31, 2015, and determined that she could perform her past relevant work. Marie moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the Commissioner cross-moved. The district court granted Marie's motion in part, denied the Commissioner's motion, vacated the Commissioner's decision, and remanded for further administrative proceedings.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the decision, including reconsideration of the residual functional capacity and the sit/stand limitation.