Function-by-Function Mascio Deficiencies, Specific Vocational Prep (SVP) Time and Reasoning Level Contradictions

In Kelly W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:22-cv-1483, (Dist. of Md, April 17, 2023), after filing an extensive brief on various issues pertaining to legal and factual errors and substantial evidence, the Commissioner agreed to a Voluntary Remand under Sentence 4 of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

One area of focus in the issues leading to the voluntary remand pertained to the ALJ’s improper evaluation of the claimant’s well-documented chronic migraine headaches and carpal tunnel syndrome, all of which were supported by substantial medical evidence and non-medical evidence (including claimant’s headache journal showing more than 15 migraines in a 30-day period, all requiring medication and extensive rest in a dark, quiet location), and the reasoning and case law cited to was similar to that in the matter of Crystal T. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (as featured in the March 2023 Forum).

Another area of focus in this brief which was a major factor in the remand decision was an argument pertaining to SVP and Reasoning Level Contradictions by the ALJ and the VE. Specifically, the ALJ’s RFC findings that the claimant would not be capable of performing more than simple, routine, repetitive tasks was consistent with SVP 2, Reasoning Level 1 jobs only, as the District Court of Md. and the Fourth Circuit had previously determined in case law cited to in the brief and per Appendix C of the DOT. The ALJ’s RFC limitations clearly comport directly with the Reasoning Level 1 definition in the DOT, i.e. “Apply commonsense understanding to carry out simple one- or two-step instructions. Deal with standardized situations with occasional or no variables in or from these situations encountered on the job;” only one of the VE’s representative job titles was consistent with Reasoning Level 1 but not in significant numbers hence negating the Step 5 finding.

Also of note was the ALJ’s failure to adequately consider or even address the uncontroverted finding that the claimant had previously been determined to be totally disabled and entitled to receive full long-term disability benefits through her former employer, based on the same severe impairments and medical evidence of record, noting that per relevant Fourth Circuit case law, an ALJ’s failure to note, discuss or evaluate disability from another governmental agency is reversible error, as is failing to develop the record and obtain the medical documentation from the long-term disability carrier.

Finally, the ALJ’s decision contained numerous instances of improperly cherry picking favorable evidence and improperly playing doctor, thus failing to build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to the ultimate findings and conclusions, failure to properly apply the treating physicians rule in light of highly supportive and consistent longitudinal evidence from established treating providers, and also failed to perform a function-by-function analysis of time off task in light of the symptoms from migraines,
carpal tunnel and other physical impairments, as well as mental health impairments leading to findings of moderate limitations in Concentration, Persistence and Pace as required under the 4th Circuit’s ruling in the Mascio case.

The case was briefed by Andrew Sindler of Severna Park, MD.