H.L. v. Kijakazi

• Decision Date: 09 September 2022
• Docket Number: 19-cv-1680-bhl
• Parties: H.L., a minor, by her mother and next friend, Carrie R. Walbrun on behalf of Tim J. Langenhuizen Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

H.L., a minor, by her mother and next friend, Carrie R. Walbrun on behalf of Tim J. Langenhuizen Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

No. 19-cv-1680-bhl

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

September 9, 2022

DECISION AND ORDER

BRETT H. LUDWIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

H.L. seeks review of a July 16, 2019 administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision denying her late father Tim J. Langenhuizen's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act. For the reasons below, the ALJ's decision will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), sentence four.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 31, 2013, Tim J. Langenhuizen filed claims for DIB and SSI. (ECF No. 17 at 1.) Those claims were denied initially, upon reconsideration, and after a hearing before an ALJ. (Id.) After the Appeals Council denied his request for review, Langenhuizen appealed to this Court. (Id.) The parties then agreed to a voluntary remand. (Id. at 1-2.) On remand, the Appeals Council determined that the ALJ had not properly considered all of Langenhuizen's ailments and remanded for further consideration. (Id. at 2.) On May 23, 2019, the ALJ held a second hearing at which Langenhuizen and various medical professionals testified. (Id.) In a decision dated July 16, 2019, the ALJ rendered another unfavorable decision. (Id.) Langenhuizen did not request that the Appeals Council review the ALJ's decision, and it became final on September 15, 2019. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Langenhuizen filed this appeal on November 13, 2019.

1

On December 10, 2020, with his appeal pending, Langenhuizen died. On November 19, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel's motion to substitute Langenhuizen's minor daughter, H.L., as named Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 39, 40.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 29, 2011 (his alleged onset date), Langenhuizen visited the emergency room and complained of shortness of breath. Thus began a nearly decade-long odyssey of medical appointments that begat numerous diagnoses, including: cardiac disorders, diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, clinical obesity, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, sleep apnea, a respiratory disorder, a spinal disorder, kidney disease, hypertension, and scrotal problems. (ECF No. 17 at 4-9, ECF No. 13-13 at 8.) According to his death certificate, Langenhuizen died due to chronic systolic heart failure. (ECF No. 39-1.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The Commissioner's final decision on the denial of benefits must be upheld “if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and supported his decision with substantial evidence.” Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. §405(g)). Substantial evidence is not conclusive evidence; it is merely “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has instructed that “the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” Id. In rendering a decision, the ALJ “must build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion, but he need not provide a complete written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence.” Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 362 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In reviewing the entire record, this Court “does not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner by reconsidering facts, reweighing evidence, resolving conflicts in evidence, or deciding questions of credibility.” Estok v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 636, 638 (7th Cir. 1998). Judicial review is limited to the rationales offered by the ALJ. Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 93-95 (1943)).

ANALYSIS

On appeal, H.L. has requested remand or reversal of the ALJ's decision based on three primary issues. (ECF No. 17.) First, H.L. argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Langenhuizen's residual functional capacity (RFC). Second, H.L. argues that the ALJ failed to

2

properly evaluate Langenhuizen's subjective symptoms. Finally, H.L. argues that the vocational expert (VE) failed to provide a reliable basis for his jobs data. Because the ALJ failed to properly develop and affirmatively misconstrued the evidence related to some of these challenges, the case will be remanded for further proceedings.

I. The ALJ's Assessment of Langenhuizen's Residual Functional Capacity Was Not Sufficiently Supported.

A claimant's residual functional capacity or RFC is “an assessment of what work-related activities the claimant can perform despite [his] limitations.” Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000-1001 (7th Cir. 2004). “In determining an individual's RFC, the ALJ must evaluate all limitations that arise from medically determinable impairments, even those that are not severe, and may not dismiss a line of evidence contrary to the ruling.” Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2009). The assessment “must be . . . based on all the relevant evidence in the record.” Young, 362 F.3d at 1001.

The parties dispute the validity of the ALJ's determination of Langenhuizen's RFC. In denying Langenhuizen's claim, the ALJ found that, despite his impairments, Langenhuizen retained the RFC to perform sedentary work, but with a litany of limitations. (ECF No. 13-13 at 11.) H.L lodges numerous objections to this determination, but the Court will focus its attention on the three meritorious ones: (1) the ALJ ignored evidence that contradicted Dr. Hugh Savage; (2) the ALJ improperly gave little weight to Cooper Witt's functional capacity evaluation report; and (3) the ALJ improperly concluded that Langenhuizen's inability to concentrate did not impact his ability to perform unskilled work. Because these errors are not harmless, the case must be remanded for further consideration.

A. The ALJ Improperly Failed to Consider Medical Evidence in the Record that Conflicted with Dr. Savage's Opinion.

Dr. Savage opined that Langenhuizen did not, as Langenhuizen testified, need to elevate his legs during the workday because his leg swelling could also be resolved by diuretics or compression socks. (ECF No. 13-14 at 71.) The ALJ gave this opinion “great weight” and did not incorporate any limitations related to leg-raising in his RFC determination. (ECF No. 13-13 at 11, 18.) But, as H.L. points out, Dr. Savage's was one in a sea of opinions. The finest catch in the school belongs to Dr. Toni Jo Neal, a podiatrist who evaluated Langenhuizen on February 11, 2019. According to Dr. Neal, Langenhuizen could not “wear compression stockings due to heart failure.” (ECF No. 13-38 at 14.) As for diuretics, Langenhuizen was already taking them. (ECF No. 17 at 28-29.)

3

The ALJ chose not to consider this contradictory evidence. That will not do. See McFadden v. Berryhill, 721 Fed.Appx. 501, 505 (7th Cir. 2018) (holding that an ALJ must confront the evidence that contradicts his decision rather than ignore it). On remand, the Commissioner should consider the evidence in the record that may have supported additional RFC limitations related to leg-raising and incorporate such limitations as appropriate.

B. The ALJ Improperly Gave Little Weight to Cooper Witt's Functional Capacity Evaluation Report.

On April 10 and 11, 2019, physical therapist Cooper Witt ran Langenhuizen through a battery of tasks designed to objectively measure his job-related physiological functioning. (ECF No. 13-38 at 43.) Witt then completed a standard evaluation form, later incorporated into the administrative record. (Id.) As part of his review of that record, Dr. Savage studied Witt's report and concluded that it showed that Langenhuizen “self-limited” during many of the tests. (ECF No. 13-14 at 59.) The ALJ used this opinion, in part, to justify affording the evaluation “little weight.” (ECF No. 13-13 at 20.)

As it turns out, though, Dr. Savage mistook the grading key on page three for the actual evaluation. (See ECF No. 13-38 at 45.) Witt's report never indicated that Langenhuizen “selflimited” on any of the tested activities. In fact, Witt characterized Langenhuizen as cooperative and “willing to work to maximum abilities in all test items.” (Id. at 44.) This is a significant misinterpretation, akin to concluding that a student failed trigonometry simply because his report card contained a key that explained the criteria for an “F” even though that grade did not apply. Such an error necessitates remand unless the ALJ's other reasons for giving the evaluation little weight suffice on their own. See Bassett v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 857, 860 (7th Cir. 2011) (describing an ALJ's mischaracterization of evidence as an egregious error).

They do not. In addition to citing Dr. Savage's testimony, the ALJ questioned the completeness of Witt's evaluation and noted that, as a physical therapist, Witt was not an acceptable treating provider. (ECF No. 13-13 at 20.) He also called the evaluation “a mere two-day snapshot” of Langenhuizen's functioning and thus not as persuasive as the overall medical record, which spanned eight years. (Id.)

Regarding the completeness of the document, the record shows that Witt did not provide limitations and recommendations in the push-pull, hand grip, and hand coordination portions of the form evaluation report. (ECF No. 13-38 at 46-7.) However, the incomplete portions represent a relatively insignificant percentage of the testing, insufficient to justify giving little weight to the

4

entire evaluation. Cf. SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *4 (July 2, 1996) (clarifying that “medical source statements may actually comprise separate medical opinions regarding diverse physical and mental functions,” and individual...