BRISCO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
2:19-cv-18018
D.N.J.Jul 16, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Larissa Brisco applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging onset April 1, 2009; ALJ held she was disabled beginning January 17, 2018 but not before.
- The ALJ found at step three that Plaintiff had a moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace (CPP).
- At step four the ALJ assessed a residual functional capacity for light work with various physical and mental limitations.
- At step five the ALJ posed a hypothetical to a vocational expert (VE) limiting the claimant to "simple, routine, repetitive tasks" and occasional interaction with others; the VE identified other jobs the claimant could perform.
- Plaintiff appealed the unfavorable finding for the period before January 17, 2018, arguing the step-five hypothetical failed to capture the step-three moderate CPP limitation.
- The district court held the hypothetical did not adequately convey the moderate CPP limitation under controlling Third Circuit precedent and vacated and remanded the decision.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ's step-five hypothetical adequately accounted for the step-three finding of a moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace | The "simple, routine, repetitive tasks" limitation did not convey the ALJ's own finding of moderate CPP limits and thus the VE’s testimony cannot constitute substantial evidence (relying on Ramirez and Hess) | The limitation to simple, one- or two-step tasks (or simple tasks) can suffice; Ramirez is distinguishable and there is no evidence CPP would preclude unskilled work | The hypothetical was insufficient to capture the ALJ’s moderate CPP finding; because the ALJ did not give a valid explanation mapping that finding into the hypothetical, the decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269 (3d Cir. 1987) (hypothetical must reflect all medically supported impairments)
- Ramirez v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2004) (limitation to one- or two-step tasks may not capture deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace)
- Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2005) (ALJ must accurately convey all credibly established limitations to the VE)
- Hess v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 931 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2019) (a "simple tasks" limitation can be permissible only if the ALJ offers a valid explanation for how it captures moderate CPP limitations)