Morales-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security, 8:16-cv-01554

Plaintiff Nancy Ivette Morales-Rodriguez applied for supplemental security income on January 28, 2013, alleging multiple physical and mental impairments (e.g., cervical degenerative disc disease with left radiculopathy, myofascial pain, migraines, obesity, depression).
The ALJ found several severe impairments but concluded they did not meet or equal a Listing and crafted an RFC for light work with limits: no standing/walking >30 minutes without a 2-minute sit/rest or option to work seated; if seated, a stretch break at the workstation after >30 minutes; no ladders, occasional posturals, no concentrated hazards/loud noises; unskilled routine work.
At the hearing the VE testified that jobs existed the claimant could perform given the ALJ’s RFC (office helper, storage facility rental clerk, bench assembler). The ALJ relied on that testimony and found the claimant not disabled.
Plaintiff testified she needs to stand/walk for 5–10 minutes after sitting 10–15 minutes; counsel elicited VE testimony that a worker who must leave the workstation to walk around for at least five minutes after 15–30 minutes seated could not perform any work.
The sole issue on appeal was whether the RFC’s undefined “stretch break” (after 30 minutes seated) was ambiguous such that the VE’s testimony about needing to leave the workstation for five minutes precludes all work and requires remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ’s RFC ambiguity about duration/type of "stretch break" required remand	The RFC’s failure to specify time for the stretch break means it could encompass Plaintiff’s testified need to leave the workstation for ≥5 minutes, and VE said that would preclude all work	The RFC limited breaks to stretching at the workstation; VE’s adverse testimony concerned leaving the workstation and was based on Plaintiff’s testimony the ALJ rejected; hypothheticals need only include credible limitations	Court held no reversible error: RFC limited breaks to workstation stretching (distinct from leaving), VE testimony about leaving workstation did not control, and ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s contrary testimony

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (discusses substantial evidence standard)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (defines disability evaluation framework)
Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (ALJ hypotheticals must reflect claimant’s credible limitations)
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (ALJ need not include properly rejected limitations in hypotheticals)
Freeman v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 593 F. App’x 911 (affirming ALJ where VE hypotheticals matched RFC)