Russell Hess, III v. Commissioner Social Security
931 F.3d 198
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Hess applied for Social Security disability benefits; ALJ found multiple severe impairments and rated Hess as having “moderate difficulties” in concentration, persistence, or pace.
- The ALJ nonetheless assessed an RFC limiting Hess to jobs requiring understanding, remembering, and carrying out only simple instructions and making only simple work‑related decisions, and posed corresponding hypotheticals to a vocational expert who identified available jobs.
- The ALJ denied benefits; the Appeals Council declined review; Hess sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- The Magistrate Judge and District Court held the ALJ erred under Ramirez v. Barnhart by failing to include or otherwise account for the moderate concentration/persistence/pace finding in the RFC and hypothetical, and remanded.
- The government appealed; the Third Circuit held that a “simple tasks” limitation is permissible after a finding of moderate difficulties in concentration/persistence/pace if the ALJ provides a valid, case‑specific explanation and concluded the ALJ did so here.
- The Third Circuit vacated the district court judgment and directed entry of judgment for the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ALJ may limit a claimant to “simple tasks” after finding moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, or pace | Hess: Ramirez requires that moderate limitations in concentration/persistence/pace be explicitly reflected in the RFC and hypotheticals; a simple‑tasks limitation is insufficient | Government: No magic words are required; a simple‑tasks limitation is permissible if the ALJ gives a valid, fact‑specific explanation showing the limitation captures the claimant’s impairments | Held: A simple‑tasks limitation is permissible post‑finding of moderate difficulties so long as the ALJ supplies a valid explanation showing the limitation adequately reflects the impairment |
| Whether the ALJ’s opinion here gave the required valid explanation | Hess: ALJ failed to set forth a supported rationale tying the RFC to the moderate limitation | Government: ALJ thoroughly analyzed mental status exams, opinion evidence, GAF scores, treatment history, activities of daily living, and concluded the moderate limitation did not preclude simple tasks | Held: The ALJ provided a detailed, reasoned explanation; the simple‑tasks RFC was supported and the district court erred in remanding |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2004) (ALJ must adequately convey functional limitations; "simple tasks" limitation may be acceptable only with a valid explanation)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (Sup. Ct. 2019) (substantial‑evidence inquiries are case‑specific; no categorical rules)
- Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269 (3d Cir. 1987) (hypothetical to vocational expert must reflect all claimant's impairments)
- Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984) (use of vocational expert and hypotheticals at step five)
- Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2002) (ALJ must include mental and physical limitations with "great specificity" when posing hypotheticals)